__________________________________________________________________

           Title: Exposition of Genesis: Volume 1
      Creator(s): Leupold, Herbert Carl (1892-1972)
     Print Basis: The Wartburg Press, 1942
          Rights: Public Domain.
   CCEL Subjects: All; Bible;
      LC Call no: BS1151.B3
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Old Testament

   Works about the Old Testament
     __________________________________________________________________

                             Exposition of Genesis

    By

H. C. LEUPOLD, D. D

   Professor of Old testament Exegesis
   in the
   Capital University Seminary
   Colombus, Ohio

   To the Memory
   of my
   FATHER
   and
   to my
   MOTHER
     __________________________________________________________________

  INTRODUCTION

    Name of the Book

   The name universally used in English for this book is "Genesis." This
   name is a transliteration of the Greek word genesis, which constitutes
   the regular title from of old in the Septuagint and was taken over by
   Jerome into the Vulgate--Liber Genesis. Luther made a new departure
   when he substituted in his German Bible the title "The First Book of
   Moses"--a designation requiring no further commentary. In the Hebrew
   Bible the book constitutes the first part of the Pentateuch. As a
   distinct part it so naturally stands out as a unit that there can be no
   doubt that it was designed to be just such a unit; and so even
   criticism from its point of view is ready to accept the division of the
   Pentateuch as a whole into five parts and that the book of Genesis in
   particular was a part of it at so early a date as at least four
   centuries before the Christian era. Though no evidence is available, we
   are inclined to believe that the Jews discerned the fivefold division
   of the Pentateuch from the time that the work was put into their hands.
   They are wont to refer to the book by the title of Bereshith, the very
   first Hebrew word, meaning: "in the beginning."

    Author

   Genesis contains no statement as to who its author was. Yet we hold
   very definitely to the conviction that , Moses wrote Genesis as well as
   the rest of the Pentateuch, except (Deut. 34). In our day such a
   position is regarded as so utterly outmoded that we must indicate, at
   least briefly, what grounds we have for standing thus. Our grounds are
   those which have satisfied conservative scholarship in the church
   throughout the ages. Neither is the group of those who still accept
   these arguments so inconsiderable as critics would have us believe.

   The internal evidence of the Pentateuch runs as follows. In Exodus the
   passages (17:14; 24:4; 34:27), if rightly construed, indicate that
   Moses wrote more than the specific passages that appear under immediate
   consideration, in fact, all of Exodus. In like manner the numerous
   statements of Leviticus to the effect that "the Lord spake unto Moses"
   ("and unto Aaron"), such as (Le 1:1; 4:1; 6:1, 8, 19, 24; 7:22, 28;
   8:1), etc., again, if rightly construed, lead to the same result, in
   fact, cover Leviticus. For why should the exact nature of the
   revelation be emphasized, unless it be presupposed that this revelation
   was immediately conserved in writing in each case? In fact, the
   assumption that these directions were not committed to writing is most
   unnatural. The same argument applies to much of what is found in
   Numbers; but in this book the special portion that came by immediate
   revelation requires the background of the rest of the historical
   material of the book. (Nu 33:2) is the only passage that refers to the
   fact that Moses wrote, a statement inserted at this point in order to
   stamp even what might seem too unimportant to record as traceable to
   Moses. In Deuteronomy a comparison of the following passages
   establishes the Mosaic authorship: (De 1:1; 17:18,19; 27:1-8; 31:9;
   31:24). If, then, on the basis of the evidence found in these four
   books we may very reasonably conclude that they were written by Moses,
   the conclusion follows very properly that none other than the author of
   these later four books would have been so suitable as the author for
   Genesis also. Certainly such a conclusion is far more reasonable than
   that Genesis--or for that matter the entire Pentateuch--is to be
   ascribed to another one of these genial Nobodies of whom criticism has
   a large number in reserve as authors.

   We shall not now trace down how the Old Testament in its later books
   historical as well as prophetic strongly supports the idea of the
   Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and by implication also of Genesis.
   The critic, misreading the evidence, misdates all these books, and so
   the argument means nothing to him. The man who is not affected by
   critical arguments can find proof more ample than we can here reproduce
   in the writings of Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht and Moeller.

   The support that the New Testament lends to our position is singularly
   strong and, for that matter, even decisive on the whole issue, at least
   for him who believes in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures. It
   is sufficient in these introductory remarks merely to list the major
   passages as such, passages that all refer to the Mosaic authorship of
   the whole or of parts of the Pentateuch. In the Gospels we find: (Mt
   8:4; 19:7, 8; 23:2; Mk 1:44; 7:10; 10:3, 4; 12:26); (Lu 5:14; 16:29,
   31; 20:37; Joh 3:14; 5:45; 6:32; 7:19; 7:22, 23). Aside from these
   passages which are from the lips of Christ Himself there are the
   remarks of the evangelists found (Lu 24:27, 44; Joh 1:17). To the
   apostles must be ascribed the following words: (Ac 3:22; 13:39; 15:1,
   5, 21; 26:22; 28:23; Ro 10:5, 19; 1Co 9:9; 2Co 3:15). To attribute
   ignorance on matters involved in literary criticism to Christ or to
   inspired apostles is unwarranted assumption. To class Christ's attitude
   as accommodation to prevalent opinion grows out of failure to apprehend
   the fact that Christ is absolute Truth. Any two or three of the above
   passages are sufficient , to indicate to him that weighs their evidence
   that to Christ and to His apostles the Torah (the Pentateuch) was
   Mosaic.

   In answering the question, At what time was Genesis written? we are, of
   course, entirely, in the field of conjecture. It seems highly probable
   that the bulk, if not practically all of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers,
   was written after the fashion of a kind of journal, especially those
   parts embodying specific words of direction given by God. This would
   naturally suggest some introductory work like Genesis, which could
   easily have been written by Moses during the time of the Wilderness
   Wanderings, which extended over thirty-eight years.

   Since all the things recorded in Genesis transpired before Moses' day
   by more than four hundred years at the least, the question arises, Did
   Moses have sources available for compiling the Genesis account as we
   have it? We cannot deny the possibility that God may have revealed to
   Moses the entire subject matter of Genesis. On the other hand, since
   sources were, , no doubt, available and reliable, we see no reason why
   Moses should not have used all available material and, being guided in
   his task by the Spirit of inspiration, have produced an essential
   portion of divine revelation. For it seems highly probable that godly
   men preserved a reliable record of God's revelation and dealings with
   men, and that with most painstaking care. The Creation record was
   obtainable only by revelation, which revelation would have seemed
   essential for Adam. This as well as all other truth that was left to
   him, as well as a record of his own experiences required but few links
   in the chain of tradition to bring it down to Joseph's time. For a
   careful examination of the Biblical genealogies (Gen. 5 and 11) reveals
   that Adam lived till the time of Lamech; Lamech to the time of Shem;
   Shem to the time of Jacob; Jacob would, without a doubt, transmit what
   he knew to Joseph. Since even Abraham already lived in a literary age,
   and Judah carried a seal (Gen. 38:18), and Joseph was learned in all
   the wisdom of the Egyptians, it seems utterly impossible that these men
   should have refrained from committing this valuable and reliable
   tradition to writing. Such tradition in written form Moses might well
   have found in his day and made extensive use of, nor would such use
   conflict with inspiration in as much as later historical books,
   especially Kings and Chronicles, testify to the abundant use of source
   materials.

    3. Purpose

   The purpose of Genesis may be formulated thus: the book aims to relate
   how Israel was selected from among the `nations of the world and became
   God's chosen people. Since, however, this choice was not made because
   of the merit or the excellence of Israel's ancestors but wholly because
   of God's unmerited and unmeritable mercy, the book may also be said to
   be the story of God's free grace in establishing Israel for Himself as
   His people.

    4. Text

   Two major considerations deserve attention under this head. First, the
   matter of the state of the purity or the integrity of the Hebrew text.
   No one in our day errs in the direction of the one possible extreme,
   namely of venturing to claim that the Hebrew text is in a state of
   virgin purity, exactly as it appeared in the original manuscripts. But
   many err in the opposite extreme of considering the Hebrew text to be
   utterly unreliable and in need of continual correction. Such an
   attitude is dangerous and ungrounded. Occasional errors may be
   detected, a few may be surmised. The Jewish marginal corrections, the
   Keris, may occasionally prove suggestive. But on the whole we have a
   text which is quite pure and satisfactory. It is not to be tampered
   with or modified according to the far less reliable Septuagint, the
   Targums, the Peshitto, or the Samaritan Pentateuch, though occasionally
   these versions (or transliterations) may contribute a bit of material
   valuable from the standpoint of textual criticism. The text is,
   furthermore, not to be modified according to subjective principles,
   such as critical theories or clever conjectures, which are anything but
   scientific. Modern critical editions of the Hebrew text, such as
   Kittel's Biblia Hebraica, Stuttgart, (1929), contain much misleading
   material and must apart from the Masoretic text be used with great
   caution. The traditional Masoretic text is in a good state of
   preservation and deserves far more confidence than is usually accorded
   to it. In our Hebrew Bibles we have a very good Hebrew text.

   The other matter that may be considered in this connection is the
   question whether Genesis is a poem and therefore to be considered as
   Hebrew verse. On the question, which are the poetical books in the
   Canon, the Jews have always had a very reliable tradition. It would be
   strange if they themselves should have lost sight of the poetic
   character of the first one of their sacred writings if it had actually
   been poetic. The method by which outstanding exponents of this unusual
   hypothesis, like Sievers, arrived at their conclusions is enough to
   make anyone suspicious of the idea. This method involves abandoning the
   first principle of Hebrew poetry (parallelism); it necessitates changes
   or substitution of the divine name; it includes occasional textual
   alterations merely for the sake of securing the desired meter; and even
   then the type of meter which seemingly was discovered is not in
   evidence as clearly as we are led to believe. Neither the present text
   nor the original sources, as others claim, were ever cast in verse
   form, with the exception of such minor portions that bear the earmarks
   of poetry (4:23, 24; 9:25-27; 49:2-27). But we are perfectly ready to
   admit that Genesis has many portions of very fine rhythmical prose that
   rise almost to the level of exalted strains of poetry (cf. 1:27, . 28;
   12:1-3, and many other passages).

    5. Historical Character of the Record

   The issue involved briefly stated is: Have we history or legend in
   Genesis? A notable array of famous scholars can be cited in support of
   what the great majority of writers on the subject in our day regard as
   the only tenable view, namely Genesis is legend. From Wellhausen down
   outstanding names are Gunkel, Jeremias, Driver, Skinner, Procksch,
   etc., etc. However, we are not impressed by this array of learning,
   which we must without reservation class as pseudo-science on matters of
   this sort. Strong dogmatic presuppositions are too definitely displayed
   by these scholars: miracles are considered as practically impossible;
   so is plenary inspiration; Israel's history can rise to no higher
   levels than the Babylonian or the Egyptian; an arbitrary evolutionary
   standard is to be employed in measuring historical evidence. Besides,
   the following facts of Israel's history are overlooked:

   a) the utter dissimilarity of the Genesis record and the legends of the
   nations (the sober common sense of average Christians has always been
   able to detect this difference much more clearly than the overtrained
   scholar, who often loses entirely his sense of perspective);

   b) the clear distinction preserved by Israel's sacred records of the
   successive stages of revelation (4:26; 17:22-27; Exod. 6:3; Exod. 20;
   Deut. 18:15,19; I Sam. 3:1, etc.);

   c) the accuracy of Israel's historical tradition (13:10; chapter 14;
   20:20-24; chapter 25; 26:1; cf. also chapter 5 and chapter 10);

   d) distinct efforts by the patriarchs to perpetuate the remembrance of
   events of outstanding religious importance (12:7; 13:18; 21:33; 33:20);

   e) the sober tone displayed in recording the most exalted revelation
   (we refer to the following chapters 12, 15, 18, 22, and 32:23-32); f
   the utter impartiality displayed in recording the history of those who
   are the patriarchs and the fathers of tribes (12:10 fi; 20:1-18;
   26:1-17; 30:1-43; chapter 34; chapter 38). Koenig's Commentary (p. 80
   ff.) gives additional material on this score.

   A proper evaluation of the facts enumerated above leads definitely to
   the conclusion that Genesis gives a sober, accurate, historical account
   of the events that led to the separation of Israel from among the
   nations and to her establishment as a new nation with a divinely given
   destiny. If the other nations of this period are known to have had no
   records that for accuracy and sound historical pragmatism can begin to
   compare with the Biblical accounts, that cannot in any wise impugn the
   singular merit of the latter. Criticism has shown itself singularly
   weak in the direction of evaluating comparatively the merit of Biblical
   history. Attempts to cut everything of superior merit found in Israel's
   Sacred Writings down to the level of contemporary literature is still
   the bane of scholarship in the Old Testament field.

   We may at this point take issue with the claim commonly raised in our
   day that Genesis, as to its contents, as well as other older Biblical
   books falls in the category of poetry rather than history. Apparently,
   they who take this position are reluctant about claiming that such
   books are legendary in character. That would seem derogatory to their
   distinctive character. Yet they would prefer not to be bound to accept
   the Creation account, the record of the Fall, and the like as literal
   history. Then these ancient tales would be a grand poetic conception,
   involving a deeper view of truth yet allowing for a great variety of
   interpretations such as may be suited to the fancy of the individual.
   We are utterly out of sympathy with such an attitude; for it does not
   conform to the facts of the

   It is rather a straightforward, strictly historical account, rising,
   indeed, to heights of poetic beauty of expression in the Creation
   account, in the Flood story, in the record of Abraham's sacrifice of
   Isaac, in Judah's plea before Joseph, and the like. But the writer uses
   no more of figurative language than any gifted historian might, who
   merely adorns a strictly .literal account with the ordinary run of
   current figures of speech, grammatical and rhetorical.

   The various other types of construction put particularly upon the
   patriarchal stories, like the tribal or ethnological theory; the astral
   myth theory; the purely mythical theory, and the like are evaluated at
   the beginning of the patriarchal record (Gen. 12).

   Rather closely tied up with the question of history is that of
   chronology. The prevailing attitude on questions of chronology is to
   discard the Biblical data and to accept as authoritative the far more
   difficult and uncertain Babylonian and Egyptian systems of reckoning,
   as they are computed in our day. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible,
   (Philadelphia, 1937), p. 56-61, gives the beginner a good idea how
   these computations are made and how far back they reach with a fair
   measure of accuracy. But it must be said with emphasis that the
   Biblical chronology excels all others in completeness, simplicity and
   accuracy; and, though, indeed, there are unsolved chronological
   problems, the Biblical chronology deserves our fullest confidence also
   for the pre-Mosaic age and for the earliest history of mankind.
   Michell, The Historical Truth of the Bible, (London, 1926) shows
   excellently how Babylonian and Egyptian chronology, rightly construed,
   agrees with the Biblical system of chronology.

    6. Criticism

   Unfortunately, in the field of the Mosaic writings negative literary
   criticism--higher literary criticism so called--has wrought
   incalculable confusion and still is the bane of fruitful investigations
   in this field. Therefore it behooves us, first of all, very briefly to
   summarize the critical position in reference to Genesis or, for that
   matter, in reference to the entire Pentateuch. This summary is designed
   primarily for non-theologians and, therefore, makes no claim to
   completeness.

   Critics speak with much assurance, as though the proof for their
   position were unassailable, , of the various sources that have been
   worked into the Pentateuch as we now have it; and they assure us that
   this composite work was finally compiled by an editor- commonly called
   Redactor (R)--after the time of the Exile perhaps as late as 400 B. C.
   The four major documents that have been worked into the Pentateuch are
   not only occasionally discernible in the work as a whole, but the cord
   has, as it were, been unravelled, and the four strands that compose it
   are laid before us side by side. The names given to these four
   documents or their authors are: (a) the Elohistic document, written by
   the Elohist--abbreviated designation E-;( b) the Jahvistic or Yahwistic
   document--described as J; (c) the Priestly document or P; and (d) the
   Deuteronomic document--or D. Some critics consider E, J, D, and P as
   persons, others regard them as literary schools.

   The reasons advanced for the separation of the whole into four major
   documents are again mainly four. First and foremost to this day the use
   of the divine names is a mark of authorship. Thus: the Jahvist (or
   Yahwist) uses the divine name Jehovah or Yahweh almost exclusively; the
   Elohist uses Elohim, the common name for God in the Hebrew; the
   Priestly writer also prefers Elohim; the Deuteronomist is marked by
   other characteristics. Secondly, each of these writers is said to have
   developed a vocabulary which is distinctly his own. However, in the
   case of J and E this is not as prominent a feature as in reference to P
   and D. Thirdly, certain types of subject matter are found quite
   regularly in certain of these original documents: J likes narratives
   whose scenes are laid in Judah; E prefers those that played in the
   territory of the Northern Kingdom; P deals with matters of legislation;
   and D is hortatory in his treatment of all he presents. Lastly, the
   style of these four presents quite naturally four different aspects: "J
   excels in picturesque `objectivity' of description"; "E, on the other
   hand, frequently strikes a vein of subjective feeling, especially of
   pathos"; P is precise and formal; D is the orator. It must be admitted
   that an imposing array of arguments confronts us here. Certainly, an
   immense amount of labour has been expended on these studies. Many of
   the issues involved are of a so highly technical nature as to confuse
   the layman, especially when Hebrew terms multiply, that he believes the
   issues must be left to professional theologians and is all too ready to
   follow their guidance if they adopt, as is often the case, a tone of
   utter finality.

   First of all, on the matter of the use of the divine names, are we not
   taking a higher and more reasonable ground if we assume that they were
   used primarily according to their specific meaning and not merely
   because the writer in question knew only the one or tried to reflect a
   period where only the one was known, or was addicted to the stylistic
   peculiarity of the use of the one rather than the other? A good
   parallel on the New Testament level is the fine distinction observed by
   all the writers between the personal name "Jesus" and the official
   title "the Christ." Surely, if the one or the other had used the one of
   these names exclusively, it would have been a failure to appreciate
   deeper and vital issues. So on the Old Testamerit level "Elohim" is the
   generic name for God from the root which signifies "to fear" or
   "reverence." Therefore Elohim is the divine being whose power and
   attributes inspire mortals with due fear. "Jehovah," more correctly
   written "Yahweh," signifies the Abiding, Changeless, and Eternal One,
   and therefore describes God as the one true to His covenant
   relationship in reference to His people. When the writer desires to
   express the thought that the one or the other aspect of the divine
   character was especially displayed in a certain event, he uses the name
   appropriate to this purpose. That does not say that the other aspect of
   the divine character was not in evidence at all. In fact, we might in
   some instances even have been inclined, but for the author's suggestive
   use of the divine name, to think the other of the two characteristics
   predominated. In the following exposition of Genesis we hope we have
   demonstrated the fine propriety that from this point of view is
   discernible in the use of the divine names according to their sense.

   This approach of ours to the problem of the use of the divine names is
   by no means in conflict with Exod. 6:3: "I appeared unto Abraham, unto
   Isaac, and unto Jacob as God Almighty; but by My name Jehovah I was not
   known to them." For, in the first place, of course, "name" according to
   the Hebrew significance of shem means about as much as "character." The
   statement, however, though made absolutely, is meant relatively, as are
   many other statements in Scripture (Hos. 6:6; Matt. 5:34; I John 3:9 by
   way of example). The revelation of God's Yahweh-character given to the
   patriarchs is so far below the revelation of the same character that is
   about to be displayed in the Exodus that by comparison one would say
   that now this character is first really being manifested. The critics
   had better not press the literal meaning of this passage (Exod. 6:3)
   too much, for then it becomes a sharp two-edged sword. For when they
   use it to prove that there was an earlier period where Elohim was used
   and not Yahweh, this passage is having a new element foisted upon it by
   them. Exodus 6:3 does not set Eiohim and Yahweh in contrast but 'El
   Shadday (God Almighty) and Yahweh, a thought which the critical
   position cannot use at all, in fact, a very embarrassing thought. It
   militates directly against the earlier use of Elohim.

   The seemingly formidable argument from vocabulary, separate and
   distinct vocabularies for the four source documents--especially where
   long lists of words appear used only in the one document--this argument
   we say loses its imposing character when we discern on what ground it
   is built. Leaving J and E aside because the argument carries little
   convincing weight under this head, we notice what happens in the case
   of P and D. Everything of a priestly legislative character is primarily
   assigned to P as well as everything that is presented after a more or
   less formal pattern like Gen. I as well as summaries. From these
   portions primarily deductions are made as to P's vocabulary. Naturally
   quite a substantial list results. Then other passages in the Pentateuch
   that use these distinctive terms are stamped as coming from P, whenever
   possible. Note how in the. last analysis in legislative portions like
   Leviticus, where matters of priestly interest certainly predominate, a
   distinctive vocabulary has to be used and can very readily be listed.
   The fact of the matter really is not that a different writer is at work
   but that the same writer is dealing with an entirely different subject.
   No man can write a law book with the vocabulary of a book on history.
   From another point of view the argument practically amounts to this
   that one man could not write E or J and also P, because one man could
   not write both history and law. In like manner D's style, which is
   supposed to involve "a long development of the art of public oratory,"
   covers the major part of the book of Deuteronomy as well as of later
   books whenever they con, in hortatory passages after the manner of
   Deuteronomy. One can quite readily build up a separate vocabulary out
   of such sections. In the final analysis this is tantamount to saying
   that Moses could not have written such admonitions and exhortations as
   well as laws and history. The critics operate on the assumption that
   such flexibility of style is beyond the range of the capabilities of
   one man.

   The other peculiarities that these major sources are supposed to
   display are most readily understood on the following assumption: take
   any longer work and divide it up into four portions on the basis of an
   approach that groups kindred things together, and the resultant four
   parts will naturally each have something distinctive.

   There are other failings that mark the critical approach to the
   problem. The argument in a circle is, for example, employed frequently.
   We shall draw attention to quite a number of instances in the course of
   the following exposition. Passages having a certain type of vocabulary
   are assumed to belong to one source; when that type of vocabulary is
   discovered, the proof that there is such a source is treated as
   complete. Again, when added details appear that were not indicated at
   the commencement of a narrative, these added details, though they are
   merely supplementary to the original statements, are construed as being
   at variance with the original, and so evidence for the existence of two
   or more separate sources is manufactured, whereas, in reality, other
   sides of the matter are merely coming to the surface, as every unbiased
   reader can readily detect.

   Again and again the critical approach gives evidence of being guided by
   purely subjective opinion instead of by valid logical proof. The critic
   expected that the writer would proceed to follow up a certain approach
   by a certain type of statement--at least the critic would have followed
   up by such a statement. The author's failure to offer what the critic
   expected is supposed to constitute sufficient proof that the case in
   point is an instance where two documents have been welded together
   rather crudely. Equally common is the critical practice of conjecturing
   how the Hebrew text may. originally have read, especially if the Hebrew
   text offers material conflicting, with the critical theories, and the
   Septuagint happens to disagree more or less with the Hebrew. Strangely,
   in such cases the conjectures as to the original form of the text
   always offer support to the critical position.

   Analogous to the above point is this: when the different aspects of a
   case are presented, critics quite regularly fail to discern the deeper
   harmony that prevails in spite of the surface disagreement. So very
   frequently, after one motive for a deed has been indicated, the mention
   of a second motive is treated as proof of a divergent approach by a
   different writer, as though life were always so simple a thing, as to
   allow for the operation of but one motive at a time, instead of the
   complex thing that it is, where motives, counter-motives, and
   subsidiary motives run crisscross through one another.

   Of the failings of the critical approach perhaps the greatest of all is
   the failure to evaluate rightly the attitude and the words of Christ
   and His apostles in reference to books like those of Moses. As Christ
   treated Moses' writings so should we. His clear words attributing them
   to Moses dare not be ignored. This is not treating the Old Testament
   without regard for the distinction between the Old and the New
   Testament. This is following the excellent Reformation principle:
   "Interpret Scripture by Scripture"; and a sounder principle cannot be
   found. Critics dismiss the Saviour's attitude with a shrug of the
   shoulder.

   Unfortunately, it is impossible to treat the Old Testament in an
   expository way without taking the major features of the critical
   approach into consideration, especially since these critical findings
   have been popularized and appear on the shelves of public libraries, as
   does Dummelow's One Volume Commentary. Surely, the main errors of
   criticism should be shown in order to combat the evil at its source.
   Those who do not stand in need of the aid that a refutation may offer
   or are not impressed by the critical claims may, of course, leave those
   paragraphs that deal with critical matters aside. We have sought to let
   this apologetic material occupy a place of very inferior importance.
   Hardly five per cent of the total deals with critical problems.

   We shall leave aside all the very able constructive works that orthodox
   teachers of the church have provided under this head: the works of
   Haevernick, Hengstenberg, Keil, Rupprecht, and Moeller. These men have
   ably refuted all critical contentions; only the critics fail to discern
   that they have been answered. Those who would specialize on these
   matters will find most ample treatment of the subject in the works of
   these men. We for our part prefer in this exposition to follow the
   course of showing in our own way the beautiful and the consistent
   harmony of the individual accounts, a harmony which is in itself the
   strongest index of single rather than of composite authorship.
   Occasional critical questions naturally come in for their share of
   attention. Our treatment will show that we have drawn upon the above
   mentioned Old Testament scholars, a fact that we have acknowledged
   wherever feasible. It will also appear that much can be learned from
   the more recent Eduard Koenig, though in a number of cases his works
   must be used with caution.

    7. Outline

   Of course, the book naturally is divided into two halves: the first
   (chapters 1-11) dealing with the general history of mankind; the second
   (chapters 12-50) with the special history of God's people. Going into
   greater detail, we could devise many other subdivisions. However, the
   author himself has provided an outline indicated by special headings,
   for he uses the heading 'elleh toledoth, "these are the generations"
   (A. V.) =" this is the story," ten tiptoes and actually treats under
   this heading the story indicated by the heading, as of Adam, 5:1-6:8,
   etc. This is more than a formal division. If the inferior elements
   receive but scant consideration, viz. Shem, Ishmael, and Esau, in some
   cases, in fact, only about seven verses, that merely indicates that
   there are things of minor as well as of major importance to be treated
   in a work such as this. If the author provides an outline and clearly
   indicates what it is, why reject it and try to devise a better one
   especially in an inspired book? In the following outline we have merely
   shown the subdivisions of the ten toledoth or the Ten "Histories."

   Introduction (1:1-2:3)

   Introduction--the Creation Account.
    1. The First History--that of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26).

    1. Supplementary details of the Creation count (2:4-25).
    2. The Temptation and the Fall (chapter 3).
    3. The Early Development of the Sinful Human Race (chapter 4).

     The History of Adam (5:1-6:8).
    1. The Separate Development of the Godly (chapter 5).
    2. The Commingling of the Two Races (6:1-8).

     The History of Noah (6:9-9:29).
    1. Noah's Piety (6:9-12).
    2. How Noah was preserved (6:13-9:17).
    3. The Future of the Races of Mankind Foretold (9:18-29).

     The History of the Sons of Noah (10:1-21:9).
    1. The Sons of Japheth (10:1-5).
    2. The Sons of Ham (10:6-20).
    3. The Sons of Shem (10:21-31).
    4. The Tower of Babel, or The Confusion of Tongues (11:1-9).

     History of Shem (11 :10-26).

     The History of Terah (11:27-25:11).
    1. The Life of Terah (11:27-32).
    2. The Life of Abraham (12:1-25:11).

    1. The Call of Abraham and the Exodus from Haran (12:1-9).
    2. A trip to Egypt during a Famine (12:10-21).
    3. Separation from Lot (13:1-18).
    4. The Defeat of the Kings by Abraham (14:1-24).
    5. God's Covenant with Abraham (15:1-21).
    6. The Birth of Ishmael (16:1-16).
    7. The Covenant Sealed by New Names and by Circumcision (17:1-27).
    8. The Manifestation of Yahweh at Mamre (18:1-33).
    9. Guilt and Destruction of Sodom (19:1-38). Sequel: Lot's
       Degeneration.
   10. Abraham and Sarah at Gerar (chapter 20).
   11. Birth of Isaac and Expulsion of Ishmael (21:1-21).
   12. Abraham's Covenant with Abimelech at Beersheba (21:22-34).
   13. The Sacrifice of Isaac (22:1-19).
   14. Nahor's Descendants (Rebekah) (22:20-24).
   15. Death and Burial of Sarah (23:1-20).
   16. Isaac's Marriage (16:1-67).
   17. Abraham's Second Marriage and His Death (25:1-11).

     The History of Ishmael (25:12-13).

     The History of Isaac (25:19-35:29).
    1. Birth and Early History of the Twin Brothers (25:19-34).
    2. Various Scenes from Isaac's Life (chapter 26).
    3. Isaac blesses Jacob (27:1-45).
    4. Jacob's Dismissal from Home and His First Vision (27:46-28:22).
    5. Jacob's Double Marriage (29:1-30).
    6. Jacob's Children and His Increasing Wealth (29:31-30:43).
    7. Jacob's Flight from Laban; their Treaty (31:1-54).
    8. Preparations for Meeting Esau (31:55-32:32).
    9. Reconciliation with Esau; Settling in Canaan (33:1-20).
   10. The Outrage on Dinah Avenged by her Brothers (chapter 34).
   11. The Last Events of Isaac's History (35:1-29).

     The History of Esau (chapter 36).

     History of Jacob (37:2-50:26).
    1. Joseph Sold into Egypt (37:2-36).
    2. The Danger that Threatened Jacob's Sons (chapter 38).
    3. Joseph's Imprisonment because of his Steadfastness (chapter 39).
    4. Interpretation of the Prisoners' Dreams by Joseph (chapter 40).
    5. Joseph's Exaltation (chapter 41).
    6. The First Journey of Joseph's Brethren to Egypt without Benjamin
       (chapter 42).
    7. The Second Journey to Egypt with Benjamin (chapter 43).
    8. The Test Successfully Met by Joseph's Brethren (chapter 44).
    9. Joseph Revealed to his Brethren; The Family Summoned to Egypt
       (chapter 45).
   10. The Temporary Emigration of Israel to Egypt (chapter 46).
   11. Israel Established in Goshen; Egyptian Famine Measures (47:1-26).
   12. Jacob's Preparations for his End (47:27-49:32).
   13. Jacob's Death and Burial (50:1-14). 14. Conclusion of Joseph's
       History (50:15-26).

    8. Mode of Interpretation

   There are several modes of interpretation current in our day that
   deserve to be stigmatized as inadequate and unsatisfactory. Some still
   prefer to allegorize portions of Scripture rejecting the literal sense
   and seeking a hidden spiritual meaning, although hardly any would
   venture to follow this procedure exclusively and consistently. In
   rejecting this type of interpretation we do not question the validity
   of the interpretation that sees types of Christ in outstanding Old
   Testament characters especially where the New Testament suggests such a
   use. Much more common in our day is the fault of attempting to press
   Old Testament Scriptures down to the level of the sacred writings of
   the heathen, making them to be works patterned particularly after
   Babylonian source material. This type of interpretation includes what
   for want of a better name must be described as
   "debunking"--interpretation that speaks irreverently of venerable Old
   Testament characters, imputes the lowest possible motives to them, and
   so utterly fails to understand their ofttimes great and heroic faith.
   This approach often attempts nothing less than to discredit these
   sacred Scriptures as unworthy of use by the New Testament church--an
   approach common in Germany at the present. Of course, there still is
   need of reminding that sound interpretation dare not disregard the
   difference between the Old and New Testament levels of revelation. Good
   exegetes, even up .to the Reformation age, failed to reckon with the
   fact that the unchanging truth was revealed with ever increasing
   clearness and fulness, a revelation culminating in Christ Jesus. The
   fuller revelation of a later age was at times imputed to an earlier
   word that did not as yet embody the fuller expression. Of course, we do
   not for a moment imply any such thing as man's progressive achievement.
   Our principle of interpretation is to unfold the fulness of revealed
   truth by careful examination of the grammatical statement as well as of
   the historical circumstances of the inspired text in dependence upon
   the Spirit of revelation, who alone is able to lead us into all truth.

