Genesis, exegesis the entire book

I am presently doing a study on Genesis which I send out by email. The overall study is of the Bible, but I have spend a lot of time in Genesis. Every time I complete 10 lessons, I post the new lessons on line. They are here:

This lessons are much more detailed than what follows. At some point in the future (no idea when), I would like to merge these and do a complete word-by-word exegesis of Genesis.

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.

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

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 himself. 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 with the creation of the earth and the universe, which may be several billion years ago, and takes us to the Jews in Egypt several hundred years prior to the exodus. Human history begins anywhere from 6,000 b.c. to even as far back as 10,000 b.c. 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.

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.

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. Genesis was possibly finalized by Moses, who possibly 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 with a conjunction which may be translated but or however; however, this word is most often translation 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 distinguish seasons and days and months and years. The verb here is in the conjunctive Qal perfect, meaning that these are additional uses of these luminous bodies. The Qal perfect is a part of the waw conjunctive (i.e., it indicates that we have a conjunctive clause rather than a consecutive clause here). .

V. 15 also begins with a waw conjunctive. That is, the purpose of the sun, moon and stars stated in this verse is not a separate action from v. 14. Nor does it indicate that we are dealing with something different in vv. 14 and 15. From hereon in, light will be provided on the earth by these luminous bodies. The verse finishes with and it was so or and it came to pass.

And God made two great lights, the greater light for the dominion of the day and the lesser light for the dominion of the night; the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth and for the dominion of the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And evening had come to pass, and morning had come to pass; a fourth day. [Gen. 1:16–19]

Whereas vv. 14-15 give God's commands and the indication that these commands were carried out, v. 16 actually deals with the carrying out of the plans. The Qal imperfect waw consecutive of ’āsāh (ח ש צ ), which is different from the word in v. 1. In v. 1 we have the possibility of creating out of nothing. Here, we are dealing with a word which means to do, to make, or to fashion. That is, we have some raw materials to work with. This is not a verb exclusive to this context; Israel is told to asah the Law (Ex. 23:22). The waw consecutive means that God the Father issued the order and God the Son then carried out the action. The sun and moon are obviously what are dealt with here, each having dominion over the day or the night. The materials or the sun and moon themselves pre-existed because this verb does not imply creation. Therefore, they could have existed for the angelic creation and God made some modifications upon them. If the earth was packed in ice, then the sun certainly could not be the same intensity and distance from the earth as it is now. Whether there was a change in the orbit or the intensity of the sun, we do not know. Furthermore, they were placed or made in such a way as to provide for us a day and night as has already been defined, further indicating that these days spoken of in the Bible in this portion are 24 hour days. V. 16 ends with the stars also. God also fashioned the stars out of what was already there. This indicates that it is very likely that they preexisted this time of creation. There may have been some rearranging of orbits or other fine tuning which was done, but this was not as important as the work done on the sun and the moon. There is not even a verb here.

The Hebrew often looks upon an act with successive clarity. We are used to time-linear action. That is, we did this first, this second, this third, and now we are finished. That is not the case in this passage. V. 15 ends with and it was so. V. 16 does not pick up from there, but expands upon and it was so, and explains what happened to make this come to pass. V. 17 is a continuation of the explanation was to what was involved in the process implied by and it was so. Once God fashioned the sun, moon and stars, he placed them in their orbits in the heavens. Again, this was all a part of the fine tuning to provide for sustained life on the earth. The stars were for signs and days and years. One theologian has said that the entire Zodiac system, properly understood, is the message of the gospel (this is apart from the concept of Astrology).

On this day, it is important to note that God did not create the sun, moon and stars, but that they were made out of existing material, meaning that they likely pre-existed and God made some modifications upon them (after all, the sun had been burning along with the stars for billions of years). These modifications would have included their placement into possibly slightly different orbits. Although intent in other passages is more clear than in this one, I believe that these few verses indicate that the star light did not have to be supernaturally brought to the earth but that they had existed for billions of years, thus allowing their light to come to the earth.

Vv. 17–18a tell us that they were placed into their orbits, in the heavens in such a way as to (1) provide light for the earth, (2) for one luminous body to have dominance during the day, the other one to have dominance during the night (we do not have a clue as to how it was during the angelic habitation of the earth), and (3) to separate the light from the dark. With these purposes in mind, God observes that this portion of His creation was good; that is, well-suited and well-designed for its stated function. As we have seen thrice before, then there was dusk and then there was dawn, a fourth day.

Then God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and let bird fly above the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens." [Gen. 1:20]

Unlike the creation of mankind, the creation of the fish, water mammals and birds was done instantaneously for thousands upon thousands of creatures (possibly millions). The verb for swarm could even be construed (in the right context) to mean germinate; however, this is not the same word as is found in Gen. 1:12 (where the earth puts forth vegetation) and it is not in the same tense. In the Hiphil, as found in v. 12, the subject, earth, participates in the action of the verb. However, here, the other verb is in the Qal stem, which means the animals of the sea did not arise out of the sea itself but were created creatures (we will see that in the next verse). We do not have the word for fish here but rather the two words for living creatures or living souls. This is simply because the earth is filled with all kinds of things which are alive and fish only make up a portion of this. We have all types of crustaceans, invertebrates and mammals. The Hebrew words used here cover those categories as well as the category of fish.

Birds were also on the agenda for this day. The Hebrew word here is ‛ôwph (  ו צ ), which can stand for winged, feathered or flying creatures. Therefore, this probably included the creation of flying insects, birds and flying mammals. After God the Father verbalizes the mandate, God the Son executes it:

And God created the large whales [and other sea creatures] and every living creature that moves which populate the waters [lit., with which the waters (are) swarmed] after their kind, and every winged bird [and other flying creatures] after their kind; and God observed that it [the creation of Jesus Christ] was good. [Gen. 1:21]

"Great Sea monsters" is the way the first couple of words are usually translated. It is translated (without the adjective great) serpent in Ex. 7:9,10,12 and dragon in Jer. 51:34. Such a wide variety of translations indicates that we are uncertain as to its meaning; and, over the centuries, from the early records of Genesis, to the recording of these records by Moses, to Jeremiah, that the word could have changed in meaning. Every living creature that moves is, literally every living soul glides about. The latter participle can refer both the land animals scurrying across the ground or to water animals gliding through the waters. In context, this is the latter usage. God created a large number of animals which filled the seas and other bodies of water.

There are some who believe that this period of time was long and a creative period of time as opposed to a day. Whereas, I do not believe that the correct interpretation of this supports that, this does not mean that they are not our brothers in Christ. Often the fossil record is cited as supporting evidence that these were creative periods of time rather than days. However, there are a great many presuppositions which are involved in the interpretation of the fossil record and the dating methods involved. There is certainly bias on the part of the evolutionist as there is bias on the part of those who believe that the earth is 6,000–10,000 years old. The former have, for decades, been the exclusive interpreters of the fossil record. The latter, a group of dedicated theologians and scientists, have reinterpreted the fossil record over the past quarter century or more with their own predilections. And, even more recently, there are a group of believers who believe that these days of creation are longer periods of time and interpret the fossil record (and other scientific data) to fit their slant. My expertise in that area is quite limited. Disregarding the fossil record and any other type of scientific data, these days appear to be 24 hour days and the creation seems to be instantaneous of a substantial population to begin with.

After their kind is according to their species or kind. This certainly does not support a belief in evolution. Whereas a Christian can believe that all races of man originated from one set of parents, Adam and Eve (and, later, Noah and his wife), as all dogs could have a common ancestor, the Bible does not support an evolving of one species into another. That is, reptiles did not sprout wings and fly and later become birds. The primate population did not have a series of positive mutations which resulted in a humanoid prototype which later became a man with a soul and spirit. We have a very well-defined set of animals here (as we did with plants in vv. 11–12) which do not change into other species.

And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas and let the birds multiply on the earth." And evening came to pass and morning came to pass, a fifth day. [Gen. 1:22–23]

The word for bless is bārak^e (בָּרַך׃), and it means to bestow with favor or grace. God did not pronounce a blessing upon the plants. Here He does upon the animals of the seas and of the skies. Also, the Bible speaks of the animals as living souls but does not refer to vegetation in that way. There is an obvious, vast difference between the two kingdoms. The soul means that the animal is capable to limited emotional response and other brain activities similar to man, but certainly not at the same level.

The word bārak^e is used for the first time (in the Piel—intensive—stem), and God is the One doing the action of the verb, and God blessing the fish and the birds means that God calls for them to multiply; i.e., to have lots of baby birds and fishes. In other words, God blessing animals is associated with them multiplying in abundance. This may help to explain why we call newborn babies a blessing, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

We cannot draw any sort of conclusion that these animals are breeding like crazy from the beginning, yet Adam and the woman, not yet created, would have no children until after the Fall. We cannot take this interpretation, because the exact same verbiage is used in Gen. 1:28 with the man and the woman. It is possible that animals could breed from the very beginning, but we cannot really come to that conclusion because of the similarity of verbiage in vv. 22 and 28.

Then God said,"Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind; cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after there kind"; and it was so. [Gen. 1:24]

On a sixth day (which is not the sixth day), God creates the animals on the earth. Why He did not do this the previous day, we do not know. Furthermore, we are not positive as to when God created insects in general. Not everything which God created is necessarily mentioned here in Genesis. It is possible that the insects on land were created on this day and the insects of the seas and air were created on the fifth day.

Creeping things was a word which we encountered in Gen. 1:21 and there it was translated to move or to glide. It is used of animals in and out of water. Here, these are animals which scurry across the ground and run across the ground. And, as has been the pattern, God the Father issues the decree, and God the Son executes the command:

And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind; cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground after their kind; and God observed that it [this aspect of His creation] was good. [Gen. 1:25]

It is interesting that God did not create all animal life on the same day or on consecutive days apart from the creation of man. I do not know why that is other than to create the land mammals on the same day. However, there will be often things which God does which are inscrutable, and I do not believe that this will be that important.

The God said, "Let Us make man in Our [shadow] image, according to our pattern [or, likeness]; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." [Gen. 1:26]

Throughout this chapter, God is speaking. We know that there are three members of the Godhead, which means that God is not talking to Himself. In fact, now would be a good time to examine the

Doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament.

However, the reason He is speaking is that He has an audience, all the fallen and all the elect angels. He is not speaking to them but He is speaking on their behalf. What is transpiring will be crucial to their understanding of His judgments and His righteousness. One of the things which the angels will observe is how miserable the fallen angels will make life for man upon this earth. God will put man into perfect environment with everything provided for him, including right man and right woman, and Satan will do what he can to ruin this idyllic situation.

God is doing something with man that He did not do with the animals; God will create man in His own image. What is meant? The word image is from the Hebrew word tselem (ם ל צ ), which can refer to the images of heathen gods, but also it means image, likeness, resemblance, shadow image and definitely not an exact duplicate. D^emuth (ת י מ ד ) means likeness, similitude, pattern, or model. The latter word can be used as a son has the likeness of his father. The word make is the common word ʽāsāh (ה ש א ), which has been found in v.. 7, 16 and 25, and it means to make, to do or to construct out of something. In v. 7, God made the atmosphere out of the existing elements from the earth and the water; in v. 16 he constructed the sun and the moon from existing elements (it is possible that they both existed and God worked with them until they were suitable for His purposes); and God made the land animals. The Bible says that God both made and created man, so it is likely that He both made and created all animal life.

Notice that the previous stomping grounds of the angels, the earth, once frozen in ice after the fall of Satan and the angels which he took with him, is now given to man and put under man's control and dominion. This would be infuriating to Satan and the other fallen angels because man is so weak and small and inferior in intellect and power and movement as compared to the angels. With this statement, Satan immediately began to plan to take the control of the earth away from man. After all, Satan is more intelligent, more charming and superior to man in almost every way; it seems that taking the dominion of planet earth from him would be easy.

The Hebrew word for man is ʼādhām (ם ד א ), which we recognize as Adam. Here it refers to mankind in the collective sense (see v. 27) as well as to the first man in the singular sense (Gen. 2:20). See the doctrine of ʼādhām.

So God created man in His own [shadow] image; in the [shadow] image of God He created him; male and female, He created them. [Gen. 1:27]

Barah is our creation verb, and it likely means to create out of nothing. It has already been used in vv. 1 and 21. God created Adam only, at first, but the soul of the woman is incubating inside of him (Gen. 2:7,18 5:1,2). This is not significantly different from a woman carrying within her a fetus, a prototype soul and body for her soon-to-be child. People often speculate what would have happened had Adam and Eve not sinned. For instance, the woman assumed all the responsibility when it came to giving birth. This, and the next chapter indicate that it is possible that the man might have carried his right woman within him and, at the right point in time, "given birth" to his right woman. So much for speculation.

Created is used twice in this verse; first in the Qal imperfect and then in the Qal perfect. Often, the imperfect examines the action of the verb from the standpoint of unfinished work or only a portion of the action is alluded to. The entire act is not looked at, just a portion of it. The perfect tense looks at the act as a whole; as a completed total action. When God created man, this was only a portion of the creation of man. The completed action of the creation of man is the creation of man and the woman. Despite the popular women's lib saying of the eighties, man and woman are generally incomplete without each other.

What gives me pause at this point is the actual activity of this sixth day. Did Adam live for several days or weeks prior to the creation of Eve (who is actually called the woman until after the fall; then she is designated Eve)? V. 27 ends with the verb for create with a masculine plural suffix. This is why the verse ends with the word them. Throughout all of vv. 28–29, all of the verbs have masculine, plural suffixes, meaning that God is speaking to two or more people. Chapter two of Genesis, is not a continuation of a narrative, but it is a close-up examination of the sixth day. Chapters 1 through 2:3 give us an outline of what occurred on the first seven days (with a bit of eternity past thrown in).

And God blessed them and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." [Gen. 1:28]

In this verse, God gives the man and woman authority over the earth. The angels are watching and the fallen angels are irritated because this was their previous home. They had dominion over the earth and now God has given it to this very weak creature, man. Even though the birth process has not been put into place yet—that is, it is unclear as to who will give birth to children or how—God commands the man and woman to procreate and to fill the earth with their progeny.

There are a great many environmental movements and individuals who behave as though man is an intruder on this earth and that the earth would be a much better place without man. That is, our activities should be as inconspicuous as possible. However, God has ordered us to subdue the earth. Kâbash (ש ב  ) means to conquer, subdue, tread a path, dominate, squeeze and kneed. This includes planting, harvesting, building, etc.

The God said, "Behold, I have give you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, every green plant for food"; and it was so. [Gen. 1:29–30]

In perfect environment, man and beast were both vegetarians. We were given fruit trees to eat from (and later we would till the ground to produce some foods) and God gave the animals green plants on which to dine. There was no prohibition to meat-eating; it wasn't necessary because no one did. This does not mean that we should or should not be vegetarians. Under perfect environment, such as the millennium, it is likely that man will become a vegetarian again. Animals will likewise lose their ferocity and become vegetarians also. However, we have been given the animal for food since the fall. Whether someone chooses to eat meat or not; or to limit it in one's diet is a matter of free will, dietary consideration and personal inclination and training. It is not a spiritual issue and should never be treated as such. Fish are not mentioned; however, it is likely that they dined on various types of sea weed.

And God examined all that He had made and it was, in fact, very good. And evening came to pass and morning came to pass; a sixth day. [Gen. 1:31]

With this verse, we leave Genesis 1 and move into Genesis 2, which is not a new topic by any means. Had chapter divisions been inspired, then this chapter would have ended at Gen. 2:3. God has finished with the restoration of the heavens and the earth. He is not tired but He is finished. God has provided everything that was necessary for mankind. He also provided a stage by which Satan's evil could be fully observed and manifested and righteously condemned.

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished; and all their populations. [Gen. 2:1]

The verb, kālāh (ה ל  ), means to be finished, to be completed or to be accomplished. It is in the Pual imperfect, which is passive voice and incomplete action. God, at this point is temporarily finished. He will be finished until Adam and the woman sin; then He will be involved in work. God will be finished when He says he is finished in the perfect tense. In John 19:30, immediately after our Lord had born our sins in his own body on the cross, then he will say, "It is finished" in the perfect tense. At that point, God will have accomplished for us more than we will ever realize or every begin to appreciate.

And by the seventh day God completed His work which he had done; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work, which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it, He rested from all His work which God created for making. [Gen. 2:2–3]

Vv. 2–3 we see a slight break in the pattern. God speaks of the seventh day during the seventh day. The verb completed is the same one found in v. 1 except this is in the Piel imperfect, which speaks of both a completed action which is causative yet the imperfect indicates that it is an action in progress or as of yet, not complete. God did cause the creation and the restoration of the earth, and, to that point in time, it was finished. However, since God is able to see the end from the beginning, He knew that His work was not complete. Hence, the imperfect. When it reads God rested, this is an anthropopathism. We do not have the ability to understand God's character and essence entirely. The Bible will sometimes use language of accommodation or take an aspect of God's character or being and express it to us in human terms. We understand the human concept and this gives us insight into God's character. God, as was mentioned, was not tired nor does He get tired. He was, however, temporarily finished. Everything which man needed was provided for him. The stage had been set for the appeal trial of Satan, who voiced a great many objections to his sentencing. Now all angels could watch as the activities on earth reveal the righteousness and perfection of God and the viciousness and evil of the fallen angels.

Here we have the word to bless again, and again it is in the Piel (intensive) stem. Previously, blessing was associated with procreation, of birds, of fish and of man (Gen. 1:22, 28). Here, procreation is not the central theme. Therefore, we have to come up with another understanding of the word bârak^e: Gesenius suggests that in the Piel stem, this can mean to celebrate. It makes sense that, at the completion of a major project, and a person sit back, pop open a cold one, and admire his own work. This seems to be the sense of what we have here. For man, as time would progress, the celebration of the 7^th day may include church and then sitting down in front of the game and opening up a beverage of one’s favorite choice. In any case, there is a break in the routine of the work that men do, and we might understand that to be the blessing spoken of here. For God, it is sitting back and recognizing that what He has done is good; and for us, it is sitting back, after a long week’s work, and perhaps recognizing the same thing (if we have done our work as unto the Lord).

Sanctification is the setting apart of something unto God. That is, it is separated from everything else for purposes related to God and His character. So it is with the seventh day. It both commemorates and looks forward to the true rest that we will enter. At this point in time, it commemorates the creation of the heavens and the earth and the restoration thereof. It is a time that man is to cease from his labors and to rest and to use the time to dwell upon our Lord. This is not the only period of time devoted to spiritual things. When our spiritual life and growth and intake of God's Word is limited to one day a week, the results are mediocre at best. We are faced with human viewpoint sixteen hours a day. In these United States, we are bombarded by television programs and advertising, magazine and newspapers and radio station broadcasts which fill us with human thought and human viewpoint. It takes but a generation to throw an entire country out of whack. We have seen that over the past few decades and the incredible increase in immorality. Things which were recognized as wrong in the 50's are seen as possibly okay in the 60's and taken for granted as being what is done in the 90's. Pre-marital sex is presented on almost any television show or movie as what people do when they become interested in one another. It is no longer even expected that the couple be in love; it is viewed as a step to falling in love. What has resulted is a complete erosion of the marriage institution, which has ruined the family, and has resulted in crime and degeneracy in our youth unprecedented in our nation. All of this results from moving away from God's Word and accepting human viewpoint. The only way we can stand up to this human viewpoint (because it is guaranteed that everyone will try to sway your opinion either through argument, ridicule or temptation), is to feed on God's Word—not weekly, but daily. And we are to be responsible to our children; not to haul them to church once a week but to train them daily in God's Word. A child does not have to be separated from the rest of the world in order to grow into a Christian adult. But, he does require doctrine everyday and he requires parents who live according to the Word, as well as teach it. And this goes back to having parents who have character and spiritual growth when they choose and commit to each other. But, I digress.

The last two verbs, created and made, asah and barah, are in the Qal perfect and the Qal infinitive. The former word looks at the action as a whole or as a competed action. God had several acts of actual creation prior to the six days of restoration and during those six days. He created the heavens and the earth and then created the populations to occupy the earth. Working with these raw materials, he made the atmosphere, man and animals from the elements of the ground, etc. The action of the infinitive can be coterminous with or follow immediately the action of the main verb. In this case, made followed created.

In this portion of Genesis, we will take a closer look at the sixth day of restoration. Once this day has been completed, we have another gap in history, as we found between Gen. 1:1 and 2. We do not know if Adam's age was calculated as beginning at his fall or from the day of his creation. There was a tree of life in the garden which very likely perpetuated human life; a tree that we had to be cut off from when Adam fell. Seth was born to Adam and Eve when Adam was 130 years old (Gen. 5:3), but we have no other time frame for the birth of Cain, Abel or any of Adam and Eve's other children (Gen. 5:4). The short view of this gap would be a few days to perhaps a century (and Adam and Eve produced children from age one hundred on). The long view is that God calculates Adam's age from the fall, which gives us an indeterminable amount of time for man's existence in the garden. It would be nice to view this time period as lasting for centuries; however, Satan certainly observed and devised a plan quickly. Whether the next chapter chronicles his first plan or whether it was his first "successful" plan, we do not know.

These are the Generations of [or, This is an Account of the Beginnings] the Heavens and the Earth; when they were created, in the day when Yahweh God made earth and heavens): [Gen. 2:4]

This is a break in the narrative. We have covered Gen.1:1–2:3 basically in a chronological manner. However, here, we will take a step back. It is likely that this opens up a new document or a new piece of source material. We can readily assume that Moses compiled the final version of Genesis (see the introduction), but we do not know from how many documents he worked, how much was oral tradition (remember that his father-in-law was a man of God and he certainly received some teaching from him; yet this was centuries removed from that which took place in Gen. 2). It is likely that the first portion of Genesis was given to Moses directly from God or he received it as a part of the oral tradition. However, this beginning phrase seems to indicate that Moses is transcribing a document. My Hebrew is not strong enough to make anything else other than an hypothesis at this point, but my guess is that there will be a change of basic vocabulary at this point to correspond with the new source material.

In the Septuagint, this begins with Aὔτη ἡ ϐίϐλος γενέσεως οὐρανο καὶ γς (transliterated: Aute he Biblos geneseos ouranos kai ges) and it should be translated this [is the] book of the genesis [or, generations or beginnings] of heaven and earth. This is not a word-for-word translation from the Hebrew, but it helps to give us the gist of what is being said here. For the translators millenniums ago who spoke the ancient Hebrew and desired a readable translation into the Greek, they recognized that this was the beginning of a book; or the beginning of a writing. This functions like the title of a book more than it does as a portion of the narrative. We certainly recognize here the two famous transliterated words: Bible and Genesis.

The Hebrew word, translated by the Greek book of beginnings is tōldhāh ( ה ד ל  ), and it means family, race, descent, history, birth, generations, origin. It refers to what is brought into existence by someone and sometimes the results, but does not include the birth of an individual, so, in this case, this does not refer to the creation of heavens and earth as the focus. We will examine that which was brought into existence; in this case, man on his first day (which is why we can look at this as a beginnings of sorts). The translation I prefer, although it is, like most, more wordy than the original language: "This is an Account of the Beginnings..." This gives us the feeling that this is a document somewhat separate from the rest of the surrounding material, a document composed originally by someone other than the editor or Genesis, and carries with it a sense of beginning or origin. This is the sense in which the second or third century bc Jewish scholars who translated the Septuagint, seemed to take this phrase.

This verse also serves as a beginning of human history; a preface if you will to the rest of the entire Bible. We have reached back in Gen. 1:1 to eternity past to the creation of the heavens and the earth and throughout most of Gen. 1, we have examined the restoration of the earth. This verse introduces human history on earth. In one sense, it is the beginning of the Bible, inasmuch as this begins God's dealings with mankind on earth.

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprouted for Yahweh God had not yet sent rain upon the earth; and there was no man to cultivate the ground. However, a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. [Gen. 2:5–6]

I personally find v. 6 to be absolutely fascinating. How would or why would any author developing a false antediluvian history speak of plants being watered from a mist? The antediluvian world was very different than it is now and this is one of the chief differences; it did not rain but there was a mist which arose from the ground. The earth was surrounded by a much thicker water vapor atmosphere at this time also. If all of this is myth, then this indicates that our ancestors, not too far removed from the cave, had a very imaginative and creative sense of history. Rather than recall the days when man used to roam the earth throwing sticks and rocks at animals and hunkering down around the fire, this author speaks of a much more idyllic period of time and throws in nuances and creativity one would not expect to find in so-called primitive man. However, this is not a myth and man, if anything, was more brilliant and educated then than he is today. When we fantasize about the early days of man, we see cave men throwing rocks and sticks at animals and hunkering down before a fire. Those closer to the true events of history do not record such nonsense in ancient literature. Instead, they record what really happened. Even ancient myths and uninspired literature gives us a more refined view of ancient man than we have. There are certainly those who degenerated over centuries of inbreeding to colonies of less-than-civilized men who drew pictures on cave walls and behaved barbarically. One need look no further back in history than today to examine the affects of inbreeding in the hills of West Virginia or in the primitive portions of Africa to find men who have degenerated to the point of animalism. Throughout all of history, except for the most ancient, we find civilized man living in a world occupied by savages and barbaric peoples; and not infrequently, side-by-side.