    9. Value and Importance of Genesis

   In a general way it would be correct to say that this book is singular
   in its kind, for it offers the only correct and satisfactory
   information that we possess concerning prehistoric times and the
   Urgeschichte ("history of the primitive ages"). It goes back beyond the
   reach of available historical sources and offers not mythical
   suppositions, not poetical fancies, not vague suggestions, but a
   positive record of things as they actually transpired and, at the same
   time, of matters of infinite moment for all mankind. But more
   specifically, all this material relative to prehistoric times and the
   Urgeschichte really provides the most substantial and even fundamental
   theological concepts. The major theological concepts are incomplete and
   leave much to be desired, if the content that Genesis offers should be
   subtracted. Before God can be known as Saviour, He must be understood
   as the Creator of humankind and of the world. Just what manner of
   Father and Creator He is we find displayed in the two Creation
   chapters, Genesis I and 2. In like manner no adequate and correct
   conception of man is possible without a knowledge of the essentials
   concerning his creation, his original state, the image of God, and the
   like. Again, the problem of sin will constitute much more of a problem
   if the origin of sin, that is to say, the Fall into sin be not
   understood. With that fact correctly apprehended, we achieve a correct
   estimate of the degree of depravity that is characteristic of fallen
   men. Without the promise of ultimate victory through the Seed of the
   Woman all further revelations concerning the salvation to come must
   stand minus an adequate base upon which they can successfully build. In
   other words, certain vital questions in reference to the type of
   revelation that mankind needs find a satisfactory answer in Genesis and
   nowhere else. Concerning some of these matters the legends and the
   traditions of mankind offer a bit of material, most of which is
   distorted by error; some of which, in the elements of truth that it
   contains, is too weak to be of any actual value. An illustration of the
   extent to which this material is available is the vague report current
   among the ancients that there once had been a Golden Age. The
   unreliability of such material is demonstrated by the utter absence of
   any tradition concerning a Fall into sin. Disregarding the material
   relation to matters theological, we find that Genesis also provides the
   much needed foundations for all history. The vague surmises as to man's
   past prior historic times all stand corrected by the story of the
   beginnings of the human race in Adam, or by the story of the second
   beginning in Noah. Equally important are the very valid data concerning
   the unity of the human race as provided basically in Genesis 1 and in
   greater detail in chapter 10, incomplete though this latter chapter may
   be in regard to a few matters. So, too, the question as to the origin
   of the multiplicity of languages is disposed of by the account
   concerning the confusion of tongues. Similarly, the singular position
   of Israel among the nations, a challenge to every historian, finds an
   adequate explanation in the Call of Abraham. Of course, from that point
   onward Genesis no longer records general history but only the history
   of the Kingdom of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   If at this point we append a summary of certain of the better known
   cosmogonies, or at least of those which have a certain affinity with
   the Biblical account, anyone can judge for himself whether the Biblical
   account in any sense seems to be a derivative. The most famous of the
   non-biblical cosmogonies is the Babylonian or the so-called "Chaldean
   Genesis," which created such a stir at the time of its publication in
   1876 after it had been unearthed as a part of the library of
   Ashurbanipal at Nineveh by George Smith in 1873. The several tablets on
   which the account is written are in a fairly good state of
   preservation. The story begins with an account that is a theogony--an
   account of the origin of the gods--in itself already an indication of a
   far inferior level. The true God did not come into being by a certain
   process, nor were there originally several deities. Now of these
   various deities one stood out as particularly aggressive and ferocious,
   the unsubdued Tiamat--again a decidedly inferior point of view. For the
   struggle that impended Tiamat, the old mother of gods, enlists as many
   of the old gods as she can and a whole crew of horrid monsters. The
   resulting conflict for supremacy (note the low moral level even among
   gods) is a truly titanic struggle in which the forces of the opposition
   are led by the great Babylonian deity Marduk. Marduk proves himself the
   stronger. He prevails over Tiamat, cleaves her into two montrous
   halves, the upper of which he fixes in place as the heavens, in which
   in turn he fixes the heavenly bodies; and the lower of which halves, on
   the other hand, he sets in place as the earth. Then he compounds
   material of his own blood for the creation of man, the chief purpose of
   whose creation is "that the service of the gods may be established."
   This account of creation is so pronouncedly different from the Biblical
   account that the points of difference completely overshadow the
   incidental points of resemblance. To speak of a "striking resemblance
   between the two cosmogonies" certainly is a partisan overstatement of
   the case; and to go on to say that "the cosmogony of Genesis I rests on
   a conception of the process of creation fundamentally identical with
   that of the Enuma elis (the opening words of the Chaldean Genesis)
   tablets" is simply a distortion of the truth. Of the Phoenician
   cosmogony it is sufficient to remark that it contains the idea of the
   world-egg, hatched out to produce the world. Analogous to this from
   this point of view is the Indian conception. The uncreated Lord
   appeared in chaos. The next step was to render this world visible by
   means of the five elements, by shining forth in brightest light and
   dispelling darkness. Into the water, which he creates first, he lays a
   germ cell. This becomes a gleaming egg in which Brahma is found, the
   source principle. A protracted period of hatching brings him to light.
   Aside from fantastic and confused elements it may well be that even
   this cosmogony carries within it certain echoes of the Genesis account
   which are all but forgotten. The Parsee Genesis, appearing in a late
   book of the Bundehest, has at least this sequence of created things: 1.
   heaven, 2. water, 3. earth, 4. planets, 5. animals, 6. man. Nothing is
   said concerning the creation of light. The partial correspondence with
   the account of the Bible is obvious. But since this is a late book,
   this correspondence may have resulted from an acquaintance with the
   Biblical record. Still more nearly parallel to the Biblical account is
   the cosmogony attributed to the Etruscans by the writer Suidas, who
   lived in the tenth century A. D. For the sequence runs thus: 1. heaven
   and earth, 2. firmament, 3. sea and water, 4. sun and moon, 5. souls of
   animals, 6. man. To the six items six `periods of a thousand years each
   are assigned. Yet the influence of the Bible record is so very likely
   in the case of a writer of the tenth century of the Christian era that
   there is great likelihood that the writer's Christian ideas will `have
   led him to find these successive items, which another might not even
   have noticed in the same material. Or else the ancient Etruscan
   tradition had absorbed a high percentage of Biblical thought on matters
   such as these. One would expect the Persian cosmogony to be radically
   different and in conformity with the principles of dualism. In the
   Avesta time and light and darkness are uncreated. These constitute the
   true spiritual world. They are eternal because Mazda, the god of light,
   is himself eternal. Hesiod informs us how the Greeks conceived of the
   origin of things. First there existed Chaos; there-upon the earth; next
   Tartarus; then Eros (Love), the most beautiful of the deathless gods.
   Out of Chaos night is born. The earth begets the heavens; then the
   ocean comes into being. After these Saturn, father of gods, existed.
   The rest of the pantheon follow him. To the Egyptians several views on
   the origin of the earth are to be attributed. Some regarded the god
   Ptah as the craftsman who built the world. Others held that it was the
   goddess Neith who wove its fabric. The fundamental principle from which
   all things take their origin was thought to be water, for in it were
   fancied to be the male and the female germs of life. Even the great god
   Ra was supposed to have sprung from it, though others believed that he
   had been hatched out of an egg. We may well say that these cosmogonies
   are the best available outside the Genesis account. A man does not need
   any supernatural enlightenment to discern that not one of all these can
   compare even remotely with the scriptural account for depth of thought,
   simplicity, propriety and beauty. All the others disappoint us by their
   incompleteness, or by their confusion, or by their lack of sequence, or
   as being the embodiment of some deep-seated error. Their conception of
   God is most unsatisfactory and unworthy. Or if they rise to a higher
   level, we have reason for believing that the better element is
   traceable to the Bible as the source.

    10. Bibliography

   A. Commentaries

   Delitzsch, Franz, Commentar ueber die Genesis, Leipzig: Doerffling and
   Franke, 1872.

   Dillmann, August, Die Genesis, Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 4. edition. 1882.

   Dods, Marcus, The Expositor's Bible (Genesis), New York: George II.
   Doran Co. No date.

   Gunkel, IIerman, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, W. Nowak, editor.
   Goettingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. 1901.

   Jamieson, Robert, A Commentary Critical and Explanatory, (Jamieson,
   Fausset and Brown). New York: George II. Doran. No date.

   Keil, C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Genesis), (Keil
   and Delitzsch), Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1875.

   Koenig, Eduard, Die Genesis, Guetersioh: Bertelsmann. 1919.

   Lange, J. P., Bibelwerk (Genesis), Bielefeld: Velhagen und Klasing.
   1864.

   Luther, Martin, Saemtliche Schriften (Genesis), St. Louis, Mo.
   Concordia Publishing House. 1881. (2 vol.)

   Procksch, Otto, Kommentar zum Alten Testament (Genesis), Ernst Sellin,
   editor. Leipzig: Deichert. 1913.

   Skinner, John, International Critical Commentary (Genesis), Driver, et
   al, editors. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1925.

   Strack, Hermann L., Kurzgefasster Kommentar (Genesis), Strack and
   Zoeckler, editors. Muenchen: C. H. Beck. 1905.

   Vilmar, August Fr. C., Collegium Biblicum (Genesis), Christian Mueller,
   editor. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann. 1881.

   Whitelaw Thomas, The Pulpit Commentary (Genesis), H. D. M. Spence,
   editor. London: Kegan Paul, Trench and Co. 1882.

   References to these commentaries have been made exclusively by the
   author's name, as Delitzsch. Quotations appear, of course, under the
   verse that is being treated. Consequently, reference to pages was
   consistently omitted.

   As to the position taken by these commentaries, works such as those of
   Dillmann, Dods, Strack may be classed as moderately critical. Gunkel,
   Procksch and Skinner belong into the class of the extremely critical.
   Delitzsch finally yielded to the blandishments of the critical approach
   and accepted at least the source theory in its major features but still
   put the critical work into the category of secondary importance.
   Jamieson disregards critical issues. Keri, seconded in many a case by
   Lange, did very substantial work in the direction of establishing the
   validity of the conservative approach. Whitelaw works in a similar
   spirit. Luther's comments naturally have a very different purpose but
   are still to be read .with profit. Koenig does the most constructive
   work among modern writers, but unfortunately, he yielded to the source
   theory, though even in this his position is moderate.

   B. Dictionaries

   Buhl, Frants, Gesenius' Handwoerterbuch ueber das alte Testament;
   Leipzig: F. C. W. Vogel. 1905.

   Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
   Testament (based on Gesenius). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 1907.

   Koenig, Eduard, Woerterbuch zum Alten Testament. Leipzig: Dieterich.
   1922. (2. and 3. edition.)

   C. Versions

   Holy Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Edition. 1901.

   King James Version.

   Luther's German Bible.

   Smith, J. M. Powis, The Old Testament, An American Translation (Genesis
   by Theophile J. Meek). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1927.

   Rahlfs, Alfred, Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wuertembergische
   Bibelanstalt. 1935.

   Onkelos, Targum, New York: Hebrew Publishing Co. No date.

   D. Other Helps copiously used

   Bailey and Kent, History of the Hebrew Commonwealth (revised edition).
   New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1935.

   Barton, George A., Archaeology and the Bible (seventh edition).
   Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union. 1937.

   Edersheim, Alfred, Bible History (The World before the Flood. Vol. I).
   New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.

   Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, Beitraege zur Einleitung ins Alte
   Testament (Die Authentie des Pentateuches), Berlin: Oehmigke. 1836.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Die Buecher Moses und Aegypten, Berlin: Oehmigke.
   1841.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Christologie des Alten Testaments, Berlin:
   Oehmigke. 1854.

   Hengstenberg, E. W., Geschichte des Reiches Gotres unter dem Alten
   Bunde. Berlin: Schlawitz. 1869.

   Hofmann, J. C. K., Weissagung und Erfuellung. Noerdlingen: Beck. 1841.

   Jeremias, Alfred, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients.
   Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1904.

   Kittel, Rud., Biblia Hebraica (Genesis), Stuttgart: Priv. Wuert.
   Bibelanstalt. 1929.

   Koenig, Eduard, Geschichte der Alttestamentlichen Religion. Guetersloh:
   Bertelsmann. 1912.

   Koenig, E., Geschichte des Reiehes Gottes. Berlin: Warneck. 1908.

   Koenig, E., Die Messianischen Weissagungen des Alten Testaments.
   Stuttgart: Belser. 1923.

   Koenig, E., Theologie des Alten Testaments. Stuttgart: Belser. 1922.

   Michell, G. B., The Historical Truth of the Bible. (Part I. The
   Comparative International History of the Old Testament) London:
   Marshall Bros. 1925.

   Moeller, Wilhelm, Biblische Theologie des AIten Testaments, etc.
   Zwickau: Herrmann.

   Oehler, Gust. Fr., Theologie des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart:
   Steinkopf. 1882.

   E. Grammars

   Gesenius, Wilhelm, Hebraeische Grammatik (revised by E. Kautzsch). 27.
   ed. Leipzig: Vogel. 1902.

   Koenig, Eduard, Lehrgebaeude der Hebraeischen Sprache. (Part II.
   Syntax.) Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1897.

   F. Abbreviations of the titles of the above works commonly used

   A. V. King James Version.

   A. R. V. American Standard Edition of the Revised Version.

   B. D. B. Gesenius' Lexicon by Brown, Driver, Briggs.

   B. T. Moeller's Biblische Theologie.

   G. A. T. Koenig's Geschichte der Alttestamentlichen Religion.

   G. K. Gesenius' Grammatik rev. by Kautzsch.

   G. R. G. Koenig's Geschichte des Reiches Gottes.

   K. C. Koenig's Kommentar on Genesis.

   K. S. Koenig's Syntax.

   K. W. Koenig's Woerterbuch.

   T. A. T. (K,) Koenig's Theologie des Alten Testaments.

   T. A. T. (0.) Oehler's Theologie des AltenTestaments.


     __________________________________________________________________

The Author--Dr. H. C. LEUPOLD
     __________________________________________________________________

   Dr. Herbert Carl Leupold, Columbus, Ohio, was born at Buffalo, N. Y.,
   on July 23, 1891. He received his early education in the Lutheran
   parochial schools at Buffalo and later finished his elementary and
   secondary education in the Buffalo public schools. He received his
   pre-seminary and seminary training at the Martin Luther Theological
   Seminary at Buffalo, NY., which was discontinued when the Buffalo Synod
   became a part of the American Lutheran Church. Dr. Leupold graduated
   from the Martin Luther Seminary on June 24, 1914. Thereupon he served
   as pastor of a mission, Ascension Lutheran congregation in Buffalo, and
   at the same time held an assistant professorship at the Martin Luther
   Seminary until 1922. He served as professor of historical theology at
   the Martin Luther Seminary from 1922 to 1929. In 1929, when the Buffalo
   Synod dosed Martin Luther Seminary, Dr. Leupold was transferred to the
   Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary at Capital University,
   Columbus, O., where he became professor of Old Testament Theology, in
   which capacity he is serving at the present time. He was elected
   secretary of the Theological Seminary faculty in 1941. Dr. Leupold
   received the Bachelor of Divinity degree from the Chicago Seminary in
   1926 and the Doctor of Divinity degree from Capital University in 1935.

   Dr. Leupold has gained renown as an Old Testament scholar and an
   authority on liturgics. He has become a well-known lecturer and writer
   in these fields.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER I

    The Introduction--The Creation Account (1:1-2:3)

   The object of this double title is to indicate that on the one hand,
   this is the Introduction which Moses has provided for the entire book
   of Genesis as well as, on the other hand, that this Introduction is
   given in the form of an account of creation.

   It requires no deep insight to discern the basic character of this
   Introduction, both for the book as well as for all revelation. Man will
   go back in his thinking to the point where the origins of all things
   lie; he will desire to know how the world as well as all that is in it,
   and, most particularly, how he himself came into being. Here is the
   record, complete and satisfactory from every point of view, even if it
   does not perhaps answer every question that a prying curiosity might
   raise. He, however, who will ponder sufficiently what is here actually
   offered, will find facts of such magnitude as to stifle unseemly
   curiosity as to secondary matters.

   Enthusiastic have been the comments of all who have read this account
   in an attitude of faith. Believing hearts are moved to devout praise of
   God and to adoration of His unbounded wisdom, power and mercy. Over
   against the criticism of our day even moderately critical writers offer
   comments such as Skinner (p. 11): "It is a bold thing to desiderate a
   treatment more worthy of the theme, or more impressive in effect, than
   we find the severely chiselled outlines and stately cadences of the
   first chapter of Genesis." Proksch, contrasting the basic thought of
   the chapter with all other literatures, advances the claim: "That the
   universe rises out of nothing by the almighty creative power of God is
   a thought so broad in its poetic as well as in its theological scope
   found nowhere in such clear-cut outlines in world literature before P."

   The Scriptures themselves treat this account as pure history. Note the
   following passages: (Ex 20:9-11; 31:17; Ps 8; Ps 104; Mt 19:4-6; 2Pe
   3:5; Heb 4:4)

   When the question is raised as to the. sources of the truths set forth
   in this Introduction, we must freely admit that we know nothing about
   them. There are several possibilities. That Moses himself received the
   whole chapter by direct revelation is possible. Equally, if not more,
   reasonable is the assumption that divine revelation communicated to our
   first parents the account of creation. From them it came by tradition
   to Moses, who recorded the whole under divine inspiration, purging it
   from errors or inaccuracies, should any have begun to creep into the
   traditional version of it by this time. That, however, such tradition
   may have continued relatively, if not entirely, pure appears from the
   following three facts: first, the number of links in the chain of
   persons from Adam to Abraham was very few because of man's longevity at
   this time, and Abraham's time was already one of intense literary
   activity; secondly: godly men who perpetuated this tradition would have
   employed extreme care to preserve it correct in all its parts; thirdly,
   the memory of men who trusted more to memory than to written records is
   known to have been unusually retentive. But whatever explanation an
   individual may devise to make plain to others that tradition may have
   played a part in bringing this priceless record to us, and even if he
   grant the possibility of written records of this tradition prior to the
   time of Moses, all such supposition dare never be construed as
   conflicting with the very basic fact that Genesis 1 is revelation.

   Suppositions like that of Dillmann and many others that the Israelitish
   mind was equipped with a better understanding of God and let the light
   of this insight, be trained on the problem of the origin of all things
   and devised this which is to date still the best solution; are not
   satisfactory. Such claims are an attempt to dispose of immediate
   revelation as well as of plenary inspiration and are besides hardly
   reasonable. How could human ingenuity ever have penetrated into the
   divine order and manner of creation, when no witness to these works
   could ever be found? In any case, such explanations as to how the
   account was derived make of it a series of surmises and remove entirely
   the possibility of the objective correctness and the complete
   reliability of this record. All that remains is that of all
   speculations man ever elaborated about the origin of the world this is
   still by all odds the best. The claims and the attitude of the
   Scriptures, however, are met only by the explanation that says: This
   chapter was received by divine revelation; it contains full and
   absolute truth and only truth.

   In order to make this scriptural account appear as just one more
   cosmogony it has become a common procedure to make more or less
   extensive Comparisons with other cosmogonies as they are found here and
   there in the records of the traditions of the nations. We offer,
   however. a more extensive examination of these so-called "creation
   accounts" above in our Introductory Remarks (p. 27). A fair comparison
   with such materials makes our remarks above appear all the more
   reasonable.

   Taking this creation account as a whole, how shall we arrange the work
   of the six days? Is there any possibility of grouping within the six
   days? Most schemes that are advanced are not entirely perfect, but they
   may yet contain a generous element of truth. It seems as though the
   best pattern or the categories that man employs are not of a big enough
   mould to serve for the creation as God brings it about. Let a few of
   these subdivisions be submitted. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), mentioned
   by Strack, suggested two triads of days, the first three concerned with
   works of division, the second three with works of embellishment. Yet
   the third day's work in its second half certainly comes under the head
   of embellishment. A second suggestion notices the manifest parallel
   between the two triads of days, pointing to the fact that both the
   first and the fourth days are concerned with a work that begins on high
   with light (or light bearers). Then in the work of the second and the
   fifth days the work drops to a lower level, namely, to the firmament
   and to the birds of the air. Lastly, on the third and the sixth days
   the creative work moves on the level of the earth and accomplishes a
   double objective, namely on the third, separation of dry land and water
   and the production of green things, whereas on the sixth day comes the
   creation of land animals and man. The correspondence of the two triads
   from this point of view cannot be denied, but to try to imagine it as
   entirely adequate would overlook the work of the fifth day, which is
   double in character and drops not only to the level of the creation of
   the birds of the air but also, unfortunately, to the submarine level of
   the creation of fishes of the sea. More satisfactory is Koenig's
   arrangement which sees four deficiencies or four instances of relative
   incompleteness listed in a definite order and sees the successive
   creative acts as removing these four in inverse order, as we shall
   presently demonstrate.

   But quite apart from such attempts to fit the whole creation into a
   pattern of our own devising it is immediately apparent that the account
   as a whole proceeds from the lower to the higher, providing first the
   basic essentials for existence as well as for plant and for animal
   life, then running to a climax in the creation of man for whose
   well-being and well-ordered existence all previous steps in creation
   provide the adequate setting. So the account abundantly displays that
   God is a God of order. The very general formula devised by Driver
   (quoted by Skinner) is as satisfactory as any: "The first three days
   are days of preparation, the next three are days of accomplishment."

   1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

   The phrase "in the beginning" (bereshith) refers to the absolute
   beginning of created things, to the Uranfang. This fact is supported by
   the following arguments in the face of many and strong claims to the
   contrary. 1. The corresponding phrase in Greek, en arch, which the
   Septuagint translators used here and which appears at the beginning of
   John's Gospel, is plainly a reference to the absolute beginning. 2. The
   noun reshith appears without the article, appearing in use practically
   as a proper noun, Absolute Beginning (K. S. 294g). The Greek Hexapla of
   Orion supports this, for its transliteration with few exceptions gives
   bohsin, seldom baohshn. 3. The rendering which takes the expression as
   referring to the absolute beginning of things makes for a simple,
   natural progression of thought and avoids that peculiar periodic
   sentence structure, which shall presently be discussed as highly
   unnatural.

   Because this noun bereshith is without the article, that does not allow
   for its being taken as a genitive or construct case, viz. "in the
   beginning of God's creating," etc., for with that rendering attention
   is at once centred on the second verse and no reason appears for
   mentioning "the beginning" at all.

   Here, then, at the opening statement of sacred Scripture we are taken
   back to that point to which the human mind naturally will revert and in
   reference to which it asks: "What was the beginning of things?" This
   solemn and pithy statement gives man the information: the beginning was
   made by God in His creation of heaven and earth. As far as this world
   is concerned, it simply had no existence before this time.

   He that did the creative work is said to be God, 'elohim. This Hebrew
   name is to be derived from a root found in the Arabic meaning "to fear"
   or "to reverence." It, therefore, conceives of God as the one who by
   His nature .and His works rouses man's fear and reverence. It is used
   2,570 times (KTAT-(K) p. 144). This name is not a characteristic mark
   of a particular source as E, or in a measure also P, as Old Testament
   criticism is in the habit of claiming. It is used by Moses in
   accordance with its meaning. The work recorded in chapter one in a very
   outstanding way sets forth God's mighty works of power and majesty.
   God's omnipotence outshines all other attributes in this account.
   Omnipotence rouses man's reverence and holy fear rather than his love.
   In other words, it brings the Creator to man's notice rather as 'Elohim
   than from any other point of view. In stressing this we are not blind
   to the fact that this chapter also shows forth God as Yahweh, the
   faithful, merciful one. The claim, however, , that Yahweh might just as
   Well be employed as 'Elohim, if the meaning of these names is to be
   considered, really ignores the facts we have just emphasized above
   --facts which criticism, by the way, gives heed to far less carefully
   than conservative writers give attention to the arguments in favour of
   the various sources, E, J, P, D, etc.

   A thought by Procksch should be noted here: "It so happens very
   appropriately that the first named subject of Genesis as well as of the
   Bible is `God'."

   The verb describing God's initial work is "created" (bara'). This verb
   is correctly defined as expressing the origination of something great,
   new and "epoch-making," as only God can do it, whether it be in the
   realm of the physical or of the spiritual. The verb bara' does not of
   itself and absolutely preclude the use Of existing material; cf. Isa.
   65:18b: "Behold I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy."
   Also note v. 27 of this chapter. However, when no existing material is
   mentioned as to be worked over, no such material is implied.
   Consequently, this passage teaches creatio ex nihilo, "creation out of
   nothing," a doctrine otherwise also clearly taught by the Scriptures;
   (Ro 4:17; Heb 11:3); cf. also (Ps 33:6, 9; Am 4:13). The verb is never
   used of other than DIVINE activity.

   The bero', which Kit. proposes in the margin in conformity with the
   claims of many, for bara', i.e. the infinitive for the finite verb, and
   which yields the translation, "in the beginning of God's creating,"
   etc., is not only entirely unnecessary but unfortunately, leads to an
   involved and confused sentence structure in place of a simple and a
   clear one. Besides, such a change is born entirely out of the desire to
   make room for a particular interpretation, viz. the interpretation that
   claims long ages of the earth's existence prior to the creative work
   here to be described. To use this change of vowels is the equivalent of
   substituting a confused road for a straight and a simple one.

   The object of God's creation was "the heavens and the earth." We should
   have said, He created: "the universe." Since the Hebrew has no word for
   the universe and can at best say: "the all" cf. (Jer 10:16; Isa 44:24;
   Ps 103:19; 119:91; Ec 11:5), certainly the far more colourful "heavens
   and earth" is to be preferred. Besides, there is a deeper truth
   involved. In reality the world is bipartite; it is not a unit as far as
   we are concerned. The two parts constituting the world or the universe
   were originally in perfect harmony with one another. Now there exists a
   deep breach between the two. The term shamssyim signifies the "upper
   regions" (K. W.) and is a plural form, a plural of intensity (K. C.),
   pointing to the heavenly spheres or regions which rise one above the
   other. This explanation is to be preferred to the other (e. g. K. S.)
   which makes this a dual in reference to the two halves of the heavens
   which stretch each from the zenith to the horizon. The word for
   "earth," 'erets, bears a meaning which may be "that which is lower,"
   des Niedere.

   Over against the claim that "the heavens and the earth" may well be the
   equivalent of "the universe" it is contended that "heavens" here can
   only mean the "firmament," as in v. 8, and "earth" can only refer to
   the "dry land," as in v. 10. But then the very proper question arises:
   why single out "heaven and earth" in this sense at all and mention
   their creation in v. 17 Besides, in this creation account another word
   is used in a broader and in a narrower sense; cf. "day" in 5a with
   "day" in 5b with "day" in 2:4--actually three meanings.

   Now is this first verse a heading or a title? By no means; for how
   could the second verse attach itself to a heading by an "and"? Or is
   this first verse a summary statement akin to a title, after the Hebrew
   manner of narrative which likes to present a summary account like a
   newspaper heading, giving the gist of the entire event? Again, No. For
   if creation began with light and then with the organizing of existing
   material, the question would crowd persistently to the forefront: but
   how did this original material come into being? for v. 1 could not be a
   record of its origin, because it would be counted as a summary account
   of the things unfolded throughout the rest of the chapter. Verse one is
   the record of the first part of the work brought into being on the
   first day: first the heavens and the earth in a basic form as to their
   material, then light. These two things constitute what God created on
   the first day. The Hebrew style of narrative just referred to may or
   may not be employed on occasion, depending on the author's choice. Here
   it does not happen to be used.

   Here also the statement may be disposed of which says: The initial
   creation was a chaos. Such an assertion is misleading. It may be meant
   in a way which Would be entirely wrong. If it implies that as the
   record stands v. 1-2 show an unsatisfactory state of achievement, it is
   all wrong. However, if the disorganized state of the first steps of
   creation is called "chaos," with the reservation that this implies no
   criticism but is necessarily only the first and unavoidable step from
   lower to higher forms, then the statement may be used. Or if it is only
   intended as a statement which covers what v. 2 covers with other terms,
   it cannot be said to be wrong.

   Before dropping this verse we should take issue with the question:
   "Does the term 'Elohim, being a plural, embody a reference to the Holy
   Trinity?" Two extremes must be guarded against in submitting an answer.
   He goes too far who sees in this plural a direct and explicit reference
   to the Holy Trinity. The plural is a potential plural (K. S. 263 a-c)
   indicating the wealth of the potentialities of the divine being,
   chiefly in so far as God by His very nature and being kindles man's
   deepest reverence. However, what all the wealth of this
   reverence-inspiring Being is, is not fully revealed in all detail by
   the Old Testament, least of all in the time of Moses. The term 'Elohim,
   however, allows for all that which the fuller unfolding of the same old
   truth brings in the course of the development of God's Kingdom. When,
   then, ultimately the truth concerning the Trinity has been revealed,
   the fullest resources of the term 'Elohim have been explored, as far as
   man needs to know them. Consequently, he who would claim that the term
   can have no connection with the truth of the Holy Trinity goes too far.
   Nor dare it be forgotten, as we shall show in connection with v. 2 and
   3, that the text itself introduces references to the persons of the
   Trinity without definitely indicating, of course, that they are
   distinct persons in the Godhead. In that connection certain New
   Testament words will be seen to have bearing upon the case.
   Consequently Luther's statement, made in reference to v. 2, is quite in
   order when he says: "Consequently the Christian Church on this point
   displays a strong unity that in this description is to be founds the
   mystery of the Holy Trinity." Even a second statement of Luther's may
   be accepted, if it be construed in the sense of the first: "But we have
   clear testimony that Moses aimed to indicate the Trinity or the three
   persons in the one divine nature."

   Before we examine v. 2 by itself it is necessary to see how v. 1-3
   stand related to one another. There would be no occasion for giving
   attention to this matter if the familiar English versions (King James
   or A. R. V.) and the German are followed, for these very correctly
   indicate that the sequence of clauses is as natural as it can be. But
   two translations, diverging from the familiar form, have thrust
   themselves to the forefront, leaning for support on eminent Hebrew
   scholars. As representative of the one may count what Meek submits (The
   Old Testament, An American Translation): "When God began to create the
   heavens and the earth, the earth being a desolate waste, with darkness
   covering the abyss and the spirit of God hovering over the waters, then
   God said: `Let there be light.'" This translation makes v. 2 a
   parenthesis, or it would practically have it set off by dashes and
   makes of v. i the protasis and of v. 3 the apodosis. The second makes
   v. 1 protasis and v. 2 apodosis, thus: "When God created the heavens
   and the earth, then the earth was, etc. ... and God said, etc." (Raschi
   et al.). A third might be listed here, although it has been disposed of
   above. It is that which makes v. 1 the heading and then proceeds with
   v. 2 and 3 as follows: Now as the earth lay there, a waste and empty
   mass--and darkness, etc. --then God said, etc., (Procksch). The last
   mentioned having been refuted, we shall dispose of the details involved
   in the first two as we examine v. 2 and v. 3 more fully. For a summary
   refutation let the following points be noted, Grammatically such
   translations as Meek and Raschi offer are possible but in this case
   highly improbable. The Hebrew does co-ordinate clauses where we prefer
   subordination. Longer sentences of involved structure are found also in
   (Ge 5:1) and (Nu 5:12-15; Jos 3:14-16) and in many other instances. But
   a chapter marked throughout by very simple sentence structure would
   never begin with so complicated a structure as any of the ones noted
   above. Besides, against the first combination it must be noticed that
   the first word of v. 2 could hardly be ha'arets but would have to be
   wattehi, in spite of occasional exceptions noted here and there for
   emphasis' sake. Wellhausen's dictum in regard to this modern
   translation is worthy of being preserved; he called it a "desperately
   insipid construction" (verzweifelt geschmacklose Construction).

   2. And now, as far as the earth was concerned, it was waste and void,
   and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was
   hovering upon the face of the waters.

   Of the two parts of the universe mentioned the author abandons the
   first, "the heavens," as lying outside of the sphere of the present
   investigation, for of its creation we need not know or perhaps could
   not understand its details. Moses definitely limits himself to the
   second of the two parts by emphatically setting "the earth" first in
   the sentence. This yields a shade of thought which our translation
   above tries to reproduce by saying: "And now, as far as the earth was
   concerned." Or one might render: "Now this earth," etc. As has been
   remarked, from this point onward the point of approach may be said to
   be geocentric.

   By an outstanding double expression (cf. for similar combinations 18:27
   and 21:23) an almost onomatopoeic effect is secured to describe the
   utmost of an unformed and unshapen mass: "waste and void" --tohu
   wavohu. Tohu is really a noun used as an emphatic adjective (K. S. 306
   r), as is also, of course, bohu. The verb "it was," hayethah, cannot
   bear the emphasis in a sentence where two such significant predicates
   follow (K. S. 326 b). It must merely serve as a copula (K. S. 338 q).
   Consequently, all attempts to put into this verb some thought like: the
   earth then was there, or lay thus for quite a time, are grammatically
   quite inadmissible. Now tohu as such means originally unformedness (K.
   W.) and so can come to mean a "waste" only in the sense of being not
   yet put into shape, not in the sense of having been laid waste by some
   catastrophe, as all those would postulate who try at every point to
   make room for geologic periods of development. All later usage of the
   word points in the same direction. It occurs once again with bohu, (Jer
   4:23). In (De 32:10) the parallel thought is "wilderness." Isaiah uses
   it to describe the unreality of idols. In (Isa 41:29), where it is
   rendered "confusion," its parallel is "wind," and similar terms are
   "vanity" and "nought." Similarly, (Isa 40:17) offers as parallels:
   "nothing" and "less than nothing." Cf. also (Isa 40:23; 49:4; 1Sa
   12:21). The passage (Je 4:23) is not at variance with these claims, for
   though it pictures a state of desolation by the quotation of the whole
   phrase tohu wavohu, it evidently means that the land is again to be
   reduced to a state like unto the primeval chaos. (Isa 24:10) is
   analogous. Bohu is derived from a root "to be empty," therefore
   "emptiness." It is applicable to a region without inhabitants of any
   kind. Its thought is clearly distinct from tohu. Both terms together
   then indicate two directions in regard to which the newly created world
   will undergo further changes: first, it must be shaped and formed into
   definite molds; secondly, it must be peopled with all kinds of
   inhabitants or beings.

   The next sentence, "and darkness was upon the face of the deep,"
   indicates the last two deficiencies or incompletenesses characteristic
   of this newly formed earth--"deficiencies" being here taken not in the
   sense of a positive defect but negatively as mere want of those things
   which in the purpose of God were consecutively to be supplied. The verb
   "was" carries over from the preceding clause and need not be repeated
   here. All of what had thus far come into being was wrapped in complete
   and absolute darkness. This is the first deficiency. The second touched
   upon in this sentence is that which lay under the darkness was "the
   deep." Yet even here the expression used is not merely "upon the deep"
   but "upon the faces of the deep." This "deep" had a variety of aspects,
   "faces." In fact, since "deep," tehom, from the root hum, "to resound,"
   signifies the surging, raging primeval waters, the term implies
   anything but a monotonous peace and uniformity. Besides, the absence of
   the article stamps the word as a kind of proper noun, viz. that one and
   only primeval deep. Whether now this original form is characteristic cf
   the whole earth or merely of its surface; whether it involved an earth
   that had, as it were, a solid kernel but merely a disturbed surface; or
   whether solid matter and water were originally churned up into one vast
   conglomerate neither solid nor liquid, no investigation on our part
   will ever determine.

   In fact, whatever efforts are made to throw light upon the matter by
   drawing upon Babylonian myths, and particularly upon the monstrous
   deity Tiamat, only confuse the issues. Those who at once identify tehom
   with Tiamat do so without any warrant. The mere similarity of names
   does not make the Biblical account a derivative from Babylonian
   sources. As K. W. rightly remarks: "The spirit of the Old Testament has
   disavowed the personification of the term as well as its mythological
   implications." The holy writer was not going afield among the grotesque
   mythological figures of the Babylonian pantheon. His statement is too
   sober and the term employed quite uncontaminated by crude heathen
   notions. If any connection exists between the true; sober `Biblical
   term tehom and the mythological Tiamat, the latter in the sober light
   of facts must be a derivation form the former during the process of the
   degeneration of the original truth possessed by mankind. Tiamat lies so
   much farther down the scale as to appear as a very manifest corruption.
   That mere "waters" are meant here by tehom is also apparent from the
   next clause, where the term "waters" is actually substituted for it.

   Note well that we have above carefully avoided that rendering of the
   last clause of v. 2 which makes the verb involved to mean "brooding." A
   good example was set by the Septuagint translators who used the term
   epefereto, "was borne along"; "moved" (A. V.) is less colourful but not
   wrong. The verb rachaph from which the piel participle is used, mera
   (ch) chepheth, signifies a vibrant moving, a protective hovering. No
   single instance of the Biblical usage of the verb would suggest
   "brooding," a meaning which was foisted upon the word in an attempt to
   make it bear resemblance to various old myths that speak of the
   hatching out of the world egg--a meaning specially defended by Gunkel,
   the strong advocate of mythical interpretation. (De 32:11) surely will
   not allow for the idea of "brooding." An eagle may brood over eggs but
   not over "her young."` The fact that the Syriac root does happen to
   mean "brood" cannot overthrow the Biblical usage, which takes strong
   precedence over mere similarity of root in kindred languages. Koenig
   (K. W.) rightly shows how such similarity may mislead. The Syriac and
   the Aramaic melakh, which is the Hebrew malakh, means in Syriac and
   Aramaic "to give counsel and incidentally "to rule," but in Hebrew it
   signifies "to be king." Comparative philology has its limitations. Or
   the Arabic hsslika, "to perish," appearing as the Hebrew verb halakh
   signifies "to go."

   But what exactly is "the Spirit of God"? Since in this account the noun
   for God 'elohim is without a doubt definite, the word "spirit" also
   becomes definite, according to a simple rule of Hebrew syntax.
   Consequently, the thought must be ruled out that we are dealing with
   some such concept as "divine Spirit." It must definitely be rendered
   "the Spirit of God." Nor is there any warrant for rendering ruach as
   "wind" in this instance. The verb with which it is construed implies
   too much to let the statement merely mean that a wind fanned the face
   of the waters. Since, then, it actually is God's Spirit, the question
   might definitely be formulated thus: "Does ruach `elohim mean God's
   spirit or God's Spirit? Is it a mere potency in God or is it the Holy
   Spirit who is involved?, Or does the term refer to a principle or to a
   person?" We must guard against overstatement of the case, but we
   maintain very definitely: the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, the
   third person in the Trinity. For all the attributes ascribed to this
   divine person in the Old Testament agree fully with what is revealed in
   the New Testament concerning His person and His work. Absolutely none
   other than the Holy Spirit is here under consideration. Yet it would be
   inaccurate and premature to claim that this passage alone conveys this
   fact clearly to the mind of man. It may have been much later in the
   course of the fuller unfolding of divine revelation that the truth came
   home distinctly to the mind of believers that God's spirit was God, a
   separate person or hypostasis. Yet the harmony of the Word within
   itself and its inspiration by this same Holy Spirit necessitated that
   the statements made in earlier stages of revelation, nevertheless, are
   in accurate and full conformity with the truth. It may require the full
   light of New Testament revelation to enable us to discern that the
   Spirit of God here is the same as He who in the New Testament is seen
   to be the Holy Spirit; but having that light, we need not hesitate to
   believe that it sheds clear light back on the Old Testament usage of
   the expression. Davidson and Koenig in their Theology of the Old
   Testament may deny this. Even Oehler may hesitate to make a clear-cut
   assertion. This explanation, nevertheless, does better justice to the
   facts. Does it not seem reasonable that the Spirit of inspiration
   should have so worded the words that bear upon His activity that, when
   the full New Testament revelation has come, all statements concerning
   the Spirit are in perfect harmony with this later revelation?

   We could never believe that this hovering of the Spirit over the face
   of the waters was idle and purposeless. From all other activities that
   are elsewhere ascribed to the Holy Spirit we conclude that His work in
   this case must have been anticipatory of the creative work that
   followed, a kind of impregnation with divine potentialities. The germs
   of all that is created were placed into dead matter by Him. His was the
   preparatory work for leading over from the inorganic to the organic.
   K.C. feels impelled to interpret this "hovering" as "an intensified and
   vitalized type of vibration." We should not be averse to holding that
   the foundation -L-or all physical laws operative in the world now was
   laid by this preparatory activity. Other passages relative to the
   Spirit as "the formative cause of all life" are to be found: (Job
   26:13; 27:3; Ps 33:6; 104:30; 143:10; Isa 34:16; 61:1; 63:11).

   From the grammatical point of view it may be remarked that the
   participle mera (ch) chepheth refers to the past in a context which
   refers to the past (K. S. 237 a). Besides, as a participle it embodies
   the thought of continuation as well as the idea of repetition (K. S.
   238 a). This "hovering" was not a single and instantaneous act. It
   rather describes a continued process. Mssyim, "waters," is plural of
   extent not dual (K. S. 259d). The article before "waters" is the of
   "relative familiarity."

   3. And God said: Let there be light! and there was light.

   Nothing could be more uncalled for and unnatural than to try to make
   this verse a part of a complicated sentence structure. The simple
   statement wayyo'mer, "and He said," is apt to be estimated too lightly
   in this connection. It shows the manner in which God worked--by His
   Word. Heb. 11:3 gives the clearest expression of this fact. That in
   reality this creation was in and through the Son .of God, who is also
   called the Word, appears from (Col 1:16; Joh 1:3; 1Co 8:6); so that the
   second Person of the Holy Trinity is seen to be involved in the work of
   creation. True, this is but obscurely taught at this point, but it
   becomes a matter that is clearly confirmed by the New Testament. In the
   light of these later passages we must admit that the truth itself is
   provided for by the nature of the statements found in this basic
   record. All this serves to explain and to confirm more fully what we
   said above on v. 1 as conveying a reference to the Holy Trinity.

   But besides it is here very clearly taught in what manner the creative
   work proceeded. It was all wrought by God's omnipotent word, not by
   mysterious emanations from the divine being, not by natural processes,
   not by self-causation, but in a manner worthy of God and revealing the
   character of God. He is at once discerned to be divinely powerful,
   intelligent, and far above the level of His poor creatures: "He speaks
   and it is done; He commands and it stands fast" (Ps 33:9). Nothing is
   altered in reference to this fact if it be pointed out that as we now
   read the record the primal substance, "heaven and earth," was not said
   (v. 1) to have been made by a divine word. To argue that it was not is
   to use the poor argument from silence. We do not know how this was
   made. But that for all the works that follow God is said to have spoken
   simply aims to bring that mode of the process more strongly to our
   attention.

   After the primary substance on the first day the most ethereal of all
   things is brought into being, "light." It is at the same time the most
   essential prerequisite for life and existence. Since God proceeds in an
   orderly fashion, He begins at the natural starting point. We may not be
   shooting wide of the mark if we infer, that with light that other form
   of energy, heat, must have sprung into being. How inextricably both are
   interwoven in the sun we all clearly see.

   The Hebrew is really more expressive than the English for the word
   spoken by God which we render: "Let there be light." It is a vigorous
   imperative of the verb hayah, "to become": "Become light" and "became
   light." The German comes closer to the original: Es werde Licht und es
   ward Licht. He who notices at once that there, was no sun to serve as a
   vehicle for the light observes the truth. But it ill behooves man to
   speak an apodictic word at this point and to claim that light apart
   from the sun is unthinkable. Why should it be? If scientists now often
   regard light as merely enveloping the sun but not as an intrinsic part
   of it, why could it not have existed by itself without being localized
   in any heavenly body? If, then, another hasty deduction is based upon
   this observation in reference to the length of the first three days, as
   though they could not have been twenty-four hour days because they were
   not regulated by the sun, the serious limitations of this argument are
   palpably apparent. The last three days are clearly controlled by the
   sun, which is created on the fourth day, and all of them are described
   in the same terms used for indicating the nature, and the course of the
   first three--a strong argument that the first six days were alike in
   length and in nature and normal days of twenty-four hours.

   No one need think it strange that an inanimate object is addressed as
   animate when God speaks to the light. The situation is really even
   stranger: God speaks to the things that are not that they might be. The
   nature of creation requires just that. K.C. need hardly list instances
   where inanimate objects are addressed; they do not constitute real
   parallels, for in-every case objects already in existence are referred
   to: (Isa 43:6; Am 9:3; Na 1:4; Hag 1:11).

   So of the four deficiencies listed above one has been removed,
   "darkness."

   A certain order prevails in regard to significant terms employed in
   this account. Delitzsch first drew attention to it. He finds ten
   creative words introduced by "and He said." Seven times the expression
   "and there was" is found, chronicling the result. "And He called" is
   found three times; "And He blessed," three times; "good" is used seven
   times. Whether these numbers were designed and counted by the author we
   cannot say. In any case, they tally with reality as it actually appears
   in the account: just so many times God spoke, blessed, etc. Even as in
   the world of nature certain things now appear in stated sequence or
   Uniformity according to regular patterns, so God Himself, being a God
   of order, operates after a pattern of order in harmony with His own
   being. For seven is the number of divine works and operations; three,
   the mark of the divine person; ten, the mark of completeness. In God
   there is nothing that is accidental. Even the number of steps taken by
   Him in His work are in fullest harmony with His nature and being.

   4. And God saw that the light was good, and God separated the light
   from the darkness.

   Any account may be misread, and thoughts may be imputed to it that are
   utterly unworthy of it. So here it would surely be beneath the level of
   the pure and worthy conception of God which pervades the account to
   make this verse yield the thought that upon inspection God discerned
   that the work had turned out well, and so He promptly expressed His
   approval. Rather, this is, on the one hand, for our definite
   information that we might note that all works wrought by God were
   actually good and perfect and in every sense adequate for their
   purpose. There was no experimentation of an unskilled craftsman. There
   was no trying and testing after the fashion of toiling men. In fact,
   another very noble conception pervades it all; since there are no other
   beings to herald the Creator's praise, He, having achieved so
   praiseworthy a work, in this account Himself voices His approval that
   all men might know that in the very highest sense His work merited
   praise. The word for "good," tobh, is perhaps best rendered as
   "excellent" in these instances (B D B).

   The construction of the first clause is marked by a slightly unusual
   order of words. It literally runs thus: "God saw the light that it was
   good" (A. V.), the noun "light" being taken into the first clause by
   "anticipation," also called antitopsis (K. S. 414 b). Besides, the
   conjunction ki is used more commonly than 'asher to introduce such
   object clauses (K. S. 384 f).

   It had better also be noted that we have thus far had two so-called
   anthropomorphisms: "God said" (v. 3) and "God saw" (v. 4). This should
   be remembered over against those who attempt to set chapter one to 2:3
   over against the rest of chapter two as though two divergent accounts
   were being presented by different authors, who held variant conceptions
   of God, the author of chapter one being usually regarded as having a
   more exalted conception of God, and the author of chapter two as
   presenting a more anthropomorphic and less exalted view of the divine
   nature. Anthropomorphisms are certainly found also in chapter one.

   When the next clause states, "God separated the from the darkness,"
   this does not mean "separated" in the sense of "disentangled." They
   were not commingled together. Wayyabhdel means literally, "And he
   caused a division," that is in point of time, one functioning at one
   time, the other dominating at another. One is as much an entity or
   principle as the other. "Darkness" is not Cancelled and put out of
   existence. We can perhaps go so far as to claim that a "spatial"
   separation was also involved according to the terms of this account.
   (Job 38:19), though largely a poetic statement, seems to give warrant
   for such a deduction. To make the idea of separation still more
   prominent the preposition "between" is repeated before the second noun,
   and both nouns are given the article. "Light" appeared already at the
   beginning of the verse with the article of relative familiarity (K.
   C.).

   5. And God called the light day and the darkness He called night. Then
   came evening, then came morning-the first day.

   On "came evening" see v. 8; also on the derivation of "evening."

   To appreciate what this act means it is necessary to bear in mind what
   the Hebrew idea of giving a name or "calling a name" to an object
   implies. For this includes not only finding a convenient label to
   attach to a thing that it might thereby be identified, but especially
   the idea of expressing the very nature of a thing. In this act God did
   not find names for man to use when speaking of day and night; there was
   not even a man present to hear these names. But this act reports that
   God fixed day and night separately for their respective purposes. This
   concluded the first day's work, for now the light prevailed that man
   might put it to the uses for which God intended it, and night was fixed
   to fit the general scheme.

   In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that within the confines
   of this one verse the word "day" is used in two different senses. "Day"
   (yom) over against "night" (lssyelah) must refer to the light part of
   the day, roughly, a twelve hour period. When the verse concludes with
   the statement that the first "day" (yom) is concluded, the term must
   mean a twenty-four hour period. If any attempt is made to fix the time
   of the year when the creative work was done, the vernal equinox seems
   most likely to fit the needs of the case.

   Extensive discussion has centred around the last statement of v. 5:
   "Then came evening, then came morning--the first day." To try to make
   this mean that the day began with evening, as days did according to the
   later Jewish reckoning (Le 23:32), fails utterly, because verse 5
   reports the conclusion of this day's work not its beginning. Or again,
   to make this statement refer to two parts of a long geologic period:
   the first part a kind of evening; the-second a kind of morning; both
   together a kind of long period, runs afoul of three things: first, that
   "evening" nowhere in the Scriptures bears this meaning; secondly,
   neither does "morning"; thirdly, "day" never means "period."

   One major difficulty lying in the path is the attempt to make this
   whole statement like a problem in addition: evening plus morning,
   result: one day. Luther's translation, somewhat free at this point,
   seemed to support this view: da ward aus Abend und Morgen der erste
   Tag, i.e. "evening and morning went to make Up the first day." In
   reality, a vast absurdity is involved in this point of view. An evening
   may be stretched to include four hours, a morning could be said to be
   four or even six hours long. The total is ten, not twenty-four hours.
   The verse, however, presents not an addition of items but the
   conclusion of a progression. On this day there had been the creation of
   heaven and earth in the rough, then the creation of light, the approval
   of light, the separation of day and night. Now with evening the divine
   activities cease: they are works of light not works of darkness. The
   evening ('erebh), of course, merges into night, and the night
   terminates with morning. But by the time morning is reached, the first
   day is concluded, as the account says succinctly, "the first day" and
   everything is in readiness for the second day's task. For "evening"
   marks the conclusion of the day, and "morning" marks the conclusion of
   the night. It is these conclusions, which terminate the preceding, that
   are to be made prominent. They are "the terminations of the two halves
   of the first day" (Procksch).

   There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom means period.
   Reputable dictionaries like Buhl, B D B or K. W. know nothing of this
   notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable
   information concerning Hebrew words. Commentators with critical
   leanings utter statements that are very decided in this instance. Says
   Skinner: "The interpretation of yom as aeon, a favourite resource of
   harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of
   the passage and has no warrant in Hebrew usage." Dillmann remarks: "The
   reasons advanced by ancient and modern writers for construing these
   days to be longer periods of time are inadequate." There is one other
   meaning of the word "day" which some misapprehend by failing to think
   through its exact bearing: yom may mean "time" in a very general way,
   as in 2:4 beyom, or Isa. 11:16; cf. B D B, p. 399, No. 6, for. numerous
   illustrations. But that use-cannot substantiate so utterly different an
   idea as "period." These two conceptions lie far apart. References to
   expressions like "the day of the Lord" fail to invalidate our
   contentions above. For "the day of the Lord." as B D B rightly defines,
   p. 399, No. 3, is regarded "chiefly as the time of His coming in
   judgment, involving often blessedness for the righteous."

   Other arguments to the contrary carry very little weight. If it be
   claimed that some works can with difficulty be compressed within
   twenty-four hours, like those of the third day or the sixth, that claim
   may well be described as a purely subjective opinion. He that desires
   to reason it out as possible can assemble fully as many arguments as he
   who holds the opposite opinion. Or if it be claimed that "the duration
   of the seventh day determines the rest," let it be noted that nothing
   is stated about the duration of the seventh. This happens to be an
   argument from silence, and therefore it is exceptionally weak. Or
   again, if it be claimed that "the argument of the fourth (our third)
   commandment confirms this probability," we find in this commandment
   even stronger confirmation of our contention: six twenty-four hour days
   followed by one such day of rest alone can furnish a proper analogy for
   our labouring six days and resting on the seventh day; periods furnish
   a poor analogy for days. Finally, the contention that our conception
   "contradicts geology" is inaccurate. It merely contradicts one school
   of thought in the field of geology, a school of thought of which we are
   convinced that it is hopelessly entangled in misconceptions which grow
   out of attempts to co-ordinate the actual findings of geology with an
   evolutionistic conception of what geology should be, and so is for the
   present thrown into a complete misreading of the available evidence,
   even as history, anthropology, Old Testament studies and many other
   sciences have been derailed and mired by the same attempt. We believe
   that writers on the subject like Price and Nelson deserve far more
   consideration than is being accorded them.

   Now follows in v. 6-8 the creative work of the second day, the creation
   of the firmament or the lower heavens (Erdhimmel).

   6. And God said: Let there be a firmament in middle of the waters, and
   let it be causing a division between waters and waters.

   Again a creative word having the same power as the one of the first
   day, in reference to which Luther said: "God does not speak grammatical
   words but real things that actually exist." The "firmament" that
   results is called raqia'. It comes from the root meaning "to hammer" or
   "to spread out." Therefore, by some the word is rendered "expanse." Our
   "firmament" is from the translation of the Vulgate, firmamentum, which
   involves the idea of something that firmly put in place. The Greek
   sterewma conveys same idea. Yet the raqia' is the vault or dome of the
   heavens, or "that immense gaseous ocean, called the atmosphere, by
   which the earth is encircled" (Whitelaw). That so widely differing
   definitions as "dome" and "gaseous ocean" can be given in one breath is
   due to the fact, that whole set of physical laws is involved which
   makes the lower heavens possible: an air space encircling the earth,
   evaporation of waters, rising of gaseous vapours, etc. For the purpose
   of the firmament is declared to be that it be "in the middle of the
   waters" and "causing a division between waters and waters." Apparently,
   before this firmament existed, the earth waters on the surface of the
   earth and the cloud waters as we now know them were contiguous without
   an intervening clear air space. It was a situation like a dense fog
   upon the surface of the waters. Clear vision of all except the very
   nearest objects must have been impossible. Free activity unhampered by
   the fog blanket would have been impossible. Man would not have had an
   appropriate sphere for activity, nor could sunlight have penetrated
   freely to do its beneficent and cheering work. Now the physical laws
   that cause clouds and keep them suspended go into operation. These
   clouds constitute the upper waters. The solid masses of water collected
   upon earth constitute the lower waters. He who has observed that the
   heavens may pour down unbelievable quantities of waters will not
   hesitate to call these upper lighter cloud masses "waters" also. The
   languages familiar to us have the same viewpoint as v. 8, which calls
   this firmament "heavens." The cloud heaven is the one we mean. The
   English word "heaven" is from the root "to heave" or "lift up."

   Very queer constructions have been put upon this raqia'. A. Jeremias
   wrapped up in his speculations on Babylonian mythology and the great
   importance the signs of the zodiac played in Babylonian thought,
   identifies the raqia' with the zodiac (Tierkreis). A sober reading of
   the definition v. 6-8 gives of the "firmament" ought to make such an
   attempt impossible. Far more common is that view which imputes singular
   crudities to the Biblical narrative at this point. Let Dillmann furnish
   the picture: The raqia'" was in olden times conceived of as made out of
   more or less solid matter, firm as a mirror of glass, ... supported by
   the highest mountains as by pillars ... having openings," namely the
   windows of heaven through which rain might be dropped upon the earth.
   But in spite of passages like (Re 4:6; 15:2; 22:1) there is no doctrine
   of the Scriptures to the effect that there were "ethereal waters," and
   though the "windows of heaven" are referred to (Ge 7:11; Ps 78:23; 2Ki
   7:2; Isa 24:18), these purely figurative expressions (also e. g. (Job
   26:11)) are such as we can still use with perfect propriety, and yet to
   impute to us notions of a crude view of supernal waters stored in
   heavenly reservoirs would be as unjust at it is to impute such opinions
   to the writers of the Biblical books, The holy writers deserve at least
   the benefit of the doubt, especially when poetic passages are involved.
   Again: the view expressed in this verse is not crude, absurd, or in any
   wise deficient. Its simple meaning has been shown above.

   The expression wihi mabhdil, "and let it be causing a division,"
   presents a very strong case where the participle is used to express
   duration or permanence of a certain relationship (K. S. 239 b; G. K.
   116 r). Yehi is repeated to make the separate parts of the process
   stand out more distinctly (K. S. 370 s).

   7. And God made the firmament and He caused a division between the
   waters under the firmament and the waters above the firmament: and it
   was so.

   With a certain measure of circumstantiality the author reports in
   detail that God actually made those things-that He had bidden come into
   being. This now does not imply that the initial word (v. 6), "Let there
   be a firmament," was inadequate to cause it to come into being, and so
   God actually had to "make" ('asah) it. This mode of statement of v. 7
   merely unfolds in greater detail that the initial command to come into
   being involved, the full exercise of God's creative power, which
   continued operative after the word had been spoken until the work was
   brought to completion. For "he made" ('asah) dare not be construed, as
   involving a mode of operation radically different from creating
   (bara'), for a comparison of the use of the two verbs in v. 21 and in
   v. 25 shows that they may be used interchangeably. From one point of
   view one and the same task is created, i. e. is one of those
   marvellous, epoch-making achievements characteristic of God; from
   another point of view this task is made, i. e. God-employs His almighty
   power and energy to carry it through till it is completed.

   A textual problem needs to be considered here. Kit. in the margin
   suggests removing the "and it was so" (wayhi khen) from the end of v. 7
   and appending it to the end of v. 6 after the example of the Septuagint
   translators and after the analogy of v. 9, 11, 15, 24, 30, where it is
   inserted before the actual carrying out of the thing ordained is
   reported. However, though a certain quite stereotyped pattern is
   followed by the author throughout the account in recounting the work of
   the individual days, the adherence to fixed forms need not be so rigid
   as to preclude the slightest departure from them. The situation at the
   close of v. 26 is the same as that of our verse. There the Greek
   translators did not insert the wayhi khen, proving themselves
   inconsistent in their corrective endeavours. The text here needs no
   improvement.

   No effort should be made to render literally the compound preposition
   mittsschath le, "from under to." Mittsschat alone means only "under."
   Compound prepositions are wont to be followed by le (K. S. 281 p, and
   G. K. 119 c2).

   8. And God called the firmament heavens; and came evening, and came
   morning--second day.

   Again, the giving of the name to the object just created is more than
   an outward thing. What the term "heavens" implies, that is what the new
   arrangement will serve to be for man. All this, especially the term
   "heavens," gives us warrant for describing this creative work as we did
   in connection with v. 6.

   Our rendering, as in v. 5, "then came evening" is not as exact from one
   point of view as it might be. Wayhi is not the verb "come," but is from
   hayah, "to be," or even better "to become." This latter idea to show
   the progression of time we felt could well be marked by the English
   idiom, "then came evening," etc. The word for "evening," 'erebh, is
   commonly derived from the corresponding Hebrew root whose Arabic
   parallel means "to enter," "to go in." So, apparently, a poetic thought
   is involved in that the sun is thought of as going into its chamber, a
   thought found also in Ps. 19:5.

   After "one" the ordinals are used, "day the second" (K. S. 315 n).

   There follows in v. 9-13 the double work of the third day.

   9. And God said: Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together
   unto one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so.

   The second day's work may still be regarded from one point of view as
   being connected with the work of the first day. The light of the first
   day requires a free space, the clear atmosphere, in order that it might
   make its life-giving work felt upon plants and upon man. So "the
   heavens" (v. 6-8), i. e. the firmament, aids in the distribution of
   light. But three of the deficiencies noted under v. 2 still prevail.
   The tekom is now to be disposed of in the work of the third day.

   The expression "waters under the heavens" must be taken in the light of
   the preceding division made on the second day. The "waters above the
   heavens" are the clouds. The waters on the unformed surface, perhaps
   seething and surging as tekom suggests, are here under consideration.
   Waters are to be gathered together to be by themselves; dry land is to
   assemble by itself. If the waters are to be gathered together "unto one
   place," this expression may be regarded as sufficiently general to
   cover all oceans, or "the seven seas" for that matter. These water are
   by themselves; that is their "one place." So again "the dry land,"
   hayyabbashah, literally: "the dry," involved a limitation in the figure
   of synecdoche; the term really means continents, but continents are
   primarily "dry land." The verb "let be seen," tera'eh, is an imperfect
   used as an optative (K. S. 183 b).

   The verse concludes with the customary "and it was (or became) so" to
   indicate that which is bidden to come into being at once forms itself.

   As to the method followed in the separation of dry land and water we
   can Say little, Did depressions form and the waters rush down into
   them? We might think so. Or did elevations and mountains thrust
   themselves upward in the process of the congealing of the-dry land and
   shed the waters as they rose? (Ps 104:7-9), in describing the work of
   this day, seems to imply the latter Course, though the expressions used
   may be poetic rather than exact. No one, it seems, will ever be able to
   speak a final verdict in regard to this question.

   But, surely, in the course of these gigantic, upheavals, not
   catastrophic in nature because they involve organization rather than
   disruption, there was a tremendous amount of geologic formation. In
   fact, it would be perfectly safe to assume that all basic and all
   regular, formations were disposed of in this day's work. As a result,
   indeed, no record of the rapidity with which, certain formations took
   place is written upon the various formations, for vast as these
   formations were, they were controlled by the orderly operations of
   divine omnipotence and by these potentialities, no doubt, which the
   Spirit "hovering over the face of the waters" had implanted. Even these
   basic forms might, therefore, offer to him who acts on the assumption
   that there never were any accelerated formations the appearance of
   things laid down by the slow process of nature that we see in operation
   at this late day. But this ninth verse surely teaches that what we call
   geologic formations took place in titanic and gigantic measure at a
   vastly accelerated pace in a truly miraculous creative work as
   astounding as the rest.

   As far as the expression yammim, "seas," (v. 10) is concerned, it must
   be noted that it is used in a loose sense so as to include every body
   of water, like inland lakes and also `the rivers. But since the area of
   the seas is vastly in excess of that of the smaller bodies, the name is
   taken from the outstanding part, a parte potiori.

   Just because the Greek translators misread the word miqweh,
   "collection," for the word maqom, "place," that does not give any
   better reading or occasion for a textual change (Kit.). To call the
   newly assembled waters "the collection of waters" is most appropriate
   (v. 10); to say that they are to collect in "one place" is equally
   appropriate (v. 9). The clause added by the Septuagint is a pedantic
   attempt at improvement.

   10. And God called the dry land earth and the collection of waters He
   called seas; and God saw that it was good.

   The meaning of the word "earth" was discussed under v. 1. The propriety
   of the use of the term "sea" Was treated just before this verse. What
   God's calling signifies was shown in connection with v. 5.

   Here is the place for discussing what reasonable explanation may. be
   offered for the fact that at the conclusion of the work of the second
   day the customary approval of the Creator is not recorded (v. 8); but
   that it does appear now at the conclusion of the work of the third day
   (v. 10). As was shown at the beginning of the explanation of v. 9, the
   work of the second day reaches back and completes the work of' the
   first day from one point of view. In a more decided sense the work of
   the third day reaches back and completes the work of the second in
   reference to the separation of water. The second day merely raises the
   surface fogs making them clouds, but the earth waters are still
   entangled with the solid matter. So the work of the second day was
   relatively incomplete, so much so that the divine approval, "it was
   good," was withheld, but it is in reality included in the approval
   bestowed upon the third day.

   Note the chiasmus of v. 10: verb, object--object verb (K. S. 339 o).

   11. And God said: Let the earth produce grass, and herbs yielding seed,
   and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind whose seed is in them
   upon the earth; and it was so.

   The second half of the work of the third day is here recorded. This
   work attaches itself quite naturally to the preceding work the dry land
   just formed is at once to bring forth all forms of vegetation. The work
   of this half of the day is not immediate creation in the sense of the
   works preceding. For in the instances that went before the word was
   spoken and the result followed. In this instance the earth is the
   mediate agent, being bidden to produce whatever vegetation is necessary
   by a process of highly accelerated growth. Such a work is neither of a
   higher nor of a lower character than are the other works. Upon closer
   reflection this verse is seen to answer a question often asked, whether
   the. plant preceded the seed, or the seed the plant. Since the seed is
   not bidden to bring forth but the earth is, and since, the things
   brought forth are first to produce seed, and since nothing indicates
   the prior creation of seed, the only possibility left open to us is to
   believe that plants and herbs came first. This still leaves room for
   the possibility that the Spirit in His hovering implanted the
   potentialities that here unfold themselves.

   How do the things produced by the earth differ from one another? The
   three orders mentioned are (1) grass, (2) herbs, (3) trees. Some put
   the three items down as independent classes in an ascending scale (e.
   g. Delitzsch). Some make (2) a genitive dependent on (1), having as a
   result a pair of doubles "grass of herb" and "tree of fruit," as the
   Greek version botanhn cortu and eulon carpimon. Still others make (1)
   the general term covering all and (2) and (3) subdivisions of (1). We
   feel that the first point of view alone is correct and does justice to
   the meaning of the words employed. "Grass" represents the word deshe',
   whose root signifies "to be damp." Whatever grows in a well-watered
   spot will be of a fresh green, therefore the word is rendered frisches
   Gruen. Since, no doubt, these three classes aim to cover all vegetation
   in so far as it is of interest to man, the word deshe' may well be said
   to include such things as mosses and other plants designed to carpet
   the earth. The second term, "herbs," is a singular collective noun
   'esebh, also translated "herbage." That the word is really distinct
   from deshe' in meaning appears first from its use in passages like (2Ki
   19:26) and (Isa 37:27) where in an enumeration both are mentioned
   separately. Again the characteristic mark ascribed to it in this verse
   is noteworthy: mazria' zera', literally, seeding seed, therefore
   "yielding seed." Grasses, for that matter, yield seed too, but if
   specific mention of the seed is made only in the second class,
   apparently this refers to something like seed-bearing pods which make
   the seed more prominent as a separate feature. According to scriptural
   usage man eats 'esebh; see 1:29 and 3:18. So do cattle, (De 11:15).
   This being a broad class name, it must include things such as
   vegetables, or at least, generally speaking, everything between grass
   and trees and, without a doubt, the various grains.

   So, too, the last term must be used in a very broad sense.
   "Fruit-bearing trees," again a singular collective 'ets peri, must
   include both trees that bear fruit as well as trees yielding nuts and
   cones and, surely, all bushes yielding berries. For the expression
   translated literally means only "tree of fruit." Two other marks,
   however, are appended to this class: first, these fruit trees bear
   fruit "after their kind," a peculiar and definite limitation, which all
   those understand best who have seen how the "kind" sets limitations
   upon all who would mix kinds and cross them. Nature itself here is seen
   to have definite limits fixed which appear as constant laws or as
   insurmountable barriers. The last mark stamped upon this third class of
   vegetable growth is "whose seed is in them upon the earth." The seed
   needed for the propagation of the particular kinds is seen to be in the
   fruit. So whether the fruit be edible or not, as long as it has seed
   qualities, it meets the requirements of this mark. The concluding
   phrase for this mark, "upon the earth," might perhaps better have been
   rendered as "above the ground." For to try to make this phrase modify
   the verb tadhshe' at the beginning of the sentence certainly removes it
   far from the word modified. Besides, the characteristic thing about
   this "fruit-bearing seed" is that it usually hangs at some distance
   above the ground. Then, too, 'erets does mean "ground," and 'al does
   mean "above."

   These three broad classes of vegetation may not coincide with botanical
   distinctions as science now makes them. But, assuredly, they are seen
   to be a general and a very appropriate type of division as far as man's
   use of them is concerned, and in some ways the distinctions made are
   seen to be very apt. The lines of demarcation drawn at creation are
   just as sharp now as they were then.

   This verse closes with an, "and it was so," to indicate again how
   immediate was the fulfilment of the thing commanded.

   Tadshe' is, of course, a jussive or a yakteel elevatum (K. S. 189), and
   deshe' and zera' are cognate objects.

   We should yet draw attention to the fact that the things mentioned in
   2:5 are not to be included in the above classification, and so
   reservations must be made in reference to our use of the terms
   "vegetables" and "bushes" in the above discussion.

   If above in v. 7 the "and it was so" stood after it had been reported
   that the individual things to be created had actually come into being,
   here in v. 11 the "and it was so" precedes this latter statement, (K.
   S. 369b).

   12. And the earth produced grass and herbs yielding seed after their
   kind and trees yielding fruit whose seed was in them after their kind;
   and God saw that it was good.

   The accomplishment of the things ordered in v. 11 is reported in this
   verse in terms that are not a wooden repetition of v. 11; for after
   "seed" is inserted "after their kind'" to emphasize how the "kind"
   limitation also applies to the herbs, though this had not been
   mentioned previously. So, too, after "trees" the word "of fruit" is
   omitted, since this idea is covered by the qualifying phrase "bearing
   fruit." The work of the second half of the third day is also to be
   found "excellent" in divine approval, so that the statement, "and it
   Was good," appears for each of the two halves of this day.

   13. Then came evening, then came morning, --the third day.

   On this verse compare above v. 5.

   It is true that the first three days have no sun and no moon to furnish
   and to measure the needed light. But that fact does not in any wise
   warrant trying to make these days appear as different from the
   following three or four, for the pattern into which all six days of
   work fall is consistently the same for all, "then came evening, then
   came morning." It is the author's purpose by this means emphatically to
   declare the six days alike as to length and general character regular
   twenty-four hour days. Nothing but the desire to secure harmony with
   the contentions of certain physical sciences ever could have induced
   men to tamper with this very plainest of exegetical results.

   Follows the work of the fourth day in v. 14-19.

   Since this has to do with the appointment of luminaries, we see, first
   of all, how this day's work attaches itself to the work of the third
   day, as well as how it reaches over to the works that are yet to
   follow. For the vegetation that was brought into being by the work of
   the preceding day needs not only light but also seasons with
   modification of light. Consequently, that intricate set of operations
   that brings seasonal changes for vegetation and for man now
   appropriately follows.

   14, 15. And God said: Let there be luminaries in the firmament of the
   heavens to divide the day from the night, and let them be for signs and
   seasons and for days and years; and let them be for luminaries in the
   expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

   It at once stands out in reference to the work of this day that the
   purpose of the things that are made to function is stated in a far more
   detailed fashion than is the ease in regard to any other of the
   creative works. Nothing in the text explains this greater fulness of
   statement, but the suggestion advanced by Dillmann and others may be as
   satisfactory as any: "is there perhaps a silent contrast involved with
   the superstition of the heathen that is wont to attach itself to the
   stars?" The statement, therefore, is unusually exhaustive in order to
   show what purposes the Almighty fixed for the heavenly bodies and to
   leave no room for heathen misconstruction.