What we have here is a different set of plants than we saw in Gen. 1:12. It is difficult, due to the ancient Hebrew, to determine exactly what kind of plants existed prior to man's cultivation of the earth but there were already plants for food for animals and fruit trees and plants which yield their own seed. A reasonable guess might be plants used by man primarily for food or, who knows, possibly flowers? Shrub is a different word than used previously and plant is modified by of the field rather than by yielding its own seed. We view work, particularly farming, somewhat differently than Adam would have. For a person who exercises, there are periods of inactivity when one's muscles crave some exercise. This was Adam's feeling most of the time. Doing a little farming would have been a fine time of reflection and physical enjoyment, not unlike a gardener who enjoys gardening in his yard; nor is it unlike a person who plays a sport for fun. This would become work after the fall, but prior to the fall, this would be enjoyment for Adam.

Then God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the spark [lit., breath] of lives and man became a living soul. [Gen. 2:7]

This verse would indicate that we are made up of the same basic chemical elements as the earth is. This certainly, although not expressed in scientific language, is not the idea of some savage. It has been several millenniums later when this fact was confirmed. As many have stated, the Bible is not a scientific textbook; however, when it deals with science, it deals with it accurately.

The verb for formed here is a different one than we have used before. It is the word yātsar (ר צ י ), and it means to form, fashion, mold, and several other varied meanings. Here, God is fashioning our bodies out of the elements of the earth. We do not have life until God breaths life into us. The verb breath is the Qal imperfect of nâphach ( ה פ נ ), which carries with it the vision of blowing upon a furnace; it means to breathe, inflame, or to blow fire upon something. Breath is the Hebrew word n^eshâmâh (ה ם ש נ ), and it means panting, breath, puff of air, and even inspiration and wisdom. It is not farfetched to allow this to have an electrical connotation due to the verb and give it the translation the spark of lives. We have learned from science that our brains have an electrical current and the lack of that current indicates death. It is reasonable for God to have taken this lump of clay which was our bodies and breathed into the lungs oxygen and into the brain a spark. The adjective, living, translated often live(s), is the word chay (י ה ), and it has to do with being alive. It is in the plural here. Man's body, soul and spirit were all activated and all became living, or, if you will forgive the cornball expression, energized. The result is that man becomes a living being. These words in the Hebrew are chay again (this time in the singular) and nephesh ( ש פ נ ), usually translated soul; a word applied to animals as well as to people. This is in the feminine singular and seems to refer to the entire being of man in this context.

And Yahweh God planted a garden toward the east in Eden and there He placed man whom he had formed. [Gen. 2:8]

Eden, transliterated from the Hebrew, means pleasures or delights. Formed in v. 7 was in the Qal imperfect, because we were looking at a process and a series of steps, whereas formed in v. 8 is in the Qal perfect, which is the completed action or the action is viewed upon from its entirety. Yahweh God is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the revealed member of the Godhead to us. His name did not appear in the first chapter because there was no man in the first chapter that He conversed with or had fellowship with. When this chapter begins to unfold, God has a more personal relationship with man than he did the animals or the firmament or the seas, so we now see Jesus Christ, Yahweh Elohim, doing things on our behalf. He begins by planting a garden for man to take care of in Eden. Again, this will be a pleasure for man to tend, not a chore. Then He placed man in Eden, before this garden.

And out of the ground Yahweh God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. [Gen. 2:9]

The Hiphil imperfect for grow means that God had caused the trees to begin to grow and they continued to grow. Whether they began with rings or were solid wood to begin with, I do not know. The latter would seem to be the most likely, not that it makes a great deal of difference. Two types of trees mentioned are those pleasant to look at and those which produce food which is good to eat.

Eden also contained two trees which could open a Pandora's box of interpretations. However, the concept behind these two trees is easy. The tree of life provided perpetual or eternal life for the partaker and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil allowed Adam and Eve to become a part of the good and evil system of Satan. In innocence, or in sinless perfection, they had no need to know anything about Satan's system of good and evil. Good and evil were not issues in their lives. Furthermore, evil is bad and good is bad. Since you likely do not understand that, see the Doctrine of Good and Evil. Prior to their partaking of that tree, Adam and the woman could not sin and seemed to have no fellowship with fallen angels except through demonic voice controls. See the Doctrine of the Tree of Life.

Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the gardens; and from there is divided and became four rivers. The name of the one [river] is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. And the name of the second river is Gishon; it flows around the whole land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. [Gen. 2:10–14]

The original author of this portion of God's Word was obviously no savage but a person who had an appreciation for things aesthetic, geographic and agrarian. We have details here that had to come from a person who knew this antediluvian area. We do not know if it was Adam or Adam's description to his sons who passed it on, but this is not the kind of information which one would necessarily fabricate. One's first reaction is a desire to know what these proper nouns mean; however, although man certainly began with a full vocabulary, probably far superior to ours, these are proper names given to these rivers and lands by Adam or his early descendants and likely do not have a meaning. If anything meanings have sprung from these words rather than vice versa. In Havilah we have mentioned that there were a lot of precious stones. Again, the original author is one who appreciates things of beauty. I would not be willing to try and designate where these places would be found today. The world-wide flood occurred when the earth was likely less mountainous than it is today; since the flood and the rage of the flood waters, the terrain has probably undergone some remarkable changes. The flood likely caused a great shifting of the earth's plates, the formation of mountains through volcanic activity and plate shifting and, as a result, I believe that the geography of the antediluvian civilization and the postdiluvian civilization possess more dissimilarities than similarities. I do not know enough about geography to say that this is when the continental drift occurred (if such a thing occurred) but I doubt that the areas identified here and later in the Bible are the same. On the other hand, it is equally likely that persons who possessed a knowledge or a record of the antediluvian civilization used these names again to designate new areas of land, as has been man's habit whenever he conquers a new land.

My educated guess, for what it is worth, is that the rivers mentioned here were retained after the flood and that we are speaking of the very same Tigris and Euphrates rivers as found today. The reason that I would make this guess is that God has chosen a particular plot of land and has given that to the Jews as a piece of real estate forever. Would it not be logical that this piece of real estate has, in a sense, sentimental value to our Lord as the area of the Garden of Eden and the area first occupied by Adam and the woman. Since the middle East, in many ways, seems to be the center of the earth and likely the original populated area (at least since the flood), I would say that these are the very same rivers of today. The other two rivers have either been renamed (if they are still in existence) and the paths of the rivers have certainly been changed dramatically because of the flood. This would, of course, put the original Garden of Eden somewhere between Israel and the Persian Gulf.

The use of the words one (not first), second, third and fourth are the same as is found in Gen. 1:5,8,13 and 19; the first four days of restoration. The rivers were not necessarily built in a specific order nor was one preeminent; the author just began with one river and then described the others. The lack of detail on the other four lands indicates that (1) the original author of the text from which Moses wrote was not an eyewitness but one who heard this from someone who heard this from someone who heard it from someone who may have been an eyewitness. Either that, or (2) Moses began to do some editing at this point.

Then Yahweh God took the man and placed him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to guard it. [Gen. 2:15]

The word for take is the common Hebrew word lâqach (ח ק ל ) in the Qal imperfect. This is simple action and only a portion of the action is viewed or the action is incomplete. This word can mean anything from to take one in marriage to take and carry along to take possession of. It has a widespread usage. Here, nothing more than the simple word take is necessary. So from wherever Adam was created; fro there he was taken to the garden of Eden. The Hiphil imperfect of yânach (ח  י), and it means to deposit, to lay down, to cast down, to place. The action is causative and a portion of the action is examined.

The last two words in this verse which designate man's responsibilities are both in the Qal infinitive construct; which is simple action and is similar to our infinitive or gerund phrase; it can function as a verbal noun. The first of these words is ׳āvadh or ׳âbad (ד ב ע ) and it means to work, or to serve, or to slave or to labor. The final word in Gen. 2:15 is a very common Hebrew word; it is found in Gen. 3:24 and it means to guard, to watch, to preserve or to keep. Dominion and responsibility are inferred here. This is the first recorded responsibility given Adam. God is not going to allow Adam to be idle. This is not in God's plan even in innocence. We, as fallen people, may not have a grasp of what is occurring, but God has just given Adam the equivalent to the keys to the Porsche. Exercising the body is not an unpleasant thing to do, nor is gardening or watching things grow and multiply. To us in our fallen state, since this has become work, it carries a different meaning. However, this was one of the many things which God provided for Adam to do.

And Yahweh God commanded Adam, saying, "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 from it, for in the day that you eat from it, in dying you will die [or, in a state of death, you will begin dying]. [Gen. 2:16–17]

The first word in v. 16 is command and it is in the Piel imperfect. The Piel stem could be intensive and it could be completed action without regard to how it came about. Being first in the verse indicates that this command is important. In fact, this is the first recorded words of God to man following man's creation. This indicates that this is most important. From day one of his life on earth, Adam was given a very simple command. One tree was off limits and God even gave Adam a reason for it being off limits. Adam is warned that he will die and dying is found twice, a doubling of the verb, a Hebraism. It is first found in the Qal infinitive absolute and then in the Qal imperfect. An infinitive absolute stands alone as a noun, verb or an adverb. Usually, it takes the place of a noun. It can be used to intensify the meaning of the word, as it most certainly does here, but it can also state a state of being. We could translate this, in a state of dying, you die; or in a state of death, you will begin dying. . This describes exactly what will happen to Adam when he eats from the tree. He will immediately go into a state of spiritual death; that is, he will not be able to have fellowship with God on his own initiative. God must seek him out and begin the fellowship. So Adam will find himself immediately spiritually dead, cut off from God in several ways. However, this will not be the end of the curse. He will also begin a state of decay and physical degeneration which will eventuate in human death.

This establishes a parallelism between man's state of innocence (or, more properly, perfection) and man's fallen state. As a perfect person, Adam could only do one thing wrong; there was only one act of free will which would cause Adam to lose his fellowship with God and that was choosing to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In man's fallen state, there is only one decision of merit which will affect man's relationship to God and that is man's decision concerning another tree, the tree that Jesus Christ died on. Rev. 22:2 and 14 both speak of the tree of life; the Greek word used is ξύλον (xulon), and it means tree, cross, wood, or stocks. The exact same word is found in I Pet. 2:24 And He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for "by His wounds were you healed.

" See also Acts 10:39 13:29 Gal. 3:13. All other decisions for man in his fallen state do not affect his relationship with God one way or the other.

Then Yahweh God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper in the sight of [and corresponding] to him." [Gen. 2:18]

God is not speaking to Himself nor is He speaking to Adam. We have God speaking throughout the first few chapters of Genesis. It is one member of the Godhead speaking to another member. The reason for speaking is simple: there is an entire angelic creation, both fallen and elect angels who are on hand to witness all of this. At one point in time, the earth was their personal stomping ground. When Satan fell and took a third of the angels with him, God froze the earth in an ice pack. Now it has been thawed and the angels are intently observing the transpiring of these events. God narrates what is occurring.

It is still the sixth day

and God has instantaneously created most of the mammals and then He created Adam. It is early morning and God has taken Adam to the garden which He, God, had prepared several days previous. He has outlined Adam's responsibilities, particularly the mandate not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God has designed Adam so that he is brilliant; although, perhaps, not as brilliant as angelic creation. It is likely that God created man inferior to angels in every respect to teach the fallen and the elect angels.

To make is from the Qal imperfect of ‛âsâh (ח ש ע ), which means to do or to make and is found in Gen. 1:7,25 and 2:2. This is a clear-cut example of a Qal stem used as a future tense. What God will design for man is a helper, or a person who will assist, relieve and help man. God is spoken of as a help in Ex. 18:4. Neged ( ד ג נ ) is an preposition which refers to something which is conspicuous or something which is always in front of. It is translated before the sight of, or in front of, or corresponding to. Even though God has decided that He will make this helper for Adam, God does not do that immediately. God first brings to Adam members of the animal kingdom for Adam to name. Because Adam is a genius, he will develop names for all of the animals as a result of his intelligence and free will. Adam will recognize that there are a lot of animals but he will certainly realize that there are no animals with which he can fellowship.

And out of the ground Yahweh God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and He brought them to man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. And the man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. [Gen. 2:19–20]

Yatsar (ר צ י ) is the verb for fashioning and molding and here, although it is the past tense, the Hebrew is the Qal imperfect and is used here for the building or the fashioning of the animals from the elements of the ground. We are use to a tense system which incorporates time into most verbs and the Hebrew does not. Context determines the time of the action; as we have just seen two Qal imperfect verbs used as a past tense and as a future tense. Like mankind, most animal groupings proceed from a single set of parents. For instance, the extremely divergent dog family has but one ancestor. These are the animals which Adam was naming. This process took perhaps two to four hours as God paraded the animals and birds before Adam. This is an expansion of Gen. 1:28. Adam is a genius, and although he is but a few hours old, he is able to devise names for these animals from his own intellect and free will. He is enthused about the animals, the garden, his fellowship with Jesus Christ, but he notices that there is no one on earth who is like himself.

So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and he slept. The He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place and the Yahweh God fashioned [or built] the rib which he had taken from the man into a woman and brought her to the man. [Gen. 2:21–22]

So far, there has only been one designation for Adam (apart from male in Gen. 1:27) in these chapters of Genesis: Adam. Adam is found in Gen. 1:27 2:5,7,8,16,18,19,20,21 and 22. It is translated both man and Adam; nevertheless, it is the same word. The word for woman is ’ishshâh ( ה ש א ) and this is the first time that it is used. Its usage will be explained in the next verse. This passage is simultaneously the first operation and the first nap (although it is more of a mid-morning nap rather than an afternoon nap).

What God chose to do here is interesting. God did not create Adam and the woman simultaneously as He did all of the animal creation. He did create them with two different sexes, unlike the angels who are essentially all male (Gen. 6 and Matt. 22:30). The angels have already seen the two different sexes in the animal kingdom, which the fallen angels probably viewed as quaint. Very likely there was not enough time to observe the two sexes to form much of an opinion; however, it would be a matter of semi-interesting speculation if God had originally created the male of the animal kingdom as the male is often today; the most attractive and flashy of the two sexes (e.g.. the lion or the peacock). However, the creation of the woman was an event, as was the creation of the man. It was not a matter a sudden creation in either case. The man was formed or fashioned from the elements of the earth as a potter would form or fashion something out of clay; and then God breathed into him the spark of lives (Gen. 2:7). Enough time was given to this for the angels to observe man's creation. Then, as man is naming the animals and having an aesthetic experience observing the garden, the angels noticed that there is no one else for man to have fellowship with. They were created with other angels. The animals were created with other animals and each specie (I hope that I am using this correctly) had a counterpart in the opposite sex. However, man did not; and both Adam and the angels noticed this.

God spent even more time with the creation of the woman than He did with the creation of Adam. He took the woman out of Adam; not unlike cloning today; and from these cells, built a woman. For hundreds of years, those of an interest in science might have made light of this, thinking it silly to make a woman from the bone of a man; however, as time goes on, we have found that throughout the entire body, the cells carry a blueprint for the entire person, making this act much more rational and understandable. The verb, in the Qal imperfect, is bânâh (ה נ  ), and it means to build and is most often used with the construction of buildings. At this point in time, God created the most beautiful creature that He had created (this is my opinion). Satan was created dazzling and attractive, but the woman was breathtakingly beautiful. Even the angels found her beautiful; and the fallen angels found her desirable (as we will see in Gen. 6). God set two precedents here: (1) the oft-quoted, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; meaning God created man to spent the bulk of his time with a woman, rather than with other men; and that relationship was special, exclusive and permanent. (2) God brought Adam's right woman, his perfect mate, to him. Adam did not have to go and find her. There are a lot of things that we must, as people, go out and seek. Often, once we have completed our education and/or training, we must go out into the world and seek employment. Only a few have employment brought to them. However, we do not have to go out looking for our right woman. We do not have to comb the single's ads, go to bars or single's events in order to find our right woman. God set the precedent by bring them together Himself. There are several commands directly pertaining to marriage and the right man-right woman relationship; none of them involve going out and finding that person.

Why the rib and why do we have all of our ribs today? The latter question is easy: if you cut off a finger and then sire a child, the child will be born with all of his digits intact. The former question is more difficult to answer. There was a famous saying which went with this which had to do with the woman being created as man's equal close to his heart, but this is not the case. The woman was created second in command. Adam was to rule the household. This does not mean that the woman is inferior to the man. I have worked in several places where my boss, the authority above me, was not as intelligent as I was. They still had the authority over me. Inferiority or superiority of any inherent characteristic was never an issue; they were the chiefs and I was the Indian. Immediate context does not reveal Adam's position of authority. This is found later in Gen. 3:17 where blame is placed upon Adam for allowing the woman to call the shots. Satan will attack the human race through the woman, because if Adam orders her to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then there will be two non-issues: (1) Adam would have taken the fruit, like the woman, under deception; and (2) the woman would be following the authority of the man—in either case, we do not have a clear-cut, free-will decision to disobey God. Also, Paul goes back to creation, prior to the fall, in order to establish the man's authority over the woman (I Cor. 11:3–11).

I should say something about morality in the state of innocence, or perfection, at this point. There was absolutely nothing that the man and the woman could do which would be considered immoral or wrong, except to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Apart from that, there were no moral issues and there was no old sin nature. What choices they would make and what choices there subsequent progeny would make, has God allowed procreation in the garden, we can only speculate. However, it is clear that there was no act of sin or immorality which they could do together in the garden. A system of morality and right and wrong had to be devised after the fall. This system changed somewhat from dispensation to dispensation. We will find that out in Gen. 4. In fact, one of the issues on trial is the concept of right and wrong and who determines what is right and what is wrong. Clearly, God is the final authority in these matters; but this is certainly one of the objections brought up at Satan's appeal trial. We, as individuals and as communities and nations, are faced every moment with decisions of morality and right and wrong. God has given us a system of morality for both the believer and the unbeliever; systems of authority to be obeyed, laws and regulations to be observed. Satan has also set up his own system of right and wrong. For any dispensation, there is but one system of right and wrong. However, Satan develops several systems of right and wrong for us to chose from; among them, situational ethics, free love, don't trust anyone over thirty, finding the good present in all religions, etc. In my lifetime, I have seen public opinion swayed from monogamous, lifetime marriages wherein sex occurred after the marriage and the commitment (an eye-opener to the incredibly change in mores can be seen in the James Cagney film is it Yankee Doodle Dandy??? (I have to check this out) to a short period of time where sex was seen as an expression of love (at least by the female) in or out of marriage to the eighties and nineties where people meet, are physically attracted, have sex, and then, sometimes, fall in love. Afterward, they may or may not get married. Man is only responsible to God for his moral decisions as God has revealed these to man in, what was in previous dispensations, partial revelation. I need to qualify that statement, but I am not certain as to how to do it. Cain committed many mental attitude sins toward Abel and then killed Abel. These were all wrong; however, God actually protected Cain after committing this murder. When I get to Gen. 4, I will cover the relationship between revelation, morality, right and wrong as it spans the various generations in more detail.

Man does what God has been having him do all along. He has been naming all the animals as God brought them to him. However, seeing the woman for the first time causes the man to become poetical and lyrical. He is inspired and we have the first recorded poetry in this verse. God did not have to tell Adam about the operation or the origin of woman; Adam recognizes immediately that the woman was not formed out of the ground, as he was, but directly from himself. Although the Bible does not mention it, this is love at first sight. Adam begins here with physical attraction (this is a precedent; most of us initially date or go out with people to whom we are physically attracted) and he will fall into total soul love in a very short time with the woman. Just seeing her inspires him to wax poetic, however, also somewhat of a precedent.

To cover the Hebrew; man's first word is zô’th (ז א ת ) a word used as a demonstrative pronoun and as an adverb; it is in the feminine singular and can be translated in a variety of ways : here, this, and in poetry it is used as a relative pronoun: wherein, that which, this who. There is no verb in the first verse, denoting excitement and great passion. Pa‛am ( ם ע פ ), the second word in Adam's first recorded speech has even a wider range of meanings: beat, foot, anvil, occurrence, once, this once, now at length, now at last. Apparently, this is a Hebrew word whose meaning changed markedly over the centuries. A reading of any passage in the KJV will reveal to the reader that all languages change; the KJV is but four hundred years and the Hebrew found in Genesis predates the Hebrew in Malachi by over a thousand years; perhaps much more since Moses was writing from source material which predated him by many centuries. The latter translation fits the context. Adam has just named hundreds of animals, relating them to a preexisting vocabulary which came with his creation. He has been amused and entertained by what God has brought to him, but nothing was a counterpart to him. The second verse begins with a preposition + zô’th. There was no "Me Tarzan, you Jane." Adam had a fully functioning vocabulary in a number of different realms. He was created a human genius. Even though this word for man, ’īsh (ש י א) has not been used yet in the Bible, it was a part of Adam's vocabulary and it, unlike the word Adam, which can be applied to mankind, refers specifically to the male with an emphasis upon sexual and relational differences to the female. Adam therefore names her ’ishshâh (ה ש א); or, more simply, ishah, which came to mean woman as distinguished from a man, but at that time was not a word. It has a more poetic and softer sound than ish. The first verb, called, is in the Niphal, and this is the simple passive sense where the woman receives the action of the verb; she receives the designation isha. Taken from is in the Pual perfect, which is an accomplished, intensive act in the passive sense.

V. 24 seems parenthetical. If you read v. 23 and then v. 25, they appear to work together without v. 24. V. 24 begins with an adverb which refers back to the preceding verse. It can mean so, therefore, in such circumstances, for this reason, that being so. This is an addition or a footnote. It could have been added by Moses, but it was more likely added by the original author or by one who copied the source material. Make no mistake—this is a part of God's Word and fully inspired—this verse sets and emphasizes a precedent.

[For this reason, a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cling to (have sex with) his wife; and they shall become one flesh] [Gen. 2:24]

We do not know who originally wrote this, but even if it was Adam, he still wrote this in retrospect, which means that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, he would be allowed to edit as he saw fit. At this point in time, when examining the woman being brought to the man by God, the author points out that a precedent has been set and that precedent is that the new family unit is separate and distinct from the original family units. There is often still ongoing relationships, love and social activity, but the authority which once existed between the parents of the husband and the parents of the wife over the husband and the wife is no longer in effect. At the time when God brought the woman to the man, there was no family, no mother or father. Even the angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage (Matt. 22:30). In fact, the angels appear to be all males. So, at this time, there is no family and no precedence for a family. However, the writer (or inspired copyist) stopped at this point and inserted the pertinent information that this is why the man leaves his family and cleaves to his wife.

The words for man and woman are the same ones found in the previous verse. Cleave is the Qal perfect of the Hebrew word dâbaq (ק ב  ). This word means to cling, to cleave, to hold fast to, to keep close.. In this case it refers to a union which is both permanent, total and sexual. The perfect tense tells us that this is a completed action That indicates the permanence. And they shall become one flesh modifies the meaning of cleave here and indicates that we are talking, at least in part, about sex. Become is in the Qal perfect; again indicating that this is a permanent action on the part of the man and the woman.

And the man and his woman were both naked and were not ashamed [or confused or disappointed]. [Gen. 2:25]

The divine precedence in marriage is set in both subtle and obvious ways. Notice the possessive pronoun found here. It is the man and his woman. There is no word for husband and wife in any of these verses–this is Adam and his isha. The v. 24 insert indicates that v. 23 set the precedence for marriage and v. 25 indicates that this is a unit from the beginning. Whether there is a marriage ceremony or not is unimportant. What is important is that this is a permanent, lifetime relationship.