   At once now the next problem suggests itself: how do the "luminaries"
   stand related to the light which was created on the first day? With
   this is involved a second question: how do these luminaries stand
   related to the heavens, which were created on the first day (v. 1)? The
   analogy of "the earth" created simultaneously with "the heavens" (v. 1)
   and its equipment and arrangement up till this point through v. 2-13
   points in the proper direction. In other words, the earth is created in
   the rough, subject to certain deficiencies or incompletenesses which
   are removed one by one through the following days; similarly the
   heavens are created in the rough, heavenly bodies in vast spaces, not
   yet functioning as they shall later. What still remains to be done in
   and with them is now completed on the fourth day. The sun, moon and
   stars were in existence but were not yet doing the work which gets to
   be theirs in the fourth day's work. Light was in existence, but now
   these heavenly bodies come to be the ones that bear this light in
   themselves--"light-bearers," "luminaries," me'oroth. Heavenly bodies
   were in existence, but from this point onward they begin to serve a
   definite purpose in reference to the earth. Consequently, we are out of
   keeping with the plan according to which the course of creation has
   been proceeding if we separate the elements of 14a so as to make a
   definite pause after the statement, "let there be luminaries." This
   would imply the initial creation of all heavenly bodies. Rather,
   translating still more literally, the thing that is to transpire is
   this: "Let there become luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to
   divide the day from the night," etc. This really involves a double
   achievement: the non-luminous heavenly bodies become bearers of light,
   and this for the purpose of dividing the day from the night. The
   expression, "let there be lights"( A. V.) and Lichter (Luther) is
   inaccurate and misleading. "Light" in Hebrew is 'or; here stands the
   word ma'or, "light-bearer." This does not, however, now mean that "the
   atmosphere being completely purified--the sun, moon and stars were for
   the first time unveiled in all their glory in the cloudless sky"
   (Jamieson), for such a result would have been achieved automatically
   without divine fiat by the work of the second day. More reasonable is
   the assumption that the existing light, by being allocated to the sun,
   was tempered specifically to the needs of plant and animal life upon
   our planet. In any case, the purposes following arc definitely tied up
   ; with having the sun in particular function, as the primary
   light-bearer.

   Consequently, though day and night following One another in rotation
   function satisfactorily as day and night without sun and moon, from
   this point onward the dividing of day and night is tied up specifically
   with these luminaries. So this purpose is stated first. The adverbial
   modifier "in the firmament of the heavens" shows the relation of the
   fourth day's work to that of the second. The firmament prepared in
   advance had to be thus prepared, otherwise the light of these
   luminaries would have failed to benefit the earth. The singular verb
   yehi is followed by the masculine plural (feminine only as to form)
   me'oroth, according to general Hebrew practice of letting the most
   general form of the verb begin the thought (G. K. 145 o).

   But the luminaries have functions other than to divide day and. night.
   The fourteenth verse alone expresses two more general functions. The
   first of these two is so broad in scope as to cover four items,
   expressed by the terms, "and let them be for signs and for seasons and
   for days and years." A wide diversity of opinion exists as to the
   actual enumeration here given: are these two, three, or four distinct
   objects? Nothing very vital hinges on the answer. For though we stated
   above that four purposes are here listed, we could readily from one
   point of view consent To reduce them to three. For the preposition
   "for" (le) is used but three times and has a double object in the last
   instance--the closely related terms: "days and years." Others, like
   Koenig, make a double hendiadys, thus, "for signs, as well for seasons
   as also for days and also years." This again, depending on the
   individual's, viewpoint, might mean either three or two purposes. But
   though hendiadys is a common enough figure, we feel that nothing
   definitely indicates its use here; and also we notice that such
   translations push the independent meaning of the word "signs" too much
   into the background.

   Now "signs" ('othoth) is here used in the broadest possible sense.
   Indeed, the luminaries are signs from various points of view. They are
   "signs" to devout faith, declaring the glory Of their Creator (cf. Ps.
   8 and-19).--They are "signs" by which men get their bearings, or the
   point of the compass by day or by night. They may , convey "signs" in
   reference to future events (Mt 2:2; Lu 21:25). They furnish quite
   reliable "signs" for determining in advance the Weather to be expected
   (Mt 16:2, 3). They may be "signs"` of divine judgments (Joe 2:30; Mt
   24:29). That they may well serve in all these capacities is clear both
   from Scripture and from experience. Dwelling only on one scriptural
   parallel, Skinner, pointing to (Jer 10:2), where "astrological
   portents" are referred to, misconstrues the use of the word when he
   claims to find a similar use here, "though it is not quite easy to
   believe the writer would have said, the sun and moon were made for this
   purpose." But (Jer 10:2) does not identify the expression "signs of
   heaven," with "astrological portents." These signs become such portents
   only by the fact that the "nations," who are "dismayed at them," make
   them to be considered such. Skinner construes the forbidden abuse of
   "signs of heaven" as: the normal meaning of the expression. How
   Procksch injects the meaning "epochs" into the term is more than we can
   discern. The fact remains that men always have and in manifold ways
   still do regard and use luminaries for signs.

   Besides, the luminaries are "for seasons." A certain brevity of
   expression obtains here. We could supply the implied term quite
   readily, for "fixing seasons, days and years." But without this added
   term the expression is not unclear. But "seasons" are called mo'adhim,
   from the root ya'adh, "to appoint"; therefore, "appointed time." The
   luminaries do serve as "indicators" (Meek) of such fixed, appointed
   times, whether these now be secular or sacred. To attempt to exclude
   what we are specifically wont to call seasons is unwarranted and grows
   out of the assumption that the hypothetical author P has a special
   interest in things ritual. Therefore, "seasons" or times in the widest
   sense are to be thought of: agricultural seasons (Ho 2:9, 11; 9:5),
   seasons for seafaring men, seasons for beasts and birds (Jer 8:7), as
   long as they are times that are fixed and come with stated regularity.

   To complete the list of the things determined by the luminaries the
   divine command adds "days and years." These are respectively the
   shortest and the longest measures of time definitely fixed by the
   movement of the heavenly bodies. What "day" yom, is (here the whole
   twenty-four hour day) every one knows, and yet the etymology of the
   term is entirely unknown. The word for "year" (shanah) seems to be
   traceable to the Assyrian root "to change."

   Note that after the imperative "let there be" there may follow a
   converted perfect wehayu (K, S. 367 c).

   When now v. 15 says distinctly that these luminaries are to be "in the
   expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth," this plainly
   indicates that from the time of this creative work onward all light
   that the earth receives is to be mediated through the luminaries. How
   light functioned in the universe prior to this time we shall never
   know. How the regular alternation of day and night was regulated will
   for ever escape our discernment. What we know is only that as day and
   night now follow upon one another due to the light centred in
   luminaries, is an arrangement which God ordained on this day. It all
   certainly is a marvellous and praiseworthy work, but that is all that
   these luminaries are appointed for, as far as we are able to discern.

   16. And God made the two great luminaries, the greater luminary to rule
   the day and the lesser luminary to rule the night--and also the stars.

   The previous verse closes the initial command of the work to be done on
   the fourth day with the customary notice that "it was so," that is,
   what God commanded came into being. According to the almost invariable
   rule of this chapter we should now expect an account in detail as to
   how God actually wrought what He had ordained, beginning like all the
   others with either wayyss'as, "and He made," or with wayyibhra', "and
   He created." This is just what we have with the usual situation that
   the account of how the original order was carried out affords
   sufficient variety of form to serve as a commentary upon the first
   statement of v. 14, 15. Stereotyped repetition would be both mechanical
   and wearisome. However, critics fail to see this clear situation in a
   number of instances. Skinner brings an indictment against the account:
   "The laboured explanation of the purposes of the heavenly bodies is
   confused, and suggests overworking (the difficult 14b and 15a a). The
   functions are stated with perfect clearness in v. 16-18." Yet we have
   found both v. 14 and 15 perfectly simple and plain. The only difference
   between the initial command v. 14, 15 and the account of its being done
   v. 16-18 is that of the supplementary but entirely harmonious
   statements of purpose, the first gives greater prominence to the
   secondary purpose of serving for "signs, seasons," etc.; the second
   stresses particularly the primary function of controlling day and night
   and giving light.

   So v. 16 is supplementary in mentioning for the first time the chief
   luminaries--"chief" as far as the earth is concerned. They are "the two
   great luminaries, in reference to the earth and also in view of how
   they appear to man. Naturally, a simple account such as this will not
   attempt to give to man the useless information as to which of the
   heavenly bodies are the largest in the absolute sense. Besides, in the
   very nature of the case the expression, "the great luminary," must be
   understood as a comparative, "the greater." Likewise "the small"
   (haqqaton) means the smaller (K. S. 308 a). Because the definite and
   very specific use of "the stars" in reference to the earth is very much
   inferior to that of sun and moon, they may well be added as a kind of
   afterthought, "and also the stars." Now man at least knows how
   important they are and how they originated--a type of account which is
   the complete negative of all astrological conceptions. So as a whole v.
   16 is seen to be a very helpful commentary upon what preceded.

   17; 18. And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon
   the earth and to rule over the day and over the night and to separate
   the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

   Lest anyone be inclined to attribute any other or further purpose to
   these luminaries, v. 17 reasserts what was stated v. 15b, they are in
   the expanse of the heavens "to give light upon the earth." It would be
   a crude interpretation of the opening verb "and he put," if this were
   understood to mean that God first fashioned the luminaries in one place
   and then took them and set or suspended them in the firmament. For a
   literal translation of wayyitten is "and He gave" in the sense of
   "appointed." Yet the original idea of "to give" is also very
   appropriate here inasmuch as the luminaries are one of God's good gifts
   to mankind.

   Verse 18, in stating again what v. 14 said, "to separate the light from
   the darkness," prefixes the supplementary statement, "to rule over the
   day and over the night." This allows for that control of day and of
   night which expresses itself in their varying length as indicated and
   regulated by the sun and the moon.

   This work also is so excellent (tobh) as to merit divine approval.

   19. Then came evening, then came morning--the fourth day.

   Cf. v. 5 and 8.

   In this connection one particular problem still requires our
   consideration, and that is the computation of the light years by which
   the distance separating the earth from certain stars is measured. Some
   claim that then, of necessity, certain stars now visible could not yet
   have appeared to our first parents. If the astronomical calculations
   involved are correct, what if all stars were not at once visible but
   have only become apparent as time went on? Such a situation is not out
   of harmony with the Creation account; it would indicate merely a
   greater vastness to creation's work than man had first surmised. Where,
   however, it is claimed that this situation involves a greater antiquity
   of the earth than our construction of the Mosaic accounts allows for,
   we on our part still believe that the laws of light refraction in the
   interstellar spaces cannot be asserted to be identical with those
   prevailing under conditions as we know them. There still is the
   possibility that the tremendous spaces and the times resulting from
   certain astronomical calculations are based on assumptions whose
   correctness will always be only in part demonstrable.

   The claim of Skinner must yet be disposed of when he maintains that the
   Genesis account presents a "religious advance to pure monotheism" over
   against "the idea of them (the heavenly bodies) as an animated host" as
   it "occurs in Hebrew poetry (Jud 5:20; Isa 40:26; Job 38:7); but here
   it is entirely eliminated." We do not grant that the passages cited are
   earlier than Genesis 1. But they are poetic and, when rightly
   construed, offer no other view than that which any enlightened
   Christian now holds. They are far from teaching anything about heavenly
   bodies as "an animated host." The attempts of the critics to prove
   evolution of ideas where no such evolution occurs are unconvincing.

   20. And God said: Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and
   let birds fly above the ground across the face of the firmament of the
   heavens.

   The work of the fifth day is also in a sense a double one, but its
   double character is by no means as pronounced as that of the third and
   the sixth days. For to have the waters and the skies filled with such
   creatures as these parts are best adapted to is in reality a work whose
   two parts are practically identical in nature. However, here the
   situation is not analogous to the work of the third day, where "the
   earth brought forth." Here it is not the waters that bring forth. A. V.
   is in error when it translates: "Let the waters bring forth
   abundantly." Luther did not make this mistake. The optative of the verb
   sharats followed by the cognate object shaerets here must mean: "Let
   the waters swarm with swarms." Meek is more idiomatic: "Let the waters
   teem with shoals," but he loses the cognate object. We simply do not
   know from what source fish and birds sprang. They are simply bidden to
   people their respective domains. In apposition with the cognate object
   sherets stands the expression, "living souls" or literally, "souls of
   life." The word "soul" (nephesh) is here used for the first time--a
   collective singular--as a designation of these aquatic creatures,
   because the soul is the most important part of them, and at the same
   time the term definitely points to the new and distinctive thing
   involved. This is the first time that life in souls or living souls
   appears. According to the Biblical viewpoint plants have no life. But
   the life of living creatures is present in their "souls," and so they
   have souls ascribed to them. But this "soul" again is regarded as
   nothing more than "that which breathes" (B D B) in any being. A kindred
   form of life to that of fish is that of birds. Each type has its
   special element. The polel form ye'opkepk is intensive and so implies:
   birds shall "fly back and forth." Their element is described as being
   "above the ground across the face of the firmament of the heavens." The
   firmament is regarded as having a face, that is a side turned toward
   and, as we say, "facing" the earth. Across this the birds are to
   disport themselves. Sherets used in reference to the fish is a
   graphically descriptive term. All forms of life that love to move in
   continual agitation through one another, like shoals of fish and the
   like, are involved. This pronounced gregarious instinct marks these
   creatures to this day. By this work the emptiness (bohu) of the heavens
   and the waters is cancelled.

   21. And God created the great sea monsters and each one of the creeping
   creatures with which the waters teem after their kind and every winged
   bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

   Verse 21 in its relation to v. 20 furnishes a very excellent example as
   to how the account of what actually was done furnishes an invaluable
   commentary upon the original command of what was to be done. We
   ourselves would, as a rule, not have discerned what the original
   commands involved if the following statements had not made the full
   breadth of the original command plain. As far as the "swarms of living
   souls" of v. 20 are concerned, we are given to understand, first of
   all, that these swarms included not only the smaller fry among the fish
   but also "the great sea monsters" (tanninim), a word whose root
   indicates a creature of some length. In this category are found not
   only "whales," as A. V. translates, but all larger marine animals like
   sharks and, no doubt, also crocodiles: Nor do we hesitate to include
   under this head amphibians like the saurians of every class and
   description. Then the account specifically mentions what we have
   translated, "each one of the creeping creatures!" For here, apparently,
   nephesh has the common meaning of "individual" or "one," and what the
   account wishes to emphasize is that of the teeming multitudes of these
   marine creatures each one owed its existence to God's creative work. On
   this meaning of nephesh see K. S. 302a. The term rendered "creeping"
   (romeseth) literally implies "moving lightly about" or "gliding about"
   (B D B). Difficulty in fitting in these terms led to our rendering
   "creeping," which strictly does not apply to movement in the water.
   Another distinctive thought conveyed by this half of the verse is the
   added assertion that these creatures appeared "after their kind," a
   phrase not new but as important in its bearing as above. (v. 12) and
   allowing for no transmutation of species. In the second half of the
   verse it is applied also to the birds.

   The expression "winged bird" is literally "bird of wing," kanaph,
   "wing," being a genitive of quality and the phrase' as a whole what is
   known as an "ornate epithet" (K. S. 335 a) similar to our expression
   "yellow gold." Of course, birds have wings. But here, besides, where
   the very broadest of class distinctions are being made, without a
   doubt, the expression is meant to include every type of being that has
   wings--the small and the large, and not only what we call birds.

   But on the whole an entirely new type of being has come into existence,
   creatures that breathe and are animated and have power of their own
   volition to go from place to place. To give existence to such is the
   peculiar prerogative of God and is a monumental, epoch-making
   achievement that deserves to be described by the verb "and He created"
   (wayyibhra') as the opening verse does.

   22. And God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the
   waters in the seas and let the birds multiply on the earth.

   That this which was last made now actually represents a more important
   form of life is also made manifest by the fact that God bestows a
   blessing upon these creatures, a blessing by virtue of which the needed
   powers for continuance and for multiplying are imparted. The very idea
   of an initial single pair of creatures of this type is excluded by the
   statements of v. 20 and 21 where, when called into being, these
   creatures are bidden "to swarm" and the waters to "teem." But from
   these copious beginnings these creatures are to keep on multiplying
   until they fill the earth. Every vestige of emptiness is to be
   ultimately cancelled. This blessing of God, however, is not a mere wish
   or a wishing-well on the part of the Almighty. It is a creative word of
   power which makes possible the things that it commands, and it
   continues in power to this day. The Creator is glorified by the
   multitudes of beings which His creative word makes.

   It will be worth our while to make a check-up upon what is supposed to
   be an index of the style of P, to whom critics assign this chapter (P
   is the author of all that criticism calls the Priestly Codex). Skinner
   remarks about the double expression "be fruitful and multiply," peru
   urebhu, that it is "highly characteristic of P" and is used "only three
   times elsewhere." By such unwarranted remarks are the unwary misled,
   and by such insubstantial arguments is the case of the source criticism
   of the Pentateuch supported. B D B lists all the instances of the use
   of this double expression. The fictitious P is said to have it Gen.
   1:22, 28 and 9:1. as well as 35:1.1 and 47:27, yet the last two
   expressions differ in that one is singular and the other not imperative
   but future. Yet Jeremiah uses these two verbs jointly in (Jer 3:16) and
   (Jer 23:3); so does Ezekiel in (Eze 36:11). Is it not an overstatement
   to call a phrase that one author uses five times and others three,
   "highly characteristic" of the one? It is not so much a characteristic
   of style but a case of having the author describe several situations
   that of themselves demand such a statement. By his statement of the
   case Skinner would lead men to believe that the so-called P must have
   used the phrase at least a dozen times.

   In trying to make the fictitious P as real a figure as possible and to
   invest him with distinct characteristics Procksch remarks on this
   verse: "A tone of solemn joy pervades the knowledge that it is ordained
   that life should increase; P is in no sense a pessimist." The same note
   of "solemn joy," if you will, can be discerned just as plainly in
   chapter 2:4 ff, which is not ascribed to P.

   23. Then came evening, then morning--the fifth day.

   Cf. v. 5 and 8.

   24. And God said: Let the earth bring forth living creatures after
   their kind, domestic animals, reptiles, and wild beasts of the earth
   after their kind; and it was so.

   We have come to the work of the sixth day. The nobler and higher forms
   of animal life are to be brought forth and finally man himself. We have
   a kind of mediate creation as on the third day (v. 11), for the earth
   is bidden to produce them or bring them forth--totse'-- cause to come
   forth." The situation is really very simple, as far as the text is
   concerned. God could have called forth these creatures by His mere
   word; instead He speaks the word that enables the earth to bring them
   forth. They are to have such kinship with the earth that they may again
   be able to return to the earth. There is no confusion here of two
   points of view, which P here fails properly to reconcile with one
   another: namely an old view, which is the outgrowth of some ancient
   natural philosophy, and a higher conception of pure creation by the
   word (Procksch). That both types of creation here flow into one is the
   simple fact noted by the text. To create artificial difficulty and to
   pose as having ability to detect strains of older and imperfectly
   assimilated elements of tradition, merely serves to make the unlearned
   suspicious without reason and is proof on the critic's part of not
   having fully comprehended what the author said.

   On the shortened form totse' see K. S. 189.

   The "living creatures" brought into being on this day are first
   described by this general title, which we have noted above (v. 20) to
   mean literally "soul of life," because the.animating thing, the soul
   (nehesh), is the most prominent feature about them. Let it be remarked
   separately at this point that according to the Scriptures not only man
   has a soul but also all living creatures even down to fishes and birds.
   However, the soul as such is then regarded merely as the animating
   principle, the thing that causes them to breathe. Yet the soul of other
   creatures is not the same as that of man; it originated in a manner
   which makes it inferior by much to the animating principle in man, as a
   comparison with 2:7 indicates.

   These "living creatures" now are of three classes. First we find
   "domestic animals," behemah, which may also be translated "cattle."
   According to its root, "to be dumb," this classword describes these
   creatures as dumb brutes. Used sometimes in reference to all animals,
   it is here employed in reference to cattle or domestic animals because
   of its manifest contrast here with the wild beasts. Yet "cattle" is
   still a bit too narrow a term; "domestic animals" (Meek) is better. The
   second class is described as remes, which comes from the root meaning
   "to move about lightly" or to "glide about." "Creepers" almost covers
   the term, however, "creeping things" is too narrow (A. V.), for it does
   not seem to allow for bigger creatures like reptiles. "Reptiles" (Meek)
   again is too narrow, for it does not allow `for the smaller types of
   life. Everything, therefore, large or small, that moves upon the earth
   or close to the earth, having but short legs, may be said to be
   included: The third class comes under" the head of "wild beasts of the
   earth" (chayyath ha'ssrets). This is an appropriate designation from
   two points of view: the original comes from the root chay, to live, for
   these beasts are wild because "of their vital energy and activity" (B D
   B), an abundance of life throbs in them; then the modifying phrase "of
   the earth" is added to their name, because in a sense different from
   the other two classes these beasts have freedom of movement upon the
   earth. The first time this name is used in v. 24 we have the archaic
   connective, a remnant from an old case ending chaytho and the word
   'erets without the article-- poetic--making a more solemn and dignified
   double term coming from the lips of the Almighty (K. S. 268 and
   292).--When the narrator continues his own account, he lapses into the
   unarchaic prose chayyath ha'ssrets (v. 25). A double "after their
   kind," first applying to "the living creatures" as a whole then to the
   three classes separately, impresses this distinctive limitation upon
   all these creatures--a truth amply confirmed as not to be eradicated,
   as all who have engaged in crossbreeding of animals can abundantly
   testify.

   The three class names are in the singular, collective (K. S. 255 d).

   An unwarranted critical verdict in regard to the three classes just
   mentioned is rendered by Procksch, who calls this classification "very
   imperfect, based half on the history of civilization half on natural
   history." It certainly is uncalled for to expect a writer of hoary
   antiquity to operate with the specific scientific nomenclature of the
   twentieth century. Without a doubt, all readers who perused the
   accounts in a sympathetic spirit clearly detected that this popular
   grouping was sufficient to call to mind all types of living creatures
   as men not trained scientifically are wont to think of them.

   25. And God made the wild beasts of the earth after their kind and the
   domestic animals after their kind, and the reptiles of the ground after
   their kind; and God saw that it was good.

   The report as to how God proceeded to carry out the thing He ordains in
   v. 24, in v. 25 inverts the order of the classes--a merely chiastic
   inversion--and provides a comment upon "reptiles" by calling them
   "reptiles of the ground." Strictly speaking, the inverted order of
   names changes from 1, 2, 3 to 3, 1, 2. Then the expression "after their
   kind" is separately added to each class. The word for "ground,"
   'adhamah, used with "reptiles" (for reptiles creep on the ground) most
   likely is to be associated with the root 'adhom, meaning a
   "reddish-brown," a term descriptive of the covering of topsoil found
   wherever "ground" covers the rock layers. Lest anyone suppose that
   perhaps portions of the animal world may originally have been
   characterized by some defect, we find that all: meets with divine
   approval: "God saw that it was excellent" (cf. v. 4). No blessing is
   specifically mentioned as in v. 22, apparently because the writer is
   hurrying to the climax.

   26. And God said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and
   let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of
   the heavens and over the domestic animals and over the whole earth and
   over every thing that moveth about upon the earth.

   A divine counsel precedes the creation of man. By this means the
   singular dignity of man is very strongly stressed. From every point of
   view man is seen to be the crown and climax of God's creation.

   The hortative "Let us make" (na'aseh), is particularly striking because
   it is plural. Though almost all commentators of our day reject the view
   that this is to be explained in connection with the truth of the Holy
   Trinity and treat this so-called trinitarian view as a very negligible
   quantity, yet, rightly considered, this is the only view that can
   satisfy. Koenig (K. C.) may brush it aside with the very briefest
   remark to the effect that "the number three cannot be expressed by the
   plural," yet he like many others labours under a misunderstanding of
   the trinitarian view. Those that hold that a reference to the Trinity
   is involved do not mean to say that the truth of the Holy Trinity is
   here fully and plainly revealed. But they do hold that God speaks out
   of the fulness of His powers and His attributes in a fashion which man
   could never employ. Behind such speaking lies the truth of the Holy
   Trinity which, as it grows increasingly clear in revelation, is in the
   light of later clear revelation discovered as contained in this pural
   in a kind of obscure adumbration. The truth of the Trinity explains
   this passage. It would not occur to us to call this an express and
   unmistakable, clear presentation of the full trinitarian truth. So
   also, in substance, Keil. So practically also Luther, after he has
   valiantly championed the trinitarian view even beyond what we might
   deem the legitimate statement of the case, goes on to remark:
   "Therefore what is first presented more or less dark, difficult and
   obscure, Christ has all made manifest and clearly commanded to preach.
   Nevertheless, the holy fathers held this knowledge through the Holy
   Spirit, yet by no means as clear as we now have it."

   Some have seen the solution of the difficulty to lie in calling this
   the majestic plural, such as sovereigns are wont to employ in edicts.
   This type of plural, however, cannot be demonstrated as used in the
   Scriptures. Luther's somewhat ironical remark should also be considered
   here: "The Holy Spirit is not wont to employ the courtesies employed
   for royalty" (kanzleiische Hoeflichkeit). Rightly speaking, a kind of
   potential plural is involved (K. S. 260 a-e), as the fullness of the
   potentialities that lie in God is expressed by the plural of 'elohim,
   which may even be used with a plural form of its predicate adjective
   (Judg. 24:19; Ps. 58:12), but abstract plurals like these are not yet
   quite the same thing as a verb used in the first person plural,
   hortatory, as Strack tries to persuade himself to believe.

   The common explanation, perhaps the most popular at present, that God
   is addressing the angels has been shown up in its deficiencies by
   Koenig (K. C.). It cannot be denied that on occasion God addressed the
   angelic host before His throne; (Isa 6:8; 1Ki 22:19-22). Angels are
   found standing in His presence (Job 1; 38:7; Da 4:14; 7:10). But never
   once does God actually counsel with them. The distance between God and
   angels is seen to be a very pronounced one. Even in (Isa 6:8) this
   important difference stands out: "Whom shall I send?" God acts
   independently without angelic counsel. Besides, it must be considered
   that neither here nor by the time 3:22 is reached has anything been
   revealed about the creation of angels. And lastly, man is not
   considered in the Scriptures to have been made in the image of angels.
   If this remark included angels, man would be made in an image which
   blurred the divine and the angelic into one. The Old Testament does not
   muddle such important concepts.

   Koenig's interpretation deserves mention (K. S. 207 a). He claims that
   an individual reflecting upon a course of action to be followed may
   appear to himself both as giving orders and as carrying out these
   orders. He claims such a thing would happen "quite naturally and
   easily" (naturgemaess leicht). We can hardly imagine any explanation
   more stilted and artificial. It is a figment of the clever brain,
   invented to extricate its inventor out of a predicament.

   We should yet especially emphasize that the trinitarian view, presented
   in modified form above; is not, as many charge, transferring the New
   Testament back into the Old. We have emphasized above that the New
   Testament marks an advance upon whatever the Old offers under this
   head. What the Old Testament offers here would never have been fully
   grasped if clearer and more. elaborate revelation had not thrown its
   light upon this passage from the New Testament.

   The being to be made is called 'adham, a term whose root significance
   must very likely be sought in the cognate word 'adhamah (see v. 25)
   which refers to the soil capable of cultivation. 'Adham would,
   therefore, be "the cultivator of the soil."

   The double modifying phrase, "in our image, after our likeness,"
   requires closer study. It is in the last analysis nothing more than a
   phrase which aims to assert with emphasis the idea that man is to be
   closely patterned after his Maker. This feature in man's being is a
   second mode. of setting forth prominently the singular dignity of man:
   Man is not only made after the deliberate plan and purpose of God but
   is also very definitely patterned after Him. In making both phrases
   practically result in an idea which is one composite whole we are not
   erasing the distinction between the terms. "Image" is for the word
   tselem, whose root means "to carve" or "to cut off." We cannot go so
   far as to apply this idea to the physical similarity of man with God,
   as some have. But, at least, the term refers to more concrete
   similarity, whereas the second word demiuth, "likeness," refers more to
   similarity in the abstract or in the ideal. But here again we cannot
   venture with the Greek fathers to apply the term to man's inner or
   spiritual resemblance to God. Nor dare we press the change of
   prepositions; be "in" and ke "as." For though be describes man as being
   within a certain mold as it were, it yet must also be called a kind of
   Beth normae (K. S. 332r), for (Ex 25:40) it is used practically like
   ke. To this must be added the fact that v. 27 considers the use of
   tselem without demuth sufficient to express what God did, "image" being
   used twice. Again it 5:1 demuth with be and not with ke, as in our
   passage, is thought to be an adequate statement of the case. So we
   shall have to regard the second phrase, "according to our likeness," as
   merely supplementary to or explanatory of the first. Of course, the
   possessive "our" in connection with these two nouns is to be explained
   like the plural of "let us make" above.

   But yet we have not defined what the term "the image of God" implies.
   Those who would rule out the clear passages of the New Testament and
   construe a picture only by the help. of what this chapter offers, fail
   to discern the true unity of scriptural revelation and are bound to
   arrive at a misleading conception. True, the author of the account may
   himself not have had a full apperception of what all was involved in
   this concept, but here most especially the principle must be applied.
   Scripture must be explained by Scripture. Especially such passages as
   (Eph 4:24) and (Col 3:10) must be drawn upon. The reformers clearly saw
   that the most important thing involved was a proper attitude of heart
   in faith. Luther says: "I understand this image of God to be ... that
   Adam not only knew God and believed in Him that He was gracious; but
   that he also led an entirely godly life." Cf. also Apology II, 17-22.
   As adequate a summary of all features involved as any is that of Koenig
   in TAT, p. 226 S. He lists the following items as belonging to the
   outward side of the divine image: (a) man's countenance which directs
   his gaze upwards; (b) a capacity for varying facial expressions; (c) a
   sense of shame expressing itself in the blush of man; (d) speech. It
   cannot be denied that all these are physical features which are
   noticeably absent in all animals. To the inner side of the divine image
   the same author assigns the following items: (a) on the material side
   of man's inner make-up stands immortality; (b) on the intellectual side
   is self-consciousness, reason and Vernunft;( c) on the voluntative
   moral side is the ability to discern good and evil, the freedom of the
   will, conscience, and the right use of his moral capacities--the most
   important of all. We understand Koenig to make this last statement in
   the sense of the reformer's quoted above.

   To sum up from a slightly different angle we should like to append the
   thought that the spiritual and inner side of the image of God is,
   without a doubt, the most important one. It will hardly be safe to say
   that the body of man is also patterned after God, because God, being an
   incorporeal spirit, cannot have what we term a material body. Yet the
   body of man must at least be regarded as the fittest receptacle for
   man's spirit and so must bear at least an analogy to the image, of God,
   an analogy that is so close that God and His angels choose to appear in
   human form when they appear to men (Strack). In fact, we are justified
   to go even so far as to say that whatever this man is said to have is
   in a far more real sense a reality in God. Here lies the basis for the
   propriety of all anthropomorphisms. If man has a hand, an ear, an eye,
   a heart, not only may these also be possessions of the Almighty; in a
   far truer sense such potentialities lie in God. Yet, let it be well
   marked, in saying this we in no sense ascribe corporeality to the
   Eternal One.

   Skinner confuses all basic concepts and departs far from revealed
   truth, glorifying man and his native ability in an unscriptural
   fashion, when he remarks: "The `image' is not something peculiar to
   man's original estate, and lost by the Fall." He justifies this radical
   departure by the further remark: "Because P, who alone uses the
   expression knows nothing of the Fall, and in 9:6 employs the term,
   without.any restriction, of post-diluvian mankind." What an untenable
   assumption even from the standpoint of criticism! Just because what is
   ascribed to P does not happen to mention the Fall, we at once know what
   P actually knew or did not know about the Fall. The critic is coming to
   the point where in his mind the document P and the person P are
   identical. The passage 9:6 is, of course, to be taken in the light of
   all that precedes, namely in the light of the Fall, which intervenes
   between chapters 1 and 9.

   When evidence fails to support pet theories in this instance the theory
   of the derivation of Israelirish knowledge from Babylonian
   sources--pure suppositions such as the following are resorted to: "The
   origin of the conception ('image') is probably found in the Babylonian
   mythology" (Skinner).

   What follows is one direction in which the possession of the image of
   God on the part of man expresses itself dominion over the earth. "Let
   them have dominion" is the verb radhah signifying "to trample down" or
   "to master." The breadth of the domain to be ruled by man is expressed
   by the various spheres of man's dominion that are now enumerated. They
   are, first of all, the classes previously described as having been
   brought into being, listed with a slight modification of terminology.
   The "swarms" or "shoals" previously created (v. 20) are referred to by
   a term covering the chief members of this class, daghah, "fish" in a
   collective sense. "The birds of the heavens" are the second group
   mentioned. Though we have translated behemah "domestic animals," we
   cannot deny that it might here, as a broader term often so used (cf.
   (Ex 9:25; 12:12)), include all larger animals, wild and domestic,
   because man's dominion certainly covered the wild beasts as well, as
   appears from the remaining terms, yet the wild beasts are not
   separately mentioned. For the list goes on to mention "the-whole
   earth," which cannot, as Koenig suggests (K. C.), here be taken to mean
   "all beings upon the earth" (Erdlebewesen), for then the very last term
   in the list would duplicate this; nor can it mean "the dwellers upon
   earth,"-a meaning which "earth" sometimes has, for then the idle
   statement would result: let man rule over himself. Consequently, we
   take "the whole earth" in its simplest meaning, as the inanimate earth
   proper, which man is to master and subdue. We then list, as belonging
   in this department of his activity, man's mastery the powers of nature,
   physical, electrical, chemical, physiological and the like. Whatever
   true scientific endeavour has produced comes under this broad charter
   which the Creator has given to man. Since, however, man's dominion is
   to find most frequent expression in the direction of the control of
   living creatures, the closing statement, the broadest of all, mounts to
   a climax in the words "over everything that moveth about upon the
   earth." Every type of being is to be subservient to man. The word
   employed for this last class is remes, which appears here in the
   broadest application of its root sense "to move about" and less in the
   specific sense of "moving about lightly." The verb used (yirdu) is a
   jussive (K. S. 364h) and actually establishes as a divine word the
   situation it outlines. Man in reality became the controlling power. Yet
   there remains--even in the primeval state there remained--much to be
   achieved by way of a perfect mastery of his whole territory.

   Taking the verse as a whole, we cannot but notice that it sets forth
   the picture of a being that stands on a very high level, a creature of
   singular nobility and endowed with phenomenal powers and attributes,
   not a type of being that by its brute imperfections is seen to be on
   the same level with the animal world, but a being that towers high
   above all other creatures, their king and their crown.

   27. So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created
   him, male and female He created them.

   The higher strain of diction is made apparent by a threefold
   parallelism of the statement--a kind of solemn chant is here
   inaugurated in the creation narrative. And well might any man who
   writes an account, of the subject write in a manner that betokens his
   joy, for the honour bestowed upon man is indeed great. In fact, none
   could be greater than that a created being be made in the image of God.

   The threefold use of the verb "create" (bara') is significant in this
   connection. To bring things into being that had no previous existence
   is well described by this word (v. 1). To bring into being creatures
   endowed with life and a soul is also covered by this word (v. 21). To
   do so outstanding a thing as to call into being a creature like unto
   man is in every sense. "to create." However, whether the threefold use
   of the term is to be accounted for by the fact that the triune God is
   the Creator, is a question that we feel inclined to leave open. To us
   such a conclusion seems to lay more into the statement here made than
   it can justly bear.

   Rather important is the possessive pronoun attached to the word
   "image," namely the singular "his." As much as God, on the one hand,
   speaking out of the fulness of His powers in the persons of the Holy.
   Trinity, is able to say, "Let us make," and ,"our image," just so much
   is it a valid and proper statement for Him to say that He. created "in
   His image." One accords fully with the other in the mystery of the Holy
   Trinity: there is but one God. The Septuagint translators removed a
   difficulty in a portion of revelation which they should not have
   tampered with when they simply omitted the phrase "in His image." The
   notes in the Hebrew Bible of Kittel should not have suggested the
   deletion of the word.

   The change from "His, image" to "the image of God" shows the attempt on
   the writer's part to make his statement as strong and as dignified as
   possible. Then, since the second statement, telling of the carrying out
   of the original command, usually serves in a measure as a commentary of
   the former, so here.a very necessary suggestion is offered. Though from
   one point of view it is entirely proper to say that God on the sixth
   day created "man" ('adham), yet, as the rest of the account at once
   indicates, this term is meant genetically; and, since by a special work
   of the Almighty woman is brought into being, this first statement of
   the case amplifies itself into the more exact statement of the case
   that "the man" (the article of relative familiarity, K. S. 298a) was
   created "male and female" (zakhar, from the root meaning male;
   neqebhah, from naqab, meaning to perforate). In other words, all queer
   speculations about the first man are cut off as well as the quaint
   heresy. that he was created androgynous, half man and half woman--a
   notion offered in crudest form by the Jewish speculation which had the
   two halves of the double creature attached back to back, and then had
   the Almighty saw them asunder. This account, then, of chapter one shows
   that its writer knows chapter two and writes in full harmony with the
   facts of that chapter. As will appear more and more clearly, the first
   two chapters are in perfect harmony with one another and by no means
   represent divergent or discrepant accounts. So, according to very
   permissible different viewpoints, yet without contradiction, the writer
   may well say: "He created him" and "He created them," even as "our
   image" and "His image" blend into perfect unity.

   Procksch says on this verse: "Man, God's image, man, the crown of
   creation, man, male and female--we, too, have not been able to advance
   beyond these thoughts." A characteristic utterance of modern theology
   and a--platitude. Of course, we have not been able to advance beyond
   this thought; we never advance beyond revealed truth or God's thoughts.
   This account is not an achievement of the religious genius of P; it is
   revelation pure and simple.

   28. Then God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful, and
   multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the
   fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every
   living creature moving about upon the earth.

   That there is a similarity as well as a dissimilarity between man and
   all other living creatures is indicated by various means, here
   particularly by the fact that man's perpetuation of the human race is
   made to depend upon an effective divine blessing, as in the case of
   other creatures (v. 22), and by the use even of similar terms: "Be
   fruitful and multiply and fill." This last expression, therefore, is
   not a stylistic peculiarity but a historical fact indicative of the
   similarity just mentioned.

   "Subdue," the new word in the account of man's dominion, is kabhash,
   and it differs from "have dominion" (radhah) in that its root rather
   implies "to knead", or "to tread," whereas the latter is the stronger
   according to parallel roots, meaning "to stamp down." Yet this
   difference is not to be pressed. The statement of the things to be
   ruled is a bit more condensed than in v. 26, for the last statement
   summarizes, "every living creature moving about upon the earth." This
   expression covers everything beyond "birds" and "fish," namely
   everything mentioned in addition in v. 26 with the exception of "all
   the earth." Again the text needs no correction or addition of "over the
   cattle" as Kittel suggests after the pattern of the Septuagint and of
   the Samaritan Pentateuch. This would merely secure a kind of wooden
   uniformity plus an idle. repetition. The statement in the text covers
   all this. This broader meaning of the verb ramas, "to move about," (B D
   B) is assured by the passages: (Ge 7:21; 8:19; Ps 104:20). "Subdue it,"
   the verb with the object suffix (kibhshuha). offers the only. instance
   in this chapter of an object without the sign of the accusative ('eth).

   A very important institution is brought into being at this point, the
   institution of marriage. Here is another point of correspondence
   between chapter one and chapter two, though the latter gives greater
   detail. After v. 26 has now given the summary account of the creation
   of one pair, "male and female," v. 27 proceeds to have the divine
   command laid upon this one. pair: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill
   the earth." The primary purpose of marriage is here indicated. On "fill
   the earth" Whitelaw remarks: "This clause may be regarded as the
   colonist's charter"-- a very proper observation.

   29, 30. And God said: Behold, I have given you all herbs yielding seed
   which are upon the face of all the earth, and every tree upon which
   there is seed-bearing fruit--to you it shall be for food. And to all
   the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the birds, of the heavens, and
   to all the land reptiles in which there is a living soul (I have given)
   all the green herbs for food. And it was so.

   Such basic directions as man needs for guiding his steps in this world
   which is entirely new to him are here given in the matter of food (v.
   29), and at the same time it is revealed to man what manner of food is
   to provide sustenance for beasts (v. 30). Besides being a very welcome
   direction, this word is also another indication of the rich and
   abounding love that the Heavenly Father bears to His creatures, made in
   His image.

   The opening "behold" imparts a certain vigour to this gracious
   bestowal. The verb "I have given" (nathsstti) stands in the perfect,
   the usual construction in ordinances or abiding decrees. The perfect
   gives the impression of a rule firmly fixed and already unwavering. (G.
   K. 106 m; K. S. 131). Man is permitted to use a great variety of things
   comprising a vegetable diet. Two great classes are laid open to him:
   "herbs yielding seed" and, "fruit trees which have seed-bearing fruit."
   The classes are indicated and the distinguishing marks that are to be
   observed are stated. This marks two of the three classes of v. 11 as
   adapted to man's use. Since there is the possibility that since the
   Fall vegetation may have suffered a very material change, perhaps we
   are no longer in a position fully to appreciate how apt the the
   descriptive marks mentioned really are. However, the word "all" is
   indicative of the rich bounty bestowed. In a marvellously rich and
   beautiful world the rich bounty of very many different kinds of herbs
   and trees provided the finest proof of the Creator's goodness.

   Without a doubt, this word covering what food is permissible was
   intended to be a complete guide as to what man might eat. If 9:3 be
   held at the side of this word, the contrast implies that animal food
   was not permitted. It will hardly do to point to man's dominion over
   the beasts of the field, over fowl, and over fish (v. 26), for this
   word (v. 29) very definitely shows man what he may use for food. We
   believe that sincere regard for the very letter of God's command will
   have led our first parents to stay strictly within the limits of this
   word. As to the question, whether any men ventured before the Flood to
   eat animal food, we can only offer surmises. Not all men continued in
   the right relation to God, and so there may have been some of the
   ungodly who ventured to transgress this original permission. But we
   cannot venture to call such procedure common. Least of all could any
   true believer have disregarded the restriction implied in this word.

   Certainly, a measure of latitude is allowed to man in respect to what
   may be permissible and wholesome food for him. This broad allowance was
   never tended to be exhaustive. So it has been pointed out (Dillmann)
   that nothing is said, for example, about the use of milk and of honey,
   which may be thought of as lying on the borderline between animal and
   vegetable food. The critically minded should not forget that a being
   endowed with the high intelligence that we find in the first man needed
   no more than a broad outline to guide him to a choice pleasing to God
   and beneficial for himself.

   30. So it will also be observed that the directions that obtain for the
   other living creatures are not exhaustive. Fish are not mentioned. But,
   no doubt, this word was merely to inform man in reference to the
   creatures with which he had the more immediate contact. So all living
   creatures are summed up in this verse in three classes: wild beasts of
   the earth, birds, and reptiles--and, summing up still more, comes the
   closing phrase applicable to all, "in which there is a living soul."
   The food, however, that by God's ordinance is appointed for all these
   is described as "all the green herbs." It is taken, therefore, from the
   second of the three classes of v. 11 and the restrictive modifier
   preceding yereg, yielding the expression "greenness of herb," which we
   have rendered "the green herbs." That cannot be identical with
   everything that comes under the class of "herbs." Meek, therefore,
   renders quite appropriately "all the green plants." The verb of the
   main clause of this verse is missing; "I have given" is best supplied
   from the preceding verse.

   In brief, this verse is an indication of the perfect harmony prevailing
   in the animal world. No beast preyed upon the other. Rapacious and
   ferocious wild beasts did not yet exist. This verse, then, indicates
   very briefly for this chapter what is unfolded at length in chapter
   two, that a paradise-like state prevailed at creation.

   Skinner pronounces v. 29.and 30 to be an indication of one of the
   sources which P worked into his account, because these verses, as he
   says, "differ significantly in their phraseology from the preceding
   sections.". The trifling difference of an abbreviated summary is
   exaggerated into what is said to "differ significantly." The critics
   need far more substantial arguments than untenable exaggerations. The
   same author claims that we have in these verses an "enrichment of the
   creation story by the independent and widespread myth of the Golden
   Age." Why, pray, cannot the simple unadorned account merely be a
   narrative of things as they actually transpired? Answer: the critics
   have decreed that such accounts cannot exist; all such narratives must
   be patchwork in which a generous measure of myth has been incorporated.
   But decreeing that it must be as the critics surmise is not proof. We
   refuse to be intimidated by claims which lack actual substance.

   Let the student of the original note in v. 29 an instance where the
   relative is not separated from its adverbial term belonging to it
   'asher-bo (K. S. 58).

   31. And God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. Then
   came evening, then came morning--the sixth day.

   The writer says with emphasis that no imperfection inhered in the work
   God had wrought up till this point: For after all preceding statements
   to the effect that individual works were good comes this stronger
   statement to the effect that it was "very good," making a total of
   seven times that the word is used--seven being the mark of divine
   operation. The thought that God might be the author of evil and
   imperfection must be guarded against most strenuously (Strack). The
   "behold" moves the expression "very good" prominently into the
   foreground (K. S. 341V). Kol before 'asher lies on the borderline
   between partitive genitive and appositional genitive (K. S. 337 h).
   "The Sixth" has the article with the numeral for the first time (G. K.
   126 w), meaning: "the sixth day,'" that last memorable creative day of
   God.

   The next three verses had best be taken as the conclusion of the
   summary creation account of the first chapter, because the record of
   this account cannot be complete till all of the seven days have passed
   in review. More appropriate would have been the chapter division at
   2:4.

  HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

   There is so much matter in every line of this chapter that perhaps the
   chief danger encountered is the tendency to use too short a text. We
   personally believe that here for once it might be permissible to use as
   a text one verse such as v. 1 or v. 27. But to treat such a Scripture
   properly requires true homiletical skill. We feel that it might be best
   to treat the work of each of the creative days separately in six
   distinct texts, always stressing how each day's work displays primarily
   God's great power but then also very manifestly His wisdom and His
   mercy. The apologetic approach should be avoided. Attempts to harmonize
   science and religion lie too much in the realm of apologetics and
   usually are not handled very successfully. A warning should be offered
   here against allegorizing the chapter, as is done by all those who see
   in the successive stages of creation a picture of the successive steps
   in the process of conversion. Attractive as the parallel may be, it
   does not lie in the purpose of the chapter and should not be injected.
   In sermons on other texts it may be appropriate to use material from
   Genesis Chapter One incidentally as providing a kind of illustration--a
   use found in (2Co 4:6). But allegorizing as such does violence to the
   purpose of this chapter. Talley's A Socratic Exposition of Genesis as
   well as Rimmer's books tend toward this unwarranted allegorizing.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II

    I. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their host.

   Though the first word literally reads "and they were finished," yet the
   idea of retrospect involved in the verse was caught, very beautifully
   by Luther, who rendered "and" also;" thus" is an equally correct
   rendering of A. V. Attention is particularly drawn to the elaborateness
   and completeness of this work by the added subject "and all their host"
   (tsebha'am). Without a doubt, this expression includes all the works
   found in heaven and on earth as a result of the creative work thus
   described. "Host" (tsabha') may refer to the stars; cf. (Ne 9:6; De
   4:19; 17:3; 2Ki 17:16), etc. It may refer to angels: (2Ki 22:19; Ne
   9:6; Ps 148:2). Here its connection determines its reference to the
   things just made. Since the creation account has up to this point said
   nothing about angels, it will hardly be safe to advance the claim that
   the angels are meant to be included in this term. The time of the
   creation of angels is as little fixed by this account as falling on
   this day as it is assigned to the fourth, We simply know nothing
   definite as to the time of their creation.

   2. And on the seventh day God declared His work on which He was
   engaged, finished, and He desisted on the seventh day from all the work
   on which He had been engaged.

   After the first verse has plainly stated that all was finished, the
   statement of v. 2 to the effect that not until the seventh day God
   finished His work (A. R. V.) is, to say the least, misleading. A.V.
   evaded the problem by substituting "ended" for "finished" (v. 1),
   although the same verb root is involved yekkullu (v, 1), yekhal (v. 2).
   But the verb used in v. 2 is of the Piel stem, which is sometimes
   declarative in sense, as tiher means "to declare clean," Lev. 13:6-
   14-48, and timme' means "to declare unclean," Lev. 13:8; 20:25. So here
   we may have the meaning, "He declared finished." Thus the difficulty,
   which prompted the Septuagint translators and many since (cf. K.) to
   alter "seventh" to "sixth," is satisfactorily removed. Cf. K. C. The
   pluperfect, adopted from Meek, "on which He had been engaged," is not a
   necessary translation. Pluperfect renderings should be employed with
   great caution. The meaning is the same when the imperfect is used: "on
   which He was engaged."

   Since the primary meaning of the verb shabhath is "to cease" or "to
   desist," we are freed of all misconceptions which may attach to God's
   activity if we adopt this meaning. If God desisted from labour on this
   day, then no more work was done on it, then nothing had to be
   completed, then no unseemly thought about God's being weary needs to be
   rejected. The verse then amounts to an emphatic statement to the effect
   that just as on the preceding days a marvellous creative work was in
   progress, so now that type and that manner of working on God's part
   came to an end. He declared all finished, He desisted from all. The
   "work" that He desisted from is described by the term mela'khah,
   meaning a special task He had set for Himself and afterward "used
   regularly of the work or business forbidden on the Sabbath" (Driver
   quoted by Skinner) (Ex 29:9, 10; 35:2; Je 17:22, 24) et al.
   Incidentally, in this connection Skinner makes the very sane
   observation that "the actual Jewish Sabbath as we know it (is) without
   any point of contact in Babylonian institutions." However, the thing
   under consideration in these verses is not the Jewish Sabbath but the
   creation Sabbath.

   3. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, for on it He
   desisted from all His work which He had created by making.

   Creatures have been blessed (v. 22), man has been blessed more richly
   (v. 28). The summary creation account which began at 1:1 is aptly
   concluded by an act of divine blessing, which, however, in this case
   attaches itself to the seventh day. The object of this rather unusual
   procedure is twofold: on the one hand, such an act serves as an
   indication to man that rest such as the divine rest is noble and holy
   and by no means to be lightly esteemed; in the second place, those
   blessings of the Sabbath that are later to flow forth for the good of
   than are potentially bestowed on it. For on the one hand, the verb "he
   sanctified it" (qiddesh), being a Piel stem, has the connotation of a
   causative--as the Piel often does (K. S. 95) and on the other hand, it
   at the same time has a declarative sense: "He declared holy, or
   consecrated." However, it should be well observed. that no commandment
   is laid upon mankind at this point. Procksch remarks rightly and
   pointedly: "for the present the Sabbath stays in heaven." Yet this does
   not make the Sabbath a futile abstraction, but, as was remarked above,
   its connection with the divine rest or cessation from labour is made to
   stand forth as. a worthy divine act.

   At the same time the entire groundlessness of the critical assumption
   becomes apparent, where the arrangement of works according to days is
   attributed to clever and purposeful manipulation on the part of the
   author. For, having eight major works, he (it is said) nevertheless
   compresses them within six days, to be followed by a seventh rest day,
   in order to secure a divine parallel to the Hebrew week. This is not a
   week ordained for man. It is entirely a divine week. Nor is there
   clever editorial manipulation, but simply an accurate and
   straightforward account of things as they actually took place.

   With a certain fulness of expression this part of the account comes to
   a dignified close with the causal clause, "for on it He desisted," etc.
   The adjective clause "which He had created by making" conveys the
   thought that, though it was creative work (bara'), yet at the same time
   this creative work was accomplished by work which was done through
   successive steps: "by making" (la'asoth). This gerundival use of the
   infinitive is explained in K. S. 402 y and G. K. 114 o.

   Before leaving this initial account we must yet take definite issue
   with one problem involved in the account as a whole. On the one hand,
   is this a strictly factual account, reporting what actually transpired
   in the manner in which it transpired? Or have we here a picture devised
   by human ingenuity, which picture seeks to convey truth by its general
   outlines or by the basic thoughts which are here expressed in terms
   highly figurative? Though this latter view has come to be held almost
   universally, it is still by no means true. We have not in this chapter
   a marvellous product of the religious creative genius of Israel. Such
   efforts would merely have produced just one more trivial and entirely
   worthless cosmogony. The account as it stands expects the impartial
   reader to accept it as entirely literal and historical. The use made of
   it in the rest of Sacred Scriptures treats every part referred to as
   sober fact, not as a fancy-picture. Compare on this chapter the dozens
   of marginal reference passages found in almost any Bible.

   By answering this question we have answered a second one: Does the
   value of this account lie "in the broad basic truths it embodies" (K.
   C.), or in the details by which these truths are conveyed? The form of
   this question is unfortunate. It should not postulate an "either-- or,"
   but a "both--and." The details are truthful, exact and essential, being
   in all their parts truth itself. Only since this is the case, are the
   broad, basic truths conveyed by the account also of infinite moment and
   in themselves divinely revealed truth. Faith in inspiration, as taught
   by the Scriptures, allows for no other possibility.

    II. The First History (Toledoth) viz., that of Heaven and Earth (2:4-4:26)

   Unfortunately, every inch of this chapter is a battleground. Instead of
   accepting its simple revelation as harmonious in itself and with what
   precedes, an unbelievable amount of ingenuity is displayed in an effort
   to prove certain preconceived critical contentions, which are not only
   misleading but entirely erroneous and mischievous, for their acceptance
   breaks down all possibility of firm faith in these portions of revealed
   truth.

   These erroneous contentions centre around the major critical error of
   the various sources of the Pentateuch: the author of this portion is no
   longer P but J, the Jahwist. The amount of supporting arguments
   advanced by the critics is truly imposing. Their arguments are set
   forth in four or five major claims, which Dods sums up: two chapters
   "glaringly incompatible in details."

   1. It is asserted that the different divine names employed are in
   themselves almost convincing proof of material from the pen of quite a
   different writer than he who submitted 1:1-2:3. It is true that the
   divine name Yahweh (or Jahweh) appears regularly in this chapter in
   conjunction with the name employed heretofore, Elohim. However, by way
   of refutation let the following facts be noted. In the first place, the
   critical assumption is a very narrow one, nor has it ever been proved,
   namely, the supposition that the writers of the various
   source-documents knew for the most part but one of the divine names, at
   least J and P for the most part knew but one name. It was blithely
   assumed that the earliest writers, of whom J was one, could know God
   from only one aspect. Secondly, all manner of arbitrary assumptions
   bolster up the initial assumption, so, for example, when in 3:5 Elohim
   alone appears, this is supposed to be a portion of another source which
   J used. Or when Elohim and Yahweh appear jointly in chapter two, i. e.,
   regularly as Yahweh Elohim, this is supposed to be explained by the
   activity of some later redactor, not J, who combined the two to smooth
   over the transition from the one name to the other, and so aimed to
   teach that in reality both authors believed in one and the same divine
   being. Such claims can never be proved.

   Moeller, B T, p. 67, draws attention to a very remarkable parallel in
   this connection. He makes a count of the divine names in 1:1-2:3 and
   then of the divine names in 2:4-4:26 and presents these findings: "In
   2:4-4:26 it must be observed that Yahweh `Elohim is used successively
   twenty times, with the name 'Elohim interrupting five times, but always
   for a very definite reason, and the name Yahweh is used ten times,
   making a total of thirty five (built up out of the sub-totals 20 plus 5
   plus 10). Furthermore it must be observed that these thirty-five
   correspond exactly to the thirty five `Elohim found in 1:1-2:3, which
   thirty five names are again contained in the tenfold expression "and
   God said" ('Elohim) and therefore also resolve themselves into 25 plus
   10. Consequently, the seventy divine names of 1:1-4:26 can in no wise
   be regarded as being used in a purely arbitrary sense ..."

   2. It is also asserted that the writer of this portion uses a
   vocabulary different in many other noticeable aspects from that of the
   author of the first chapter. It certainly cannot be denied that quite a
   number of different words occur in this chapter. But the far simpler
   and very evident reason is not change of author but change of. subject
   matter. When a new subject is taken in hand, new words must needs be
   employed to describe it. Self-evident as this is, we have never seen a
   critic face this argument squarely.

   3. It is furthermore asserted that the difference in point of view
   between the two authors involved goes so far as to make very prominent
   a noticeably different conception of God: the Yahweh Elohim of 2:4 ff,
   is much more anthropomorphic than the God of chapter one. He "forms"
   man (v. 7); He "plants" a garden (v. 8); He "takes" the man whom He has
   formed and "puts" him into the garden (v. 15); He experiments with man
   to find a `helpmate for him (v. 19); He "builds" a woman out of the rib
   (v. 22); He "walks" in the garden (3:8); He "drives" man out of the
   garden (3:24). So e. g. Dillmann. Other items are occasionally cited;
   there may suffice. More detailed refutation of these points will be
   offered as they occur. It should, however, be borne in mind that
   chapter one, as. we pointed out, offered certain very prominent
   anthropomorphisms, which may very well be classed as arguing a
   conception of God no different from that of the next two chapters. A
   trifling difference, which may not even be worthy to be called a
   difference of style, is exaggerated to the point of being made to
   appear as a radical difference. Practically identical with this
   argument, from another point of view, is the claim that was considered
   above under 2 as "different vocabulary." On the negative view consult
   especially Skinner.

   4. Then, with practical unanimity the critics point to what on the
   surface looks like a different conception of the sequence of the works
   of creation. For in this chapter the sequence of events is claimed to
   be: man (v. 7), trees (v. 9), beasts (v. 19), woman. If this were
   actually what J claims, there would certainly be a radical difference
   between the first two chapters. The difference would be so violent as
   in no sense to allow for merely divergent points of view. One account
   would of necessity rule out the other. A fiat contradiction would
   prevail. Oehler (J A T, p. 76) has rightly remarked under this head:
   "It is just as unlikely as it can be that the author should have been
   such a dunce (so borniert) as to set down at the very outset two
   mutually exclusive records of creation." The truth of the matter,
   however, is simply this: the account of chapter two does not aim to
   present a complete creation story, nor is the time sequence followed by
   the author, Moses. Rather, those supplementary facts, essential to the
   right evaluation of chapter three, are given in a sequence which is
   entirely logical. In other words, the connective "and" (waw) is not to
   be taken in the sense of "next" (e. g. next God did thus and so) but
   rather in the sense of a loose "also" without thought of time-sequence.
   The stage is being set for the tragic drama of the next chapter. The
   things enumerated by the author as appearing on the stage, as it were,
   need not be listed in the order in which they were placed there. The
   logical sequence will, however, have to be explained in detail as we
   proceed with our exposition infra.

   5. To all this is added one of those farfetched conclusions, which
   offsets by its boldness what it lacks in substance and so manages to
   impress the unlearned, the conclusion that even the different
   backgrounds of the two authors-involved can be definitely discerned.
   For P, it is said, sees all the creative work of God rise out of the
   primeval waters and therefore must have been a man coming from a
   well-watered country; whereas J sees the beginnings of God's creation
   in dry, desert-like land (cf. 2:5 b) and so must himself have been a
   desert-dweller. First of all, the conclusion that because a man writes
   about a certain type of land as having been the original, he himself
   must be a native of that type of land is quite devoid of logic. In the
   second place, the idea that the face of the earth was for a time
   practically bone-dry, is the outgrowth of the misreading of 2:5 and
   utterly without factual foundation.

   An illustration of argument 2, above, on the question of different
   vocabulary, so-called, may be submitted. Skinner offers the following
   expressions, characteristic of this document J: "to the east of,"
   (2:14); "now" (happa'am, 2:23); "what is this?" (mah-zo'th 3:13);
   ,"cursed" ('arur, 3:14,17); "pain" ('itsabhon, 3:16, 17); "for thy
   sake" (ba'abhur, 3:17). There was no occasion to use these terms prior
   to the time when they finally do appear in this concise narrative. Now
   the account actually demands them. That does not make them stylistic
   peculiarities, nor in the least indications of the hand of another
   writer. This critical claim comes very close to being an absurdity. Yet
   with almost one voice critics keep advancing it.

   4 a. This is the story of the heavens and the earth at the time of
   their creation.

   This simple and very correct title, placed here by the author himself,
   must be retained and defended as being the most correct and
   appropriate. By disregarding its suggestion criticism has fallen short
   of the right understanding of this portion, which extends to the end of
   chapter four. This is, then, a story in which heaven and earth share.
   Both are vitally interested. It is, besides, a story that is enacted
   just at the time of creation, or when the newly created world in its
   pristine freshness was about to begin its career. To overlook the
   interplay of the divine and the human factors is one of the common
   shortcomings of the treatment of this chapter.

   Ignoring or deleting this heading, men have devised captions like the
   following, either for the chapter or for the section 2:4-4:26: "The
   Course of Creation and the First Relations of the Earth and Mankind"
   (Koenig); "Paradise" (Procksch); "The Details Concerning the Creation
   of Man and Woman" (Delitzsch); "Creation--Second Account" (Knobel); and
   all these, strange to say, practically in opposition to the author's
   own title.

   One method of dealing with this heading is to refer it to the preceding
   section, so that it is not a superscription but a kind of subscription.
   In that event it is usually translated about as follows: "These are the
   origins of the heaven and the earth." Now it is a well-known fact that
   the book of Genesis is by its own author divided into ten sections, to
   each of which he gives the title "story" (toledoth); cf. 5:1; 6:9;
   10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, (9); 37:2. This circumstance alone,
   plus the use of the round number ten, would definitely point to the
   fact that here the expression, "these are the toledoth" must also be a
   heading. In all other instances of its use in other books the same fact
   is observable; cf. Num. 3:1; Ruth 4:18; I Chron. 1:29; it is as always
   a heading.

   Besides, though A. V. translates: "these are the generations," the term
   never means "generations" or "origins." It never tells how things or
   persons came into being. It tells what happened after such things or
   such persons had appeared on the scene. Another good rendering is
   "history." The plural form toledoth merely conveys the idea, so common
   in Hebrew, of the many individual items that go to make up a "history"
   or "story." B D B, limiting itself too closely to the idea of
   "begettings," interprets the expression to mean "account of heaven and
   earth and that which proceeded from them." It cannot mean "descendants"
   (Meek), for far more than a list of "descendants" is given in each
   toledoth; cf. especially 37:2 where the descendants are not given. B D
   B's error is practically the same.

   Criticism makes a great problem for itself at this point. This first
   half of v. 4, being a "formal" expression, the critics must attribute
   to P. Now all evidence points to its being a heading over a J account.
   How did that come to pass? One answer is a mistranslation; Meek renders
   "origins," contrary to all usage. Others claim that 2:4 originally
   stood at the head of chapter one. They at once become responsible for
   an answer to the question: "How, then, did this portion slip into
   chapter two at this point?" Consult the critics for answers that are
   either naive or impossible. To others the activity of some later
   redactor suggests itself.

   The expression "at the time of their creation" (behibbare'am) is
   rendered literally: "in their being created." Since it is a temporal
   phrase, we have rendered it: "at the time," etc. It marks the
   occurrences that are to follow as practically a part of the creation
   story (K. S. 401 k). The small Hebrew letter heh in the word has been
   fantastically explained, but never successfully. There is no call for
   textual alterations, (Kit.). The heading makes clear and very good
   sense.

   Luther's rendering cannot be retained: "Also ist Himmel und Erde
   geworden," "thus the heavens and the earth came into being." Kautzsch
   belongs to the same class: "Das ist die Geschichte der Entstehung"("
   this is the story of the origin") an attempt to combine the right and
   the wrong views.

   4 b, 5. At the time when Yahweh God made earth and heaven, then no
   shrub of the field was as yet in the earth and no plant of the field
   was as yet sprouting forth; for Yahweh God had not caused rain to
   descend upon the earth, nor did man exist to till the ground.

   Verse 4a and 4b are usually translated as a whole, with the result that
   two temporal clauses of nearly identical meaning appear within the
   sentence, calling forth artificial attempts at distinctions. By keeping
   4 a separate as a title and by combining 4 b with 5, this trouble is
   removed, and a very natural rendering results. For the two initial
   clauses of v. 5, introduced by waw, may be correlative, as K. S.
   suggests: "when God made heaven and earth neither was there a shrub ...
   nor had any plant sprouted" (K. S. 371e). At the same time the
   complicated. sentence structure which the critics make of v. 5-7 is
   shown to be quite unnecessary and quite cumbersome: v. 5 protasis; v. 6
   rather parenthetical, or a concessive clause; v. 7 apodosis, (e. g.
   Dillmann) --all of which calls for a very artificial rendering (K. S.
   416a, 413 a). Nor is terem the conjunction "before," but the adverb
   "not yet" (K. S. 135, 357 r).

   Verse 4 b takes us back into the time of the work of creation, more
   particularly to the time before the work of the third day began, and
   draws our attention to certain details; which, being details, could
   hardly have been inserted in chapter one: the fact that certain forms
   of plant life, namely the kinds that require the attentive care of man
   in greater measure, had not sprung up. Apparently, the whole work of
   the third day is in the mind of the writer. When verdure covered the
   earth, the sprouting of these types of vegetation was retarded, so that
   they-might appear after man was already in full possession of his
   domain and in a position to give them their needed care. That is why it
   is remarked in the double causal clause 5 b: God had not yet .caused
   rain' to descend upon the earth; also, man did not exist as yet to till
   the ground. The fact that not the whole of vegetation is meant appears
   from the distinctive terms employed, neither of which had as yet
   appeared in. the account. They are siach hassadheh, well rendered by
   Meek "field shrubs"; we render above: "shrub of the field"; and 'esebh
   hassadheh, also well rendered by Meek, "field plants"; our rendering:
   "plant of the field." For the word sadheh means tillable ground, arable
   fields, the ground "yielding plants and trees" (B D B). That at least
   must be the meaning in this connection where man's cultivation is
   referred to. It is not important to the author to mark the point of
   time within the creation week when this condition prevailed.
   Consequently, the opening phrase of 4b, beyom, is to be rendered as it
   so often is "at the time" and not "in the day." Apparently, too, though
   it is not specifically stated, types of vegetation are here under
   consideration that grew up specifically in Paradise, for the account
   centres around Paradise throughout the rest of the chapter.
   Consequently, it will be very difficult to determine just what is to be
   understood by this finer type of vegetation here referred to as "field
   shrubs" and "field plants."

   From all this it appears sufficiently how absurd the claim is that in
   this account (chapter 2:4 ff) man is made first, then vegetation.

   6. So a mist kept rising from the earth and kept watering all the
   surface of the ground.

   We render the opening conjunction we "so," in order to show how closely
   this verse is tied up with the preceding. This verse aims to show how
   the deficiency of water mentioned in v. 5 was met. For the same reason
   the noun begins the sentence (K. S. 339 e): "mist" is in the first
   place for emphasis. 'Edh is not a wave, Wasserschwall, but may, well
   mean. "mist," or "fog," according to an Arabic parallel (K. W.). The
   Septuagint translators guessed at the meaning of the difficult word,
   making it phgh "spring." A regular and continuous mode of operation now
   begins, as the durative imperfect (ya'aleh) indicates, (G. K. 107b; K.
   S. 157; yaktul durans).This may refer to the continuous evaporation
   which began to set in, or to the more or less frequent but periodic
   mists of evening or morning. In any case, since the lack of moisture
   has just been mentioned in v. 5, the likelihood is that in this concise
   account we are to think of the following threefold process: the rising
   of the mists, their condensation and the regular falling as rain; and
   are so to picture to ourselves the process of the "watering of all the
   surface of the ground." That this is the most likely sense appears from
   the fact that v. 7 at once proceeds to mention the removal of the
   second deficiency mentioned in v. 5; for v. 7 tells how man was put on
   the scene. The author is hastening onward in his report and cannot
   insert almost self-evident details (Strack).