The last word is the Hithpael imperfect of Bōwsh (ש ו  ). The Hithpael is reflexive action in the Piel (intensive stem); that is, the man and the woman act upon themselves (or, in this case, due to the negative, they do not act upon themselves). The word mens to be ashamed, disappointed, disconcerted, to feel shame, to be confounded. When we sin or fail, we are often disconcerted or we are ashamed of what we have done or confused by what we did. We may feel humiliated or disgraced in public. Adam and his woman felt none of these things. There is no indication that they are aware of the angels watching them, but they are aware of Jesus Christ in the garden and they are aware of each other; but in a state of innocence, there is no guilt or disappointment because they have done nothing wrong. They were created naked and they have no need of privacy. This is not a call to nudism. Contextually, they are innocent and in the Garden of Eden. No nudist colony can remove the old sin nature which is inside of us. We cannot recapture the Garden of Eden by some overt change which we make. We are not one step closer to perfection because we can wander about in public without clothing. This is a state of being which comes with perfection and innocence.

Introduction: Chapter 3 brings the fall of man. As was mentioned in the previous chapter, we do not know how long this state of innocence lasted. It is possible that man's fall occurred within the week. I like to think of it as a long time; a decade or a century, but that is personal romanticism. Because we cannot put a time on the birth of Cain relative to man's total existence, we cannot get a fix on this time period. The best we can do is speculate: Adam is 130 years old when he sired Seth (Gen. 5:5), who is not necessarily his third child and not necessarily even his third male child (although that is most likely). If Adam had sired Cain and Abel and daughters within the previous decade or two and if his age was calculated upon his beginning in the garden, then man may have spent a century in the Garden of Eden in a state of innocence. Adam and the woman had settled down into some sort of a routine and that routine sometimes included time away from each other, even in perfect environment without two old sin natures. They had both been carefully instructed by Jesus Christ in the garden not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perfect environment for them included being taught knowledge (or, Bible doctrine if you will) by Jesus Christ in the garden, time together and time alone, sex, eating, enjoying the view and no children.

The angels and Satan had the earth under observation. Satan is intelligent beyond what we can imagine, although he is not omniscient. We can be certain that he carefully planned his attack. We do not know how many other attacks which he made upon the man and the woman. He had one objective, however, and that was to get man and the woman to sin against God. He and his demon troops had all been sentenced to spend eternity in the Lake of Fire and he appealed this decision. He was certainly filled with rage and jealousy against man and this idyllic existence. First of all, the man enjoyed sex with his right woman, something which Satan never had the opportunity to do. Then, although man was weak and stupid by comparison, he enjoyed a life far better than Satan would ever enjoy. See the doctrine of the Fall of Satan. What was Satan's objective here? Very likely, he wanted to show how unfair God would be to Adam and the woman when they sinned just as God had been so unfair to Satan for his sin. Satan judged God's objectives, motives and decisions based upon his own fallen nature and made false conclusions based upon his false assumptions. At this time, Satan had no idea how long human history would last; how long until he would be cast into the Lake of Fire; nor did he know that God would come to earth as a man and pay for Adam's sin and every subsequent sin of mankind. Satan, in his arrogance, just wanted to stir up trouble. It would seem likely that Satan even sat back and observed for a time being, hoping that Adam would, of his own free will, choose against God and take from the forbidden tree.

Satan enters into the body of the serpent (possibly an extinct animal; more than likely it is a snake since the same word continues to occur in the Old Testament). God does not allow Satan to manifest himself bodily to the woman at this point because he is a creature of tremendous beauty and he has a marvelous personality and he would have charmed the woman into whatever course of action he chose due to his incredible presence. However, we do have a precedence set here: Satan begins by using demon possession and speaking in tongues. The serpent takes on the characteristics of Satan.

Now the serpent was more crafty [subtle or cunning] than any beast in the wild which Yahweh God has made. He then said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from every tree of the garden'?" [Gen. 3:1]

All animals have some sort of intelligence, but the serpent was crafty because it was indwelt by Satan. There is possibly even a bit of mockery and tongue-in-cheek here. The serpent is even smarter and craftier than the other members of the animal kingdom. This is a status achieved by Satan: craftier than the other animals. The word for crafty is ‛ârūwm (ם  ר ע ) [(h)aw-room'] and it means subtle, crafty, shrewd, cunning, sly and sensible. Whether it is used in a good sense or a bad sense is determined by context. It is found in Proverbs in a good sense. Satan's attack was certainly subtle. He attacks the woman. There are no threats, no attempt to cause her fear (which might not have been possible). He just talks to the woman; explores the thoughts of her soul. He wants to know how she feels. "This is your garden, honey, and God has not allowed you to eat from every tree? Now, just how do you feel about that?" This recorded passage is not every conversation that the woman had with Satan nor is it the entirety of this particular conversation. Since there is no indication that any animal ever spoke (nor do they have the vocal cords which have the ability to speak as we do), Satan then must have been allowed by God to either alter the vocal cords or to throw his voice, as it were. The first thing out of his mouth was certainly not about the tree. He had to talk to the woman so that she would not be frightened or confused because an animal was speaking to her and then he needed to get her confidence. This possibly involved several conversations prior to this time; or this could be midway through his first conversation with her. Satan is exceptionally brilliant and his attack on perfect environment had to be clever. He does not go to the man. He spots a vulnerability in the woman and exploits that vulnerability. He also has noticed that Adam is vulnerable through the woman. However, at this point, Satan may not care about Adam's decision. Whether Adam follows her in sin or whether he remains in a state of perfection; either outcome would very likely fit into Satan's incompletely formed plan. He just wants at least one of these creatures who occupy his one-time realm, to fall and sin against God. Satan speaking is in the Qal imperfect, indicating an ongoing conversation; however, God said is in the Qal perfect, implying a finality and a mandate which may not be altogether fair.

Indeed is the Hebrew word ’aph (ף א ) [pronounced af] and it is a conjunction which introduces a new, emphatic thought. It can be translated also, indeed, really. Thieme renders this conjunction is it really true that. Satan does not even refer to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He will allow the woman to bring it up. He is speaking as though he has heard this rumor and he's just curious whether or not it is true. The woman answers the serpent:

And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or else you will die.'" [Gen. 3:2–3]

The woman reveals that either she has not been listening or she has had a doctrinal breakthrough which she has been dying to share with someone. God never said anything about touching the tree. This reminds me of the story Garrison Keilor would tell about the pump handle in back of the grade school in winter. If you put your tongue on it, your spit would freeze and you might have to stay there all winter. Therefore, the younger kids, fully aware of these consequences would not go back there unless they had to, and if they did, they would keep their mouths firmly shut at all times. So the woman thought that she had better not even touch it. The property of death was not inherent in the tree but in her volition with respect to the tree. She does not mention the title of the tree, and she is even a little confused on the doctrine of what will actually happen. She does not say in dying you will die, she merely says that you will be dying. This is in the imperfect voice, so that incomplete action is implied. Satan knows that he has her now. She has misquoted God's Word. She does not even have the gist of it. This indicates that she is not paying close attention in Bible class. Even Satan will correctly quote God's Word (and then negate it).

And the serpent said to the woman, "It is not true that in a state of death that you will begin to die!" [Gen. 3:4]

Dying is used twice in this verse. It is used in exactly the way Yahweh Elohim used the verb in Gen. 2:17. It is first found in the Qal infinitive absolute along with a negative, and then in the Qal imperfect second masculine plural. An infinitive absolute acts as a verbal noun and it can be used to intensify a meaning or to complement a meaning. We have come to a full understanding of spiritual and temporal death, and therefore translate these two words in a state of death, you will begin to die. Satan adds a negative to the Qal infinitive absolute, and could be cumbersomely translated, It is not true that in a state of death you will die. This could be shortened to in dying, you will not die. Note also that when God spoke these words originally to Adam, the suffix was the second masculine singular; however, when Satan speaks to the woman, he uses the second masculine plural, telling her that neither she nor Adam would die. Thieme, at one time, gave the rather free translation, "the wages of sin isn't death, honey; eat". Satan continues lying to the woman:

"For God knows that in the day you [both] eat from it, your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." [Gen. 3:5]

This is the beginning of false religion. God has a clearly revealed will here. There is no mistaking what He has told Adam and the woman. Just as there is no mistaking what we are told over and over again in the New Testament: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. I have put together roughly 4–5 pages of verses which say basically that. That is probably the most basic mandate of the Bible yet cults and religion deny it; they deny the Lord who bought them, and substitute in a set of works. Adam and the woman had one negative mandate to test their volition, and it was to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Satan, as the father of religion, ignores or distorts God's revealed truth and offers in replacement his own works or theology. He has told the woman that she will come to be as smart as God. He does not deny that the tree will provide the knowledge of good and evil; but that the result of knowing good and evil will be different than that which God outlined. Let me offer an analogy: parents will protect their children as long as they can from the way that the world is. There is no need to expose them to obscene language or to profanity; no need for them to be confused by excessive violence or by the misuse of sex; no need for them to be faced with drugs. Parents will try to keep these things from their children as long as possible, even though these things are found out there in the real world. It is impossible to keep a child from these things for their entire life because we do live in the devil's world and we are faced with his distortions of God's provisions daily; however, most parents, if they could protect their children from association with any of these things up until the child is 14 or 18 or even 21, they would. There is no need for our children to be faced at a young age, in innocence, as it were, to inappropriate language, violence, sex and drugs. We certainly, as the time comes, give outlines of mandates concerning these things. This is analogous to Yahweh God in the garden with Adam and the woman. They had no need to be faced with Satan's fall or Satan's system or Satan's religions. God had provided them a perfect, idyllic existence in the Garden of Eden. They had everything they needed and what Satan did or thought was not an issue to them; just as the immorality or viciousness of humankind is not an issue to a four-year-old child..

Although speaking just to the woman, Satan includes the man in on these conversations. All of the second person references and suffixes are in the plural. He said, "You [plural] will be like God [plural]; knowers of good and evil." As Thieme has said many times; the woman did not become as smart as God; she instead found out how smart God was. So the woman goes up and inspects the tree carefully. In one verse we find a change in life as has never been seen since in human history. In the space of a few minutes, the bodies fo Adam and the woman will change, the world will change, and corruption, degeneration and decay will become a part of life.

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it [was] desirable to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to cause one to be wise; she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her man with her and he ate. [Gen. 3:6]

The word for good is the same one as is found in Gen. 1:10,12 & 18. In fact, so is the word for saw or observed (which is found in the Qal imperfect in all three verses. What is different is that God observed that it was (Qal perfect tense) and there is no corresponding verb in v. 6. The perfect tense is a completed action and what He created was completely and totally good. The woman does not use this verb. She examines the tree and notes to herself, good for food. The word translated a delight or pleasant to the eyes is ta’avâh ( א ו ה ) [pronounced tah-av-aw'] and it means more than just pleasant. It means desirable or something which causes lust or longing for. There is a similar (in meaning) verb found in the Niphal (passive voice): châmad ( ח מ ד ) [pronounced khaw-mad']. It means to be desired. Both words can be used in a good and a bad sense. The woman, after careful study of the tree and the fruit, takes the fruit

and eats. She suddenly realizes that she has done something wrong. She suddenly has a conscience and recognizes that there is good and evil in this world. This acted upon her as sin acts upon us. Our fellowship with God is immediately broken when we sin. Her fellowship with God was broken immediately at the eating of this fruit. She has several options before her, but her option of choice is to find the man and put him into the same boat as she. She has been deceived, although God made it clear as to what was acceptable and what was not. She broke the only negative commandment of God and is in a state of confusion. Satan, upon seeing man in the Garden of Eden, with the woman, in perfect environment and in a state of bliss, chose to do whatever he could to cause man to fall; to be in the same position that he is in. The woman will react to her own fall the same way. Rather than go to Adam and discuss this, she brings the fruit to him. This may have been the first ultimatum given by a woman to a man and it may have been an unspoken ultimatum. God does not reveal this to us. However, there is no confusion with Adam. He has not been deceived. He knows exactly what the issue is. Any man who has ever been head over heels in love understands what Adam does in this verse. There is a clear-cut choice for him. He has seen animal after animal when he named them and recognized that there was no one in the animal kingdom for him. It was when God brought the woman to him that he realized and recognized his lifetime counterpart. There are no singles bars; there are no other options that he is aware of; there is one woman for Adam; woman that he is in love with and desires beyond anything else in the world, and she stands before him holding the fruit that Yahweh God has specifically told him not to eat. He knows that the woman has partaken of the fruit. Even if the woman did not say a thing to Adam, the very fact of her holding the fruit before him has told him that she has eaten from the tree. Now he has to decide between his creator and what God created for him. He has to decide between the love of his life and Jesus Christ in the garden. He does not fully understand the outcome of what he is about to do, but he does recognize that he has a choice that is clear-cut: Jesus Christ or the woman. Adam chose; as federal head of the human race, he chose for all of us at that time. Just as when a president declares war on a country and congress approves, we are at war with that country because they act as our federal heads. Adam was so much in love with the woman and was so worried that he might lose her, that he chose her above everything else.

We all have free will and we all make choices; some which have devastating effect on our lives for decades. Those who at a young age became involved with drugs or illicit sex have caused themselves problems with far-reaching results. With drugs, there are portions of our brains which might not ever function up to par ever again. With pre-marital sex, we might lose out on the right person designed by God for us. We might be out fornicating with some inconsequential person while our right person persistently is knocking on our door. After awhile, that person gives up and we are left with emptiness and swinging at the wind. Adam had no concept as to the long-term effect of his sin. He did know his Creator, however, and God told Adam emphatically not to eat of the tree. There are certain mistakes that we make with our lives; even fundamental mistakes that we make after salvation; after our teen years. There have been wonderful marriages and families destroyed by adultery. One of the purposes of filling our souls with doctrine is that not only do we know what the prohibitions are but we know why and the rationale behind these prohibitions. We have a better grasp on the longevity of our mistakes and might chose for once not to make stupid mistakes because we have a well-rounded view of what the sin is and the results of that sin. Certainly, the more we know about God's Word, the more prohibitions that we learn; but we also learn why these are prohibitions. It is much easier to listen when someone tells you that something is hot and that you will burn yourself than it is to find that out first-hand.

With a human conscience and being out of fellowship with God, Adam and the woman begin acting in accordance with their new found conscience. I hate to make this analogy because it is not an exact analogy, but dogs do not realize that they are naked and this never bothers them whether they are in a crowd or alone. Adam and the woman were naked and it did not bother them to be that way before the animal kingdom, before Jesus Christ, before each other; and, if they were aware of the angelic kingdom, before the angels. Clothes were not an issue to them. This is not an argument for nudism. That is not the point. Nudists recognize that they are naked. Even a nudist would be embarrassed to be au natural in certain places and under certain circumstances. However, this had never been an issue to Adam and the woman until now.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made for themselves loin coverings. [Gen. 3:7]

We find here the first act of human good. Whether they covered themselves up or continued to go without clothes; that is a non-issue. The issue here was that they ate of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They do not think about Jesus Christ; they have forgotten about Him almost entirely. Their fellowship with God is broken and it will require God to restore this fellowship. God will have to seek them out. God will have to clothe them. He will need to cover their naked sinfulness. However, their sinfulness cannot be covered with a loin cloth made out of any material other than animal skins; and the animal must be an animal without spot and without blemish, an animal guilty of no wrongdoing; an animal which speaks of Jesus Christ who would go to the cross and die on behalf of this sin.

And they heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the spiritual portion of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Yahweh God in the forest of the garden. [Gen. 3:8]

Tree is in the singular, but then it is in the singular back in Gen. 1:11. It behaves like our word forest—it can in the singular refer to trees in the collective sense. Walking and hid are both in the Hithpael stem, which is reflexive. The time of day in the NASB is translated as the cool of the day (or, the wind breeze of the day). The New Revised Standard Version calls this at the time of the evening breeze. Even the Emphasized Bible gives several similar renderings. The Amplified Bible doesn't amplify anything here. It is just cool of the day. I mentions this to show how having several translations does not always give you a better idea of what is being presented. Certainly, you're thinking, big deal, it's moderately chilly, there's a breeze in the air and maybe it's daytime or early evening; I've got the gist of it. There are two nouns here, the second one being the common noun for day and found in Gen. 1:5,8,14,19, etc. The first word found here is rūach or rûwach (חַר ) [pronounced roo'-akh]. Ruwach has several meanings and this word has already occurred in Genesis 1:2 and it can be translated wind, breath or breeze, but it is usually translated spirit. This is the spiritual part of the day; this is when God came to talk with Adam and the woman in the garden; to have fellowship with them and to teach them. God's Word, good food, right man/right woman and sex were all a part of perfect environment. What is indicated by this phrase is that there was a particular portion of the day devoted to fellowship with God. You cannot grow spiritually on Sunday worship service; nor can you grow spiritually by attending Sunday worship, Sunday school and Sunday evenings. We are continually inundated with human viewpoint; every person that we talk to, everything that we read and everything that we see on television is filled with human viewpoint. We are constantly bathed in the devil's world with human viewpoint. We are brainwashed and socially conditioned to think in certain ways; to believe certain things. Take any page of the newspaper, any ten minutes on television, any five-minute conversation with another person. You are receiving a way of thinking, a standard that you are to adhere to in the devil's world and it is wrong. Often there is just enough truth mixed in there to make it palatable. We only have one line of defense and that is God's Word. There is only one way to live in this devil's world and it begins with our thinking. If Adam and the woman required fellowship with God and spiritual truth on a daily basis to where there was a specific time period set aside for this; then how much more do we as Christians need this fellowship and feeding on the Word?

The man and the woman have been receiving Bible teaching from Jesus Christ in the garden for perhaps a century and they do not remember that God is omnipresent. They do not flee the garden because that is their home. This is not unlike hiding in a closet or the attic of one's home. They do not call out to God; they do not present themselves to God. They are in a fallen state. They do not know how to have fellowship with God nor do they desire fellowship with God. God will have to make all of the first moves in order restore fellowship in this new world. Therefore, God will call to them.

Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, "Where are you?" [Gen. 3:9]

God must speak first and He calls to the man, as the federal head of the earth. God is omniscient and He knows where they both are, but He must open the lines of communication. God must always reach out to us to provide us a grace means or a non-meritorious way to have fellowship or to restore fellowship with Him. God's question is a simple interrogative adverb with a second person, masculine singular suffix.

And he said, "I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself." [Gen. 3:10]

Even though the sound of you sounds stilted in the English, this is perhaps the best way to translate this phrase. Your voice sounds better, but Adam and the woman hide themselves when they here Jesus Christ walking in the garden. Note what occurs; Adam is fearful, an emotion that he has never had before; and he immediately justifies himself (which he will continue to do throughout this chapter). He possessed no shame or regret prior to his fall. Being naked before God and before his right woman was not an issue. He has always been naked and at this point in time, he is covered with a loin cloth, so he is not even naked now. And note, more importantly, he does not tell God that he is hiding because he ate of the fruit. God knows all of what has happened. His speaking to the man is to restore fellowship and to pass judgement on the man and the woman. However, the facts must be clearly stated for the man, and the woman and for all angelic creation. This is the purpose of the subsequent interrogation.

And He said, "Who revealed to you [or caused you to know] that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?" [Gen. 3:11]

The verb often translated told is the Hiphil perfect of the Hebrew word nāghadh or nâgad (דַגֶנ) [pronounced naw-gad'] and it means to be conspicuous. The Hiphil stem is the causative stem. Adam has been caused to know something, his nakedness has been made conspicuous to him or declared and revealed to him. As far as Adam is concerned, there is no one to tell him that he is naked other than Jesus Christ in the garden. We have no indication that Adam spoke to Satan in any form (although that would have been possible). Adam knows that he is naked because he has eaten from the tree and Adam knows that God knows this because he covered himself. God was never confused as to what happened; He knew what would happen in eternity past. He is not interrogating the man for the purpose of information; he is by-passing any lying and as many side-issues as possible. Adam will certainly pass the buck and blame everyone else in his vicinity, but God has at least headed him off at the pass when it comes to lying. Eaten and commanded are both in the perfect tense, meaning completed action; God left a standing command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and when Adam ate of the tree, it was a completed action, not to be repeated and with permanent results.

And the man said, "The woman, whom You gave [to be] with me, she gave me from the tree and I ate." [Gen. 3:12]

Adam has been immediately transformed from being a man to a child with several excuses. He blames the woman because she gave the fruit to him. He is not even going to give the woman's side of the story or cover up what she did; he blames the affair on her, the one he loves, and then blames God because God gave the woman to him. The word for gave is the same word in this verse and both times it is in the Qal perfect to match the two Qal perfects in the previous verse. According to Adam, he just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was just standing there, minding his own business when God drops a woman in his lap and then the woman drops the forbidden fruit into his hand. There is no inherent nobility in Adam; he does not immediately take responsibility for his actions.

At this point in time, Satan is quite pleased with himself. He did not attack the man directly. Had he deceived the man, the man's responsibility would have been lessened (but not eliminated). Furthermore, since the man was the head of the earth, he could have commanded the woman to eat of the fruit and her volition would not have been involved. The woman is to obey the man and her disobedience to God would have been a non-issue. However, the woman still chose to eat of the tree of her own free will, although she was deceived by Satan (at that point in time, it was unknown that anyone would lie). Adam took of the fruit knowing exactly the responsibility of his action. Satan did to. Satan wanted them to be in as deep a water as he was in. I don't think that he had a clearly-formed plan other than to make certain that the man and the woman fell. Very likely one of his arguments was So what if I fell; I can fix everything. Just give me a portion of the universe to hang in and I'll be fine. Perhaps he said, I'll never do it again. However, this incident, along with the rest of human history reveals to us that Satan cannot be allowed to roam the universe freely. He will be in chains through the millennium (which is one of the reasons there is perfect environment), but when he is released, he will immediately lead a rebellion against perfect environment. Once a creature has fallen, he is a danger to the entire universe. Satan, in his arrogance and vindictiveness, will not allow any of God's creation to live unspoiled. Apparently, when innocence rebels against God, there is a fundamental change in its nature. This cannot be strictly a natural law, because God sets up the laws of the universe. However, this has to be a logical result which is fully compatible with God's essence. In fact, this fundamental change in a fallen creature's nature and God's judgement and punishment of same has to be. Any other result would be totally incompatible with God's character. The only modification possible to these results would be for a person, undeserving of punishment, to receive our punishment and the judgement for our sins; to endure the hell which we certainly deserve. That is the only basis for our pardon.

Then the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." [Gen. 3:13]

Jesus Christ continues His inquiry. This is not because He doesn't know what has occurred; God is omniscient and He knows all of the facts. This is for the court record and for the benefit of all angelic and human creation. The facts will be presented and then God will render His decision. He began with Adam because Adam was the ruler of the earth. God put him in charge (Gen. 1:28). He will allow the buck to be passed and then God will handle to judgement in the reverse order. Even though these creatures will blame someone else and think that they are off the hook; God's judgement will leave no one off the hook.

Satan has already been tried and convicted. He is in the midst of his appeal trial. God will stop with the woman and pronounce judgement. God has heard all of Satan's appeals already. Even the serpent will receive a judgment of sorts; which is more symbolic perhaps than a real judgement. Don't misunderstand me; God certainly did judge the serpent and there were real results; however, the purpose of the judgement was more symbolic than judicial (however, this is just an educated guess on my part).

And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you are more cursed than all of cattle [and more cursed] than every beast of the field. On your belly you shall walk and the dust you shall eat." [Gen. 3:14]

"And I will put hostility between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise Him on the heel." [Gen. 3:15]

This is the first foreshadowing of the cross. Jesus Christ is the seed of the woman. In His incarnation, He will not have a biological father. He will be born of a virgin. This is more than just a sign. When we are born, we have a human father and this father passes onto us the old sin nature. The father determines our sex without any input whatsoever from the mother; similarly, because Adam sinned deliberately, making a clear, free-will choice, a choice which was not subject to fraud or misrepresentation; he therefore passes on the old sin nature, as do all of his sons. It is found in the father's sperm and this contaminates every egg. Because of this the old sin nature is found in each and every cell of the human body. There is one exception and that is the egg of the mother. Because the woman sinned under deception, she will carry within her body a perfect, undefiled egg, each and every month. Jesus Christ, because He was born of a virgin, was born without inheriting the old sin nature from the male. He was still tempted as we are, but He resisted all temptation. Our Savior must be without sin; otherwise He could not die for our sins because He would have to die for His own sin. Because of all this, Jesus Christ is called the seed of the woman. The serpent's seed refers to all unbelievers. The Bible does not teach the universal fatherhood of God. Those who are unbelievers take after their father, Satan (Matt. 13:38 John 8:31–44 Acts 13:10 I John 3:10).

Unfortunately, The New English Bible reads: I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your brood and hers. They shall strike at your head and you shall strike at their heel. This translation completely confuses those who read this version. There is no they in this verse. The verb, shûwph ( פ   ) [pronounced shoof] means to greatly injure or wound, to bruise, to grind, to snap at. Almost every lexicon gives a different meaning for this verb. It is used twice in this verse and the meaning in both cases should be to wound or to inflict serious injury to. The New English Bible ignores the parsing of the verb. The first use of shuwph is the third person masculine singular with a second person masculine suffix, and it means he shall wound you(r head). The second use of this word is in the second masculine singular with a third masculine singular suffix, meaning (and) you shall wound him (his heel). The point here is that there is no plural. In fact, every verb and noun is in the singular in this verse. The seed of the woman is not Christians, Jews or good people; it is Jesus Christ in His incarnation. The serpent is Satan. When a one crushes (or greatly injures) the head of a snake, he kills the snake. Jesus Christ will greatly wound Satan when Satan is locked away in prison for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2–3) and then after he is released, Jesus Christ will throw him into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:10) However, when Satan wounds Christ on the heel, Jesus Christ will die, enduring on the cross an eternity of hells on our behalf. However, when He is finished, He will be raised from the dead to sit on the right hand of God for eternity (Matt. 19:28 Rev. 3:21).

To the woman, He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception. In pain, you will bring forth sons; yet your craving shall be toward your man and he will rule over you." [Gen. 3:16]

The KJV, the NRSV and the NASB and most other translations translate a portion of this as "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth" (or words to that effect). Since there is an incredible amount of pain associated with childbirth, many translators have allowed this translation to stand. However, it is literally your pain and your conception. The next phrase tells us that there would be pain in childbirth. The literal translation is, in pain, you will bring forth sons rather than bring forth children. In perfect environment, there was no pain or suffering and there was no childbirth. Both of these came as a result of the woman's eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The Hebrew word translated desire or craving is t^eshûwqâh ( ה ק  ש  ) [pronounced tesh-oo-kaw']. This is a very rare word in the Old Testament, found only three times (also in Gen. 4:7 and SOS 7:10). It refers to an intense desire. Although there is a Hebrew word for husband, it is not found in this verse. This is the word for man as separate from woman. It does refer to Adam as her husband; but better as her right-man. A normal woman will crave her right man to the point of obsession. In a degenerate society where the males do not behave with honor and the females make a great many poor choices, this becomes distorted. The result is lesbianism, women's liberation and other indicators of confusion. These things are as much the fault of the man as they are of the woman. Nevertheless, the principle stands. And even in a degenerate society, the majority of the women will still crave their right man. Sometimes, all they have is an image, distorted by their old sin nature; but the woman still craves and chases that image.

Even though the woman was deceived, she still is responsible for her decisions. This is an important principle in marriage, because when many women are married, they have been deceived by the man that they marry. They are still responsible for this decision. Because of the way that God designed the soul of the woman, she has a safety device to keep her from being deceived. That is the man as her ruler. When a woman begins to think about marriage, the first thing that she should contemplate is can I subjugate my will to this man for the rest of my life? Do I have enough respect and trust in this man to allow him to rule over me as though he is my God, my Lord and master? If she has any reservations in this regard, then she should not get married. The woman is under the rulership of the man in marriage because (1) the first woman allowed Satan to deceive her in the garden and she choose directly in opposition to God's stated will and, (2) because Adam was created first and the woman was created for him. There is no inferiority or superiority implied here. Nor is this to be a dominance of a cruel and unjust or tyrannical nature. Nor is every man the ruler of every woman. It is the right man is the ruler over his right woman and that only with her consent. I have no personal ax to grind in this respect nor is it my intense desire to have the power to rule over another person. It is what the Bible says: and he shall rule over you. It is a matter of God's plan. This does not mean that a woman has no authority. I have worked under a half a dozen women and, like men, some exercised their authority properly and intelligently and some did not. Most I had a great personal respect for and never felt inferior or out of God's plan because they had authority over me.

What we have here is a careful balance designed by God to protect the woman and to protect the woman's soul. She has a craving toward her right man and he is to rule over her. If she can balance that craving with a conscious choice to subjugate her will to this man, then she has likely chosen the correct person to marry. If she only feels an intense desire, but cannot submit to his authority, then she needs to reevaluate her choice. Then she is operating under libido, a desire for security and under the image but not the reality of her right man. Even under tremendous desire, the right man will honor the right woman and treat her with respect. The woman must recognize this and be able to determine when it is genuine and when it is an act. Again, this goes back to the delicate balance of craving and authority.

Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to [and obeyed] the voice of your woman and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; the ground is cursed because of you; in difficult toil [and pain] you will eat of it all the days of your life." [Gen. 3:17]

As in the previous verse, there is no word for wife here, but these are the words for man and woman as are found in Gen. 2:23. In our degenerate times, some have rebelled against the concept of ownership in marriage, but this verse as well as v. 16 speaks of your man and your woman. There is a possessiveness which works both ways for a man and a woman.

Adam sinned deliberately under his own free will. God did not create Adam to sin; He created Adam perfect and placed him into perfect environment. But God did give him the ability to chose for or against His mandates. God has the ability to create beings with free will. Just as Adam had free will in the garden, we have free will today. There has developed a lot of theological controversy over the centuries about God's sovereignty and man's free will. The Armenians believe that man's free will is so powerful that it can undo perfect salvation; that is, by a few wrong choices, man can undermine the work of Christ on the cross in his behalf and lose his salvation. The Calvinists (although, not necessarily Calvin, from what I understand) believe that God's sovereignty is too powerful for man's free will to exist and that every move that we make is under God's direction, in accordance with His perfect plan. If we choose to believe in Jesus Christ and then to lead a reasonable Christian life, it is because God granted us the free will choice to do so; and those who do not are just operating under their own natural volition, for which they will spend eternity in the Lake of Fire. It is for our choices that we are responsible. God has the ability to create man with an actual free will, whether in a fallen or a perfect state. Because we have free will, we are completely responsible for our free will.

Listened is the Qal perfect of shâma‛ (ע מ ש ) [pronounced shaw-mah'] and it can be the simple word for listen, but in this context, it means to listen and to obey. The old English has a terrific word for this: hearken. Unfortunately, hearken is old English. God makes it very clear as to the act of disobedience here and in v. 11.

The Hebrew word for man is âdâm and the Hebrew word for land is âdâmâh. Adam was born knowing the words for man and land. Man is naturally in the masculine singular and land is in the feminine singular. The poetical nature of his statement in Ge. 2:23 is even more striking because man was called ’âdâm because he was taken out of âdâmâh (the earth or the ground) and Adam called the woman ishah because she was taken out of ish (man). Man was taken out of the ground (singular feminine) and the woman was taken out of man (singular masculine). Adam added a feminine ending to Ish to set up a grammatical parallel and a parallelism of origin.

When man was created, tending the garden was a pleasure and exercise. He enjoyed doing it. Although he could eat from the trees and find nourishment and food in the way of fruit, God gave him the opportunity to do some gardening. This form of relaxation and exercise will become necessary and a burden. ‛Itstsâbôwn ( ן  ב צ ע ) (pronounced its-tsaw-bone'] is found here, in relationship to farming, in Gen. 5:29, where it is used in the same sense, and in Gen. 3:16 as the first word for pain. It means pain, painful, difficult and toil. The very ground from which Adam was taken; the ground that he has enjoyed for perhaps a century as a gardener, gardening for leisure and for exercise, will turn on him. Whereas it wa a joy and it was easy, this will all change. The earth had become cursed. This is the point at which God put into motion the first or the second law of thermodynamics: that all matter proceeds from order to disorder. What God has warned Adam and the woman that "in a state of death you will die." This pronouncement of judgement is an explanation in detail as to what that statement meant. Adam's state of death is primarily spiritual. He will have a separation from God as we have, and a bondage to the earth which is also in a state of decay. In this state of death, he will degenerate physically and eventually die.

"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face, you will eat food until you return to the ground, because from it you were taken—for you are dust; and to dust you will return." [Gen. 3:18–19]

Gardening for Adam will change from a pleasure to a toilsome necessity. To bring forth is in the Hiphil imperfect, meaning that God will cause the ground to continually bring forth thorns and thistles. Since our word you can be plural or singular, I should point out that all of the Hebrew suffixes are second masculine singular in this verse. God is speaking directly to Adam and placing these judgements upon him. God spends the longest time with Adam because he laid down the law to Adam and the man sinned knowingly. These same curses will apply to the entire human race.

Under perfect environment, there were no thorns or thistles; there was no pain; there was no childbirth; there was no spiritual separation from God; there was no physical death. It is even possible that Adam and the woman did not even know what some of these things were. They may have had only a vague concept as to what thorns and thistles were, or pain. In the Hebrew, plants is actually in the singular. To get a feel for the singular use, you may substitute in herbage or production.

By the sweat of your face is different in the Hebrew than I would have expected. Sweat is a feminine singular noun (sweat can also be masculine) with an attached preposition. Your is the second masculine singular suffix (referring to Adam) of face, which is masculine dual or plural. I do not know of any translation which takes all of this into account. Furthermore, face is more often rendered nostrils (Gen. 2:7), nose and even anger (as in, nostrils flaring as a sign of anger). I would have expected the sweat of your brow instead. The dual is easily explained if one translates this by the sweat of your nostrils. Why the feminine fro sweat rather than the masculine eludes me except as a reference to the woman who gave Adam the fruit. In any case, whereas gardening was a pleasure for Adam, it will become a chore. In order to eat, he must work and work will often be difficult. Many translations read you will eat bread. They are not invalid because the Hebrew word can mean food or bread. It is specifically used for bread in the Levitical offerings. We do not know if Adam and the woman had learned how to make bread from wheat. To examine wheat and then to see the finished product as bread, one can't help but wonder what were they thinking? How did anyone come up with this? Personally, I could have grown wheat for a thousand years and not figured out how to make bread from it. I am even wondering at this point whether God taught Adam and the woman how to make bread. There was no leaven and there were no ovens so this would not have tasted like Mrs. Baird's bread. However, considering the difference of environment, it is likely that their bread tasted incredible. It gives me a thought about leaven also. I have often wondered why leavening was considered to be a symbol of evil, and therefore not allowed during Passover. However, leaven is a sign of the new world, the world after the fall; the world after the flood. It is associated with Noah's and, later, Lot's drunkenness.

Dust is dry earth and God took from this dry earth, added water, created a soul and spirit, and thereby created man. Man will now decay and eventually end up back as the elements of the earth. Dust here is a symbol of judgement, of degradation, as we saw in Gen. 3:14 (see also Gen. 18:27, Job 16:15 and Isa. 47:1).

Now the man called the woman Eve, because she was the mother of all living. [Gen. 3:20]

You can tell that Adam has gone through a transformation. His original designation for the woman was the beautiful word ishah. This word is Chavvâh ( ה  ח ) [pronounced khav-vaw'

] which is not nearly as beautiful or poetic. Still, even in their fallen state, Adam and the woman had similar feelings about births as do we, with the added hope that this would be the one to deliver them from their fallen states. The verb for the word to live is châyâh ( ה י ח ) [pronounced chaw-yaw'

]. In their excitement of the anticipation of a child (it is likely that they had observed this in the animal kingdom), Adam names the woman Chavah (Eve). While it does not match the poetical beauty and irony of her first name, it is still a reasonable name. From whence do we derive the name Eve? The Greek word for Chavvah is Eὕα, which is pronounced Hway'-aw making it a transliteration there is no v or w in the Greek as there is in the Hebrew). However, it looks like Eve, so perhaps it was a semi-arbitrary choice of an early translator which has been followed through the ages (here, I am only guessing).

More importantly, is this story allegorical? It is a made up story to explain some truth? There are enough real life experiences recorded in Genesis to make one more which is merely a story unnecessary. Furthermore, Jesus alluded to the historicity of Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6–8b, when He said, "But from the very beginning of creation, God made them male and female; for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and the two shall become one flesh." Whereas our Lord took time to explain His own parables and expound on truths found in the Old Testament (see Matt. 5:17–30), nowhere does He ever allude to the first few chapters of Genesis as some sort of an allegory or story. Paul, under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit, wrote, But I am concerned that, just as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, that your minds might be led astray from the integrity and purity of Christ (II Cor. 11:3). Also, under the ministry of the Spirit, Adam gives Timothy two reasons why the man is in authority over the woman: But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exert authority over a man, but to remain quiet, for [you see], it was Adam who was first created, then Eve. And [it was] not Adam who was deceived but the woman, being quite deceived, who fell into transgression. (I Tim. 12–14). The authority of the man is an issue which will survive throughout the ages along with the controversy over this authority. Paul settles the question here, quoting the historicity of creation and the fall as the reasons for this authority. This also precludes women from teaching in the church in positions of authority over men (male children are not men).

The designation of Eve as the mother of all living indicates that the creation of mankind is over and that all of humanity will proceed from Eve. Her is another area where people may have problems. This means that Jews, Blacks, Indians, Hispanics, Orientals and Caucasians (including Pollacks) have as their common ancestors Adam and Eve. This should not trouble the earnest Bible student, nor should it be a cause for dispute from the unbeliever. All the breeds of dogs have proceeded from a common ancestor—Christians and non-Christians will attest to that historical fact, and yet these dogs are different in coloration, size, figure, etc. They are all dogs and no one has bred a mouse or a cat from an original set of canine parents. The key is the isolation of certain genes in breeding. It is likely that man chose similar looking women with whom to raise a family and it is very likely at the confusion of the languages at the tower of Babel that God did not arbitrarily assign everyone a language, but kept that language within certain family groups. Instead of having everyone counting off and then assigning all one's this language, all two's that language, etc.; God likely isolated certain genetic types and families and gave these similar groupings the same language.

And the Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his woman, and clothed them. [Gen. 3:21]

Salvation has been the same from the first ones who sinned to the last. Adam and Eve's sins were paid for by Jesus Christ on the cross. They were given a temporary covering to shield them from God's judgement. God saw the skins of the sacrificial animals (the same word is used for the hides of sacrificial animals in Ex. 29:14 and Lev. 4:11) and passed over them for judgement. The skins were a covering, not for their nakedness, but for their sin. God looked to them and saw Jesus Christ on the cross, dying for their sins. Since this had not occurred historically, these skins were a temporary covering. An animal had to die; likely the first animal that Adam and Eve ever saw die, in order to make these skins. God could have made clothing out of cotton but this does not illustrate to them the salvation; the efficacy of the innocent dying on behalf of the guilty. Notice also that God is doing all of the work. He makes the garments for them and he clothes them. This sacrifice is seen again in Gen. 4:1–7 where Cain's sin is that he is presenting God with offerings from his own production rather than the sacrifice of an innocent animal. Cain, in fact, was the first animal rights activist, but more of that in the next chapter.

There is something about these four verses, vv. 20–23, which strikes me as inharmonious or stilted. I cannot put my finger on it. It seems as though the chronological order is lost. That, or that they are occurring simultaneously. God has passed judgement on the man and the woman and Adam goes back to his naming thing which he did the first day of his life. The Lord God, meanwhile, even as Adam is doing this, brings to them an animal and kills it before them and prepares the hide. Then, God the Father determines that they must be driven out of the garden. Right now, Jesus Christ is with them in the garden, but He cannot leave until he has removed them from the garden. Man has continually attempted to bypass the cross. How many billions of people refuse to take God's free gift of salvation, yet think that they should be allowed in God's presence after their death? They want to bypass the cross and still gain eternal life. So many people have tried to perpetuate their lives, no matter how miserable, by any means possible.

Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us

, knowing good from evil, and now, so that he does not stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat and live forever"—therefore, the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to serve the ground from which he was taken. [Gen. 3:22–23]

This quotation is exactly as it seems; it is fragmented, as if said in haste. God had to take immediate action. Adam could not be allowed to remain in the garden. Has become is the exact same word as found in Gen. 1:2, except that it is in the masculine gender here rather than the feminine. The Qal perfect means that this is an action which is complete. There is no process of action here; it has occurred once and for all. The tree of life would have perpetuated life, possibly forever, as this indicates. The man and the woman must shed their fallen natures and this cannot occur apart from physical death, otherwise they will perpetuate their spiritual death. They still have Jesus Christ, but the relationship has changed. The words take, eat and live are all in the Qal perfect. This means that these actions would be complete and irrevocable.

Adam was created with the express purpose to rule over the earth from which he was taken (Gen. 1:26) but now he will serve the earth. Serve is the same word as is found in Gen. 2:15, but it is no longer a joy but a necessity to his life; therefore serve is the proper rendering, in context.

So He drove the man out; and at the eat of the garden of Eden, He stationed the Cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. [Gen. 3:24]

Both the words sent in v. 23 and drove in v. 24 are in the Piel imperfect or intensive stem, imperfect action; that is, only a portion of the action is viewed or the action has not been completed. Although God keeps us from this tree of life, He provides us with another tree of life in the New Testament: Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins. The cross of Jesus Christ becomes our tree of life. The reason Adam was prevented from eating from the tree of life in the garden was that tree would perpetuate his life in a fallen state. The cross of Christ provides for us eternal life in a state of restored perfection.

One of the things which I have noticed is that there are details in the Bible of things which we have never seen and would have no reason to even know about if it were not in the Bible. For instance: the earth was originally watered by a mist arising from the ground and not by rain (Gen. 2:6). If man had written the Bible from man's viewpoint (particularly so-called primitive man), he would not have thought to include something which was not at all like our present state. This verse also includes information that we would not have known about. God set up angels to guard the Garden of Eden and to keep man from the tree of life. The angels use a flaming sword which turns in every direction to bar us from the garden. Exactly what this was; that is, whether Adam and Eve were prevented from seeing the entrance to the garden or seeing the garden at al because of this sword turning every way or whether this was similar to a road block to keep them out, we do not know. However, the Garden of Eden is not mentioned again in the Bible in the pre-deluvian civilization. We do not have man trying to steal into the garden to eat from the tree of life.

Introduction: Chapter 4 tells us the familiar story of Cain and Abel. We learn some things about sin that we did not realize in this chapter and about God's judgement of sin. We also see the first animal rights activist and the first religion of man.

Now the man had sexual relations with his woman, Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a man, the Lord

." [Gen. 4:1]

The first verb in the Qal perfect in v. 1 is yādha‘ ( ע ד י ) [pronounced yaw-dah' ], and it, like many of the words found in Genesis, is very common Hebrew. It means to know, to be known, to observe, to take note of, etc. It also means, in the proper context, to know in the sense of having sexual relations with. The Qal perfect means a completed action which yields results. I remember a letter in the Straight Dope of someone asking Cecil Adams at what point in time did man realize that copulation would result in having a child. Here is the answer to that question. The first parents understood that there was a relationship between sex and having children. The name Cain was likely a play on words, for which Adam and Eve were both known. Cain is Qayin ( ן יַק ) [pronounced kah'-yin] and she says that I have gotten (qânâh); qânâh (ה ָנ ָק) [pronounced kaw-NAWH] and means to purchase, to redeem, to buy, to get, to acquire. In Gen. 1:19, when God is called a possessor of heaven and earth (the Qal participle of qânâh), He possesses these because He bought them. This adds new meaning to the verse “I have gotten a man [from] the Lord.” (Gen. 4:1b), which is totally incorrect. It should read: “I have purchased a man—the Lord.” There was blood, there was pain—she endured the first labor and no one knew exactly what was occurring. She felt as though she had brought forth the Redeemer in all her pain and blood. Although the woman was wrong in what had occurred, she did understand that there was a purchasing which took place with blood and pain which was related to the Redeemer, Who would come through her. Strong’s #7069 BDB #888.

She very possibly took his name from its noun cognate, acquisition, which is the word qïnyân ( ן י נ ק ) [pronounced kin-yawn' ]. There is disagreement concerning the preposition here. The preposition is generally conceded to be with the help of (like all prepositions, it has several meanings). However, it appears as though the way I have translated it above is the most accurate (see The Emphasized Bible, p. 36 footnote). It is very likely that Eve expected her firstborn to be her savior, YHWH. How much she knew about her Savior to come, we do not know, but she does know that it will be her seed. This indicates that she knows it will be Jesus Christ in the garden who will be born of her and that He will be her Savior. She just happens to be wrong about who this son is and when Jesus Christ will come in the flesh.

Because many of the most ancient proper names have reasonable, corresponding meanings in the Hebrew language, it has been asserted that Hebrew may have been the original language. This is at best, speculation, and not necessarily important unless the Word of God chooses to speak to this issue. Proper nouns are sometimes carried from one language to another and adjusted to reflect their original meanings. It is also possible that the words from which they are derived also are transferred from language to language. However, that is enough speculation; if it was important that we knew the original language of man, God would have revealed it to us.

And again she gave birth to his brother, Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. [Gen. 4:2]

Again is not an adverb but a verb. It is the Hiphil imperfect of yâcaph ( ף ס י ) [pronounced yaw-saf' ] and it means to add to, to increase by, to have more. The Hiphil is the causative stem and this verb carries with it the singular feminine suffix. Eve was cause to increase or to add to her number of sons by one: Abel. The meaning of Abel's name is less certain, with possible suggestions of breath, fragility, vapor or son. It is quite likely that there was meaning to his name, but that has been lost over the millenniums which have passed.

We do not know how much guidance that Adam and Eve got from Jesus Christ when it came to raising their sons (and daughters, who are not mentioned). We do not have a set pattern of morality, examples of things which are wrong to help guide a child to do that which is right. The size of the society was small. The things that Cain or Abel might think of doing may not even occur to Adam and Eve. Christian parents think that their job of raising their children is difficult because of all the outer influences. God has provided us with clear guidelines when it comes to raising children and clear guidelines for what is right and wrong. We need only start with a child while he or she is young and correctly love and discipline them. And they must both go together; if there is no discipline, then there is no love; just like if there is no knowledge of Who and What God is, then there is no love, no matter how emotional the person gets.

It has been suggested by those who object to the historicity of Genesis that this is an allegory, revealing the enmity which exists between the farmer and the sheepherder. This is pure conjecture as most allegories have in mind to teach some principle. There is nothing being taught here. The villain, clearly Cain, is a farmer; but then so was his father, Adam. So it is not implied or stated that farming is wrong in any way or inferior to shepherding. Cain is called upon to account for his offering, which was not efficacious, and for his actions in killing Abel. His vocation is never an issue.

So it came to pass in the course of time that Cain brought an gift

to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Also, Abel, as well, on his part, brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his gift but for Cain and for his gift, He had no regard [lit., He did not look at it]. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. [Gen. 4:3–5]

Most people do not even have a clue as to what has occurred here. When I read this story as an unbeliever, it seemed particularly arbitrary. Cain has worked hard in his garden and he brings to God the best of his production as a sacrifice. It is possible that Cain does not want to harm an animal and would rather offer God a kinder and gentler offering. To me, in my unbelieving youth, it seemed as though what Cain was offering was reasonable and, if anything, commendable. The problem is that our human good and our human works mean nothing whatsoever to God. In fact, all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags in His sight (Isa. 64:6). This confuses the unbeliever and sometimes puts him off when it comes to Christianity. How can someone spend most of their life trying to do good for others, living sacrificially, thinking nice thoughts as often as possible; and then be condemned to eternity in hell? What kind of an arbitrary God is that and what kind of a religion would teach that? At this point in time, we have had one pronouncement of morality of which we are cognizant: do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This is the second; and the first recorded one for a fallen world. Fruits and vegetables, the works of man's hands, are not offerings that God will regard as efficacious. There must be a blood sacrifice. An innocent life must be given in order for God to accept the sacrifice. From the very beginning, God would have to send His Son, Jesus Christ to the cross to pay for our sins with His blood sacrifice, the innocent on behalf of the guilty. Every animal sacrifice was a shadow and spoke of this sacrifice which was real and still to come.

The offering brought by the two sons is an indication of the condition of their heart; that is, Abel recognizes that God expects blood sacrifice of the innocent for his covering and Cain does not. Cain thinks that he must work and do something difficult, and then give that to God. This is because, at least at this point in time, Cain is an unbeliever and Abel is a believer in Jesus Christ. Heb. 11:4 confirms this: By faith, Abel offered to God a superior sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God Himself giving approval to his gifts [i.e., his offering] and through it [his faith] even though he is dead, he still speaks." (Heb. 11:4). Abel's gift or offering showed that he was righteous. He believed in Jesus Christ and his gift was a witness to that faith. Even though he was killed, the quality of his offering due to his faith still stand as a testimony even until today. Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22b).