   Critics evidently make little effort to understand what is
   comparatively simple. Verses 5 and 6 are supposed to represent a
   "confusion of two points of view...there may be a Babylonian basis to
   the myth, it must have taken its present shape in some drier region,
   presumably in Palestine" (Skinner). Note the strange logic: only a
   native of a dry country can write v. 5 about the deficiency of water;
   only a native from a well-watered region is competent to write v. 6. In
   an effort to discover sources, criticism ends in absurdity. Unwilling
   to believe a simple reliable Scripture, criticism puts on it the stamp
   of "myth."

   7. And Yahweh Elohim molded man out of the dust of the ground and
   breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living
   being.

   For the present, in direct connection with v. 5, it is stated how God
   provided for the deficiency that had to be removed before the special
   plants and shrubs mentioned could be allowed to spring forth. When then
   reporting that God did form man, the writer takes occasion to provide a
   few supplementary details, which will enable his readers to form a more
   adequate estimate of man. The title "Yahweh Elohim suggests, as it does
   throughout the chapter, that this was a work of God that significantly
   displayed the faithful mercy of Yahweh as well as His awe-inspiring
   power. The verb employed here accords more with the "Yahweh"character
   of God; yatsar means to "mold" or "form." It is the word that
   specifically describes the activity of the potter (Je 18:2). The idea
   to be emphasized is that with the particular care and personal
   attention that a potter gives to his task God gives tokens of His
   interest in man, His creature, by molding him as He does. No crude
   material notions of God need to be associated with this verb. Let them
   misunderstand who insist that they must! Nor can it justly be claimed
   that an author who previously spoke of this work as a "creating" and
   "making" must be so limited and circumscribed in point of style as to
   be utterly unable to describe such a work of the Almighty from any
   other point of view and say He "formed." Such an author must have an
   exceedingly cramped and wooden style.

   Employing an accusative of material, the writer tells us that the
   material God employed in making man was "the dust of the ground."
   'Aphar, rendered "dust," does not refer to dry pulverized earth only.
   Here, without a doubt, a damp mass of the finest earth is under
   consideration. Luther's rendering is still unsurpassed, Erdenkloss,
   lit. "lump of earth." The term does not mean "mud," as the skeptics
   irreverently declare. Lest man form too high an estimate of the first
   man, it is here recorded that, in spite of the high station involved in
   being made in the image of God, man has a constituent part in his
   makeup, which forever forbids unseemly pride on his part--a thought
   frequently stressed in the devotional literature of the church from
   days of old. Without this fact to reckon with we could hardly have been
   in a position to understand how a temptation and fall were even
   possible. Practically everything written in chapter two definitely
   paves the way for chapter three.

   Yet, in this strange mixture of dignity and lowliness, the story of
   man's creation definitely indicates how high above all other types, of
   life man stands. The earth brings forth the others (v. 24). Man is
   formed out of the earth by God's personal activity. But more, a far
   more prominent distinguishing mark characterizes man's creation: God
   "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life." A personal, vitalizing
   act of the Creator imparts life to man--an honour bestowed upon none of
   the lesser creatures. This breathing on God's part must, as Keil
   rightly reminds us, be understood ueopoepwv i. e. in a manner befitting
   God. Nor can we for a moment hold that air or human breath was what God
   breathed into man's nostrils. It was His own vital breath. Nor will it
   do to associate a particular lapse of time or anything like toilsome
   effort with the whole process. This creative work may well have been
   the matter of a moment. In language such as man can grasp but which
   hardly can do justice to such noble divine works, the author depicts
   the singular grandeur of this work. Much as we may be inclined to claim
   that the distinctive element in man's creation is the "breath of life"
   breathed into his nostrils, this is a supposition that cannot be
   maintained. For the expression involved, nishmath chayyim, is
   practically the same as that used in 7:22 with reference to all life
   that perished in the flood, the only exception being that the phrase is
   altered to "the breath of the spirit of life" (nishmath ruch chayyim).
   Not this breath itself but the manner of its impartation indicates
   man's dignity. So also the claim that man became "a living being," or
   literally, "a living soul," (A. V.) does not point to the
   distinguishing glory of man. For the same expression is used of other
   animate beings in 1:24. It must be remembered that the author is at
   this point chiefly reporting the fact that this lifeless clay became
   animate by the breath of the Almighty. The fact that man is a superior
   being is indicated by the manner in which this is done, and this was
   already amply indicated before by the divine "image" (1:26). The
   expression "living being" employs the term nephesh, "soul," because the
   soul is the animate thing in man. God's Spirit animates the soul,
   though in a higher sense than is the case with the soul of beasts.
   Koenig (T A T) correctly defines: "According to 2:7 the soul is that
   portion of the spirit which breathed into man." The neshamah is "only
   the life breath" (Keil); cf. (1Ki 17:17).

   8. And Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden toward the east and put
   there the man whom He had molded.

   Here is a statement which more directly helps us to understand the
   things that follow and also furnishes further proof of the generous
   goodness of God toward man. The scene and the background of the third
   chapter are being supplied. God plants a garden. All that was written
   up to this point leads us to conceive of this activity as being also
   creative and divine. Yet the word that man would employ for such
   activity, "to plant," is appropriately used of God. The word "garden"
   (gan), an "enclosure" (B D B), or a sheltered, protected spot,
   corresponds to the Oriental conception of a garden. Paradise, the
   conception borrowed from the Persian by the Septuagint translators, is
   appropriate but suggests rather a royal, park. A place of particular
   beauty and excellence best reflects God's favour toward His chief
   creature. From the author's point of view this garden lay "eastward."
   Though miqqedhem literally means "from the east" not "to the east,"
   nevertheless our translation is correct. For the Hebrew point of view
   is gained by transporting oneself to the utmost limits in the direction
   indicated, then coming back: from the east (K. S. 318 a). This garden
   lay in a territory called "Eden," a name used variously in later times
   in memory of the first Eden. 'Edhen gains its name, no doubt, from the
   corresponding noun meaning "delight." In all instances following, the
   expression is less exact, and the garden is simply called "Eden"; it
   does not lie "in Eden."

   In a summary way, moving ahead and including the outcome, the verse at
   once reports in newspaper style that man was put into this garden. The
   fact of the matter is that a few other items must still be inserted in
   order that we may have a complete background of the events transpiring.
   When these have been recorded, the author will revert (v. 15) to the
   fact of man's being placed in the garden. No man will deny to an author
   the privilege of writing after this fashion. Practically all writers do
   something of the sort. This surely is no indication of called
   "doublets"--a term critics are so free to use-- or proof of two
   parallel and not quite harmonious sources.

   No doubt, the fact that man is created outside of the garden and then
   put into the garden serves the divine purpose of making man clearly
   aware at the very outset of the distinction between the garden and all
   the land that lay outside. In what manner man was taken and placed in
   the garden by his Creator cannot be determined. At the word of the Lord
   he may have been removed thither.

   9. And Yahweh God caused to spring forth all manner of trees pleasant
   to the sight and good for .food, and in particular the tree of life in
   the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowing of good and evil.

   The focal point of the supplementary items that this chapter has
   supplied is being reached. Attention centres upon two trees, more
   particularly upon one of these two. The statement of v. 9 is an
   amplification of the summary report in v. 8: "God planted a garden in
   Eden." Overlooking this simple fact, criticism shoots wide of the mark
   by drawing conclusions such as: according to J man's food originally
   was only fruit of trees; only after the fall, according to 3:18, does
   he eat of the herb of the field. Such claims are merely attempts to
   bolster up a poorly substantiated theory of divergent sources and are
   at the same time an unwarranted use of the argument from silence.

   Again, the fact of the matter is that God caused an infinite variety of
   trees to spring up in the garden. The Hebrew expression used is the
   strongest possible, kol `ets, "the whole of trees," every tree, which
   is even stronger than our rendering above, "all manner of trees" (B D
   B, and K. S. 78 b). Descriptive phrases indicate how attractive they
   must have made the garden, for they were "pleasant to the sight and
   good for food." An epexegetical "and" (K. S. 375 c) in the sense of
   "and in particular" now concentrates our attention on two, rather on
   one, of these. To talk of "the confusion regarding the two trees"
   (Skinner) is proof of the critics' lack of understanding. The whole
   issue is really very simple. Both trees are mentioned because both were
   there and both were destined for a very definite purpose. The tree of
   life, as appears from 3:22, would have served its purpose in the event
   of the victory of man in the first temptation. Its existence shows that
   God had made ample provision for man's good. Since, however, it never
   came to be used, it at once very properly recedes into the background
   after the first mention of it and is alluded to only after the Fall in
   3:22. Its purpose apparently was to confirm man in the possession of
   physical life and to render physical death an impossibility. More of
   this in a moment.

   The second tree is called "the tree of the knowing of good and evil."
   We have used "knowing" instead of "knowledge" because the infinitive
   dss'ath functions chiefly as a verb and takes a double object. For this
   reason, as in (Jer 22:16), the word "knowing," though in a sense in the
   construct state, takes the article rather than its objects, "good and
   evil." sides, "knowing good and evil" is thus stamped as one complete
   idea. Naturally, this expression aims to cover the whole range of moral
   concepts in brief (K. S. 92 b), or, better still, the ethical contrast
   between good and evil. To try to make a distinction between these two
   trees, as though the idea of "the tree of knowledge is a more refined
   conception" than the tree of life, is to render a hasty verdict and to
   give proof of a misunderstanding of the whole situation.

   This misunderstanding comes to the surface in the further claim in
   reference to the tree of knowledge that "its property of communicating
   knowledge of good and evil is, however, magical" (Skinner). Here,
   again, perfectly sound, and entirely correct presentations of the case
   have long been offered by the church. But the critics completely ignore
   these explanations and offer instead a, view derogatory to the dignity
   and inspiration of the inspired Word and drag it down to the level of
   the cheap magic of corrupt heathenism.

   The church has always understood in reference to these trees that, in
   the nature of the case, eating of the fruit of one tree cannot impart
   life, just as little as partaking of the fruit of another cannot impart
   a sense of moral distinctions. However, we have an analogy to these
   cases in the matter of the sacraments. As in the sacraments by virtue
   of the divine Word the visible means, become vehicles of divine grace,
   so here by virtue of the divine word, which designates the one tree as
   "the tree of life," "life" can in reality be imparted by its use when
   and under whatever circumstances God decrees. In like manner, the
   second tree, as its name implies, becomes, an agency through which
   under certain circumstances, divinely appointed, man may come to an
   experimental knowledge of good and evil. He may through she presence of
   the tree be confronted with a choice, he may exercise his freedom to do
   God's will in the choice, or he may refuse to make use of his freedom.
   Had man persisted in his freedom, the experience as such would have
   wrought in him a knowledge of good and evil analogous to that of God,
   in this sense that, without having consented to evil, an awareness of
   its existence and its implications would have been aroused in him. The
   tree of the knowledge of good and evil would have effectively done its
   work. Then the posse non peccare would have resulted on man's part in
   the non posse peccare, and this state would have received fuller
   confirmation in his physical being by the use of the tree of life, the
   eating of whose fruit would have communicated to those using it in
   faith rare benefits even for the body. So the trees are rightly
   regarded as sacramental in a sense. Since the New Testament, by the
   analogy of the sacraments, presents so adequate a parallel and so
   satisfactory an explanation, criticism has gone sadly astray by drawing
   upon the analogy of magic from heathen sources.

   The coarsest misconstruing of the purpose of the tree of knowledge is
   that of men like Ehrlich (K. C.), who says: "good and evil" here bear a
   physical, in fact an outright "sex connotation." All capacity of
   spiritual insight is lacking when commentators speak thus.

   Unwilling to accept the high moral conceptions involved, Jeremias uses
   the common device of criticism of stamping the words "good and evil" as
   a later interpolation, using, however, the less obnoxious term "a
   theological interpretation" (Theologumenon).

   When it is noticed that the trees stood "in the midst of the garden,"
   though, to be exact, the expression occurs only in connection with the
   tree of life, the question is usually raised, whether there was not
   danger that man might have discovered and eaten of the tree of life
   before he even found occasion to eat of the tree of knowledge. However,
   on such purely speculative questions we may well trust that divine
   providence foresaw and regulated the affairs of man quite adequately.
   So also the other question, commonly asked here, may be rejected as
   merely curious and impossible to answer: "Did man know also the
   existence of the tree of life and did he know which it was?" To those
   demanding a suggestion, we offer one, as likely as any: Events may have
   begun to happen in such rapid succession from this point onward, that
   the very next issue confronting man was the Temptation.

   10. There was a river going forth from Eden to water the garden;
   leaving there it divided and became four branches.

   The report goes on to indicate how the fruitfulness and freshness of
   the vegetation in the garden was guaranteed, a thought that would
   appeal particularly to the Israelites, who, too, dwelt in a region
   where water was none too plentiful. So the impression of a perfect
   place is created in an all-sided way. Since the river is the important
   thing, the noun stands first. The participle (yotse') emphasizes the
   continuousness of the act, but it is not to be translated as a present,
   "goes forth" (contra K. S. 237 c), because thus far the whole account
   lay entirely in the past, nor does the author at any time indicate that
   he still believed in the existence of the garden. The verb yotse' is
   repeatedly used in reference to the actual source of waters (Ex 17:6;
   Nu 20:11; Jud 15:19; Zec 14:8). Therefore the stream originates in
   "Eden," whether within or just without the garden is not said. "Leaving
   there" (so Meek), for mishsham--"from thence," it divided and became
   four chief branches (lit. "heads"). This is a very unusual situation.
   We know of no parallel to it. We know of streams uniting to form one
   major stream. Here the reverse is true: one major stream becomes four.

   These four divisions are now enumerated. Criticism had not expected
   that they would be and therefore expresses its disapproval. Procksch
   calls The verses 10-14 "an erratic stone" built into the structure.
   Only prejudice can make such claims. What is more natural than to refer
   to the mighty garden stream that provided ample irrigation? What is
   more natural, if the truth concerning the mighty four resultant streams
   still was known, to make mention of them and briefly to indicate their
   course? By so doing the author intensifies the impression of a much
   different past and answers a number of questions as to how those
   streams may have run at that time. He who is in sympathy with the
   author's purpose finds all this very natural and easy to understand.
   Not so the critics. They also claim to be able distinctly to see the
   points where J glued together his sources.

   Without going into needless detail--Delitzsch [1] offers that in his Wo
   lag das Paradies? --let us note at once that only the last two of the
   four rivers mentioned can still be identified, but whether they still
   flow as they once did is highly doubtful. They certainly no longer
   spring from one source, though their present sources in the Armenian
   highlands are said to lie only 2,000 paces apart.

   As for the first two, Keil identifies them with the Cyrus, or Kur, and
   the Araxes, or Aras, which also flow together into one and flow into
   the Caspian Sea. To give greater likelihood to this interpretation he
   identifies the land of "Cush" with the old Koccaia, which is reputed to
   have reached to the Caucasus. The scriptural "Cush," however, lies
   south of Egypt and is Ethiopia. The old expositors, also Luther, report
   the tradition that the "Pishon" is the Ganges and the "Gihon" the Nile.
   Others, like Koenig, then identify the Pishon with an arm of the Indus.
   But the problem of having the four come from a common source is thus
   made still more complicated. Delitzsch makes Pishon and Gihon two
   canals connecting the Tigris with the Euphrates. But canals are not
   rivers. Some, following the old tradition, say that these four famous
   rivers of antiquity are indeed meant, but that either the author's
   geography was quite faulty, or else he had in mind some oceanic river
   flowing about the whole ancient world.

   The solution to the problem apparently lies in the fact that what the
   account pictures was once actually true, though we may never identify
   the first two rivers. But the extensive changes in the earth's
   geography caused by that vast catastrophe, the Flood, have entirely
   disarranged the old order.

   The most fantastic interpretation is that of Gunkel, which Jeremias (p.
   103) adopts: "The notion of the four rivers of Paradise will be a
   reflex from a heavenly picture. Gunkel assumes that the writer is
   thinking of the milky way with its four arms." We report this merely as
   a curiosity.

   11, 12. The name of the first is Pishon. This is the one which
   encircles all the land of Havilah, where there is gold; and the gold of
   that land is good; there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

   The "first" in Hebrew, according to common usage, is.the "one" (K. S.
   315 n). Encircling, (sobhebh) does not mean to flow entirely around;
   cf. (Nu 21:4; Jud 11:18). Havilah means sandy-land. Gold is often found
   in such sandy regions. The article before "gold" is the article of
   complete familiarity (K. S. 297 a); others call it the generic article;
   see G. K. 126 m.

   12. "Gold" stands first because it is the prominent noun. "Good" is
   used in the sense of "fine" or "excellent." The demonstrative "that"
   (written hi' with waw rather than yodh for the feminine) is the first
   instance of this so-called Keri perpetuam and is a stylistic
   peculiarity of the author of the Pentateuch (so still Koenig) and not
   the result, of redactional activity (so most critics). What could have
   prompted a redactor to make so trifling and yet so characteristic a
   change and make it so consistently? --"Bdellium" apparently was a
   precious gum of antiquity. Israel must have been thoroughly familiar
   with it, since in (Nu 11:7) manna is likened to it in appearance. The
   shoham stone, rendered "onyx" above, may never be identified. Two other
   suggestions come down from antiquity, equally well substantiated: the
   beryl (Targum) and the chrysopras (Septuagint). To the original readers
   of the book all these terms were quite familiar, and the names involved
   suggested well known localities.

   The attempt to identify the Pishon with the Phasis, or present-day
   Rion, flowing into the Black Sea, is also futile.

   13. And the name of the second river is Gihon. This is the one that
   encircles all the land of Cush.

   The possibilities involved have been discussed above. Attempts to
   identify Cush with any land other than Ethiopia (like the Babylonian
   Cash or an Arabic land Cush) are farfetched.

   14. The name of the third river is Hiddekel. This is the one that goes
   eastward of Ashshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

   All interpreters agree that Hiddekel stands for the river called in
   Assyrian Hidiqlat, and in old Persian Tigra, i. e. Tigris. Qidhmath
   must mean "eastward." The Ashshur, or Assyria, referred to must be the
   ancient city of that name which actually once lay to the west of the
   Tigris, though the Assyrian kingdom later lay eastward of it. The
   excavations of the German Oriental Society (1904) uncovered the site,
   now named Kal'at Schergat.

   Nothing is mentioned about the familiar Euphrates except the name. The
   river required no further identification.

   All this would seem to indicate that the site of the garden of Eden may
   have been in the Armenian highlands, although no man would dare make
   any positive claim. No man has ever discovered any trace of its
   location. But how can men advance an unwarranted claim like that of
   Skinner: "a locality answering to the description of Eden exists and
   has existed nowhere on the face of the earth."

   15. And Yahweh God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to
   till it and to look after it.

   What was summarily reported in v. 8 is here resumed in order to be
   amplified, for it is at once stated why the Lord put man into the
   garden. This natural explanation adequately explains everything. The
   claim of two distinct accounts, not fully amalgamated, is quite
   unwarranted. Man's task in the garden is defined: he is "to till it and
   to look after it." The ideal state of sinless man is not one of
   indolence without responsibility. Work and duty belong to the perfect
   state. "To serve," 'abhadh, is here used transitively in the sense of
   "to till." The second verb shamar, usually meaning "to watch" or "to
   guard." is here to be taken in the milder sense of "keep." B D B very
   well suggests "have charge of." Meek does even better: "to look after."
   For according to the nature of the whole account, which gives the
   record of a creation, every part of which was "very good," there can be
   no thought of an evil power abroad in the world and trying to penetrate
   into the garden, as even Delitzsch and Whitelaw surmise. For in that
   case, we have the preposterous notion besides of man pacing along the
   border-lines of the garden at regular intervals during the day and at
   night doing sentinel duty--a very uneasy and disturbed existence. The
   more general sense of "have charge of" is otherwise substantiated in
   the Scriptures (see B D B). For even though the garden was in every
   sense good, yet care was necessary to keep it from growing in exuberant
   disorder.

   Yannichehu is a 2. Hifil, G. K. 72 ee.

   16, 17. And Yahweh God laid a charge upon the man, saying: From any
   tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but from the tree of the
   knowing of good and evil thou must not eat, for in the day of thy
   eating of it thou shalt certainly die.

   Everything preceding in this chapter has paved the way for this climax.
   The future of the race centres upon this single prohibition. Man is not
   to be confused by a multiplicity of issues. Only one divine ordinance
   must be kept in mind. By thus limiting the number of injunctions to
   one, Yahweh gives tokens of his mercy. Besides, to indicate that this
   one commandment is not grievous, the Lord sets it against the
   background of a broad permission: "from any tree of the garden thou
   mayest freely eat." We prefer to render kol "any" rather than "every,"
   lest it appear as though the permission suggested to man to gorge
   himself; so also Meek. But this statement of.the case in no wise
   conflicts with 1:29 where herbs are also mentioned, as though here,
   according to the construction of the critics, fruit of trees alone is
   allowed for man's food. This verse does not aim, like 1:29, to indicate
   the full scope of man's diet but has under consideration for the moment
   only of what trees man may eat fruit. The Hebrew construction puts the
   absolute infinitive by the side of the verb, something like: "eating
   thou mayest eat," in order to convey: "thou mayest freely eat." Of
   course, the imperfect is here permissive (K. S. 180).

   17. However, the imperfect to'khal with the negative lo' involves the
   strongest form of prohibition, which we have sought to reproduce by
   "must." The ki that follows the negative clause does not in this
   instance mean "but," for the clause preceding was imperative not
   declarative. In this instance the expression beyom, "in the day," is to
   be taken very literally and not in the sense "at the time," a meaning
   that would not fit here. For the thought actually to be expressed is
   the instantaneous occurrence of the penalty threatened, which is also
   again expressed in part by the imperfect with absolute infinitive,
   "dying thou shalt die" --" certainly die." This at once raises the
   question, "Why was this penalty not carried out as threatened?" We
   answer: "It was; if the Biblical concept of dying is kept in mind, as
   it unfolds itself ever more clearly from age to age." Dying is
   separation from God. That separation occurred the very moment, when man
   by his disobedience broke the bond of love. If physical death
   ultimately closes the experience, that is not the most serious aspect
   of the whole affair, The more serious is the inner spiritual
   separation. Oehler (T A T p. 254) rightly maintains: "For a fact, after
   the commission of sin man at once stepped upon the road of death." The
   contention that the Old Testament does not know spiritual death,
   because it does not happen to use that very expression, is a
   rationalizing and shallow one, which misconstrues the whole tenor of
   the Old Testament. The common claim raised in this connection, e. g. by
   Skinner: "God, having regard to the circumstances of the temptation,
   changed His purpose and modified the penalty," makes of God a mutable
   being, who, like a rash parent, first speaks severe threats, then sees
   Himself compelled by developments to modify His purpose. The
   explanation, "He shall be mortal," is based on the erroneous
   translation of the Septuagint.

   Before leaving this verse it is a good thing to observe how definitely
   the account teaches that the first man was gifted with freedom of will.
   The moral sense must not first develop later; it is a part of the
   original heritage of man. It has been pointed out that in records such
   as these the Old Testament "veritably reechoes with imperatives,"
   (Koenig, T A T p. 233). A moral being standing on a very high plane of
   perfection at the time of his creation m such is the man of the
   creation account of Genesis.

   18. And Yahweh God said, It is not good for the man to be alone; I will
   make him a helper like him.

   The justifiable question, "How did woman originate?" has not yet been
   answered in an account dealing with all such basic origins. Besides,
   unless her status has been clearly defined, we are not ready for the
   narrative of' chapter three. Therefore the account of the creation of
   woman follows. It is introduced by the basic assertion of God Himself:
   "It is not good for the man to be alone." Only quibbling can seek to
   find a discrepancy between this "not good" and the "very good" of 1:31.
   For in the latter instance the idea of moral perfection and perfect
   adaptation to its purpose is involved. In this instance, however, we
   have a "not good" of incompleteness, where the supplying of the
   deficiency lay in the original purpose of the Creator. Besides, to all
   intents and purposes, in point of time the work of the creation of
   woman falls within the sixth day, and so after all 1:31 comes later.

   God did not create man an unsocial being. He, knowing better than man
   the social nature of man, voices it in a word spoken for man's
   guidance. In every way the normal thing for man is to go through life
   in fellowship with a wife. Man needs her. Her position in reference to
   man is defined as first "a helper," literally, "a help," 'ezer,
   abstract for concrete (K. S. 243 b). If a man is to achieve his
   objectives in life, he needs the help of his mate in every way, from
   the propagating of his kind down through the scale of his varied
   activities. Her position is further defined by the expression "like
   him," keneghdo, literally, "as agreeing to him," or "his counterpart."
   She is the kind of help man needs, agreeing with him mentally,
   physically, spiritually. She is not an inferior being.

   19. And Yahweh God molded out of the ground all the wild beasts of the
   field and all the birds of the heavens and brought them to the man to
   see what he would call them; and whatever man called each living
   creature, that was its name.

   Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts the account here records
   the making of the various creatures and the bringing of them to man.
   That in reality they had been made prior to the creation of man is so
   entirely apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But
   the reminder that God had "molded" them makes obvious His power to
   bring them to man and so is quite appropriately mentioned here. It
   would not, in our estimation, be wrong to translate yatsar as a
   pluperfect in this instance: "He had molded." The insistence of the
   critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make
   chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.

   The bringing of these creatures before man to have them named is a
   pedagogic device on God's part to arouse man to the awareness of his
   not having a mate as the other creatures had. Such an awareness makes
   him appreciate God's gift the more. However, that there is a limitation
   of the number of creatures brought before man is made apparent by two
   things. In the first place, the beasts are described as beasts of the
   field (hassadheh) not beasts of the earth, as in 1:24. Though there is
   difficulty about determining the exact limits of the term "field" in
   this instance, there is great likelihood (cf. also v. 5) that it may
   refer to the garden only. In the second place, the fish of the sea are
   left out, also in v. 20, as being less near to man. To this we are
   inclined to add a third consideration, the fact, namely, that the
   garden could hardly have been a garden if all creatures could have
   overrun it unimpeded. Since then, very likely, only a limited number of
   creatures are named, the other difficulty falls away, namely that man
   could hardly have named all creatures in the course of a day.

   At once we are made aware of the high intelligence level of the father
   of the human race. For the expression to give names, in the Hebrew
   usage of the word "name," involves giving a designation expressive of
   the nature or character of the one named. This was not a crude fable,
   where, according to a Hebrew notion, the accidental ejaculations at the
   sight of new and strange creatures were retained as names for the
   future. Here was a man in deeper sympathy with nature than any have
   been ever since. That these names were appropriate and significant
   names for the various creatures appears also from the confirmatory
   statement of the author: "whatever man called each living creature,
   that was its name." Such a statement, imbedded in so marvellous an
   account, could hardly be made, unless the names given had been
   appropriate and worthy of man's intelligence.

   Our translation of the close of the verse smooths out a certain
   difficulty in the original, where a literal rendering reads: "whatever
   man called it, the living creature, that was its name." That "living
   creature" (nephesh chayyah) stands in apposition with "it" (lo) is
   somewhat unusual. However, far from being a stylistic defect, it
   deserves to be called entirely appropriate. By it, as it seems, the
   writer is reminding us that each living creature was getting a name in
   conformity with the type of life it lived. The critics, always on the
   lookout for what might serve as proof of their, peculiar source
   theories, mostly see in this phrase an addition by a redactor. But if
   the phrase be unnecessary, as they claim, they impugn the intelligence
   of their redactor. However, if it serves a good purpose, why cannot the
   original writer have possessed sufficient intelligence to insert it?
   The chief concern of a writer must not always be smoothness of style.
   Intelligibility, clearness are of greater value. Here smoothness is
   sacrificed to clearness.

   The crudest misinterpretation of this giving of names to the creatures
   is that rather common claim, utterly without warrant in the text, that
   God was experimenting to produce a mate for man, and when it was found
   that of the existing beings none adequate for him had been produced,
   then God proceeded to make woman. Surely, the text never intended to
   convey that impression, as is also amply testified by the fact that
   this erratic notion was reserved for the invention of critics of a
   recent date. The more reverent approach of olden times guarded men
   against such crudities. Some go so far as to see a parallel with the
   Gilgamesh epic, whose hero first consorts promiscuously with the beasts
   and is beguiled by a fair being to renounce their companionship. How
   such filthy vapourings can be placed on a parallel with the chaste and
   true scriptural account is beyond our power to understand.

   Yabhe'( brought) is without its object, because it is readily supplied.

   20. So the man gave names to all the domestic animals and to the birds
   of the heavens and to all the wild beasts of the field; but a helper
   worthy of a man was not found corresponding to him.

   Man carries out the appointed task. Queer notions as to how man
   proceeded have been advanced, based largely on the misconception that
   all creatures upon the face of the whole earth had been supplied with
   names. Whitelaw, quoting Willet, remarks: "Nor did angels muster them,
   nor did the animals come themselves, and, passing by, while he sat on
   some elevation, bow their heads at his resplendent appearance; nor were
   Adam's eyes so illuminate that he beheld them all in their places, all
   which are but men's conceits; but through the secret influence of God
   upon their natures they were assembled round the inmate of paradise, as
   afterward they were collected in the ark."

   In the enumeration of those creatures which were given names, a third
   class appears at this point, "the domestic animals" (behemah), showing
   that certainly those nearest to man had not been overlooked. In
   reality, then, these must have been included in the term chayyath
   hassadheh, which could have been rendered (v. 19) "living creatures of
   the earth," although, to preserve uniformity of expression, we did not
   use that rendering. Let it also be observed that the remes, "the
   creeping things" of 1:24, are also passed by in the matter of naming.
   Besides, no one will ever determine how diversified the species were
   already at the time of their creation.

   The fact that it is here remarked that "a helper worthy of a man was
   not found corresponding to him," does not argue for the fact that this
   review of the beasts was an attempt to find a mate for man among them,
   but rather that a realization of man's loneliness was to be aroused in
   him. We consider the text perfectly correct with its le'adham. Nor does
   matsa'" one found" need to be changed to a passive (Kit.); impersonal
   constructions are quite common. The le'adham, without article, cannot
   here signify "for Adam," as the noun without the article definitely
   does after 4:25. Yet there is reason for using the generic "man" in
   this instance, because, as our rendering shows, the thought is a helper
   for a man, in the sense of "worthy of a man." He alone finds none of
   his kind.

   21, 22. And Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man; and
   when he slept, He took one of his ribs and closed the place with flesh.
   And Yahweh God built the rib which He had taken from man into a woman
   and brought her unto the man.

   We think the sequence of clauses as given above, following Meek, to be
   admirable. To say: "He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him and he
   slept" is too self-evident to have been intended by the writer. The
   Hebrew very readily allows for the above subordination, although it
   certainly did not follow from the Hebrew accents, which put the Athnack
   (something like a semicolon) after:" and he slept." Tardemah, is indeed
   a "deep sleep," not a state of ecstasy, as the Greek translators
   render; nor a "hypnotic trance" (Skinner), for traces of hypnosis are
   not to be found in the Scriptures. A "trance" might be permissible. The
   root, however, is that of the verb used in reference to Jonah when he
   slept soundly during the storm. God causes such a deep sleep, because
   it surely would have been in part almost a horrid experience to live
   through to see a portion of yourself removed. A sleep like that caused
   by an anesthetic envelopes man's feelings and consciousness. The word
   tsela', translated "rib," definitely bears this meaning, (contra v.
   Hofman), although it is not necessary to think only of the bare bone;
   for, without a doubt, bone and flesh will have been used for her of
   whom the man afterward says "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh,"
   (v. 23).

   Though no definite reason for this type of procedure in creating woman
   is assigned, we are able to see the most eminent fitness in this much
   ridiculed act. For one thing, the absolute unity of the human race in
   its descent from one ancestor is established--a vital doctrine of the
   Scriptures (cf. Ro 5:18 ff). Besides, at the same time the true dignity
   of womankind is guaranteed: woman is not of inferior substance. The
   truest of kinship with man is also established: she is of his bone and
   flesh. Even the very part of the body from which she is taken is of
   deepest moment: woman is neither of the foot nor of the head, for she
   is neither superior nor inferior to man; she is exactly on the same
   level with him as far as being a creature of God is concerned. If then,
   lastly, a part of the substance of man is to be used, none could be
   found that could be more conveniently dispensed with than a rib. Deeper
   thought on the subject throughout suggests a most excellent propriety
   in God's procedure in the whole matter of the creation of woman.

   The preposition min replaces the more usual construct state in
   "from-ribs-his" (K. S. 278 a).

   The activity of God in fashioning the rib taken from man is described
   as a building (wayyi'bhen). Rather than being an indication of the work
   of a different author, the verb grows out of the situation. as being
   the most appropriate. It would not have been seemly to use yatsar "to
   mold," a verb applicable in the case of clay, not of flesh. "Build"
   applies to the fashioning of a structure of some importance; it
   involves constructive effort. Both of these factors are in evidence in
   the case of the creation of woman. When God brings her unto man, this
   act of his is the institution of marriage and stamps marriage as a
   divinely willed and approved state.

   23. And the man said: This now at length is bone of my bone and flesh
   of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken from man.

   There is a certain animation prominent in the first recorded word of
   the first man as he recognizes the purpose of this new gift to him--an
   animation which is made noticeable by the thrice repeated "this"
   (zo'th). The last two of these cannot well be made apparent in the
   translation of the second clause, which, translated literally would
   read: this one shall be called woman because from man was taken this
   one. Besides, that a being of this sort had been looked for with
   anticipation appears from the word happa'am, "now at length." Whether
   the article in this term really has demonstrative force in connection
   with a triple demonstrative already noted may in this instance well be
   questioned. The most complete physical congruity of this new person
   with himself is at once recognized by this first man. lie gives
   expression to the thought in the words: she is "bone of my bone and
   flesh of my flesh,"

   He gives further expression to this idea by giving her a class name,
   which marks her as being far above all the other creatures upon whom
   names had been bestowed. By a clever play upon words he gives
   expression to this thought in a form that can at least be approximated
   by other languages, as also by the English: "called woman because she
   is taken from man," although all interpreters recognize that this is
   not the proper etymology of "woman." Luther does a bit better by
   coining a word: Maennin vs. Mann. The thought of the writer is only to
   give prominence to the most possible intimate kinship of these two
   beings and to express this by the kinship of sound. However, it must
   not be forgotten that the language used by the first man has, no doubt,
   been lost, so that the Hebrew must approximate the thought as nearly as
   its element allows. If, then, it be objected that the two words
   involved have, in reality, two different roots, we shall not be greatly
   disturbed. "Man," 'ish, according to a parallel Arabic root, may have
   the basic idea of "exercising power." Similarly, "woman," 'ishshah,
   must, because of the double consonant, be derived from a root with
   original nun, which according to an Arabic parallel, would mean "to be
   soft." But the writer is not studying etymology. He is expressing a
   fundamental similarity by the use of the best terms available.