God has respect or regard for the offering of Abel but not for Cain. The word respect is the Hebrew word shâ‛âh ( ה ע ש ) [pronounced shaw-aw' ] and it means to simply gaze upon. By implication, it means to consider, to inspect, to look upon steadily with interest. When Abel brought his offering, God continued to look upon it with interest and regard (Qal imperfect) and when Cain brought his offering, the offering of his own works, God did not even look at it (Qal perfect). When Jesus Christ stopped appearing physically to man, we do not know. My personal picture here is that these two brothers see our Lord face to face (our Lord would be in human form or in the form of an angel). He continues to look at what Abel has brought Him but He does not even glance at what Cain has brought. It is not unlike attending a party and two guests arrive at the same time and both present a gift to the host; the host takes one and admires it and thanks the guest for it. The other one is not taken from the second guest; nor is it even acknowledged. This is God the Son that is doing this and Cain should realize that there is a reason for it. Instead of examining his own gift or his own life (which is lacking in faith in Jesus Christ), his anger burns against his brother.

As is pointed out by Zodhiates, notice that God first mentions the person then the offering. The offering was an indication of the state of their heart; Abel was a believer and trusted in Jesus Christ and Cain was an unbeliever who trusted in the works of his own hands. Still, even though Cain was unbelieving, God came to him:

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?" [Gen. 4:6]

God knows why Cain is angry; He is omniscient. However, with unbelievers, God must reach out and initiate the conversation, as it were. Cain's anger and the fallen face—an expression of disappointment after all of that work—are both in the Qal perfect. This might sadly indicate that the firstborn of Adam and Eve died an unbeliever. The perfect is a completed action. The imperfect is used with God speaking to Cain, meaning that He had begun to speak to Cain or (later on in this passage) that this was another portion of what He said to Cain. There were no widely accepted rules of behavior in the first days. Cain does not hide his anger nor does he play poker.

"If you do well [or, if what you do is pleasing], surely you will be accepted [or, lifted up]. And if you do not do well, sin is stretch out [and resting] at the opening; and its desire is for you, but you are master [over] it [the opening]." [Gen. 4:7]

This is the first difficult verse in this narrative in Genesis. Translating the first phrase is difficult because the Hebrew word means to please as well as to do well. Cain's offering was not pleasing to God. It was not a part of God's salvation plan for Cain (or anyone else) to bring our own works to Him. Unfortunately, there is no first person masculine suffix on this verb, so it would be improper to translate this if you please me. The NASB throws in the word countenance after this phrase, as if God is concerned about "lifting Cain's countenance." There is no word for countenance in this verse. God is concerned with Cain's salvation. Cain's countenance has fallen and God is going to lift Cain up if Cain does what is pleasing to God. The verb translated accepted means to be lifted up and it is in the Qal infinitive construct. It is an action which occurs simultaneously with the main verb (with only two notable exceptions in the OT) and does not have person, number, gender or suffix. We must, at best, infer this from the verse. It is tied to the main verb so that we would take the person number and gender of the main verb rather than change any of those. Therefore, this is a reference to Cain, not to his countenance. The infinitive construct can operate like an infinitive or a gerund in our language. Often it is translated like a verbal noun. The first phrases are probably more literally translated, shall there not, if you do what is pleasing, be an uplifting?

The second sentence gives the alternate option and it is a negation of the verb found in the first sentence. If you do not do well [or, if you do not what is pleasing]. Chaţţâ’th ( ת א ט ח ) [pronounced k ī at-tawth' ] can mean sin or sin-offering. However, because it is being used here for the first time in the Bible; and since sacrifices have not been standardized as of yet, this would mean sin, offense or a sinful thing. This sinful thing is said to be stretched out or laying down at Cain's opening (sometimes translated door). Râbats ( ץ ב ר ) [pronounced raw-bats' ] is a word used primarily of animals in a resting or relaxed position. The word for desire is an intense longing

, found in only two other places: Gen. 3:16 (an intense longing of a woman for a man) and SOS 7:11 (as an intense longing of a man for a woman). I cannot buy that we are speaking of Abel's intense desire here and there is not a first person masculine suffix, so it is not our Lord's intense desire. However, Satan desires to have Cain, just as he desired to have Peter, to sift him as wheat (Luke 22:31).

The verse as translated sounds as though we must mast sin or master our desire, but both of them are in the feminine singular and the suffix to the verb for to master or to have dominion over is third masculine singular. The only thing found in the third masculine singular is door. However, it does not necessarily mean door; it can mean gate, entryway, entrance, opening, etc. I don't know that we have houses just yet in this time period, or even tents where there is some kind of a door. This is not revealed to us. Just as Satan was lying in wait for Eve, he is also lying in wait for Cain, waiting for an opening. Jesus calls him a murderer from the very beginning in John 8:44, referring to this very incident and to the fall of man, which resulted in the death of the human race (both physical and spiritual). Cain has free will and Cain is the master of this opening, this entrance. He can allow Satan to inspire the first murder (which will spring forth out of hatred and jealousy) or he can close this opening to sin. I don't like the word crouch, because it sounds too much as though sin is lying in wait to pounce and that is not what the word means. It refers to a position of rest. It is always there. Sin could very likely be Satan as well as an act of sin, since the verb resting is generally used of an animal. It is up to Cain to open up to it or not. Cain is not a master of sin, nor can he be a master of Satan or Satan's desire. However, he is the master of the opening which he can chose to give to Satan or not.

However, Cain has been formulating an idea. He has watch Abel kill these little sheep or sin offerings; how he uses the blade to cut the carotid and how the blood flows out. Cain ii exception brilliant and has quickly put two and two together to devise a plan. He lures Abel out to a field, away from the rest of the family:

And Cain said to his brother Abel. It came to pass when they were in the field that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother and killed him. [Gen. 4:8]

The first sentence of this verse appears to be incomplete (as per Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon p. 56). They have guessed that the content of the statement has been removed from the Bible (this may have dropped off the original manuscript from which Moses worked—we don't know for certain). However, it is a Greek idiom where Cain would speak to Abel, saying. We could translate it And Cain spoke to Abel; but that does not appear to be accurate. The Massorah indicates that there is a space here. The Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac Version, Vulgate and Targum of Jonathan all supply the quote, "Let us go into the field." If this quote belongs here, we have not lost much with its loss. It is also a logical phrase to add, which could have occurred. See the Doctrine of the Hebrew Manuscripts. Up until this time, no person has ever died and it is very possible that Cain doubts the promise of death delivered by Jesus Christ and repeated to him by his mother and father. However, he has observed the death of sacrifices and decides to do the same to Abel. There are quite a number of words for kill in the Hebrew; and each stem of the verb alters the meaning. Hârag ( גרַה ) [pronounced haw-rag' ] means to kill and ruthless violence is implied. It is also used of God killing in stern judgement. It is occasionally used for the judicial killing by man or for the killing of beasts.

Satan was very much involved with the first people on this earth. There were few enough of them to where he could keep a handle on everything. He would lie in wait and influence in whatever way that he could. It angered Satan to see Abel make sacrifices to God and it angered Cain. Exactly how Cain was influenced and in what way, I do not know. Today we can point toward television, newspapers, magazines and other people. However, Cain did not have near as many distractions and influences. He was religious, but he wanted to show God what he could do for Him. He worked hard in his garden and was proud of this work and expected that God would be pleased to see all that he had produced. There was not a problem with the amount of his gift, its condition or anything else. It was just that his gift did not involve a blood sacrifice of an innocent animal and therefore, it was meaningless to God. This caused Cain to become very indignant and self-righteous and angry with Abel. Out of all these mental attitude sins preceded the first murder. There was no alcohol involved, no drugs, no fighting. It was the first holy war, you might say. This murder was cold-blooded and premeditated and brought on by religion against one of God's own.

Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where [is] Abel, your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" [Gen.4:9]

This is grace that God comes to Cain and questions him directly. This is the third human being; the firstborn of Adam and Eve. God always searches us out. This is grace. To remain unbelievers, we must fight grace and turn away from Jesus Christ at every opportunity for our entire lives. When Cain said that he did not know where Abel was, he used the Qal perfect tense—he is claiming that he has absolutely no idea. It is not just this moment but a completed action.

And He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's bloods is screaming to me from the ground." [Gen. 4:10]

Done is the same word used in Gen. 2:4 and 3:1; the same word is used for God making the universe and the animals is used here. Out of his mental attitude sins and jealousy, Cain has manufactured the first murder. Blood is in the plural, which is not the way it is usually found (see Gen. 9:4,6 or 37:22). Early on, it is possible that not much had been taught to the first family about the separation of the soul, spirit and body. The blood is normally associated with the body. However, here, it is associated with the physical death of the body and the separation of the soul from the body; the soulish death. The plural might be used to express great emotion and great violence. Crying is no longer used for screaming loudly or in distress; so I translated this screaming instead.

"And now you are cursed from [or, by reason of] the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's bloods from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you; you shall be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth." [Gen. 4:11–12]

This is the first murder and this is the firstborn of the earth. God is quite gracious to Cain in this case. In later dispensations, God would prescribe execution for murder. Here, God will banish Cain from this area. Actually, this will be mutually agreed upon, because Cain could face retribution from his father or from any of his sisters. A later brother might come after Cain. So Cain does not have any choice in this matter.

Cain was previously quite successful in his farming efforts and God has told him that this will become more and more difficult. This could be specific to Cain and it may have to do with where he is banished to. In any case, the land has become more and more difficult to grow vegetables from. We are in a world which is steadily decaying. Complex, in general, proceeds to less complex. The fertile and the beautiful become unyielding and ugly.

There are two different takes on this quotation of Cain's. It is usually translated "My punishment is too great to bear!" The first word is the adjective (in the masculine singular) for great in magnitude or degree. ‛Âvôn ( ן ָע ) [pronounced aw-vone' ] primarily means iniquity. There are some who do not recognize this word as meaning punishment for iniquity and some who recognize that meaning in only a scattering of places. Guilt from iniquity is also a second meaning. However, I think it would be best, unless there is some particular reason to translate the word differently than it is most often used, to retain the meaning iniquity. Iniquity has the first person singular suffix. The verb is the Qal infinitive construct of nâsâ’ ( אָָנ) [pronounced naw-saw' ] and the affixed preposition min (ןִם ; here it is simply ִּמ ) [pronounced min]. The preposition is used primarily with verbs expressing removal or separation. The verb is a verbal noun. It means to bear or carry and with this preposition to take away or to remove. It is occasionally translated to forgive, but I do not believe that would be correct here (and that is not a primary meaning). There is no verb per se in this sentence. There is great emphasis and emotion expressed here. Cain has no idea as to the severity of the sin which he has committed. He sees Abel kill little, innocent woollies all the time. He was angry, a natural human reaction, and he was smart enough to figure out how to deal with that anger. He doesn't even ask for forgiveness; he expects for this iniquity be removed. He has seen God remove other iniquities yet forgiveness does not come to mind. This is because the firstborn of mankind is an unbeliever. He is saying, "What? Is there a problem here? You can't just take away this iniquity? You have to mete out punishment?" Cain, in some respects, is very moral; he is hard-working; he brings to God the fruits of his labors, as does any sincere, religious person. He cannot see any reason for killing an animal and bringing that to God. Yet, he is very amoral when it comes to the killing of Abel. He used the same method as Abel did to kill his sacrifices; why should there be any punishment or consequences tied to that? Cain just happened to be smart enough to realize that could be done to man also.

"Behold, you have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I shall be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and it will come about that whoever finds me will kill me." [Gen. 4:14]

Driven out or cast out is in the Piel perfect; it is an intensive, completed action with permanent results. The preposition of removal or separation from the last verse is used again. Cain loves farming and it is apparent that will no longer be a rewarding venture for him. He associates Yahweh with that area, not realizing God's omnipresence, and is religious, so he finds the removal of God from his life to be a punishment. He recognizes that others, notably his father or a brother (it is likely that there were several other brothers; the Bible, although it only mentions Cain and Abel, does not preclude the possibility of Adam and Eve having many sons by this time). Certainly, Cain and Abel are in their teens by this point in time (and probably late teens or older) and logic would dictate that there are other brothers and sisters. God only records the first birth, the first murder and the line of Jesus Christ. Cain''s concern for his own life, much greater than his concern for Abel's life, seems to indicate that there are more people on the earth than just Adam, Eve, Abel and himself. He does have a wife (v. 17) which would be a sister (still, she could be his right woman as their gene pool was far superior to ours). It is unlikely that Adam and Eve did not have a sexual relationship for 15–25 years which produced children. Very likely at this time there were at least a dozen siblings to Cain. When Cain is concerned that he will be killed, he uses the same word as is found in v. 8, also in the Qal imperfect. He actually thought that he could hide this from God. Realizing that God knew meant that anyone could know.

So the Lord said to him, "Not so! Whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord placed on Cain a mark, lest anyone finding him should slay him [or, the Lord shall ordain on behalf of Cain a pledge of assurance that anyone who finds him will not kill him]. [Gen. 4:15]

The first two words in a quote from our Lord are: likely lô’ ( א ל ) [pronounced lo ] (which is a negative prefix, similar to the alpha primitive in Greek, meaning not and kên ( ןֵ ) [pronounced kane], which means so. This is a disputed reading; however, this is what The Emphasized Bible and Owen both seem to think; and, contextually, it makes sense (the other reading is therefore). Sevenfold literally means seven times as much, but is a figure of speech which gives emphasis to what is to be done. Vengeance will be taken is in the Hophal imperfect, which is causative action. God will cause vengeance to be taken upon this person.

For Cain's benefit, God placed or put a mark upon him. The verb has a wide variety of applications, including to set, ordain, or appoint but more often to put, place or set. Cain has a lamed (ל) prefix, which has close to ten pages of applications in Brown-Driver-Briggs. This word denotes direction, but not necessarily motion. It can express locality or denote the object of the verb. It can even mean with reference to or regarding. The Hebrew word for mark is ’ôwth ( חֹו א) [pronounced ōth] and it can mean sign, token, pledge, symbol or omen. The reason that this is translated mark is that the verb associated with this noun can mean mark. This could just as easily mean the Lord shall ordain on behalf of Cain a pledge of assurance that anyone who finds him will not kill him. Because of the KJV translation, many have speculated just what is the mark of Cain. In Josh. 2:12 there is no physical mark involve yet the same word is used. The mark of Rahab as not a mark, but a verbal pledge or vow to deal kindly and faithfully with her (Josh. 2:14). In other words the sign to Rahab was a vow or a pledge from the two spies. One of the more humorous signs is when God comes to Moses and tells Moses that he is to lead Israel out of bondage. Moses asks for a sign and God tells him that he, Moses, will lead the people to this mountain (which is outside of Egypt and on the way to Israel) and they will worship there. So, the sign to Moses and the people that he will lead them out of Egypt and into Israel is the fact that he will lead them out of Egypt and into Israel.

Sign is also used for a very recognizable physical phenomena. Moses was to show the Pharaoh a staff, throw it upon the ground and it would turn into a snake. He was also to put his hand inside his cloak, pull it out and it would be leprous like snow. Both of these things were called signs by God. Neither was permanent and they both represented to the Pharaoh that Moses was from God. That is, the signs themselves were meaningless; it was what they signified that was important. A sign to Eli in 1Sam. 2:24 was that his two sons would both die on the same day.

Cain is concerned that he is not killed in revenge and God either gives him a sign or a mark. Since this term doesn't seem to be used for an actual physical mark which is put upon someone; furthermore, I am not certain what that physical mark would be which would keep anyone from killing Cain. Certainly, there has been a population explosion or sorts, but still everyone would know everyone else. God wouldn't come to them as a whole and tell them not kill the guy with the red dot on his head because that's Cain; everyone knew who Cain was. God just has to say the word that no one is to touch Cain and that sets up the limits. More important than any physical mark to Cain would be God's assurance He would see to it that no one kills Cain or that person would be avenged sevenfold.

A question that you should be asking yourself: this is the Old Testament and the God of the Old Testament is a severe, harsh God. What happened to an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth? God is not just pardoning Cain, he is providing Cain with protection. God did not give man the law yet. There is no organized society as such yet. There is a society, but it is just a group of people with nothing more than social mores. There is no law, no governing body, no court system, no police force, etc. This may be hard to understand, but what that means is that anyone who killed Cain would be guilty of revenge, hatred, murder, and vigilantism. A system of law must be in place in order for someone to be guilty of breaking the law. A court system must be in effect to impartially judge those who have gone against the law. Law is not effective or meaningful unless it is impartial. There could be no impartiality in the killing of Cain and God despises anarchy.

Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. [Gen. 4:16]

In the dispensation of innocence and the dispensation of fallen man, God had a visible presence. In innocence, it was in the garden and in man's fallen sate, it was just outside the garden. When Cain left this area, he left the visible presence of Jesus Christ.

Back in v. 12, when God tells Cain that he will be a wanderer on the earth (and Cain confirms this in v. 14), wanderer is the word nûwd ( ד  נ ) [pronounced nood ] and it means to move to and fro or to wander. It has a related meaning which I would guess came centuries afterward and that is show grief, lament, shake the head to and fro, to console or to deplore (and taunt). The latter usage of this word occur about the time of Jeremiah and the former usage in Genesis. Language develops by associations made. Cain was associated with this word and Cain was banished from God's presence as the first murderer. Because of this, Cain was grieved and he lamented; therefore, it is likely that this word came to have that connotation. Furthermore, as a person can wander to and fro, the head can be shaken to and fro; that being true and given the connotation of nûwd, shaking the head to and fro came to be association with grief or deploring but then also with sympathy, as some would feel sorry for Cain (at least he did). In this verse, the word Nod is from the Hebrew word nôwd ( ד  נ ) [pronounced node ]. The only difference between the words is a dagesh (the little dot next to the w) which becomes a cholem (a tiny dot above the w). Prior to the vowel points (which did not exist in the original manuscripts) these words would be identical. Land and earth are the same word in the Hebrew: ’erets ( ץֶרֶא) [pronounced eh'-rets]. Context would determine the usage. It is generally agreed that this verse refers to a proper noun, taken from the curse placed upon Cain. Cherubim had been placed at the east entrance of the Garden of Eden to prevent man from entering into the garden the taking from the tree of life. Cain settled in this area fearing for his life.

And Cain had sexual relations with his woman and she conceived and bore Enoch; and he [Cain] built a city and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son. [Gen. 4:17]

Philologists and theologians give several possible meanings for Enoch: consecration, teaching, initiation. It is not too far in structure from the word for trained, dedicated or experienced. It might have had a meaning and it might have just sounded good to his mother. Speaking of Enoch's mother, Cain married one of his sisters. Certainly Adam and Eve were multiplying and filling the earth. It is likely that they had a child every year and this would make the world population at least 18. Given the very long lives that they had, this incident of Cain and Abel, although portrayed in literature as young (in their teens); this incident could have occurred at age 100 for all we know. Cain was married, which indicates that he was probably at least 16 and likely closer to 20 or above. Marriage in antediluvian society would have been among very close relatives, many of whom were originally brother and sister. There were no sins associated with this and no prohibitions. The gene pool at that point in time was strong enough to withstand intermarriage. However, man has degenerated since that time and marriage among siblings or even cousins often results in genetic problems for the offspring. God prohibits marriages among close relatives in Lev. 18:6–17.

Given the longevity and the prolific nature of the early human race, populations must have grown quicky so that Cain built a city for his progeny and named it Enoch, who was likely his firstborn after his relocation. A city at that point in time likely consisted of a dozen or so dwelling places, but since Cain did not have as much success with farming, he became a builder. This building likely took place once there had been a population in that area to warrant such building. Again, just guessing, but by the time Cain's progeny reached 10–20 in number is when he likely began to build. Furthermore, there is a desire on the part of some men to leave some part of themselves behind. Artists of all sorts are famous for this; and builders. This is how man makes his mark in the world. It is not necessarily inherently sinful, although the motivation at times can be directly attributed to sin. Many of us want to leave our mark in the world in some way. For some, it is their offspring; for others their legacy; and still others their writings, their art or their building. This could be related to Cain's building this city and the desire to get most of his family out of his house may have been another portion of his motivation. There was a standing mandate, if you will, that, due to the precedent set by Adam and Eve, a man will leave parents and cleave to his woman. However, as was also covered during that time, this verse was very possibly an addition, divinely inspired, however, from a later writer (perhaps added as late as Moses' compilation).

Now to Enoch was born Irad and Irad sired [or, better: caused to be born] Mehujael; and Mehujael sired Methushael; and Methshael sired Lamech. And Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one Adah and the name of the other Zillah. [Gen. 4:18–19]

Sired, in this context, is a good one-word translation for yâlad ( דַלָי) [pronounced yaw-lad' ] as long as you keep in mind that it may skip a generation or two. Caused to be born is even more accurate (the use for the word begot is good; it is just Old English). Not every person is memorable; furthermore, Cain likely had many more children than just Enoch (just as their progeny are not all represented here). The meanings of their names show us that Cain was not godless but very religious. This religion was passed on to his progeny. Irad means townsman, Mahuiael means smitten of God, Methushael means man of God and Lamech means powerful. This means that Cain had done some serious religious thinking and had passed his thinking on down to his sons and sons' sons. Lamech is mentioned for two reasons; he is the first recorded male to take to himself two wives. The divine precedent was one man and one woman. Since Cain had built a city and was a man of great importance. any direct descendent of Cain would probably do well during his first 20 or 30 years. Therefore, for that period of time, Lamech was probably a successful person and he was successful enough to command two wives. There is no judgement passed against him for this, however. There is still no law on the earth. Lamech's wives names mean ornament (or, beauty) and flighty (or, shade). What likely occurred with these names is that the names came to mean these various things according to the person and personality of the one named.

And Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and [possess] livestock. And his brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. [Gen. 4:20–21]

The line of Cain continued and prospered. Certain of those in his line became famous for shepherding and for the arts. There is disagreement as to the meaning of the latter instrument; some think that it is several reeds together and others view it as a bagpipe prototype (Thieme would be proud). Jabal means shadow production and Jubal means sounds.

As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. [Gen. 4:22]

Archeology has a lot of theories concerning the bronze age and the iron age. It didn’t take but a few generations of man before he developed musical instruments, buildings, bronze and iron. Keep in mind that man at this time was in the antediluvial age. He developed many things which were lost in the flood. Civilizations come and go, as do nations; and some advance to incredible heights of technology; and then fall behind. We had periods of time three hundred years prior to the birth of our Lord when the Greeks not only knew that the world was round but they knew the earth's circumference. By the time of the dark ages, almost two millennium later, this information was lost and there were some who thought that you could sail off the earth. All this means is that technological advances do not always and continually move forward. It moves forward, it moves backward, it stays in the same place. We are not evolving as a people, and even though we live in an age of great technological advance, the technology could be lost overnight. My point is that fire, music, bronze and iron go back almost to the dawn of human history. Man was exceptionally brilliant during his beginnings on earth. Furthermore, our bodies were exceptionally strong, durable and man lived for centuries; allowing him the ability to build upon his own knowledge. Bronze and iron may have been developed separately at a later date after the flood; but here is where it was first invented.

It's interesting, and I don't know the reason why, but Lamech's wives and the one daughter are the first women named following Eve. Furthermore, Cain, the first religious man and the first murderer, is the man whose line is first followed. The Bible does not focus on the reaction of Adam and Eve nor does it go immediately to the line of Seth, but it stops here at Cain's line and examines it. From Cain developed architecture, metal working and the arts in the antediluvian era. So that we see the natural progression of sin, we have the next few verses:

And Lamech said [sang] to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to my voice; you wives of Lamech, give heed to my tale. For I have killed a man for wounding me; and a young man for striking me; If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold." [Gen. 4:23–24]

Lamech became the first folk singer and sang this type of tripe to his wives. He was apparently in a barroom brawl with a family and killed a father and son (or a young man and an older man). Everyone knew that Cain got away with murder; and further, that God would see that his death would be avenged. So Lamech sang that since he killed two men, he would receive even more protection. There is no remorse; Lamech is so proud that he write a song about it and sings this song to his wives. We have seen why God protected Cain following his murder of Abel. Lamech totally misapplied that mandate of God. Our first recorded misapplication of doctrine.

Introduction: With v. 25, we begin a new book; very possibly written by a different original author. We do not know when the oral tradition stopped and when these things began to be written down. There is no reason to think that man was not capable of writing this down until centuries later. Man has been a genius from the first man and has always been able to write likely from the earliest times, although we are not told specifically when. V. 25 carries with it an explanation as to why Seth was so important to Adam and Eve. To the casual reader, you wonder why, because we just minutes ago read about it. In my estimation, vv. 25 and 26 appear to be an introduction to a new book, named in Gen. 5:1. Whether the original source material was inspired, I have no idea. It is likely that Moses collected this source material and edited it and recorded all of it under the ministry of God the Holy Spirit, meaning what Moses wrote down was definitely inspired. We do not have to imagine Moses as sitting down as a secretary under God the Holy Spirit and writing down word for word as the Holy Spirit dictated. There is no indication of that. In Exodus, when God delivers the law, that is a matter of strict dictation. The fact that Moses used source material or recorded and edited from source material does not make the writings less inspired. Dr. Luke, in his introduction to his gospel, indicates that this account was a result of compiling information from several sources. His source material may or may not have been inspired, but the resultant gospel is inspired. That is, as we have studied, God the Holy Spirit recorded through Dr. Luke and through Moses exactly what He wanted to communicate to man, i.e., God's complete and connected thought to mankind in such a way that Dr. Luke's and Moses' personalities, vocabularies, experiences, trains of thought and literary styles remained intact, so that the very words of their writings were simultaneously the words of God and the words of man. On the other hand, this does not mean that the Law may be separated into four basic authors who wrote centuries after the exodus, each identified by the frequency of the use of the different names of God. That is liberal tripe which has been overlaid on the Scripture, taking into account several pre-existing prejudices of the creators of this theory. However, just because their concept is not Biblical, this does not mean that we must retreat to the other end of the spectrum and claim that Moses was the original author of all the portions of Genesis. He was a brilliant man whose authorship is , in Scripture, continually attributed to the latter four books of the law, but never to Genesis; although tradition places him as the author of Genesis. Therefore, he is likely the editor but not necessarily the original author of Genesis. In this chapter and in subsequent chapters, we will follow the line of Adam for at least one millennium and perhaps even two.

We have left Cain's generations with Lamech at this point and have picked up with Adam's divine birth line. . The human and legal line of Christ will proceed from Adam through Seth and through Noah into the post deluvian civilization (see the doctrine of Civilizations). Why did we stop with Lamech's family? This could have been all of the information which was available to the author of that portion of the source material to Genesis and it may have been the last of the completely human posterity of Cain. But more of that in chapter 6.

I have placed the last two verses of chapter 4 with chapter 5 because they sound as though they are a preface to this book. Whether they are in fact a preface is not a point of doctrine nor does any doctrine rise or fall with this choice on my part. There are things in the Bible which are never covered in any detail because that information is unimportant to us spiritually. For instance, the exact type of government that a church should have, who the actual authors of Genesis were, from whence did Moses obtain his source material, etc. These things are a matter of intellectual curiosity and too often of theological debate, but spiritually, they are unimportant.

And Adam had sexual relations with his woman again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for [she said] "God has decreed for me another seed instead of Abel, because Cain murdered him." [Gen. 4:25]

In the Hebrew, Seth is Shêth ( תֵש ) [pronounced shayth ] and it means tumult. In Eve's quote, the verb used is shîyth ( ת יִש ) [pronounced sheeth] and found throughout the Bible in many vaired applications. We last looked at this word when God gave a sign to Cain for his protection. When God placed emnity between the serpent's seed and the woman's seed, that word was shiyth. Brown-Driver-Briggs point out tha this almost is equivalent to give in some instances

, but finding a good one word (or several word) translation for all instances has been difficult. May I suggest that when God is the subject and shiyth is in the Qal perfect that it means to decree or to set, place or give by decree. With this quote, it is clear that Eve has grown spiritually over the past few decades. She and Adam were lovers of language and they used their words with a certain amount of intelligent playfulness. This choice of name for Seth mixes the divine decrees with tumult. Why? This use possibly means that it was a difficult labor or a difficult birth. However, I believe that the name Seth was chosen because this was the man that God appointed and it would be through this man that the earth is shaken.

Soon after the murder, Cain fled with his wife. This means that Adam and Eve had other children as I previously pointed out. It is possible that their children had all been female, except for Cain and Abel up until that time and it is possible that they did not have the same hope for the other male children as they did originally for Cain. God had decreed that the woman would bear a son who would crush Satan, the serpent and Eve originally that that it was to be Cain. When Cain and Abel grew, she changed her opinion and thought that it would be Abel (as this verse indicates). Now she believes that it is Seth and she is correct insofar as this wil be the line of our Lord.

And to Seth—to him also—was born a son and he called his name Enosh. At that time, he began to call on the name of Yahweh. [Gen. 4:26]

The Hebrew word for Enosh is ’Ěnôwsh ( ש נֶֽא) [pronounced en-ohsh' ] and it appears as though meaning was derived from it rather than vice versa. This word in later Scripture came to be used for man or mankind. It was almost a poetical use. It is found scattered throughout the Bible, but primarily enowsh is found in Job. The last phrase of this verse is significant. Thieme said that this is the beginning of evangelism or a wave of evangelism. I see this as a sadder note in some ways. My take on this (and I may change my mind later as I go further into Genesis) is that Jesus Christ, who would come bodily to visit Adam and the woman both in the garden and outside the garden; who was physically before Cain and Abel and their sacrifices, no longer came to the earth in bodily form on a daily basis. There will still be theophanies but these will be rare occurrences and not everyday fellowship. As the earth becomes more and more filled with sin and rebellion, so short a time following the garden, the visible presence of God withdraws more and more. At the beginning of Gen. 4, we have God speaking directly to Cain (Gen. 4:9–15). However, we do not find such a conversation taking place after that. In fact, direct conversations after Gen. 4 are rare, often involve theophanies, and tend to be pointed out as an unusual occurrence. This leaves man with only one alternative: to call upon the name of the Lord.

Began is in the Hophal perfect masculine singular, and the Hophal stem carries with it both a passive and active sense. What it conveys is the subject is compelled to do something and the agent causing this is not always named. It is the least used of all the stems. Here, because our Lord no longer walks among man; no longer comes to them on a daily basis, Enosh is compelled or caused to begin to call upon the name of the Lord. The Hebrew word here as several diverse meanings. Châlal ( לַלָח) [pronounced khaw-lal' ] can mean to wound, dissolve, profane, to begin, untie, loosen or open. Because of my predisposition, I have been looking for some way to read the pollution of mankind into this verse. Unfortunately, this cannot be done. The verb is in the masculine singular, indicating that the subject of the verb is likely one of the males named in this verse; that male probably being Enosh. It took but a little over two hundred years from the fall before God's visible presence began to be withdrawn from the presence of man.

The more I examine these few verses, the more they seem to hang together as a whole. I personally examine the Bible verse by verse, almost word by word and it is hard to get the full impact of the overall passage sometimes. It is hard to see the forest through the trees. However, examine this as a prologue, a title and text:

[Prologue ] And Adam had sexual relations with his wife again and she gave birth to a son, and he [Adam] named him Seth, for [she said] "God has decreed for me another son [seed] in place of Abel; for Cain murdered him." And to Seth —to him also—was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then he began [or, was compelled to begin] to call upon the name of the Lord.

In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he became the father of one in his own likeness, according to his image, and he named him Seth. Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were 800 years, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. And Seth lived 807 years after he became the father of Enosh, and he had sons and daughters. [Gen. 4:25–5:4]

It is often said that the Hebrew manner of writing back then was to take an incident and later embellish upon that incident by quoting a line or so from it. This is definitely a possibility. However, the other explanation is that when additional material was added on to God's word, the manner in which it was done was to often quote a previous verse or two to tie the writings together and then to title this section or to indicate that this is the beginning of a new section.

A problem one would think of at this point is writing material. We have been taught from early on that man began with crude pictographs scrawled on a cave wall and a written language evolved form that. It is certainly possible that some languages developed that way; however, recall that man in the antediluvian civilization was much more intelligent than we are and had likely developed a written language and writing materials and some sort of medium to write upon. Furthermore, this writing medium was not necessarily chunks of clay with indentations but something perhaps more sophisticated, but more perishable. This was likely carried upon the ark and added to as time went one. At some point in time, someone must have realized the significance of the wriitngs and the fragility of the medium and copied it onto something which might lst longer. All of this, needless to say, is pure conjecture, just as Mosaic authorship of the book of Genesis is pure conjecture. However, it is a reasonable theory

This passage begins what sounds like a different author. This merely means that Moses had several manuscripts to work from and chose to copy that which God the Holy Spirit led him to copy. Book is the Hebrew word çêpher ( רֶפֵס ) [pronounced say'-fer] and it means book, register, missive, scroll, geneal, etc. Generations, if you wil recall, is the word later translated genesis in the Greek Septuagint. Man was quite interested in genealogy and sought to preserve it as best as he could. There are many people who today do the same thing with their own family line. It is in this way that God the Holy Spirit preserves for us the line of the humanity of Jesus Christ. Here, man, in the singular, is said to be in the shadow-image or in the likeness of God, as it is written in Gen. 1:27. Paul quotes this in I Cor. 11:7 when dealing with the headware of the man and the woman and the authority of the man. The woman is never said to be created in God's image although the Bible uses the words created and built when it comes to the creation of the woman. Adam and man are the same word in vv. 1–5. Certainly, Moses, or whoever wrote the last copy of these verses became concerned over the time period named. Even the Bible says that man's life span, under normal circumstances, is approximately 70 years (Psalm 90:10). Here is where an author, concerned that no one would believe this, would have downplayed the ages, or eliminated them. However, the ages of man as he began were all close to the millenial mark. We do not know at what age man matured, married and had children. The youngest age named for siring a child was that of Enoch, at age 65 (v. 23). The oldest named is 500 years (v. 30). The child is not the first or the last born necessarily. Adam had other sons and daughters; otherwise, Cain would have been hard pressed to find a wife, as would Seth. Prior to Seth, there were certainly born to Adam and Eve at least two sons and a daughter (and likely far more). God the Holy Spirit records here only the line of Noah, through which will come the line of our Lord.

So all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died. And Seth lived 105 years and sired Enosh. Then Seth lived 807 years after he sired Enosh, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Seth were 912 years and he died. And Enosh lived 90 years and sired Kenan. Then Enosh lived 815 years after he sired Kenan and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died. And Kenan lived 70 years, and became the father of Mahalel. Then Kenan lived 840 years after he sired Mahalel, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died. [Gen. 5:5–14]

Although the genealogies throughout the Bible will often skip a generation or more, it is in this section where it is most likely that one member of each generation is represented. The reason for this conclusion is the age given. So and so was a particular age when he sired his son. So we may know exactly how long the antediluvian age lasted: 1676 years (we do not know whether Adam's age was calculated from the fall or from his creation).

The meaning of Kenan is unclear; it is close to the words for elegy or dirge and also the word for chant or wailing. Thieme says that it means deplorable. Mahalalel means, according to Thieme, praise of God. This meaning seems to be well-agreed upon.

And Mahalalel lived 65 years and sired Jared. Then Mahalalel lived 830 years after he sired Jared, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died. And Jared lived 162 years and sired of Enoch. Then Jared lived 800 years after he sired Enoch, and he had sons and daughters. And Enoch lived 65 years and sired Methuselah. [Gen. 5:15–21]

Jared means to descend or to go down. We notice a similarity in the lines of Cain and Seth at this point. Both had descendants named Enoch, who in turn had descendants named Methushael (Methuselah for Seth, a different Hebrew word); and almost the last named in the lines: Lamech. Satan has always been an immitator of God; a very poor immitator. He counterfeits the line of Seth as best as he could. Enoch might means trained or experienced or it might mean dedicated. Methuselah means it will be sent when he dies (according to Thieme). Methuselah died the year the flood began.

Then Enoch walked with God 300 years after he sired Methuselah, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Enoch were 365 years. And Enoch walked with God; and he vanished, for God took him. [Gen. 5:22–24]

Walked is in the Hithpael imperfecft, which is the reflexive of the Piel. This means that Enoch caused himself to walk, or to go with God. It means to walk to and fro. It is a constant, daily walk with God. This is intensive, meaning that in the state that the earth was in, this walk was a difficult, intense experience. We will see more about the corruption of the earth in chapter 6. He vanished (or, he was not), is a substantive with a third masculine sngular suffix, which means naught, vanished, nothing. Took is the Hebrew word lâqach ( חַקָל ) [pronounced law-kakh' ] and it means to take in hand, to take in marriage, to take and carry along. Enoch here is a type; that is a shadow image of the pre-tribulational rapture. God is about to bring great and intensive judgment upon the earth. Enoch, as God's faithful, is taken up prior to the judgement. We have a world, during Enoch's time of the corruption of flesh and evil beyond imagination. Even though we are but seven generations from Adam and Adam is still alive at this time, there has been an incredible population explosion, and by this point in time there are a number of half-angelic, hafl-human beings. The angels had never seen anything like a woman before and the fallen angels burned in lust for the dughters of men. At that point in time, they were able to manifest themselves physically as more than an apparation and they did (that, or they took over the bodies of men as in demon-possession) and they earth was becoming vastly corupt. It is difficult to live in the midst of a vastly corrupt society and not to become quite corrupt yourself. Enoch managed to remain uncorrupted, unaffected by the evil abourt him, even though he possessed an old sin nature and was born with the imputation of Adam's original sin. Enoch was not a monk nor was he a person who went off to some hill to meditate. He had a family and sons and daughters. However, he knew God because he knew God's Word as revealed at that time. Although it is not stated, he could go direclty to his great⁵ grandfather, Adam, and find out everything that God had told Adam in the garden. Our walk with God include fellowship and God's Word, as it has always been. At that time, he could get God's Word through Adam, who walked with our Lord in the garden. As he got this information from Adam, he also walked with God.

Lest anyone examine this verse carefully and say that there is nothing about Enoch being raptured

here, we need only look to Heb. 11:5 for corroboration: By faith-doctrine, Enoch was taken up [or transported or transferred] so that he should not see deth; and he was not found because God took him up; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up, he was pleasing to God.

We now need to digress somewhat I realize that you read this chapter to yourself and either gave no thought to it or fell asleep during it. Genesis 5 has caused a lot of controversy with regards to (1) the ages of those listed; (2) the overall time period involved and (3) the dating of the antediluvian civilization. I will list some of the prominent theories and cover the basic problem which has caused theologians trouble, particularly over the past century. Theologians from centuries ago were not troubled by modern science and modern assumptions, but present-day theologians do not want to appear as though they are alfafa-chewing bararians

when faced with the assumptions and conclusions of modern science. There is also the problem of theologians latching onto the Sumerian king list. This list gives us a list of kings which reigned before and after the flood. There are parallels between this list and the Biblical account of the flood which could indicate the same source material. The problem here is that theologicans have been so anxious to graps at some extra-Biblica coroboration for the Genesis flood that they have assumed that this list is it.

The dating of man is accomplished by radioactive dating methods and by the strata in which the fossils have been found. There are two types of radioactive dating, carbon-14 and potassium argon dating. C-14 dating is done as follows. All living and previously living things have a certain amount of carbon in them. We constantly ingest and egest carbon and carbon carries within it a certain amount of radioactive carbon, known as C-14. When that which is living dies, it no longer ingests carbon; however, it has a certain amount of carbon within it which has a certain amount of C-14 within it. The C-14 begins to disintegrate, thus changing the ratio of C-14 to carbon within this once living organism. The half-life of C-14 is approximately 5700 years so that once a living organism dies, the C-14 within it is reduced by weight by half every 5700 years. To get an idea as to the kind of ratio that we are dealing with, there is approximately one atom of radiocarbon for every trillion molecules of carbon dioxide in the air.

It is important to realize that we are dealing with a very minute amount of carbon and an even smaller amount of C-14 (less than one trillionth of the carbon examined) and that this method of dating assumes that the ratio of C-14 to carbon in the atmosphere has always been constant throughout human history. Since the antediluvian world was probably surrounded by an atmosphere with more water vapor in it than the present world, this may have had an affect upon this ratio. Furthermore, due to the very small amount of carbon that we examine, the time limits of this method, although touted as being acurate for 50,000 years, might not be accurate for even 10,000 years. And the interpretation of the results can be distorted. As Charlie Clough points out, when a pice of wood found in a tomb is tested using carbon dating methods, the age given is not the age of the tomb nor is it the age of the tree when it was put into the tomb but, rather, it is the age of the tree when it was cut down originally.

Potassium-argon dating depends upon the decay of potassium 40 into argon 40. This decay rate is much slower than that of C-14, and is used to date items which might be a million or more years old. Certain rock formations are dated this way. The assumption here is that when some rock formations of Africa show to be 1.5 million years old, then the tools and the bones of primitive man found in that vicinity are also 1.5 million years old. I hope that it is obvious that this does not indicate the true age of the artifacts or the bones found with the rock but, at best, dates only the rock itself.

Stratigraphy is the study of various strata of sites where man has lived. Due to man's predisposition toward evolution, it is thought that the stone age came first (which can be separated into different eras), then the Chalcolithic (copper/stone) period, the bronze age, etc. A period of man's history is assigned to these strata which are postulated to be in one of these catagories and everything found in thatr strata are then dated by the strata in which they are found. When man is dated based upon the strata within which he is found, then we are at the mercy of the precepts upon which stratigraphy is founded. That is, a particular human fossil may be determined to be a million years old because the strata in which he is found is assumed to be a millon years old. You see, carbon dating destroys portions of the items which are found in archaelogical digs, so using this method conserves the organic matter which is found (which is very little in the Palestinian area).

■ To show you that they are the product of a certain number of assumptions which may or may not be erronious

On the other hand, I do not wish to disparage the work of archaeologists or paleontologists. The Bible has been continually vindicated in several areas of archaeology and historical accuracy due to their discoveries. They have also been force-fed certain assumptions throughout their entire school life; and when you are told something long enough at an early enough age by people that you trust and admire, it is only natural to accept those premises.

An important note is that the years given in Gen. 5 are different in the Hebrew text (upon which our Bible is based), the Septuigint and in the Samaritan text. We do not know which text is more accurate in this area and there is the possibility that the dates that we found in our Bible may have been systematically changed as opposed to changed due to a scribal error. That is, the numbers in the LXX indicate that Methuselah would have survived the flood and the numbers found in the Samaritan text would have Jared, Methuselah and Lamech outliving the flood. Obviously, this does not jive with the Genesis account of the flood where these men are not mentioned as survivors of the flood. Furthermore, it is possible that all the ages were changed systematically in order to make certain that no one outlived the flood. This, of course, causes us problems with the common interpretation of this passage. Therefore, I will list some other interpretations. However, I should point out that only one scribal error could throw off the chronology of Genesis 5 and if that occurred, then the ages of the others named in Genesis may have been changed to correlate with the error.

The two problems which current theologians have with the antidiluvian period is the longevity of those named in this record and the overall dating of this record. Important archaelogical evidence which has been cited is that human fossils which have been examined have been determined to be between 20 and 60 years old. Further, it is generally agreed upon between archaelogists that man is approximately a million years old. To the former, recall that we are dealing with bones and fossils which are 5-10,000 years old and that certain assumptions are made as to the aging process; my point being is that these bones may (1) only appear to be 20-60 years old or (2) these are not bones from the antediluvian period. When it comes to dating the antediluvian period (for which Biblical scholars will be hard-pressed to do with any great accuracy), we cannot rely upon what archaelogy has done in the dating of mankind in general. They are forced into these positions by the assumptions under which they operate. We have superficially dealt with the methods of dating used by archaeologists and paleontologists and have shown that they are not necessarily infallible.

So that there is no confusion, I should state what my position is (and what it seems histrocally most theologians have held to): Whereas in other geneologies throughout Scripture, it is clear that some generations are skipped, in Gen. 5 it appears as though this is the one time where each and every father and son ar named due to the unique construction of this chapter. The parent is listed; the age when his son is born is listed, the number of years afterward that he lived is listed, and then the total years that he lived is listed. Now, there are other sons and daughters born to these men and it is possible that the son listed is not their son but their grandson—the amount of time given allows for that as does the precedence of other geneologies. However, the meticulous manner in which this chapter is written seems to indicate that the author was particular about getting the ages correct. Could the text have been corrupted? That is certainly a possibility. How about the longeviity factor? It is my personal opinion (and this is not shared by many) that the remains of the antedeluvian civilization have never been found because we have never looked in the right place. I believe if any of it has been preserved (and I doubt that much has) it would be found at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. Whereas we have seen many destructive floods in our lifetimes, I do not think that we have seen any flood even one-tenth the magnitude and strength of the Genesis flood. I do not believe that civilization began in Mesopotamia but on another continent which was destroyed in the Atlantic. Throughout the Old Testament, God would ocassionally order the destruction of a particular group of people and would command the obliteration of every man, woman, child, and their cattle and possessions. If God would command Israel to execute such judgement, then it only stands to reason that a generation so corrupt as the antediluvian age should be similarly summarily obliterated when God is Himself exacting the judgment. When that continent was deluged, it sunk and caused havoc throughout the rest of the earth, including tidal waves hundreds of feet high, almost unimaginable. There were likely dramatic geological changes which occurred at this time. Civilization began again in the Mesopotamian area. Archaeology has not found any ancient man who died being hundreds of years old because archaeology has never discovered any antediluvian men. I should point out that with regards to some of these theories, I am possibly alone in the realm of theology and certainly in the realm of archaeology.

However, it is probably important to note what other theologians are thinking with respect to the geneology given in Gen. 5:

The theories start out innocuous enough. It has been noticed that there are 10 generations from Adam to Noah and ten from Noah to Abraham. It is postulated that this is done for symmetry, brevity and easy memory. The Hebrew words for sired (or, begat) and for son or daughter are used with great latitude and immediate descendent is not always the meaning. Skipping a generation or two is common (and we are always referred to Matt. 1). All this is true; however, we do not show the skipping of four or five generations at every benchmark in Matthew. So even if a generation is skipped here or there, there is no implication that between each set of names we have several generations.

However, based upon those facts, we have a theory that Enosh lived 90 years and sires Kenan and then Enosh lives another 815 years, having other sons and daughters, and then dies at the age of 905, that Enosh, at age 90 had a son, Bob, and Bob had a son Bubba, and Bubba had a son Junior and Junior (quite a number of years later) had a son Kenan. Therefore, not all generations are included in Gen. 5 (which is very possible) and the time frame given is not what it seems. That is, Junior may not have sired Kenan for a few hundred years after Enosh turned 90 and sired Bob. This would allow for us to lengthen the time span of the antediluvian age (which, to my way of thinking is no help in correlating the Biblical record with archaelogical dating methods since the fossils discovered belong to the postdeluvian civilization. And this does not solve the problem of the longevity alluded to in Gen. 5 (or in Gen. 11).

Because there are some instances where an individual's name is used for both himself and for his seed (Gen. 46:1–4), it is theorized that the list of antediluvian names represents tribes or families or dynasties and the number of years given stands for the length of time that dynasty survived (this does not account for the fact that the ages given are all very similar).

The remains of at least four major floods have been found in the Mesopotamian area and they have all been thought to be evidence of the Genesis deluge. At Ur, for instance, there were some excavations made in the 1920's under the direction of a man named Woolley, who discovered some incredible tombs which were a veritable treasure chest of golden drinking cups and goblets, a vases and jugs, bronze tableware, mother of pearl mosaics, and all other manner of artifacts. The lowest and last tombs were judged to be from 2800 bc. Below that were charred wood ash and clay tablets with writing guessed to date back to 3000 bc; and below, there was more pottery and vases, all from the period of time of the tombs. Then right below that was a 10 foot band of clay, the kind deposited by water, yet several yards avoe the river level. The clay abruptly stopped and below that they foundmore vases and pottery, which they judged to be possibly antediluvian. Woolley concluded that this was a flood which covered approximately 400 miles x 100 miles, just Northwest of the Persian Gulf. Although it would hae been a local occurance insofar as we would be concern3ed to day, it wwas thought to we world wide for the inhabitants of that area. We have also found traces of flooding in Mesopotamia, in Kish, Nenveh and Uruk. The problem is they all occured at different times with possibly centuries separating them. A result of this is that very few Biblical scholars will point to any one of these and call it the Genesis flood. In fact, most authors that I have read, although they believe in the Genesis flood, they do not believe taht there is any irrefutable evidence of such a flood. Believers should not be troubled by this. For centuries, the Bible was ridiculed because it gave great prominence to some insignificant group of peoples known as the Hittites. We have since found out, through the efforts of archaelogy that the Hittites were ever bit the world power during their time as the Bible makes them out to be. With respect to the Genesis flood, it should be pointed out is that the Genesis flood possibly did not even occur in this area, although it certainly affected this area in terms of earthquakes, tidal waves and the dramatic shifting of the continents. Furthermore, although historical accuracy is an absolute must forGod's Word, as we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture; even historical verfication of every point in the Bible would not prove to anyone that Jesus Christ died on their behalf on the cross and that by believing in Him they would have eternal life. Even God the Father would not allow those at Gethsemene to view Jesus bearing our sins. He covered the land with a thick, supernatural darkness.