   The verb used for "she shall be called" is in reality the common
   impersonal: "it shall be called to her" (K. S. 324).

   24. (For this reason a man leaves his father and his mother, and they
   become one flesh).

   This verse might at first glance appear as the conclusion of Adam's
   first remark, and it is usually construed as such. However, the major
   difficulty in this interpretation is the fact that it must impute to
   the first man, in addition to all the other gifts that he possesses,
   also a kind of prophetic insight; for as yet man has had no experience
   of the fact of propagation whereby persons become father and mother. To
   attribute so much of foresight and insight to him is hardly feasible.
   But all of this difficulty is obviated if the explanation be adopted
   that here we have nothing other than a parenthetical remark of the
   author, who seeks to account for the deep and almost unaccountable
   attachment which man has for his wife. Several other parenthetical
   observations of the author are found in Genesis. See (Ge 10:9; 26:33;
   32:32). The imperfect ya'azobh expresses the customary thing (G. K. 107
   g): "man leaves." "Forsake" (A. V.) is too strong a verb. Meek renders
   'al-ken very well as "that is why." "Becoming one flesh" involves the
   complete identification of one personality with the other in a
   community of interests and pursuits, an union consummated in
   intercourse.

   25. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no
   shame.

   In this brief statement one more feature is added to the picture of the
   primeval state of perfection: nothing had transpired to rouse in man a
   sense of guilt. For to feel no shame is in a perfect state due to
   having no occasion to feel shame. Everything was at harmony, and man
   was in complete harmony with himself and with his God.

  HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

   A number of good texts are found in this chapter. For expository
   treatment we should suggest the following: v. 1-3 deal with the subject
   of "Sabbath in Heaven," a good text for stressing the blessedness of
   rest after the divine example. Though v. 7 is somewhat short for a
   text, it yet presents adequate material for full treatment of the
   subject of "The Dignity and the Lowliness of Man." The divine creative
   act supplies the material for the first half of the subject; the
   substance employed, for the second half. The section v. 9, 15-17
   suggests "the Place of Temptation in the Life of Man." Even for the
   perfect man tests, or at least a test, was essential for his proper
   moral development. A being so frail as not to be able to stand a test
   would have had little moral worth. There is sufficient material in the
   text to indicate that man had adequate proofs of God's will toward him
   and therefore was adequately equipped to ward off insinuations to the
   contrary. Then the section v. 18-25 provides occasion to develop the
   subject so little understood in our day, where thoughts of emancipation
   too largely have replaced the scriptural point of view--we mean the
   subject "Woman's Place in Life." It could be treated under the head of
   the "Institution of Matrimony." However, v. 28 of chapter 1 should
   really be added to round out the text, lest a neglected aspect of
   matrimony be passed by entirely.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Friedrich Delitzsch, Wo lag alas Paradies? (Leipzig, 1881.)
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER III

  The Temptation and the Fall

   This is the most tragic chapter in the Bible. Perhaps no commentator
   has caught the sense of the full measure of tragic consequences
   entailed by the Fall more clearly than Luther in his detailed
   exposition of the chapter. This Scripture is an inspired account of how
   sin and all evil came into the world. From one point of view we may
   call it pure revelation, namely in the sense that man, left to his own
   devices, had forgotten this lamentable event of his early history, and
   so God had to renew the knowledge of it by revelation. For the very
   strange fact is to be observed that an actual parallel, which ties up
   the evils of the human race with the Fall and so with human sin, is not
   to be found in the traditions of the various races and peoples, who may
   yet have had a bit of truth concerning an earlier state of blessedness
   in a golden age of antiquity. Even those who persistently trace
   Biblical truth to Babylonian sources must admit: "The Babylonian
   version of the Fall of man (if any such existed) has not yet been
   discovered." Attempts to make certain dubious pictorial representations
   bear some resemblance to our chapter are based too much on forced
   meanings.

   It cannot be denied that many things about the entire account may prove
   quite puzzling. We are provided with too few details concerning the
   exact measure of man's capacities in the original state: besides, the
   activities of the tempter may puzzle us. But these and the many other
   problems about which we may vex ourselves are difficulties that lie
   rather in our limited understanding than in the account as we have it.
   Nor should we overlook the didactic skill of the writer who aims
   primarily to emphasize the fact that man fell by his own guilt and
   dragged down upon himself and his posterity a mass of miserable
   consequences. So the writer in a very satisfactory way informs us how
   evil originated in the world. The curious questions that we might
   desire to have answered beyond that are left aside, so as not to
   detract unduly from the major truth which is to be declared.

   However, at least this one question must be touched upon. in this
   connection: "Does this chapter present an actual narrative of facts, or
   have we here perhaps a skilful allegory, as many fathers of the church
   believed, or shall we label this merely a pictorial representation
   intended to convey some general impressions' (Dods)?" Without a doubt,
   things are recorded as they actually transpired; this is a strictly
   historical account fully approved by the New Testament (2Co 11:3; 2Ti
   2:13). Regarding the chapter from this. angle does not impede our
   discernment of the deeper spiritual issues involved. In fact, the only
   safe interpretation of the Fall is that which accepts the record as
   unequivocally true and interprets it in the light of the rest of
   clearly revealed Scripture. The claim of a few modern commentators that
   the chapter gives distinct evidences of meter (heptameter) has been
   demonstrated by K. C. as built on sand.

   1. Now the serpent was the most clever of all the beasts of the field
   which Jahweh God had made, and she said unto the woman: And (is it
   really the case) that God has said ye shall not eat from every tree of
   the garden?

   The serpent appears on the scene as the new and prominent factor in the
   discussion, and so hannachash is placed first for emphasis (K. S. 339
   h; G. K. 142 d). This serpent actually spoke to Eve. This speaking is
   not to be regarded as indirect, in the sense of speaking by what she
   did, as for example perhaps eating of the fruit herself (K. C.). She
   actually spoke. However, when we go farther into the Scriptures, we
   find the very definite fact, especially in the New Testament, that the
   devil is regarded as the actual tempter. When Christ says (Joh 8:44)
   that the devil is "a murderer from the beginning" and that he is. "a
   liar and the father thereof," this word is a manifest allusion to the
   event of this chapter. (2Co 11:3) compared with v. 14 of the same
   chapter suggests the same thought. (Ro 16:20): "The God of peace shall
   bruise Satan under your feet shortly," cannot be anything other than an
   interpretative allusion to v. 15 of our chapter. The words of (Re
   12:9), "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan,"
   harmonize only with our interpretation of the passage. Cf. also (Re
   20:2). It will hardly do to claim with modernists that the New
   Testament writers saw the devil in the serpent, but that on the level
   of the Old Testament men never thought of the tempter as any other than
   only a serpent. For, as Lange has clearly demonstrated, the truth
   concerning Satan emerged very clearly within the limits of the Old
   Testament, and we surely have no warrant to hold that the enlightened
   believers of the old covenant never penetrated more deeply into truth
   than to discern the mere letter. Even before the New Testament
   revelation shines forth, the apocryphal book of Wisdom (2:23 f.)
   ascribed the entrance of sin into the world to the envy of Satan. These
   modern misconceptions disrupt the manifest unity and harmony of
   revelation as given by the one Spirit of Truth. The truth of the matter
   is, of course, as Luther already clearly stated, that the third chapter
   as such states the case in such a manner that we cannot but puzzle over
   the speaking of a serpent, but the later revelation of God has unfolded
   what still lay hidden in the first statements of revealed truth. So we
   are driven to the conclusion that Satan used the serpent as his tool or
   instrument and was in the final analysis the one who spoke through this
   creature. With his superior knowledge Adam ought at once to have sensed
   a grave irregularity in the serpent's speaking.

   If, then, the further question be raised, why the devil used this means
   of addressing Eve, it must be admitted that such an approach
   successfully disguised the tempter. But if the more difficult question
   be raised, why the writer, who may have known about this Satanic agent,
   mentions only its visible tool, we have a twofold answer, in common
   with many other commentators: in the first place, the writer gives a
   faithful account of what actually transpired just as it transpired; in
   the second place, by describing the course of the temptation as
   directed by this visible agent he removes from the thoughts of his
   readers the possibility of the notion that since so dreadful a tempter
   assailed man, therefore man is not to be blamed for his fall--the
   mention of the devil might have led to the offering of excuses for man
   and so to a minimizing of man's guilt.

   There can be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning of nachash.
   Scriptural usage, as well as all versions and an uninterrupted
   tradition through the centuries, vindicates the meaning "serpent."

   The word we have rendered "clever" is 'arum. "Most clever" is the
   Hebrew superlative, which literally says "more clever than all beasts."
   (K. S. 308 b). We prefer "clever" to "subtle," because the word cannot
   imply a trace of evil in the animal world, for that would seriously
   conflict with 1:31. This was a purely harmless cleverness, after the
   pattern of (Mt 10:16). Such cleverness may well make this creature the
   most suitable vehicle of Satan's evil devices. From all this it. dimly
   appears that the chief agent is a spirit of unusual power and
   cleverness and clearly, too, a fallen spirit. This again necessitates
   the assumption that the fall of the angels must have occurred prior to
   this temptation, yet not necessarily prior to the completion of the
   entire creative work. However, the other rather common assumption that
   evil had already penetrated into' the world among the creatures, and
   that so the serpent herself was already tainted by evil, is clearly
   refuted by the modifying clause, "which Jahweh God had made," which
   clause applies indiscriminately to the whole creature world and
   describes it as good.

   "The woman" is singled out to be tempted, because she is not naturally
   as strong as man, nor did she hear God's command from His own mouth but
   only, as it seems, mediately from Adam, and consequently she may have
   felt its weight less. The tempter's cunning is made manifest by this
   approach but much more so by the temptation which he presents and the
   adroit presentation of this temptation step by step.

   The temptation opens with an 'aph ki, i. e. "indeed that." The simplest
   explanation of this expression is that.the verb "to be" is omitted,
   because it is so readily supplied. Therefore B D B is correct in
   rendering, "Indeed (is it) that?" So also K. C. Our translation above
   says practically the same thing. From the woman's answer it appears
   that the serpent's word was a question, although, as is often the case,
   it is not introduced by an interrogative particle. The Giver. of the
   commandment is referred to by the serpent as "God," 'elohim, not as
   Yahweh; for the tempter could not with any measure of truth know
   anything of God's grace and fidelity. The `most common term is
   employed.

   The thought aimed at by this suggestive question is that there must be
   something about God's restraint of man that puts a very unwelcome curb
   and check upon man. The circumstance that God has permitted man to make
   use of all the rest of the trees is pushed aside as negligible. The
   fact that man is definitely barred from one tree is dragged into the
   forefront and magnified into a grievous and very unwelcome restraint
   that could hardly be thought of as imposed by God. A suspicion is cast
   upon God's goodness, and suspicion, as experience has amply
   demonstrated, most insidiously worms its way in where other sins often
   could not find entrance. In other words, man had had ample proof of
   God's love of and regard for him. To trust this loving Father was the
   normal attitude of this first man and the very soul of his proper
   relationship to God. The moment such trust begins to waver man has
   fallen.

   To approach the question from another angle, as Luther rightly points
   out, the temptation involved directs itself against God's Word. More
   specifically, it seeks to make that Word doubtful to man. This Word was
   for Adam both law and gospel. Adam and Eve are to be led away from its
   truth according to the purposes of the tempter. In this respect the
   temptation is a type of all temptations which the evil foe presents.

   By approaching the question as we have, we have eliminated the
   necessity of assuming that other words of the serpent had preceded and
   that here merely the continuation of that discussion is submitted.
   Rather, without preliminaries and with a subtle boldness a word is
   thrust at Eve, a word pregnant with evil and in substance a very
   dangerous temptation.

   We must yet definitely reject the very common claim that lo' mikkol
   should be translated "not from any" (Meek). Though this use of the
   negative with kol ("all") is common enough, it can hardly be intended
   here. The exaggeration would be too gross and crude. The devil would
   have completely overshot his mark and roused a feeling of resentment at
   the coarse insinuation. Therefore A. V. is correct: "not from every."
   Cf. K. S. 352 s.

   Some very strange modern interpretations must at least be referred to
   at this point. In the face of the plain meaning of this first
   key-verse, it is a wilful misreading of the plain meaning of words when
   Haupt offers "the explanation of the Fall of man as the first connubial
   intercourse." Equally erroneous is Gunkel's claim that the chapter aims
   to overthrow "the then current opinion that agriculture was a blessing
   inaugurated by the deity," and to work this overthrow by "setting over
   against such an opinion the myth about God's curse upon the ground."
   Such views are entirely without a foundation and are shown forth as
   unwarranted by the simple fact that through the centuries no man ever
   even remotely discerned that such thoughts could be hidden in the
   narrative. Skinner finds difficulties in the chapter, chiefly in the
   temptation by the serpent, and offers as explanation the claim that the
   treatment of the story gives evidence of the "incomplete elimination of
   the mythological element under the influence of a monotheistic and
   ethical religion." What the critic finds hard to understand must have
   the source of its difficulty not in the critic but in the record. So a
   harmless and plain record is misinterpreted because the critic will not
   believe that "the function of the serpent" is as the text claims it to
   be.

   Yet a word on the question often raised at this point: "Why must there
   be a temptation?" or "Why does God permit His chief creature on earth
   to be tempted? Does He not desire man's supreme happiness? Why, then,
   does He permit a temptation which leads to death and all our woe?" The
   answer must always be that God will have only that count as moral
   behaviour worthy of a being made in God's image, which is freely given
   and maintained even where the possibility of doing otherwise offers
   itself. To do what God desires merely because one cannot do otherwise,
   has no moral worth. It would be a morality like unto that of beams
   which uphold the house because they have been put in place and cannot
   but bear their load. To do the right where there has never been an
   opportunity of doing wrong is not moral behaviour. The opportunity to
   do otherwise must present itself. This is temptation. A being who could
   not even suffer to be tempted would be a poor specimen of God's
   handiwork. But the true wisdom of God appears in this, that, though His
   creature falls, God is still able to achieve His original purpose
   through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, a redemption for which
   provisions are already beginning to be made in this chapter.

   2, 3. And the woman said unto the serpent: From the fruit of the trees
   of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the
   midst of the garden God has said: Ye may not eat of it, neither touch
   it, lest ye die.

   In a way it may seem as though the unsuspicious Eve, who has never been
   tempted, is at a grievous disadvantage because of the very subtle
   nature of the suspicion that the serpent seeks to engender in her
   heart. But her advantages are sufficient amply to offset the cleverness
   of the attack. There is, first of all, the empirical knowledge of God's
   goodness and mercy toward man. The whole of creation formed a strong
   symphony of protest against any suspicions of God's good will. Then,
   Eve had a very clear word from God, simple and unencumbered by many
   details as to what her moral duty was. Whether this word was heard
   immediately from God or mediately from her husband matters little and
   cannot impair the power of that word upon her heart. And then, too,
   there was one feature about the temptation that could well have aroused
   instantaneous suspicion of the tempter: a mere irrational creature
   spoke. The insight into the limitations of the being of the animal was
   sufficiently clear to a creature like man, who had but recently been
   entirely qualified to give names to all these beings and discern their
   very nature. At this point Eve could easily have probed farther and
   divined the actual truth. Our first parents certainly had been
   adequately prepared for an emergency such as this.

   At this point already we must begin to take issue with the claim that
   in the temptation as such the penalty resulting is quite out of
   proportion to the trifling nature of the misdeed. For those who raise
   such a claim liken the sin of our first parents to the taking of
   forbidden fruit by children and then claim: the mere taking of an apple
   certainly does not merit such dreadful consequences as are here
   pictured as resulting. Over against such misconceptions we strongly
   maintain that the taking of the fruit was not the fall into sin; that
   fall had occurred before this act; the taking of the fruit was an
   incidental bit of evidence of the fact that man had fallen. However,
   the Fall as such was nothing less in character than an entirely
   inexcusable piece of rebellion against a very gracious Father who not
   only had withheld nothing good from man but had even bestowed such an
   overwhelming wealth of good things that revolt against such a one must
   in the very nature of the case be a sin of the deepest hue, yes, even
   the one great sin in the history of the human race.

   The beginning of this tragic and wretched fall is to be discerned in
   this section before us (v. 3). Eve's reply should have been an emphatic
   disavowal of the suspicion that God had been withholding good from man.
   Instead, it becomes a temporizing, a partial refutation, but at the
   same time a statement that allows room for the suspicion that perhaps
   God has not been as entirely good and gracious as they had hitherto
   supposed. But as soon as one does not wholeheartedly and unreservedly
   trust God, mistrust is gaining ground and sin has entered. Nothing of
   this appears definitely as yet in v. 2 where Eve restates what God has
   allowed them. Whereas the devil's charge pointed to unwelcome
   restrictions, Eve emphasizes the fact that God had allowed them to eat
   of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But a significant omission in
   her statement of the case must be noted. The original charter of
   privileges under this head (2:16) had carried the word "all"; then
   followed the one exception. Eve omits the "all." She was beginning to
   lose sight of the boundless goodness of God. Apparently, there sin took
   its beginning; God's mercies are lost sight of. Of course, the
   imperfect no'khal is permissive, not merely a present (K. S. 180).
   Therefore "we may eat," not merely "we eat."

   (3) Now follows a half-hearted defense consisting in a restatement of
   the prohibition. During the course of this restatement Eve veers from
   indirect discourse to direct with the words: "God has said"; but
   unfortunately she mars a good case by sharpening and thus altering
   God's original demand. Nowhere has it been indicated that God said:
   "nor touch it." By this insertion Eve betrays the course her thoughts
   have taken. She feels that the prohibition was unduly sharp, so
   unconsciously she sharpens it herself. But, again, already the attitude
   of the heart to God is clearly seen no longer to be one of perfect
   trust. The suspicion which Satan so cleverly suggested was allowed to
   take root. To have suspicions of God and His goodness is a wicked
   insult of His majesty. All this, it is true, does not at once appear in
   its most fully developed form. The first steps on the road away from
   God have been taken. Here the Fall took place. What follows is the
   further unfolding of what lay in this first act and the full evidence
   of it. A being that had been made holy, just, and true and had been
   equipped with the strength necessary for maintaining its moral
   integrity and right relation to God, freely chose to ignore and to
   despise His goodness and to mistrust Him, and so severed its vital
   relation to Him.

   On the ending of the form temuthun cf. G. K. 47 m.

   Proksch shows the critical tendency to set harmonious things at
   variance with one another very significantly at this point. Because 2:9
   mentions only the tree of life as having been "in the midst of the
   garden," but here, without doubt, it is the tree of knowledge which is
   said to be "in the midst of the garden," we are to class these two
   statements as being "divergent" from one another. The plain fact is
   that they are entirely supplementary: both were in the midst of the
   garden and perhaps even near one another.

   Satan is not slow in discerning the advantage he has gained and
   promptly presses on to overthrow completely an opponent who has begun
   to waver, or, as Luther puts it, he observes that the wall has begun to
   totter and so braces himself against it, so as completely to crush Eve,
   as we now see.

   4, 5. And the serpent said to the woman: Ye shall certainly not die;
   for God knows that as soon as ye eat of it, your eyes will be opened
   and ye shall be like gods who know good and evil.

   After a careful approach, which tendered a mild suggestion, the devil
   boldly advances to a positive denial of the Word of God. It should not
   be lost sight of how in temptations the attack centres about God's
   Word. The very boldness of denial carries all before it. The denial,
   for that matter, is even a perversion of the word into its very
   opposite. God said: "You shall die." Satan replies: "Ye shall certainly
   not die." The father of lies is so saturated with lying that he even
   attempts to make God out to be a liar. Note the strength of the
   statement. A. V., "Ye shall not surely die," is not strong enough;
   rather, "Ye certainly shall not die." For the negative, which in cases
   where the absolute infinitive accompanies the finite verb usually
   stands between infinitive and verb, here emphatically stands first,
   yielding the emphasis we suggest by our translation. Cf. G. K. 113 v;
   K. S. 3521.

   Now follows the positive charge against God, that He "knew all along"
   (yodhe `a, Kal participle, suggestive of continued action) that "as
   soon" (beyom, here meaning "on the very day," that is to say, "at
   once") as they should venture to eat of this fruit, their eyes would be
   opened. Such a charge attributes envy to God and makes Him appear as
   one who withholds good from His creatures lest they mount to heights
   reserved for Himself. The heathen and the devil attribute envy to God.
   If Eve ventures to eat, it will mean on her part the complete disavowal
   of faith, and the Fall will be entirely consummated. The lead suggested
   by the Septuagint may be followed in the translation of the expression
   ke'elohim. The Greek has wv ueoi, "as gods," plural. For the preceding
   verb hayah is more than just "to be," rather: "ye shall exist as gods"
   (K. S. 338 d), in other words: "you shall exist in the class of higher
   beings." This word of the devil's is calculated to beget an overbearing
   pride which aspires to wicked heights. Immediately preceding this lying
   promise is another which purposely savours of a certain vagueness:
   "your eyes will be opened." This must imply ability to discern and to
   penetrate into things not otherwise perceived, as the German expression
   has it, hellseheng werden. Just what advantage this involves is not
   further indicated. and so an attractive suggestiveness, more seductive
   than a specific promise, is achieved. However, the definition of what
   is involved in "existing as gods" savours of a similar elusiveness and
   vagueness. The devil gives assurance that that state will bring with it
   the knowing of good and evil. What advantages this entails is not
   stated. The good thing promised charms by its vagueness. But, surely,
   it was a bad bargain to accept such vague phantasmagories. True, "to
   know" (yadha') implies more than intellectual apperception; "it is a
   function of the entire soul" (Procksch); it is Empfindung, perception.
   Here lies some of the diabolical cunning of the temptation: it seems to
   offer something very good-"ye shall be like gods."

   Very clearly, as in ali temptations, the devil's beguilements are an
   inextricable tangle of truth and falsehood. All the things promised
   were relatively true, as the sequel proved, but at the same time they
   were so far from offering the true realities that they could also be
   stamped as the most colossal falsehoods. However, their subtle
   cleverness cannot be denied.

   6. And the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was
   attractive to the eye and that it was a tree desirable for acquiring
   wisdom; she took of its fruit and ate and gave also to her husband who
   was with her, and he ate.

   This verse pictures not the genesis of sin but its full development and
   definite expression. The woman speaks not a single word. She is
   entirely engrossed in the contemplation of the things promised and in
   the hope of the realization of the spurious greatness suggested. By a
   natural law of progression the sin develops to the point where the one
   divine restriction is definitely cast off, and Eve stands forth in open
   defiance of her Maker. Sin always develops in this manner after foot
   has once been set on the downward path.

   A closer contemplation of the tree in the light of the Satanic
   suggestion leads Eve to notice first something purely physical: "the
   tree was good for food." This is its appeal to the appetite. Here some
   commentators rightly sense that aspect of sin which (1Jo 2:16) is
   called "lust of the flesh." For, in reality, all aspects of sin lie
   embodied in this first transgression. Every part of the being of the
   first mother was drawn into the destructive vortex of the participation
   in sin. Then follows, introduced by a kind of polysyndeton (wekhi--
   "and that"), to make the separate parts of the temptation as they were
   felt one by one to stand out more prominently, the statement: "it was
   attractive to the eye." The aesthetic finds itself appealed to, or
   better, as again (1Jo 2:16) has it, it was the "lust of the eyes" that
   here became operative. This was not a clean and holy perceiving but an
   unholy lusting. Note how every bodily function operates perniciously.
   Sin in all its enormity is most effectively portrayed as the monster
   that it really is. To this is added intellectual perversion: "it (was
   seen to be) a tree desirable for acquiring wisdom." This is what St.
   John describes as "the vainglory of life." Haskil is intransitive, "to
   acquire wisdom," not, "to make wise." Meek offers the cumbersome and
   inaccurate "for its gift of wisdom."

   So the picture is complete: every function of body and of soul is
   wrested from its original purpose and becomes embroiled in one vast
   confusion of its divine purpose. Nowhere is a more drastic picture
   offered of the horrible disturbance wrought by sin.

   The actual evidence of full consent to the sin suggested, as far as man
   can see, lies in the taking of the fruit and the eating of it. Man
   cannot read the heart, but he can discern from the outward act what had
   transpired in the heart.

   The man's consent to the same sin is reported with such brevity as to
   amaze us: "she gave to her husband who was with her and he ate." There
   must be a reason for this. This reason is primarily that through the
   woman, now already fallen, the same temptation was presented to Adam as
   had previously been presented through the serpent to Eve, and with the
   same result. Adam, then, must have fallen exactly as Eve had, with as
   little excuse, with as great a guilt. The only difference appears to be
   that, as Eve had eaten and apparently had suffered no ill effect, this
   constituted an additional argument why Adam need not hesitate to adopt
   the same course. Whatever stouter resistance Adam might have offered
   was completely overcome by this argument. The fact, however, that the
   prepositional phrase "with her" ('immah), which we rendered as a
   clause, is first found at this point, strongly suggests that at the
   outset, when the temptation began, Adam was not with Eve but had only
   joined her at this time. Here, too, Satanic ingenuity displays itself:
   to approach both while they were together would have found them in a
   position where they would mutually have supported one another. Such
   notions, then, as Milton's, that Adam sinned from a kind of sense of
   chivalry, not desiring to abandon Eve to her fate, have no support in
   the text. Nor has the opinion any value that Adam was too closely
   attached to Eve, a thought that would lead to a fall before the Fall,
   for it involves that he loved her more than he loved God.

   Two scriptural points of view apply here. On the one hand, contrasting
   Adam and Eve, the Scripture may say: "Adam was not beguiled, but the
   woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression" (1Ti 2:14). Eve
   has a relatively greater guilt, if the comparative guilt of the two be
   mentioned. On the other hand, the sin of the two has so much in common
   that it is practically one sin, and Adam, as the head, may be referred
   to exclusively as the originator of sin and the Fall (Ro 5:14; 1Co
   15:22): "as in Adam all die," etc.

   Describing the whole scene as such, Delitzsch quite aptly points out
   how, after God had so bountifully offered proof of His goodness, our
   first parents behaved as though the devil intended only good and God
   intended only ill, and so he calls this "the devil's communion"
   (Abendmahl),

   The min in the expression "of its fruit" is the min partitive.

   7. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they perceived that
   they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made girdles for
   themselves.

   The act of sin having developed into a full-blown deed, which
   manifested itself outwardly, there now follows in v. 7-13 a description
   of the immediate effects of this sin upon man. The first noticeable
   effect is shame. Both are equally guilty; both experience the same
   result. Here is one of the saddest anticlimaxes of history: "they eat,
   they expect marvellous results, they wait-and there grows on them the
   sense of shame" (Procksch). They now have a knowledge of good and evil,
   but not as a result of having remained steadfast in the good but from
   the low level of sin, as it has been aptly put. The immediate gain of
   the experience of sin is so utterly sordid. How men like Driver can
   here find nothing more than the ordinary experience of transition "from
   the innocence of childhood into the knowledge which belongs to adult
   age," is more than we can understand. It is that too but much more.
   Here it is the direct reaction of a guilty conscience. The good Lord
   with definite purpose lets this effect be felt first in order that the
   baseness and the utter worthlessness of all of sin's achievements may
   be made apparent. To shield themselves from one another's gaze they
   fashion "girdles" for themselves from "fig leaves" (Hebrew: te'enah
   "fig," by metonomy for "fig tree"). No particular importance attaches
   to the fig tree in this connection. It is not that so-called fig tree
   of India which has leaves several feet in length. These leaves would
   not have required to be sewn together. Apparently, the leaves of the
   nearest available tree were seized, and this just happened to be a fig.
   That the sense of shame should concentrate itself around that portion
   of the body which is marked by the organs of generation, no doubt has
   its deeper reason in this that man instinctively feels that the very
   fountain and source of human life is contaminated by sin. The very act
   of generation is tainted by sin. If this scripturally portrayed origin
   of the sense of shame be accepted as true, then all contentions of
   anthropologists that shame is rather the outgrowth of inhibitions and
   custom fall away as secondary and incidental. The scriptural account
   goes to the root of the matter. The only gleam of light in the verse is
   the fact that where shame is felt, the evildoer's case is not hopeless.
   He is at least not past feeling in the matter of doing wrong. God's
   prevenient grace allows this feeling to arise.

   Chaghoroth is not "aprons" (A. V.), for the root of the word means "to
   gird oneself"; primitive girdles is all that can be meant.

   8. And they heard the voice of Yahweh God walking about in the garden
   at the time of the breeze of the day, and the man and his wife hid
   themselves from Yahweh God in the midst of the trees of the garden.

   Yahweh God is represented as "walking about in the garden." The almost
   casual way in which this is remarked indicates that this did not occur
   for the first time just then. The assumption that God had repeatedly
   done this is quite feasible. Besides, there is extreme likelihood that
   the Almighty assumed some form analogous to the human form which was
   made in His image. Nor is there anything farfetched about the further
   supposition that previously our first parents had freely met with and
   conversed with their heavenly Father. In this instance they again hear
   His "voice." Though qol does often mean "sound" (cf. 2Sa 5:24; 1Ki
   14:6) and now by almost common consent is quite regularly translated
   thus in this verse, yet v. 10 definitely points to the use of the word
   in the more common meaning of "voice," and this must be a reference to
   the word qol used in our verse. This "walking about" (in the case of a
   man, we should have translated: "taking a walk") of Yahweh in the
   garden is said to have taken place "at the time of the breeze
   (ru'ach--'wind') of the day." The le introducing this phrase is the "le
   temporal." Experience has shown that in oriental countries the wind
   springs up at the close of day. Consequently, all this transpired in
   the evening. The article before "day" is the article of absolute
   familiarity (K. S. 297 a), for this phenomenon occurred daily. Divine
   wisdom chooses the time of day best suited for sober reflection and
   retrospection. The waves of feeling that beat higher through the day
   are beginning to subside, and the first parents see things more nearly
   as they are. No other transporting change or effect has been observed
   since the disturbing sense of shame arose.

   Upon hearing the voice of the Lord "the man and his wife hid
   themselves." The second and the third major results achieved by the
   misdeed are here portrayed. Mistrust and fear have, for one thing,
   taken the place of the trust and the free communion with Yahweh, that
   had previously prevailed. Instead of running to Him they run from Him.
   Communion with the heavenly Father is no longer their highest delight.
   It is shunned as an evil and vexatious thing. What damage and
   destruction sin is working from the very moment of its appearance! The
   other grievous hurt that has afflicted mankind is here set forth as one
   that centred in. the intellect, whereas the one just mentioned had its
   seat in the affections. The intellect is so disturbed that it fails to
   perceive for the present-what would have been recognized at once on
   sober second thought-that man cannot hide himself from God, the
   omniscient and omnipresent. We have rendered mippene "from" rather than
   "from the presence of," because it really is only an expressive "from."
   Either translation may be used.

   Meek gives a ludicrously flat rendering when he anthropomorphizes
   beyond what Scriptures allow and offers the following example of quaint
   rendering: "They heard the sound of the Lord God taking a walk for His
   daily airing." Such a rendering is shockingly irreverent. The inspired
   writers nowhere give evidence of such low conceptions of God. Besides,
   the Hebrew phrase cannot be rendered thus. Procksch offers a similar
   unworthy interpretation when he calls the conception of "God leaving
   His house at evening to take a walk" "tremendously childlike" but yet
   "chaste and noble." When the inspired Word shows God's condescension by
   His consorting with men, instead of catching the valuable truth, the
   critics try to degrade the Word by imputing to it inferior motives.
   True scholars glorify revealed truth; they do not belittle it.

   9. And Yahweh God called the man and said unto him: Where art thou?

   But God's will to set man right and help him out of his difficulty is
   so definitely fixed that it does not desist as soon as an obstacle is
   encountered. If man seeks to avoid God, God seeks out man. So the
   definite searching question rings out through the garden: "Where art
   thou?" God is not seeking information. God's questions are pedagogic.
   Man is to be made to realize that something must be radically wrong
   when the creature, who hitherto had his chief delight in associating
   with the good and loving Father, slinks away in hiding under the trees
   deep in the garden. Of course, there is the possibility that the
   calling and the saying of this verse represent two separate acts (K. S.
   369 o), but the likelihood is that, as frequently, the second verb is
   epexegetical to the first: "He called and said" --He called saying.

   10. And he said: Thy voice did I hear in the garden and I was afraid
   because I was naked and so I hid myself.

   "Thy voice" stands first in the sentence by way of emphasis. It would
   certainly be rather insipid in this instance to render qolekha "thy
   sound" or even "the sound of you" (Meek). The first word of fallen man
   lies before us. It is a revealing word. It is a compound of half-truth,
   evasion and attempted deception. So dreadfully altered has man become.
   The admission that he was afraid at hearing God's voice is the only
   true thing about his statement. Fear grows out of sin and is its
   natural accompaniment, especially in man's relation to God. But man's
   explanation of what it was that caused such fear is not frank and
   honest. For while his conscience thunders in his breast that this fear
   is the outgrowth of his disobedience, his mouth utters the half-truth
   that it is because of his being naked. One cannot but marvel at what a
   wreck of his former good self man has become. The damage wrought by sin
   is almost incomprehensibly great. The tongue of man can hardly describe
   it, except where inspired utterances like those of this chapter lie
   before us. Here is one of the most telling indictments, of the
   viciousness and supreme sinfulness of sin.

   "I hid myself" 'echabhe' is a Nifal form, used in the older reflexive
   sense.

   11, 12. And He said: Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou
   eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee not to eat? And the man
   answered: The woman whom thou didst set at my side, she gave me of the
   tree and I ate.