The Weld-Blundell Prism is a list of eight kings who ruled Sumer prior to the flood and fourteen dynasties which came after the flood. It has been assumed by many, hoping for corroberating evidence of the flood in extra-Biblical literature, that the flood here is the Genesis flood. Since there have been four major floods at least early in the history of man in the Mesopotamian area, that means that these kings do not have to be antediluvians and postdiluvians. If God wiped out the inhabitants of the earth, which the Bible clearly indicates, then it would be illogical for a tablet to list a group of kings which reigned before and after a flood. This indicates some sort of coherency in rulership and in population. We have faced incredible floods and have lost large groups of people; it is not inconceivable that mankind could have lost much larger groups of people in an ancient flood, yet the nation survived and some sort of rulership survived, consistant enough to manage to find both sets of kings, those before and after to end up on the same historical record.

One of the intriguing things about this Prism is that some of the names of the kings seem to mean the same thing in translation as some of the names in Genesis 5. The third patrairch named in Genesis is Enosh (which means man) and the third king on the Sumerian (or, Babylonian) list is Amelu, and it means man. Kenan is our #4 man on the Genesis list and his name comes from a word which means to fabricate and the forth king is Ummanu, and his name means artificer. #7 man on the Genesis list, Enoch, is said to have walked with God and then he was not; the seventh king on the Babylonian list (Enmeduranel) was said to have been summoned by the gods Shamash and Ramman. The tenth king, just like Noah, is said to have survived a great flood. There are differences between the two lists to be sure. Further, the period of time during which the antediluvian kings on the Sumerian list reigned was a total of 240,000 years. That's a long time. Individuals reigned for anywhere from 18,000+ years to 36,000 years. None of this should be troubling. Just in case you have forgotten, Satan is the great counterfeitor. No matter what God has done, Satan has attempted to copy it.

To sum up, what I have hoped to accomplish by this lengthy digression is toshow:

● It is possibly that most or all of the direct ancestors of Noah are given in Gen. 5

● It is very likely that the time frame given for the antediluvian period is reasonable and true; other than the error of a copyist, we have no reason to doubt the overall time frame of Gen. 1-6

● It is very likely tht those men named in Gen. 5 really did live for almost an entire millennium.

● Finally, there is no reason to hold to some date a million years ago for the actual beginnings of man on this earth. 5000 to 15,000 bc is a reasonable time frame for a Christian to believe

And Methuselah lived 187 years and sired Lamech, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Methuselah's were 969 years, and he died. And Lamech loved 182 years and become the father of a son. Now he called his name Noah, saying, "This one shall give us rest [or, comfort us] from our work and from the toil of our hands from the ground which the Lord has cursed." [Gen. 5:25–29]

This line of Seth, the seed of the woman, hoped for someone to deliver them from this earth of sin. Most of those who were alive had spoken with Adam and had learned from Adam what the earth was like 1500 years previous. Life, for them, as it is now, was a struggle and hard work. They further faced a world of half-angelic, half-human creatures. Each generation hoped for Messiah, the seed of the woman, the one to give them rest from all their labors. Noah is Nôach (ַחנ) [pronounced no'-akh ] and the word for rest is nachath (תַחַנ ) [pronounced nakh'-ath ]. Jesus said, "Come to me all of you who are weary and heavy-burdened, and I will rest you. Take My yoke upon you; and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart; and you will find rest for your souls." [Matt. 11:28–29] Rotherham also points out that Noah could mean consolation.

V. 32 will mark the end of the generations until we come to another portion of the Bible which deals with the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth (Gen. 10:1). This indicates that the author of the narative from Gen. 4:25-9:32 was probably the same person, very likely Noah or one of his sons. The generations of Adam are dispensed with quickly with very little history or information other than the fact that Enoch was raptured (which had to be mentioned as the amount of years each person lived was mentioned). However, this would have been written by someone who possibly knew some of these men in the past and had kept some sort of a record and wrote from that record. Since the author will record Noah's life in more detail, along with the general state of the earth, I would further assert that Noah was the author of this portion of God's Word. Again, believing that this is a record written down by someone closer to the facts than Moses in no way detracts from the inpiration of God's Word. As I have mentioned, even Luke pooled different resources from which to write his gospel. He did not sit down after forty days and forty nights of eating nuts and berries, praying in the desert, and then start writing from a semi-conscious, subliminal state. We are never told to go into some kind of a trance state and start taking dictation nor is any writer of Scripture. This is foolish and very un-Christian. Those who wrote Scripture give the impression of being very lucid and very conscious while recording Scripture (although some of it came from dreams and visions).

Furthermore, there is no indication that some author like Moses later took these several diffrent sources and tried to weave them together. Each individual narative seems to be quite cohesive and self contained. There does not seem to be various writing styles found within each narative. The naratives have a beginning and a logical end. They do not repeat word for word what previous or later naratives say, yet some of the material overlaps. In other words, this is not too different from the gospels, where there are portions which are found in almost all the gospels and information which only one gospel holds. The chart below is the result of educated guesswork; it is by no mans to be taken as truth etched in stone:

Then Lamech lived 595 years after he became the father of Noah, and he had sons and daughters. So all the days of Lamech were 777 years and he died. And Noah was 500 yers old, and Noah sired Shem, Ham and Japheth. [Gen. 5:30–32]

Shem means celebrity, Ham means swarthy or hot, and Japheth means extension. These are not necessarily Noah's only children, but these are the only ones which are mentioned in Scripture. If Noah had other children, then they perished in the flood, having been contaminated by the demons of Gen. (to be coveed in more detail in that chapter. Writing about other sons and daughters would have been no doubt very painful for Noah.

Some people are confused about the geneological records and their purpose. The primary purpose of these records is to record the line of the humanicty and the legal line of our Lord, which do not diverge until after King David. They trace, throughout several centuries, the seed of the woman. At this time, it was obvious that at least Adam and Lamech had sons which they thought were the promised seed. Furthermore, we are in a time of great corruption on the earth, which will be covered in chapter 6.

The New Testament makes several allusions to Noah and the flood and these references would be a good way to preface chapter 6. In Matt. 24, Jesus is telling of the signs of His return. When He returns, man will be preoccupied with his life on earth and little thought will be given to spiritual things. Noah, after having his three sons, will evangelize the earth for 120 years and the sum total of his converts will be his wife, three of his children and their wives. He would not be written up in Evangelism Monthly. Man and partial man will be too caught up in their own affairs to pay any attention to Noah. Our Lord said, "For the coming of the Son of Mna will be just like the days of Noah: for as in those days which were before the flood, they were eating and drinking, they were marrying and giving in marriage, unti the day that Noah entered the ark. Further, they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." We have two pictures of the time prior to the flood and the time prior to the coming of the Son of Man. One picture is that of great violence and destruction (Gen. 6:11–13 and Matt. 24:6–7,21–22) and the other is a picture of a total lack of interest in things spiritual, or daily life being carried on without a thought to God or to the eternal consequences of one's actions (see also Luke 17:26–30). There is no contradiction in these pictures; merely a difference in emphasis. Today, you can go to any plce on earth and find great violence and you can find people totally peoccupied with their own lives. Prior to the flood and prior to our Lord's second advent, this will also be true, except that the violence will become intensified.

Our Lord spoke of Noah as an historical person and the flood as an historical event. There seems to be no indication that this was some kind of a folk tale carried down through the ages. Further, Noah finds himself in several geneologies (see 1Chron. 1:4 and Luke 3:36).

Hebrews take a wide view of spiritual history, covering the faith of Abel, Enoch and Noah, as well as baker's dozen of historical Jewish figures. Concerning Noah, it reads: By faith-doctrine, Noah, having been warned about things not yet seen, in reverence, prepared an ark for the salvation of is household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

Peter, who became quite a Biblical scholar is his later years, mentions Noah once in each epistle. However, Peter, in each case, is not focusing upon Noah as much as he is focusing upon the angels who sinned. So I will save his quotes for the beginning of chapter 6 when we examine the actual makeup of the earth in the days of Noah.

Just recently, I have read that the continuous history of Israel certainly could not have been written by just one person (or two or three), so those who were the human authors of God's Word would always tie together their portionof the Bible with the previous section with a couple of verses. They might perhaps add a verse or two or a chapter to the previous book (for instance, Joshua likely wrote about the death of Moses at the end of Deuteronomy) and then in their portion of Scripture, they might repeat in the first few verses of their portion one or two verses from the previous book of Scripture. In this way they establish an end, a beginning and continuity. Chapter 1 of Joshua contains primarily a direct quote from God spoken to Joshua and in this quote, their are several quotations of what was in the writings of Moses. The Mosaic (and Abrahamic and Palestinian) covenant is repeated briefly in Josh. 1:2–4. God's promise repeated to Isreal several times under Israel: "I will never fail you or forsake you" is found n Josh. 1:5. The Law of Moses, a refeence to the five books of Moses, is recognized immediately as Scripture in Josh. 1:8. Then we begin with a history of Joshua, written n the third person as did most , but not all, writers of Scripture did.

We find a very similar pattern in the book of Genesis. In the chart which is found previously in this chapter, I have noted certain portions of Scripture and have given reasonable, educated guesses as to the authors of these sections. What we ar studying here is very likely the work of Noah. A short addendum is added to chapter 4 of Genesis (vv. 25–26); the portion which is begun is given a title of sorts in Gen. 5:1 (this is not always the case); a portion of the previous book is repeated almost word for word (Gen. 5:1b–2a quotes Gen. 1:27–28a); this author notes the geneological link in Gen. 5:1-32 (not always the case); and then the author launches into the text of his portion of God's Word. As for myself, I would bet money that—since the geneology covers the seed of the woman throughout the entire antedeluvian period, from Adam and the womnan to Noah and his sons, and since the bulk of the following text deals exclusively with the events of Noah's life, which spanned the end of the antedeluvian period and the beginning of the postdeluvian civilization— that Noah is the author of this portion of Scripture. I would be even more inclined to say that Moses did not necessarily even examine the documents and write the history of man, but copied it line for line in the book which became Genesis or merely added to it.

Introduction: There are those who are good, Christian men and women, who believe that the flood came just because man got way too sinful. This is not altogether logical, however. Man, in various portions of the world, has become extremely degenerate and Godless, yet God does not wipe out the earth. Certainly, in Gen. 9, God promises Noah that He will never again destroy the population of the earth as a whole by a flood; but how could tings get so bad so soon after the fall, making such drastic action necessary? We are not speaking of a man who miscalculated or perhaps overreacted and destroyed mankind from the face of the earth; we are speaking of God the Father who has all of the facts, has a perfect knowledge of the past, present and future; and Who does not miscalculate or overreact. Logically, this would indicate that something occurred during this period of time which was evil enough or unusual enough to warrant more than just strong discipline but absolute destruction.

Our lives are but a drop in human history. Man is arrogant to believe that as it has been in his life, it always has been and forever will be. There are several verses which should be quoted here; I just do not know what they are except for 1Thess. 5:3.

God has sentenced Satan and the angels that fell to the Lake of Fire. Certainly, Satan objected to this sentence and brought forth many reasons why this sentence was unjust or too harsh. Human history reveals the absolute catastrophe of God allowing the coexistence of sin. However, so that there is no later objection that God stacked the deck, human history occurs in a number of environments, in a number of scenarios. We have man in innocence in perfect environment in the garden; but we also have fallen man in perfect environment in the millennium. We have man faced with signs and miracles and prophecy and we have a period of time where there are a dearth of signs and miracles and no prophecy. Throughout these various epochs of history, we also have a change in the relationship of the angels and demons to man. Whereas, angels have often been involved in our history as servants of God for our benefit and protection, the demonic role in history has changed. In the garden, Satan was allowed to indwell a serpent (or possibly even cohabit with a serpent, producing the serpent that lied to the woman). In the period of time when our Lord came to this earth, demon-possession was fairly common and almost universally acknowledged. That is, it appeared that in almost every town there were cases of demon-possession. Furthermore, this demon-possession resulted in very radical behavior. Today, there are likely many cases of demon-possession, but, for the most part, the behavior is less radical and more civilized. The multiple personality syndrom could be partially attributable to demon activity. This does not mean that all multiple personality types are demon-possessed; but it is likely that some are. In a similar vein, it is likely that some mass-murderers, with their sexual deviance and aberrant behavior beyond the murder of strangers, are demon-possessed. It is not beyond the field of logic to imagine that some world leaders, notably Stalin and Hitler, were demon-possessed, given the huge number of people whom they callously had killed. Demon-possession does not have to result in behavior which is clearly bizarre. Demons are far more intelligent than we are and their social skills would be close to perfect, if they so chose to act. This is why some mass-murderers can find so many victims and seem so normal to their victims to the point of actually seducing them to a point.

The purpose of all this introduction is to make you understand that after the fall, things could have been different than they are now in more respects than we realize. Demon activity could have been different than it is now. It is my opinion that (1) demons actually were allowed to have their own bodies and were able to copulate with mankind and produce offspring; (2) these offspring were half-demon and half-human, a counterfeit of the hypostatic union of Jesus Christ; and (3) that mythology is based upon this period of time. When Satan seduced Adam and the woman to fall, mankind and the earth underwent some dramatic changes. Had Satan not the ability to intervene in human history, he could have objected that even though he caused man to fall, he could have straightened out the earth, given the opportunity. Therefore, Satan and his demon army have always played a part in human history in one way or another. We always think of Satan as a force for sin, but he also operates in the field of good and evil. Man's many attempts for a human utopia are not continually thwarted by Satan, but a result of Satan's attempts to show that he can run the world and the world system. He is the ruler of the earth and he is in charge. The fact that there are wars, poverty, sickness, and all types of evils on this earth are not necessarily the result of Satan's direct action but a result of his ineptitude to provide a suitable environment for the inhabitants of the earth. There is a marvelous quote from Chafer which Thieme was wont to use at this point which I cannot find in my abridged Systematic Theology.

Communism and socialism are great political systems which are no doubt related to Satanic philosophy. There is an attempt to make everyone equal, and to remove those who are so foolish as to believe in God (they are removed from society, reeducated, or simply killed). You cannot suddenly impose a socialistic system without killing millions of people. However, you can slowly inundate society with socialistic trends and socialistic philosophy, which has happened in most of Europe, Canada and currently in the United States.

Back to Genesis 6: there are a great many good Christians who do not believe that angels ever were allowed to copulate with mankind, and, as J. Vernon McGee used to say, on this one point we can allow them to be wrong. We can still fellowship with them and spend eternity with them. However, since Satan took over the rulership of the earth, it is only logical to allow him a certain amount of autonomy in ruling it. Furthermore, the angels came from a lifestyle of celibacy. They did not procreate; there were not male and female angels; they do not marry or give in marriage. What occurred on the earth with the woman was a new thing. Satan’s plan was to corrupt all mankind by having angels fornicate with women. This viewpoint must be substantiated and it will be shown that every reference to angelic activity during Noah's time will indicate that more than demon-possession took place.

There is a second reason that angels cohabited with mankind (I should say womankind); fallen angels are destined for the Lake of Fire. They will spend eternity there in suffering and in separation from God. The harshness of God’s sentencing is explained in human history. God has allowed the redeeming of fallen man, but not of fallen angels. So, why can’t God just allow Satan some little corner of the universe to hang, separated from all else? First of all, God will give Satan that little corner of the universe; we call it hell, but it is properly the Lake of Fire. Secondly, Satan and his angels are doing everything possible to see that we do not choose Jesus Christ, but that we spend our eternity with him instead. However, I am deviating from the point I would like to make. Mankind can be redeemed and angels cannot. So what is God going to do when He is faced with some half-man, half-angelic beings? Won’t God have to save them if they choose to believe in Jesus Christ? And God had Moses preach the gospel for 120 years, with the only converts coming from his own family, who were uncontaminated flesh. Therefore, that remains a moot question.

The first term which we must examine is sons of God found here and in Job 1:6 2:1 and 38:7. Both Hebrew words are the common words for sons and for God. However, they are only used in conjunction in these four portions of OT Scripture. In Job, it is fairly clear that we are dealing with a convocation of angels, both fallen and elect, and Satan in the courtroom of God. This is why it is that sons of God in Genesis refers to angels. The use of Son of God in the New Testament is used only of Jesus Christ in His incarnation and sons of God in the New Testament refer to us as believers in union with Jesus Christ.

The New Testament has more to say on the subject of the times of Noah, however. In the little book of Jude, the writer is making a point by quoting several parallel judgements found in the Old Testament. In fact, the time period covered is the same as that in Genesis and Exodus (Jude mentions Cain, Enoch, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Exodus generation). In the midst of these things, Jude writes: And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, [those] He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day. (Jude 6) These are the angels who left their celibate state and cohabited with the daughters of men; the same were buried under the raging waters of the flood and held in bonds under darkness until the day of judgment. Even Jesus Christ, in his Spirit, immediately following his death by crucifixion, carried a victorious proclamation to these angels. In which [Spirit] He also went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison who once were disobedient (or unyielding) when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (1Peter 3:19–20) This was not Peter's last word on this subject: For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them in pits of darkness, reserved for judgment, and did not spare the ancient [antediluvian] world, but preserved Noah, a proclaimer of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly. (2Peter 2:4–5)

So it is clear that something occurred with some angels during the time of Noah, causing them to be put under chains of darkness, reserving them for later judgement and this transgression involved leaving their own principality or position. Our most logical conclusion is that they cohabited with the daughters of men. Remember, that women were a brand new thing on the earth. No such creature had ever existed before like this. And it is logical to have one period of time where angels could directly intervene upon human history, to reveal that they do not have the ability to correct the fallen state of man, which was caused by Satan.

The last, and weakest witness to this viewpoint is the history of man. If something like this occurred, even though the post-diluvian civilization began with believers only, the sons of Noah would certainly remember the incredible half-human half-angelic creatures that lived upon the earth and they would, tell about these beings. Stories about half man, half-god beings would certainly find its way to almost every major ancient culture. This is precisely what we find. Mythology exists for the Celts, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Scandinavians and Hindus (among others). There are a great many parallels between these various myths. They had the same source material; each culture just embellished these myths. See the Mythology Table (PDF version). It is not unlike a rumor which has gotten out of control. In the myths which I have examined, there is parallel after parallel between God's Word and these myths, from the creation of the earth and the creation of man to the tribulation and the millennium. Recall that Satan is the great counterfeiter and he will counterfeit the truth and, whenever possible, glorify himself in the process. Most of these mythologies have a trinity of sorts; they all have Satanic figures (and usually many Satanic figures); there is a lot of marriage between brothers and sisters and nephews, and other close relatives, similar to the antediluvian civilization. There is cohabitation beteen gods and men and there are races of half-mortal/half-gods in these myths. The parallels between the truth and myth are amazing. As I read through various myths and synopses of various mythologies, I am amazed by the clear bastasrdization of the truth which is found in everything from the creation myths, to the underworld, to the chains of darkness, to even the end times.

Now with this several page introduction to chapter 6 of Genesis, we are finally able to begin and have some idea as to what is really occurring:

Now it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth that daughters were born to them, and the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives to themselves, whomever they chose. [Gen. 6:1–2]

The angels are called sons of God because God created them; they do not procreate or give birth. They do not have a male or female sex. As Jesus said, "The angels do not marry nor are they given in marriage." However, man does procreate and they began to have daughters as well as sons. Women are often impressed by foolish things, such as power, exterior beauty, fame and riches, and these fallen angels had all of these attributes, making them far more desirable than puny man. Therefore, the angels were able to chose as they so desired. God allowed this for a time to illustrate that angelic infiltration of the human race was not the answer and that Satan could not solve the problems of the fallen world in this way. This also indicates that God created the woman as a creature of great beauty, which we still see today. Only a man with real character can see beyond this tremendous exterior beauty.

We have seen the Hebrew word for take before; it can mean to take in marriage and thisis what it means in this context. It is in the Qal imperfect, which means they continued to take these women as wives, that it did not all occur at once but a few of them tried it and made it work so other fallen angels decided to join in. Chose is in the Qal perfect; they made the initial choice, stuck with it, and then took these women as wives. Their choice is in the perfect tense, because it was a completed action with results that continued.

The Yahweh said, "My Spirit shall not plead [the cause] [or, strive] with man forever; because he also [is] flesh, therefore his days shall be 120 years." [Gen. 6:3]

This verse has a couple of slightly different renderings, mostly because the translators do not know what is going on in this passage, therefore the actually translation does not make sense to them. The first verb in the quote is dîyn (ןי.) [pronounced deen] and it can mean to judge, to exercise judgement, to punish and it can mean plead (the cause) or to strive. The latter translation is found in Gen. 30:6 Jer. 5:28 30:13. Then there is the elusive

preposition shel (לֶש ) [pronounced shel ] and it means on account of, because, whatsoever, whichsoever. Man is in the singular masculine meaning that it stands for mankind; and is followed by the relative pronoun in the singular masculine. Gam (םַ) [pronounced gam] is an adverb denoting addition and it can be translated also, moreover, yea or even.

God will continue to witness to mankind below, even though most of man is half-angel, half-man at this point; but God will still plead the gospel with them, because man is also flesh. God has also given man a cutoff time. For 120 years, Noah will preach the gospel to the masses, regardless of their origins, and he will have but seven convrts, his wife, his three sons and his three duaghters-in-law, (who wisely chose to marry into Noah's family). An additional purpose fo the line of Noah is now more obvious: this line shows that Noah was descended from 100% homo sapiens. There were no angels in the wodpile for Noah. Noah's father and grandfather both died prior to the flood and the means of their death is not told to us.

There are certainly other theories on what this means. The most common theory is that the two lines represent the line of Seth and the line of Cain intermarrying; another is that the sons of God refer to kings who could choose whatever women they wanted because they were kings. It is true that Israel often became corrupt due to intermarriage with people of other religions but this is not Israel that we are speaking of here. God has said nothing about who can marry who. Furthermore, whether we have the line of Cain mixed with the line of Seth (who have the same father), does that require God to wipe them off the face of the earth with a flood? Can Cain's line really be that bad? Further, it is possible that there were kings at that time, but we must remember that we are less than a dozen generations from Adam and Eve. They have certainly populated the earth quickly, as lifetimes tended toward the millennial mark and cities began to be built, but this does not mean that man has banded into separate nations as of yet (or city-states). God seems to encourage this type of separation later in Gen. 9. The point is, these theories come very short of dealing with the passage in context, with the quotations from Jude and Peter, and when it comes to dealing with Noah being perfect and all flesh being corrupt, these theories will also prove to be inadequate.

The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and also after that [or, as a result of this], when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and bore [sons] to them; the same were the heroes of old, the men of renown. [Gen. 6:4]

Again, examine the other two, incorrect theories of the mixture of the two lines (whether kings and women or Cain's line and Seth's line); if these are men of reknown, heroes of the past, why do we not know anything about them today? However, if they are a mixture of angels and man, then almost every ancient culture knows about these men and this information has been brought down to us even to today. A mixture of Seth's line and Cain's line is not going to account for men who are looked back upon as heroes or as men of renown. Properly interpreted, God's Word makes perfect sense at this point. Being that we are in an age where miracles and signs and wonders are rare, people tend to want to remove any hint of supernatural from the Bible. Critics for centuries have tried to discount the miracles of Moses, Elijah and Jesus Christ, claiming that these are but myths. Some fundamentalists get caught in the same trap and more subtly persuaded that since there is no cohabitation between women and angels today, that it therefore never took place before. There are a lot of things in the antediluvian state which is different from our present age. This allowance by God is but one of many drastic dissimilarities between our age and that age.

Most translators, at this point, puppy out and transliterate instead of translate the first noun. The KJV uses the word giants, but that is not necessarily correct. The word is n^ephîl (ל.פְנ) [pronounced nef-eel' ] (the additional im suffix is the plural suffix in the Hebrew). It's meaning is disputed, which is why it is often transliterated. It is found only elsewhere in Num. 13:33 where a patrol sent out by Moses to the land of Canaan comes back, one of them, Caleb, desiring to overtake the peoples in the land, the the majority report was afraid to attack because the people were nephilim and the Jews, by comparison, were grasshoppers in their sight. It is for this reason, the word is sometimes translated giants. Another possible meaning is fallen ones. The root word for this is nâphal (לַפָנ) [pronounced naw-fal' ] which means to fall; or nêphel (לֶפְנ) [pronounced neh'-fel] which means untimely birht or abortion (it is the same root word). This can be a technical term for these half-angel/half-human beings. They are related to an untimely birth; they are probably larger in stature and much stronger than the Jews; the are fallen creatures. The use in Num. 13:33 could have been an exaggeration based upon this passage. The spies in those circumstances were so nervous and afraid, that they saw these people as the mythological people of old.

The sentence structure is such that we cannot determine whether these are beings in addition to those mentioned in the verse or whether these are the product of this unholy union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However, it would be logical that these refer to the fallen angels who copulated with the homo sapiens females.

Then Yahweh saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only [or, altogether] evil continually. [Gen. 6:5]

Wickedness includes bad, unkind, vicious, disagreeable and displeasing. Furthermore, wickedness and evil are the same words in the Hebrew in this verse. Again, how is it likely that man, left to his own devices, could reach a state of evil this great? Man, throughout history, has always had pockets of evil. But the only difference here, by many expositors, is that man was able to pick and chose the women that he wanted and he lived a lot longer than man today. This is not going to account for this concentration of evil. Again, the only logical explanation for what is going on is that God has allowed the angels to cohabit with women.

And Yahweh was sorry that He had made man on the earth and He was grieved in His heart. [Gen. 6:6]

Translators and expositors have had a lot of trouble with this verse. Sometimes it is even translated improperly as it repented the Lord that... This way God would not be the subject of the sentence. It is not a problem to have a verse like this. It is simply an anthropopathism. This expresses God's motivation and response to a situation in human terms; ascribing to God emotions and feelings which He does not have, yet better explaining God to man through the use of these emotions. God knew in eternity past exactly what was going to happen. The events of the past three chapters did not catch God by surprise and now He wishes He would have thought this out a bit better. At this point in time, one-third of the angels had fallen and man had fallen. However, it was through this, and through the rest of human history that God would preserve the rest of the angels forever and preserve man forever, those who so choose.

And the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them." [Gen. 6:7]

It is worthwhile to note that God is a trinity and is speaking amongst Himself and speaking aloud so that (1) the angels may hear Him and learn and (2) that man might have a recording of what God thought in our historcial past prior to the flood. What God plans to do to the man who is on the earth is mâchâh (הָחָמ ) [pronounced maw-khah' ] and its proper meaning is to stroke or rub, its derived meanings is to blot out, to erase, to rub out, to obliterate. It is always used in the latter sense and not in the former.

Because it would be nice to see the Hebrew word for grace, it is chên (ןֵח ) [pronounced khane] It means graciousness, kindness, favor, elegance. This particular phrase, discovering grace in the eyes of Yahweh, is found throughout the Old Testament. Genesis, being the book where all great doctrines have their origin, introduces grace for the first time. The definition of Thieme, all that God is free to do for us on the basis of the cross is much preferable to the more common unmerited favor. Grace is a true doctrine for every dispensation, as we all receive far more than we could ever deserve, it is not found in the Old Testament as often as it is in the New. We are given the Holy Spirit in the age of grace, the church age, as believers in Jesus Christ, whereas, in the Old Testament, only a very small percentage of believers, one-tenth of one percent, received the Holy Spirit (which could then be withdrawn). In fact, many believers in the Old Testament did not even realize that such a thing as the Holy Spirit existed. Those who had It and those who knew some doctrine realized that God did give to some a Helper; but because the cross was presented in shadow form, the full revelation of God's plan had not been given. The life of the believer in the Old Testament was on more of a legal basis. There was grace because Israel was given certain covenants that would stand forever and would be fulfilled no matter what. On the other hand, of the Law, God told Israel, "Do this and live." Man by his effort, was to attempt to keep the law and if he did not, he was to avail himself of the grace of God through animal sacrifices to cover his sin. Why are we the privileged dispensation? As I have mentioned, man is teaching the angels in human history, as well as resolving the angelic conflict. Every stated objection and unstated objection of Satan is being answered. We have seen man under perfect enviornment, under long life and intermingling with the demon army of Satan, and we will see man in several dispensatins without the fully guidance of the Holy Spirit (which will show that we cannot live a spiritual life—a life pleasing to God—apart from the Holy Spirit). Although it is not stated, I would think that God had given Noah, and very likely his entire family, the Holy Spirit. This is implied by v. 3; God's Sprit would not always strive with man. Is the Spirit some ethereal essence for good? Certainly not; the Holy Spirit usually, but not always, functions through someone. That someone is at least Noah, and possibly some or all of the members of his family.

What occurs next is difficult to explain n terms of authorship. It seems very likely that Noah wrote Gen. 5–10, but the next few verses seem to indicate that a new author has logged on. We have the famous phrase, these are the beginnings (or the generations) of Noah, v. 10 ties us to the previous increment of Scripture, but that generally indicates a new author. At first, I would guess that Lamech, Noah's father, wrote Gen. 4:25–6:8 (or, Gen. 5:1–6:8), because he lived long enough to see the sons of Abraham being born and lived to see the corruption of the earth. Furthermore, a great spiritual man needs to have been taught from someone. The only logical place for Noah to have matured spiritually is under the tutelage of his father, who learned from his father. This would indicate that Lamech, although little is said about him, was also spiritually mature. However, he is not likely the author as his death is recorded. Becaue of the personal conversations recorded in Gen. 6, it is more likely that Noah wrote the latter portion than the former, so my educated guess would be that chapter 4 and the first part of 5 were written by Noah before the flood and that he carried the manuscripts with him on the ark. This portion of Scripture was probably written by Noah after the flood.

These are the Generations [or, the Progeny] of Noah: Noah was a righteous [or, justified] man; he was blameless [innocent, unimpaired, uncorrupted] in his time period [or, generation]; with God, Noah walked. [Gen 6:9]

Many Bibles use the word generation twice in this verse, but there are two different Hebrew words. The first one is the one used several times previous, transliterated from the Greek genesis. It might be more literally translated begettings. It is similar to the words for born, kindred, offspring. The second word often translated generation is dôwr (ר  ) [pronounced dore] and it has a variety of meaning. It is quite similar to our understanding of the word dispensation or age. It is properly a revolution of time, which is why it can be translated as age or dispensation. It can also mean dwelling place. It also means circle or ball.

In this verse we have the first use of the word righteous in the Bible (or, just, justified, vindicated). It is the word ts^edâqâh (הָקָדְצ ) [pronounced tsed-aw-kaw' ] (which is Strong's #6666, for those of you who are supersticious). It is used of both man and God and is quite similar t our use of it in the New Tetament. However, we have righteousness because we share Christ's righteousness. We are in Christ. We do not know how much that man knew about what was right adn what was not during thisperiod of time. The revelation which has come down to us says very little about the moral codes, other than that when Cain murdered his brother, God protected him because it had not been revealed yet that murder was a sin against God. However, for as much as was revealed at that time as being righteous, Noah was this. Then we find the word that the KJV translated perfect, which caused problems theologically speaking for many. We all know that all of sinned and come short of the glory of God so people have trouble with this word perfect. The word is tâmîym (םי.מָ ) [pronounced taw-meem' ] and it means to be without blemish, to have integrity, being complete, wholesome, innocent, unimpaired. His character has already been alluded to in this verse. In another context, with another verb, this would refer to spiritual maturity. However, the verb used here is in the perfect tense; it is a completed actions viewed as a whole. What this is, is an unchangeable fact. Therefore, this refers to the fact that Noah is 100% homo sapien without any mixture of demonic blood. This is the word used for sacrificial animals who have no external blemishes or imperfections. When used of Noah, it meant that his parents were Homo sapiens, as were theirs. This is important enough to record the generations prior to this portion of God's Word.

Walking refers to a lifestyle or to a way of life. We can be justified in the past with results which continue on forever. However, our lives can be an ungodly mess. That is, the vindication that we possess is not seen by anyone else, often not even ourselves. However, this walk is the day-in, day-out experience of the mature believer who recognizes his salvation and exploits his relationship with God to the maximum. Therefore, in this verse, we have three words which describe Noah and they are not synonymous. He was saved, justified or vindicated; he had not been corrupted; and his walk with God indicated an ongoing maturity.

Sired is in the Hiphil imperfect; Noah caused these sons to come into being. They were not all sired at once; hence, the imperfect tense. This verse is almost a direct quote from Gen. 5:32b, which ties this portion of Scripture to what has gone before. It is as though there was a scroll which was written upon; and the author would stop and then he (or another person) would pick up from there in the future. He might write a preface, introduce the subject matter with a title, and then tie it to what has gone before with a verse or two. Here, because it is likely Noah doing the writing (and my guess is that he is writing this after the flood), that he does not quote much from his previous manuscript.

Now the earth became corrupt in the sight of God; therefore the earth was filled with violence [or, noisy, wild ruthlessness]. [Gen. 6:11]

Shâchath (תַחָש ) [pronounced shaw-khath' ] means to decay, to ruin, to become corrupt, marred or spoiled. In the Niphal imperfect, it means that the earth was caused to become corrupt (it is in the passive voice) and it was a process. In the sight of God means that the earth may have seemed fine to those fallen angels who corrupted it and they were enjoying their party on earth; but from a divine perspective, the earth had entered into ruin and corruption. Filled is also in the Niphal imperfect. Violence is the word châmâç (סָמָח) [pronounced khaw-mawce' ] and it does refer to physical violence, but also to wrong in the sense of injurious and vicious language, harsh treatment, and noisy, wild ruthlessness. The angels took the daughters of man without any thought to the men on earth; without a single thought to their needs, to their right man/right woman relationship that they have destroyed. These angels were nothing more than powerful bullies who had their way no matter what the consequences.

And God looked on the earth and behold it had (been caused to) become corrupt; for all flesh corrupted their way upon the earth. [Gen. 6:12]

The first use of corrupt (the same word as in the previous verse) is in the Niphal perfect. God views the action as a whole and the earth (or the land) does not cause its own corruption; it is passive. It became (or was caused to come) corrupt. The second use of corrupt is in the Hiphil perfect where the object of the verb takes a part in the action of the verb. Flesh both was acted upon and acted out of volition to bring upon this corruption. This again describes exactly what occurred. The daughters of men in most cases allowed themselves to be swept away by the romanticism and the power of the fallen angels. However, also ,the volition of the fallen angels caused the corruption of the earth; so we have a joint subject, although the fallen angels are not named specifically. However, this is brought out by the use of the Hiphil stem. Notice that all flesh had become corrupted. This means that virtually the entire population of the earth, with the exception of a few of those in Seth's line, had become part man and part angel.

Then God said to Noah, "A coming of an end of all flesh before Me [or, in My presence]; for the earth is filled with violence because of their presence; and take a sobering look to Me [literally, behold Me]; the ruination of them with the earth." [Gen. 6:13]

Qêts (ץֵק) [pronounced kates] refers to an end or cessation. There is no definite article. All flesh is the same two words in the same construction as in the previous verse; all is a substantive and this might be more correctly translated the totality of flesh. Then we have the Qal active participle of bôw’ (א ) [pronounced bo], which means to go, to come, to come in, to come upon or to fall upon (as an enemy), to come to pass. This is followed by a preposition and the masculine plural noun (with a first person singular suffix) of pânîym (םי.ָ) [pronounced paw-neem' ] and it has a variety of uses. It is found in the plural, but used as the singular, and it means face. Literally, what we have is: the coming of the cessation of all flesh in my face. However, before me, in my presence, in front of me would all be reasonable ways to translate this. For the earth is filled with violence is correct. The preposition is from, out of, because of and it is followed paniym again, but with a third masculine plural suffix this time. This should be translated because of their presence.

Hinnêh (הֵ.ה ) [pronounced hin-nay' ] with the first person singular suffix means behold Me. This, unfortunately, does not sound as we would like in modern English. The New English Bible, because of the awkward and out of date phrasing, does not even translate this word. The New Revised Standard Version follows suit. Take note of this, or watch me might be more up to date renderings, but they lose some of the force and vigor of behold Me. We then have a play on words, although it is not done in a playful way. The verb is the Hiphil participle of shachath, which has been used several times in the previous verses to describe the corruption of the earth which has occurred. Man and man corrupted by angels has caused the corruption of the earth so God will now cause the further ruin of the earth. The Hiphil means the object of the verb, mankind or flesh, participates in the action of the verb. Through their corruption of flesh and of the earth, they have caused the further destruction of the earth. It is the law of volitional responsibility. God has shown that direct demonic involvement with the affairs of man causes the absolute corruption and destruction of mankind. Satan cannot help to facilitate the fall of man and then claim had he further involvement with man, he could have set things right. God allowed Satan and his demonic corps a chance to repair the earth but all they did was further destroy it. In fact, their involvement was so destructive, that God had to destroy the earth with a flood.

We would expect, just as there are mythological records of the Nephilim from before the flood, that history would also bear some record of the flood and an ark. The Bible, being God's Word, has the accurate account; however, one would expect to find evidence of this in other historical records. One author, F.A. Filby notes that "there is no other story of an ancient event in all the world so widely accepted [as the flood]." From Nippur, in Southern Babylonia, we have a cuneiform tablet which tells of a king, Ziusuddu, having been warned that the gods were about to bring upon the earth a deluge, who built a boat to escape this flood. This Sumerian record has been dated as approximately 2000 bc, although the oral version probably predates this considerably. There are several Akkadian accounts from both Assyrian and Babylonia. One of the more famous of these is one written in Akkadian and is a portion of the Epic of Gilgamish. Ea, a god, warns Uta-napishtim concerning the flood that is to come. Uta then builds a boat to save his family, various craftsmen, animals and gold and silver. The flood in this version lasted but seven days and the boat comes to rest on a mountain in NW Persia. Uta sends out a dove, then a swallow and finally a raven. The raven does not return, so Uta and company exit the boat and make sacrifices to the gods.

Insofar as geological evidence is concerned, there is a difference of opinion concerning that. Several authors contend that there has been nothing discovered, as of yet, that would irrefutably indicate a flood of the disastrous proportions recorded in Genesis. Others, with less reliable archeological backgrounds, believe that there have been several discoveries that point to the flood of Genesis. There have been a dozen "ark sightings", but none have produced pictures or any other corroborating evidence. And, at this point in time, it is highly unlikely that an archeological team will be given the financial backing to search the mountains of Urarţu for a ship. Furthermore, there is great prejudice on both sides. Most geologists have a view of things which treat C-14 dating methods as infallible and they had a set of assumptions and beliefs under which they operate. On the other hand, the Christian community itself has a great deal of prejudice in this area.

Finally, there is the question as to how large an area was affected by the great flood. There are two basic viewpoints, one is that it was a world wide flood covering the entire earth to the highest mountain. This would require approximately eight times the amount of water than presently exists on the earth. Whether this water existed prior to the flood and was unleashed and then removed from the earth, we do not know. God is capable of effecting such an incredible miracle. It could have been a local flood, covering the entire populated earth. The word for land and earth are the same in the Hebrew and the word for heaven could mean the entire atmosphere of the earth, the heavens above or the general sky from horizon to horizon. One can even speculate as to whether God used a heavenly body, such as a comet, to have a tremendous gravitational pull upon the water to that portion of the world. We simply do not know and the Bible is not specific in this regard. What is clear in the recording of the flood is that it did destroy all flesh from the earth at that time.

"Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood; you will make the ark with rooms, and shall coat it inside and out with pitch. And this is how you will make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits." [Gen. 6:14–15]

In the Epic of Gilgamish, previously mentioned, the ark in it was a 200 foot cube. This would have made a very unseaworthy vessel unless it was com0pletely enclosed without any openings, and then it would have spun around and turned upside down, etc. the ark in a Greek legend was 3000' x 1200', which is way too large. Similar ratios to those given by God to Noah are used today. We do not know exactly the length of a cubit, but 18" is close, making this ark 450' x 75'. This is not unlike the dimensions of a modern ocean liner. So, for whatever reason, God gave us very accurate and reasonable measurements for the ark, yet left us without absolute geological proof of the flood and the existence of the ark. This does not means that the geological proof does not exist; it just means that we have not discovered it yet. Kâphar [רֶָ ] [pronounced kaw-far' ] is the word usually translated atonement; it means covering. It usually means that God does not see us for our real selves because our nature has been covered up from his sight. It is a reference to seeing Jesus Christ instead of seeing us when it comes to the judgment that we deserve. Actual forgiveness is not based upon this covering; it is a shadow of things to come. The death of our Lord on the cross provides us with the real forgiveness. The ark is a type of Christ. The family of Noah is inside the ark, covered and protected from God's judgement. Note that Noah is delivered through the storm; God still allows the earth to flood where Noah and his family are; God just provides for them a way of escape. This way of escape is a covering.

The time that Noah spent working on this ark with the help only of his three sons was his testimony to the world. When he was questioned, he explained to them clearly that God was going to judge the world with a flood and that only those in the ark would survive.

"You will make a roof for the ark and finish it to within a cubit from the top; and set the door of the ark on the side of it; you will make it with lower, second and third decks." [Gen. 6:16]

The cubit opening around the roof was to allow for air circulation; rather important when traveling with several hundred animals for a year in an ocean liner. There was only one door; again, analogous to salvation. Jesus said, "I am the door; if any man enters in through me, he will be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture."

"[Now] observe that I, [even] I, will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life. Everything from under the heaven that is on the earth shall die." [Gen. 6:17]

It is verse like this in the English that make people adamantly hold for a universal flood. Personally, if the Bible teaches a universal flood and there is no evidence of any sort discovered, then I will believe the Bible. However, as mentioned before, the word for land and earth are the same: erats; furthermore, there are several different uses for heavens—it can be localized or the entire universe. What is clear is that God will destroy mankind from the face of the earth.

But I will establish My covenant with you; and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife, and your sons' wives with you. [Gen. 6:18–19]

Altogether, that was eight people. We do not know if Noah had other sons and daughters. This is never mentioned. If Noah wrote this, it is possible that he did not even want to think about his other children since it would be a very painful memory. After 500 years, you would expect that he would have had more children. We all proceed 100% from the genetic pool of Adam and Eve; however, only partially from Noah and his wife. Each of his sons was married to a woman, likely from outside the family, yet progeny of Adam and Eve, and we are descended from one of them.

"And of every living thing of all flesh, you will bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind; two of every kind shall come to you to keep alive. And, as for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible and store it for yourselves; and it will serve as food for you and for them." [Gen. 6:19–21]

Modern ocean liners are known to take hundreds of animals and their provisions along with hundreds of people and provisions for them. How many animals exactly were involve is not said. Atthis point in time, it appears as though man and animals are all vegetarians. There will be restricted movement and restricted activity for the next year, so it would not be unexpected that the animal's system would go into a kind of hibernation. Reduced activity and reduced in take of food. The animals coming to the ark was a miracle, although it is never spoken of as such. The flood itself is also a miracle, although it is never spoken of as such. The ability to carry the largest zoo in the world on ship for a year was a miracle, but God provided. Furthermore, this does not have to be an inclusive zoo. Noah needed to carry only one pair of dogs for instance; the breeds came later. The same with horses, cows, etc.

I have never made the calculations for the size of the ark as contrasted to the number of animals; but something which might help to explain how little space is needed. If we decided to take every man, woman and child from our entire planet and stand them next to one another, you would be amazed as to how little room is necessary. To take round numbers, take 5 billion, multiply by, say, 3 square feet (1.7' x 1.7') to represent the amount of space each would occupy, and then divide that by 5280 and divide again by 5280 (because there are 5280 x 5280 square feet in a square mile), that would tell you how large an area the entire present population of the earth would occupy. It is surprisingly small, isn't it? With God's grace, the control and survival for these animals was carried out.

So Noah did, according to all that God had commanded him, so he did. [Gen. 6:22]

Introduction: Chapter 6 covered the corruption of mankind on the earth and the reasons for the flood. God also promises the flood in chapter 6 and explains exactly what will happen to Noah. In Gen. 7, we have Noah's obedience to God's instructions and the actual flood itself.

And Yahweh said to Noah, "Enter into the ark, you and your household; for you have I seen righteous before me in this generation" [Gen. 7:1]

Genesis Chapter Links
Genesis 1	Genesis 2	Genesis 3	Genesis 4	Genesis 5
Genesis 6	Genesis 7	Genesis 8	Genesis 9	Genesis 10
Genesis 11	Genesis 12	Genesis 13	Genesis 14	Genesis 15
Genesis 16	Genesis 17	Genesis 18	Genesis 19	Genesis 20
Genesis 21	Genesis 22	Genesis 23	Genesis 24	Genesis 25
Genesis 26	Genesis 27	Genesis 28	Genesis 29	Genesis 30
Genesis 31	Genesis 32	Genesis 33	Genesis 34	Genesis 35
Genesis 36	Genesis 37	Genesis 38	Genesis 39	Genesis 40
Genesis 41	Genesis 42	Genesis 43	Genesis 44	Genesis 45
Genesis 46	Genesis 47	Genesis 48	Genesis 49	Genesis 50
Genesis Introduction

The difference between Cain and Abel and their sacrifices is the difference between true Christianity and any other religion, sect or cult:
How to Distinguish Between Christianity and Christian Cults
True Christianity	Religion, "Christian" cults, Catholicism, etc.
God seeks us (Gen. 3:9 4:6)	We seek God* (Acts 17:27)
God provides the means of salvation (Gen. 3:15,21 II Cor. 5:21)	We provide the means for our salvation
We come to God on the basis of a blood sacrifice of that which is innocent (Gen. 3:21 4:3–5 I Peter 3:18)	We come to God on the basis of our good life, our works, our human goodness (Luke 19:18–25 Rom. 4:2)
God reaches down to us (John 1:1,14 3:27)	We reach up to God (Gen. 3:3–5)
Our salvation and relationship with God is based upon what God has done for us in the form of Jesus Christ on the cross (Gal. 2:16,21 3:13 Tit. 3:5)	Our salvation and relationship to God is based upon our being a good person, following the law or the ten commandments, etc. (Rom. 3:20–21)
Salvation is free (Rom. 4:5 Eph. 2:8)	We earn our salvation (Rom. 9:31)
Salvation is unmerited (I Cor. 4:7 Eph. 2:9)	If we are bad, we are not saved (Luke 23:39–43)
Righteousness is imputed (Rom. 4:22 9:30)	Righteousness is earned (Acts 17:25)
Salvation is permanent (Psalm 37:24 John 10:27–30 Rom. 8:1 11:1,2,29	It is possible to lose our salvation if we commit enough sins or rebel against God (I Cor. 5:17)
Our righteousness is Christ's righteousness (Jer. 33:16 Rom. 5:17)	Our righteousness is a personal righteousness or a self-righteousness (Isa. 64:6 Phil. 3:9)
Salvation requires not just faith in God but comes through faith in Christ (John 14:1 Rom. 3:22 4:3,4)	Salvation is through faith in ourselves (Luke 18:9–14)
Salvation is only through Jesus Christ (Isa. 43:11 Hos. 13:4 John 14:6 Acts 4:12)	God is revealed to man in many ways: as Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.
Salvation is a matter of God's righteousness (Rom. 5:21)	Salvation is related to our righteousness (Matt. 19:16–22 Luke 18:9)
Our righteousness comes by faith (Rom. 4:4,5 10:10)	Our righteousness comes by works (Luke 10:25–37 Tit. 3:5)


The Possible Authors of Sections of Genesis
Text	History Covered	Possible Author(s)	Rationale
Gen. 1:1–2:3	Creation of the earth and the universe; the six days of restoration; the seventh day of rest	God dictated this to Adam, Noah, Abra-ham or Moses	No person was alive to witness this, therefore it had to be dictated. It is reasonable to assume that another writer of Scripture was the instrument of God's dictation.
Gen. 2:4-4:24	The creation of the man and the woman, the fall of man, the pronouncement of judgemnt upon them and the serpent; the murder of Abel; the generations of Cain to the sons of Lamech.	One of La-mech's wives or children, Enoch or Noah.	This is too difficult to call with any accuracy. The history which has been covered is vast and covers information known primarily to Adam, Eve, Cain and to Lamech. However, the earth at this time would have been a "small town", and information wouldl be gathered through the grapevine. Furthermore, Lamech's song was possibly known far and wide.
Gen. 2:25-9:29	The descendants of Adam, the life of Noah, the corruption of mankind, the flood, and the beginning of the post-diluvian civilization.	Noah, most likely, or Shem	The author was aware of the previous generations but does not record much information about them. The author spends the greatest amount of time dealing with the life of Noah. This indicates to me that this is the work of Noah.
Gen. 10:1-32
Gen. 11:1-0
Gen. 11:10-24:67