   The rather prominent sense of shame on man's part still predominates
   over the more necessary sense of guilt. God's cross-examination
   continues in order to arouse the latter. How could God be conceived of
   as asking these questions out of ignorance, when His higher purpose is
   so clearly in evidence? The first question clears the ground by drawing
   attention to the fact that something must have occurred to make man
   aware of his nakedness: "Who told thee that thou wast naked?" Of
   course, since he found it out by himself, he himself must have done
   something which made him aware of this situation. As soon as his
   thoughts have been led to see that this admission is inevitable, the
   next question drives him still more inescapably to the admission of his
   guilt, namely the very direct question: "Hast thou eaten of the tree of
   which I commanded thee not to eat?" The inquest has been quite brief,
   but, like all the dealings of the all knowing God, successful in
   convicting the sinner. Adam sees that he has not eluded God. He that
   aspired to godlikeness now stands a shamefaced culprit without a word
   of defense left. The lame reply that he does make causes us to blush
   for him. It is a reply that offers further evidence of the complete
   corruption and contamination of all of man's nature by his sin. It is a
   reply that in cowardly fashion refuses to admit plain guilt and in an
   entirely loveless fashion lays the blame for it all first on his wife
   and then by a wicked charge upon God Himself in the words: "The woman
   whom Thou didst set at my side, she gave me of the tree and I ate." Her
   whom he first recognized as a great blessing from God he now describes
   as the cause of his fall, bug chiefly he charges God, by imputation, by
   asserting that God set her at his side. Mutual recrimination as well as
   finding fault with God's works are some of the further fruits of the
   Fall. "Set at my side," literally, "give with me"; but "give" is
   frequently used almost as the verb "set" (B D B).

   The preliminary purpose of the inquest has been achieved as far as man
   is concerned: he sees what he did, what is wrong with him, and what is
   the basic cause of his unfortunate state. His excuses and his charge
   against God are not worthy even of refutation or defense on God's part.
   So man is left at this point, and the inquest proceeds to the woman,
   with a like purpose.

   13. And Yahweh God said to the woman: What is this that thou hast done?
   And the woman. said: It was the serpent that misled me, and so I ate.

   There is truth in the man's assertion that the woman gave to him. On
   this truth God's inquiry builds up, demanding of her in grave
   displeasure and with a note of reproach: "What is this that thou hast
   done?" The "this" points to the enormity of the misdeed and to the fact
   that it is almost, impossible to believe that one who has seen such
   unnumbered tokens of love should cast off such love and the allegiance
   which it involves. Evasion characterizes also the woman's attitude.
   Truth no longer dwells in her breast. She knows that what she did was
   done of her own volition, yet she charges the serpent with it
   exclusively. "Serpent," standing first in the sentence, gains the
   peculiar emphasis that our translation seeks to express above by: "it
   was the serpent," etc. All true fear of God and love of Him has, of
   course, departed also from her heart, for by laying the blame upon the
   serpent she indirectly also charges the Creator for having let the
   creature cross her path. This charge and excuse does not merit an
   answer. The woman well feels what insufficient defense she has offered
   and feels it still more when God does not honour it as worthy of
   refutation. Man never can bring a good case into God's presence as long
   as his own works are being considered.

   The Vulgate mistranslates when it offers a "why" for a "what" in the
   beginning of God's question.

   14. And Yahweh God said unto the serpent: Because thou hast done this,
   cursed art thou from out of the number of all the animals and of all
   the wild beasts; upon thy belly thou shalt go and dust shalt thou eat
   all the days of thy life.

   The serpent was the third active factor in the temptation. But because
   the agent behind her was a fallen spirit who was beyond the possibility
   of salvation, there is no attempt made to arouse a sense of guilt by a
   series of pedagogic questions. The divine word at once becomes a
   sentence of condemnation. The first part of this word definitely busies
   itself with the serpent as a beast, but already toward the end of this
   verse the Satanic agent behind the serpent is also under consideration.
   Then in v. 15, though still speaking in terms applicable to the
   serpent, the word is concerned almost exclusively with the evil power
   that mastered the serpent in the temptation.

   At the beginning of v. 14 the causal clause stands first (K. S. 414 s).
   The sentence pronounced is a divine curse ('arur -Kal passive
   participle; no verb form to express the voluntative, K. S. 355 1). The
   use of the preposition min bears close watching. Although it may be
   used to express a comparative, and so grammatically one might arrive at
   the meaning "cursed above all animals" (A. V.), yet nothing indicates
   that all animals are cursed. The extent of the curse should not be
   spread beyond what the circumstances actually warrant: for the present
   only the serpent and the ground are cursed. Later (4:10) Cain comes
   under the divine curse. Consequently, the min partitive in the sense of
   "out of the number of" (G. K. 119w; K. S. 278b) is under consideration.
   This particular or exclusive meaning of min is established by cases
   such as (Ex 19:5; De 14:2; 33:24). Therefore, this beast is singled out
   for a curse over against "all the animals" (behemah) in general as well
   as over against "the wild beasts" (chayyath hassadheh) in particular.
   Kittel questions without good reason whether "out of all animals"
   originally belonged to the text. It makes excellent sense.

   The fact that this beast still stands under a curse is apparent from
   the peculiar revulsion that it still rouses in most men. Its peculiarly
   sinuous movements, its silent glide as a form of locomotion, its
   sinister, dread and fascinating look, its vibrant tongue, its peculiar
   rearing of the head: all contribute to remind men of the peculiar
   history in which the serpent once shared.

   Just what the curse, however, involves is also plainly stated in the
   verse. The first element is, "upon thy belly thou shalt go." This does
   not necessarily mean that a complete transformation of the serpent took
   place, so that "form and movements of the serpent were altered" (Keil).
   Some speak quite boldly at this point about a former erect posture, as
   though, for example, the serpent had strutted about proudly as a cock.
   It has been rightly, pointed out that several parallels are available.
   Man worked before the Fall and still works since. Now work is in a
   measure a punishment. It seems likely that the rainbow existed before
   the Flood; but since that time it is a pledge of God's covenant. So for
   the serpent the going upon the belly becomes a badge of degradation;
   because for Israel the principle obtained that whatever crawled upon
   its belly was an abomination (Le 11:42). And, certainly, no man has
   ever seen anything noble or attractive about the serpent's gliding
   through the dust. Her type of movement reflects her humbler station.
   The second half of the curse involves a parallel thought: "dust shalt
   thou eat all the days of thy life." This is not a crude misconception
   like that of the Arabs who hold that certain types of spirits feed on
   dust. Serpents do not eat dust, and the Scriptures do not mean to say
   that they do. Parallel to the expression "eat dust" is the other more
   common one in the Scriptures, "lick dust," (Mic 7:17; Isa 49:23; Ps
   72:9) which in every case implies "to be humbled," "to suffer defeat."
   So in addition to a humiliating manner or mode of locomotion there will
   be a continual suffering of defeat "all the day" of her existence. The
   serpent will always be a creature that is worsted. But here already the
   words spoken reflect more upon the higher agent that employed the
   serpent, a thought that gets exclusive emphasis in the next verse.

   But the question is bound to rise: "Why should an unmoral and therefore
   irresponsible agent be singled out for punishment?" Strictly speaking,
   this is not so much punishment as emphasis upon the defeat and
   humiliation of the old evil foe. To make his failure as apparent as
   possible he as well as the irresponsible agent that he employed will be
   crushed in a joint overthrow. Parallel run such instances of Holy Writ
   where a beast that kills a man is commanded to be destroyed (Ge 9:5; Ex
   21:28), or where in the destruction of mankind the rest of the creature
   world must perish (Ge 6:7; 7:21). This makes the seriousness of God's
   punishment more drastically apparent. Here may also be cited cases like
   that of Achan's destruction (Jos 7:24). Since the rest of the creature
   world exists for man's sake, its destruction may serve a salutary
   purpose for man. Then, there also enters in the thought expressed by
   Chrysostom: God destroys the instrument that brought His creature to
   fall "just as a loving father, when punishing the murderer of his son,
   might snap in two the sword or dagger with which the murder had been
   committed."

   15. And enmity will I put between thee and the woman, between thy seed
   and her seed; he shall crush thee in respect to the head, thou shalt
   bruise him in respect to the heel.

   A marvellous text which Luther praises so highly as to say: "This text
   embraces and comprehends within itself everything noble and glorious
   that is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures." The same writer,
   however, indicates with equal emphasis that these glorious things are
   spoken in a form which for the present partly veils the full measure of
   truth, thus challenging the early believers to ponder deeply upon the
   word; but it is the New Testament that sheds a refulgence upon this
   word, so that it is seen to be a glorious compend of the Gospel and so
   rightly deserving the title long in use in reference to it, the
   Protevangelium, i. e. the first gospel proclamation. Lest this
   restriction, that we have made above, be pressed too strongly in the
   direction of making this appear as a very mysterious and veiled
   utterance, let us yet add that, since it was intended to furnish light
   for the first believers and for centuries was the only light that their
   faith had, it certainly must have furnished, as God's providence no
   doubt intended that it should, sufficient light for these patriarchs to
   enable them to walk by that light. In other words, we can and must
   subscribe to the statement that this word held up the Saviour before
   their eyes, and so made it possible for them to believe on Him.

   In the light of this fact, which we trust our exposition shall fully
   substantiate, we cannot but marvel at the rationalistic exegesis which
   says on every hand in our day: "it is doubtful if the passage can be
   regarded in any sense a Protevangel" (Skinner). Such interpreters see
   in the word before us nothing more than that "in the war between men
   and serpents the former will crush the head of the foe, while the
   latter can only wound the heel." Such a trite platitude would not have
   been worthy of recording. It stands about on the level of the astute
   observation that a man will slap at the mosquito that bites him. Such
   commonplace reflections are not worthy of the Scriptures. They are a
   type of exegesis like unto that which in connection with v. 5
   attributes a deep sense for spiritual realities to serpents. But let us
   aim to gather in the fullness of meaning embodied in this verse.

   The object, "enmity," stands first for emphasis (K. S. 339 m). Now
   enmity ('ebhah) is a term not applicable to dumb beasts. Its scriptural
   use limits it, like its verb root, to enmity between persons or morally
   responsible agents. This fact alone, as well as the sequel, rules out
   the idea of mere hostility, which is not enmity, between man and
   serpents. The personal tempter emerges ever more distinctly as the
   verse progresses. Besides, this statement emphasizes that it is God who
   will not suffer this enmity to die down: "I will put." God wants man to
   continue in undying opposition to this evil one and He rouses the
   enmity Himself. This He does first in the case of the enmity on the
   woman's part. We dare, however, not go so far as to attribute to God
   that He also rouses Satan to enmity. That would make God the author of
   evil. But true enmity on man's part against the evil foe is a virtue.
   The woman, as one factor in the enmity, is stressed to the exclusion of
   man because the woman was beguiled, but from her shall definite
   retribution arise for the serpent. There is an eminent propriety about
   having the one at whom the devil aimed his attack be the one from whom
   his downfall emanates. So the first step in the process is that the
   woman herself is brought to substitute enmity for the confidence that
   she shortly before displayed. The present of the verb ('ashith) is the
   type of present or future that is used in depicting a future scene in a
   more elevated rhetorical style (K. S. 132). The marvellous promises of
   God's achievements can be recounted by this type of form.

   The promise expands. This enmity is to be of broader scope; it is to
   involve coming generations: "between thy (the devil's) seed and her
   (the woman's) seed." There would be something supremely trivial about
   this solemn utterance if it did no more in the expression, the
   serpent's "seed," than to think of generations of serpents as yet
   unhatched. There must be meant the children of the evil one who are of
   their father the devil and will do the lusts of their father (John
   8:44). If "seed" must refer to a whole class and so is used in the
   collective sense in the one half of the statement, then "seed" (again
   zera') in the second half or parallel member of the statement must be
   used collectively for the descendants or posterity of woman. To take
   the word "seed of the woman" at this point at once in the sense of an
   individual and so as a definite and exclusive reference to Christ the
   Saviour is wrong and grammatically impossible. Even Hengstenberg and
   Keil unreservedly admit that. So the second part of the verse points to
   an enmity established by God and involving on the one side the
   posterity or children of the evil one and on the other side the
   posterity or children of the woman, those who share her definite
   opposition to the evil one.

   Now a peculiar thing happens in the course of the further unfolding of
   the clash between the forces listed thus far. First came: Satan (1) vs.
   Woman (2). Then came seed of the one (3) vs. the seed of the other (4).
   The seed of the woman (4) is now mentioned by "he" or "it" (hu). Though
   the pronoun is singular, , it refers back to zera'( 4) which we just
   proved to be used collectively. The peculiar thing that now happens is
   that the climax of the struggle is seen to be not between (4), a group,
   and (3), a group, but between (4), seemingly a group, and (1), an
   individual, "thee," and in this conflict between (4) and (1) the battle
   is fought out and won by (4). That the battle is actually fought to a
   decisive conclusion appears from the verb employed and from the manner
   in which it is employed. The verb shuph decidedly means "crush" (K.
   W.), a meaning which even Skinner finally decides it is "better to
   adhere to." Of course, as Luther clearly shows in his translation, we
   have a zeugma (K. W.) in the use of this word: the head is crushed but
   the heel is bruised; Luther: zertreten vs. stechen. This is too obvious
   to require lengthy defense; for when man steps on a serpent's head, a
   crushing results; but when the serpent strikes while the contest is on,
   only a sting on the heel or a bruising results. But at the same time a
   crushed head spells utter defeat. A bruised heel may be nursed till
   healed, and if the bite have been poisonous, the poison may be removed
   by sucking or cauterizing. (4) merely suffers; (1) is crushed. So in a
   very positive way the victory is guaranteed to the seed of the woman.
   The struggle is not to be interminable. It does end in complete defeat
   of the serpent, who is here, to cap the climax in establishing her
   identity, again addressed as "thou," a form of address involving, where
   moral issues are at stake as here, a being with moral sense and
   responsibility, i. e. Satan himself. But we cannot stop short at this
   point.

   If (4) engaged with (1) in the decisive battle and (1) was an
   individual, there is, on the very face of it, great likelihood that (4)
   points also to an individual. This thought becomes clearer when we
   reflect on the term "seed of the woman." Within the broadest sense of
   the term would lie all mankind; they are all Eve's posterity or seed.
   But plainly the word cannot here be meant in that broadest possible
   sense, for only they are under consideration who hold enmity against
   (3), i. e. against .all the children of the evil one. For that matter,
   they even constitute a minority of all of the woman's descendants; they
   are a "little flock," (Lu 12:32). So within the circle of the broadest
   possible meaning of zera' must be drawn a circle quite a bit smaller.
   These represent the true seed of the woman. But even as those who
   constitute (3) find their cause represented most sturdily by and
   embodied in (1), an individual, so they who constitute (4). must find
   their cause represented most sturdily by and embodied in an individual
   in whom the idea "seed of the woman" finds most perfect expression. He
   is the very centre of the circle above referred to. And since our
   thinking must naturally arrive at this conclusion, it seems that godly
   thought on the part of earnest believers in days of old must have
   arrived at the same conclusion. The victory would be concluded by one
   born of woman. Both the ultimate victory and its achievement by the
   seed of the woman are taught with unequivocal plainness by this word.
   Our interpretation, therefore, of the term "seed of the woman" sees in
   it perfectly natural concentric circles of meaning, even as such also
   is the case with the term "servant of Yahweh" in Isaiah. Israel as a
   whole bears that name; also the godly in Israel; Cyrus is honoured by
   it; but in Isaiah 53 and elsewhere it is pre-eminently the designation
   of the Messiah. To such an interpretation of zera' there ought to be
   still less objection when it is remembered that the word is also used
   in reference to an individual and not only in the collective sense; cf.
   (Ge 4:25; 1Sa 1:11; 2Sa 7:12).

   When these contentions are attacked on the score that zera', when used
   of an individual child, "denotes the immediate offspring as the pledge
   of posterity, never a remote descendant," then an intentional feature
   of the whole prophecy is overlooked. There is a vagueness about the
   whole in point of time which invited men to trust God for whatever time
   He might be pleased to choose to bring it to fruition. Men had to be
   ready to settle down to a wait until it might please the sovereign
   Ruler to bring to pass what He here definitely had promised.

   It should be clearly observed that this gracious promise is the opening
   of the sentence or doom that God pronounces. Even on `the first pages
   of the Bible we are shown the face of a God "merciful and gracious,
   slow to anger and abundant in goodness and truth" (Ex 34:6). He
   delights in showing mercy. "Where sin abounded, grace did the more
   abound" (Ro 5:20). Grace, provocative of faith, precedes the sentence.

   One point of view, usually overlooked but made plain already by Luther,
   deserves mention. By leaving open the question of just what woman the
   Saviour was to be born, God mocks the tempter, always leaving him in
   uncertainty which one would ultimately overthrow him, so that the devil
   had to live in continual dread of every woman's son that was born.

   But is the particular expression "seed of the woman" perhaps so phrased
   in reference to Mary and the virgin birth? Not primarily, but at least
   incidentally. The expression "seed of man" would not have been so
   directly motivated. As pointed out above, the one tempted and brought
   to fall is chosen by God to produce the one that is to bring Satan to
   fall, that Satan might in no wise boast himself against.God But at the
   same time, to show how completely God governs and controls all things
   as well as foreknows them, an expression is chosen that meets with
   literal fulfilment in Him who is virgin born and not of the seed of
   man. Yet we prefer to state the case thus the expression used does not
   specifically prophesy the virgin birth, but it coincides and agrees
   with it under divine providence. For it is not to be forgotten that the
   expression "her seed" in its first meaning is a collective noun and
   includes all who are enrolled in the struggle against Satan, without
   being themselves virgin born.

   After modernists have refused to let the Messianic import of the
   passage stand, which was of old accepted by the Jewish and by the
   Christian Church, it is interesting to observe what they substitute for
   it, for even for them the mere notion of enmity between men and snakes
   is rather a trite matter. Some hold that we have here "the protest of
   ethical religion against the unnatural fascination of snake-worship."
   Rather a farfetched substitute! Again, since the word does have a
   rather solemn sound, how account for that? It is suggested that here we
   have one of those strange words that like oft "recurring motives of the
   Genesis' narratives" explain "the more perplexing facts in the history
   of men and peoples" and "are the working out of a doom or `weird'
   pronounced of old under divine inspiration." Similar instances are
   listed, , as 4:15; 8:21 ff.; 9:25 ff.; 16:12; 27:27 ff.; 46:19 ff., ch.
   49; The thought is that mysterious things are to be explained as the
   working out of words of fate uttered long ago. But rather than think of
   some word of blind fate about snakes, this should be listed as a
   definite word of prophecy and promise. Procksch lets the word carry no
   more meaning than that man and serpent both perish in this weird
   contest: the fight ends in a kind of draw--a very hopeful prospect
   outlined by the Lord! Even Koenig dares go no farther (Die Mess.
   Weissagungen) than to find in the word the sure promise of the defeat
   of the serpent but no reference to the Messiah.

   Those who would charge our interpretation with being too deeply
   involved or to abstruse or too difficult for the Old Testament believer
   to discover, should remember that the Jewish Church, according to the
   Targum, regarded this passage as messianic from a very early day. If
   Irenaeus is mentioned as the first one of the Christian church fathers
   definitely to state this view, that does not materially alter the
   situation. Not every messianic passage is mentioned definitely in the
   New Testament, yet cf. (Ro 16:20). A significant New Testament fact,
   however, looms up very prominently and serves the same purpose: after
   Christ's public ministry is officially inaugurated by His baptism, He
   encounters the devil in a temptation, even as the first parents
   encountered him. This, first of all, confirms the fact that the first
   tempter was the devil, but it more distinctly displays the first
   crushing defeat that the seed of the woman administered to His
   opponent. On the cross this victory was sealed and brought to its
   perfect conclusion. The cry, "It is finished," marked the successful
   completion of the task.

   Unfortunately, the Catholic church, following an error of the Vulgate,
   translates hu as "she" (ipsa) instead of, as the Hebrew alone allows:
   "he" (ipse). So she refers the passage to the virgin Mary. Even the
   original translator of the Vulgate, Jerome, was aware that the
   retention of this form was an error.

   16. To the woman He said: I will increase very greatly thy pain and thy
   conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; unto thy husband
   thou shalt be attracted, and he shall rule over thee.

   Divine wisdom and justice dictate this sentence. Justice is made
   apparent in the fact that in the three elements embodied in the
   sentence each stands in direct relation to the misdeed of the woman,
   being a penalty commensurate with the wrong. In this way divine wisdom
   displays itself; for such punishment is calculated to keep awake in
   womankind a direct remembrance of the fateful deed of the first mother.
   The first part of the penalty is found in the words: "I will increase
   very greatly thy pain and thy conception." This does not imply that
   pain would have been the normal thing for womankind. Nor is this the
   pain connected primarily with childbearing; although that is included.
   What is done is that woman from this time onward has numerous forms of
   pain laid to her lot. Physical infirmities of a painful kind are in a
   great measure her portion. Because of her more delicate makeup many
   things besides cause her a greater measure of mental and spiritual
   pain. The just retaliation lies in this that she who sought sweet
   delights in the eating of the forbidden fruit, finds not delights but
   pain--not joy but sorrow. For 'itstsebhon includes both "pain" and
   "sorrow," in fact, everything that is hard to bear. The conjunction
   before "conception"is to be taken in the sense of "and in particular,"
   a meaning found e. g. in (Ps 18:1) (Heb.); (Isa 2:1). Nowhere shall the
   rich measure of "pain" be more in evidence than here. We have here more
   than what a hendiadys ("the pain of thy conception") allows, for (cf.
   K.W.). "Conception" will be multiplied. When its painful character
   becomes apparent, woman will seek to have little of it, but her common
   lot according to this word will be a frequent recurrence of it, as,
   barring a few exceptions, the history of the race amply testifies. To
   allow for no misunderstanding of the word at this point, for frequent
   conceptions might in themselves at first glance not appear to be an
   evil, the explanatory sentence is appended without a connective (K. S.
   338 p): "In pain thou shalt bring forth children."This asserts that
   each conception shall culminate in the pains of parturition. This form
   of the word for "pain" is briefer than the preceding one, but since the
   same root appears in both, we used one word for both. "Misery"
   (Besckwerde) would also cover the term quite well.

   The second part of the penalty is: "Unto thy husband thou shalt be
   attracted." Teshuqah might be rendered "desire" or even better
   "yearning." This yearning is morbid. It is not merely sexual yearning.
   It includes the attraction that woman experiences for man which she
   cannot root from her nature. Independent feminists may seek to banish
   it, but it persists in cropping out. It may be normal. It often is not
   but takes a perverted form even to the point of nymphomania. It is a
   just penalty. She who sought to strive apart from man and to act
   independently of him in the temptation finds a continual attraction for
   him to be her unavoidable lot.

   The third part of the penalty is: "he shall rule over thee." She sought
   to control him by taking control into her own hands (II Tim. 2:14) and
   even by leading him on in the temptation. As a result her penalty is
   that she shall be the one that is controlled. Man's position in
   reference to woman now is fixed: he bears the rule. When all is done in
   the spirit of Christ, such rule is not harsh or unnatural; nor is it
   cancelled. There it expresses itself in such a way that it is not to be
   felt as a burden. But where sin prevails, such rule may be degraded
   into a miserable domination, such as the East has particularly,
   experienced. God did not ordain this harshness, but man transcended his
   rights, and sin poisoned a necessary restriction. This word, then, does
   not reflect the narrowness of the East but is a wholesome restraint and
   reminder for womankind.

   The expression, "I will increase very greatly," is the usual verb plus
   absolute infinitive. On the ending of the infinitive see G. K. 75 ff.
   Verbs of ruling with be; see K. S. 212 e.

   17. And unto the man He said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the
   voice of thy wife and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee
   saying: Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed be the ground on thy account;
   in misery shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

   The penalty laid' upon man is given at greater length; but then it must
   be observed that a good part of the word, especially the conclusion of
   v. 17 as well as v. 18 and v. 19, apply to woman as well as to man. In
   other words, the first word of v. 17 should be pointed la'adham and
   rendered "unto the man" rather than "unto Adam." Note also the contrast
   with v. 16, "unto the woman." Observe also that at v. 20 the proper
   name, Adam, has not yet emerged.

   But man's punishment fits his particular misdeed. Because he submitted
   to his wife, whereas he should have ruled, therefore he shall
   experience insubordination on the part of the soil, whereas otherwise
   he would have exercised complete control. This involves, first of all,
   difficulty in the matter of securing his sustenance: "in misery shalt
   thou eat of it all the days of thy life." It shall yield produce, but
   the winning of it shall always be attended by 'itstsebhon, "misery,"
   "toil," "sorrow." The former ease of tilling the soil shall be a thing
   of the past. On no place of the earth's surface can such toil be
   evaded. In some places there may be more of it, in others less, but
   "toil" is the common lot of man. The immediate cause for this is the
   fact that "the ground is cursed." A divine word blighted its
   fruitfulness. There was a deep reason and a necessity for that. It was
   no longer fitting that an imperfect man dwell in the midst of a perfect
   dwelling place. Divine pedagogy makes the outward circumstances
   correspond to the inward state, so that man might the more keenly feel
   his wretchedness. Therefore the explanatory phrase says that it was
   done "on thy account," not by accident, not because God delights in
   blasting a perfect world, but for man's sake: such a world would best
   tend to induce man to be ready to accept God's salvation. Of course,
   the expression, "thou shalt eat of it" (the ground) means "to derive a
   living from it" (Meek). But the thing that stands out as prominently as
   any in this verse is that this, as well as the consequences yet to be
   enumerated, are directly traced to man's sin: "because thou hast
   eaten." etc. There are not some mysterious words of doom that trail man
   wherever he goes, but there is an inescapable divine sentence, which
   man has fully merited, which follows him wherever he goes through life.
   Not blind fate but human guilt and consequent divine punishment explain
   man's lot; and chief of these is man's guilt. It may not be amiss to
   add that a bit of gracious promise lies imbedded in this hard word of
   punishment; viz., the expression, "thou shalt eat of it," does give to
   man the assurance that as a return for his hard labour he shall not
   lack the food he needs.

   18. Thorns also and thistles shall it cause to spring forth for thee
   and thou shalt eat the herb of the field.

   While man is eating and is destined to eat the "herb of the field"
   ('esebh hassadheh--here for all the food of man which was still
   vegetable in character), the ground was of itself bringing forth thorns
   and thistles. This seems to us to be the connection of the two halves
   of this verse. So that not only is difficulty and toil experienced
   while man is winning his food (v. 17), but also that which he does
   procure is gotten in meagre quantities only (v. 18), because
   undesirable elements grow without receiving attention. This, too, is
   one of the effects of the curse of the ground. God is here not
   ordaining a different diet for man--"the herb of the field," an
   expression erroneously translated by some, "wild plants."

   However, the disorders and irregularities observed throughout the world
   are far more numerous than those recorded in v. 17-19. Why should only
   those be mentioned that accompany agricultural endeavour? First of all,
   because in that particular direction they are most readily observed,
   for all men must in a measure engage in tilling the soil. But besides,
   no doubt, we have one type of disorder mentioned here as a sample of
   all the rest. As the soil and its culture are disordered, so is every
   department of life and the world. So Calvin interprets. Luther surmises
   that at first only these few disabilities were laid upon man and that
   they increased progressively as time went on--a view that is less
   acceptable. In any case, the penalty agreed with the simpler aspects of
   life that were in evidence in the early history of mankind.

   19. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread until thou return
   unto the ground, for from it thou wast taken; for dust thou art and
   unto dust thou must return,

   This part of the penalty emphasizes primarily the lifelong continuance
   of the toil imposed on man-till he returns unto the ground. Otherwise,
   the opening words of the verse are nothing more than a paraphrase of v.
   17 d, "in misery shalt thou eat of it." But the paraphrase is drastic
   in its colouring. It actually represents man as having such brief
   respite between portions of his work that, as he sits down to meat, the
   sweat still courses down his face as a result of his previous hard
   toil. From this lot there is no deliverance until man's return to the
   ground. It is not here said that this return is man's death, for, in
   reality, "death" is used in a far more comprehensive sense in these
   chapters. But the fate of his body is foretold: being of dust, it must
   return to dust. Though this is stated as an inevitable consequence, it
   will not do to claim that such physical dissolution would have been
   man's lot anyhow. For this statement is part of the general penalty.
   This penalty now determines that man's lot after the body must be to
   return to the dust whence he came. This is a solemn word whose truth is
   felt with overwhelming force each time we see it fulfilled. "Dust thou
   art and unto dust thou shalt return" is not, we repeat, a general
   maxim, which holds good in any event.

   It would be one-sided in v. 16-19 to speak only of penalty. Of course,
   the thing dwelt on is primarily penalty. But, at the same time, there
   are traces of mercy that shine through it all. It is not plain penalty
   but corrective penalty. There may be much pain and suffering on the
   woman's part, especially in childbearing, but the future of the race is
   guaranteed in such childbearing. At the same time this experience
   effectually reminds the woman of her grievous transgression--also a
   salutary effect. The same result is secured by the particular form of
   punishment that is laid upon man. So, on the whole, it must also be
   admitted that, though work may be a grievous burden, it is also a very
   definite and valuable blessing. Thus God stands revealed even in this,
   not only as a God of justice but also as a God of mercy.

   Though spoken to Adam and Eve, these words are not addressed to them
   merely as individuals but as progenitors of the human race, as is amply
   indicated by experience. For all the children of Adam and Eve have
   found themselves suffering the same lot as that which our first parents
   were here told would be inevitable. Such Scriptures as II Tim. 1:14, 15
   more particularly support this contention.

   20. And the man called his wife's name Eve (Life) because she was the
   mother of all living.

   God's wise pedagogy through it all has not been in vain, as now appears
   from Adam's reaction. The account still refers to him by the generic
   name "the man," as appears from the use of the article before 'adham.
   This act of Adam's, whereby he gives his wife the name "Life," is proof
   of a faith that involves more than the idea that God is indeed speaking
   the truth when He indicates that Eve will bring forth offspring and so
   be the mother of all the living. That would hardly be significant
   enough to mention, being quite self-evident and quite readily believed.
   But we do justice to this word when we see in it the conclusion on
   man's part, that, since all living beings shall come forth from her,
   therefore also life itself in that fulness of sense in which the word
   is often used in the Scriptures ("death" is also used in the fullest
   sense in these chapters). Consequently, by the significant nature of
   the name employed, as well as by the significant way in which the
   matter is reported at this important juncture, we are to understand
   that Adam refers to the things implied in the promise of the victory
   over the devil. In other words, he here gives evidence not only of
   believing that God spoke the truth but evidence of belief in the
   salvation which God had promised. This, then, was on Adam's part, as
   far as was possible under the circumstances, a true and living faith in
   Christ. This faith of his surely could not have all the clearness that
   marks the faith of New Testament believers. But the essentials of faith
   were in evidence. And since faith cannot come into being unless true
   repentance precedes, we are justified in saying that indirectly the
   repentance of Adam is here taught. Again everything has been done in
   perfect harmony with the rule that God follows of begetting faith by
   the means of grace. The words of the sentence spoken had prominent
   elements of the Law in them and so were calculated to work repentance.
   Equally prominent were the elements of Gospel which were calculated to
   work faith in the hearts of these first hearers. So the question is
   answered, whether after the Fall Adam repented and believed.

   The proper name for Eve, chawwah, is by far not as uncertain in meaning
   as some would claim. Nor is there any evidence that the Hebrew root
   could yield the meaning "serpent" just because of a similar Arabic
   form. A parallel is found in the analogous verb hayyah, which also
   existed in the parallel form hawwah (Ge 27:29) and survives in this
   form in the proper name Yahweh. So chayyah, meaning "to live," could
   easily have had the older form chawwah with the same meaning. "Life" is
   the well-established meaning of this proper name. The second half of
   the verse is the author's statement, not Adam's, as 2:24.

   21. And Yahweh God made garments of skin for the man and for his wife
   and so clothed them.

   Now God makes necessary provision for man's physical well-being. The
   covering that man had made for himself was inadequate, and so God
   showed him how to provide a more suitable and durable covering for
   himself. By so doing God gave His approval of the sense of shame which
   had led our first parents to cover their nakedness, and at the same
   time He furnished protection against the rigors of climate which would
   be encountered outside of the garden. The expression "and he made"
   (wayyss'as) is best understood not that He personally did the making,
   but that He gave such directions as man required to learn how to make
   appropriate skin garments. That God does provide for the proper
   clothing of man's body does suggest and does render reasonable the
   conclusion that He will provide for the proper covering of man's guilty
   soul. But this verse does not teach that, nor is it an allegory
   conveying a lesson to that effect. The meaning is what the letter of
   the statement says--no more. God's reason for the choice of just such a
   type of garment was that there was none simpler and more readily
   prepared. That being the case, no deeper meaning need be attached to
   the fact that these garments were of skin. Nevertheless, since the
   slaying of beasts for man's needs was thus sanctioned, this may have
   suggested to man the idea of sacrifice, yet not of sacrificial meals,
   for man had as yet no divine warrant for the use of animal food.
   Further reflection on this means of providing garments may have taught
   man some useful lessons. One certainly was that there must be some deep
   seated disorders in the world at large since man's sin, if the giving
   up of the lives of beasts was necessary to provide man with garments.
   Death was present in various forms since man's lapse into sin. It is
   difficult to say whether the slaying of beasts for purposes of clothing
   in Adam's day already involved sacrifice.

   Kothnoth does generally mean "tunics," but here, no doubt, it is used
   in the general sense of "garments" (Klied-K. W.); "coats" (A. V.) is
   too specific. The pointing of the text should be slightly altered to
   la'adham, "for man," instead of le'adham, "for Adam." The generic use
   of the word is intended because "and his wife" follows, also generic,
   not "Eve."

   22-24. And Yahweh God said: Behold, man is become as one of us to know
   good and evil, and now lest he reach forth his hand and take also of
   the tree of life and eat and live forever--so Yahweh God expelled him
   from the garden of Eden to till the soil whence he was taken; and He
   drove the man forth and placed the cherubim eastward of the garden of
   Eden and a revolving sword like flame to guard the way to the tree of
   life.

   Since the actual commission of sin the author has with very deliberate
   purpose been using the name "Yahweh God" for the deity. In the
   temptation the devil naturally could not want to refer to Him as such.
   But now, since v. 8, it has been the definite purpose of Moses to
   portray God as one who, though eternal and unchangeable, manifested the
   unchangeableness of His mercy toward even the fallen ones. The God of
   mercy has been portrayed since v: 8. So here too in v. 22 barring man
   from approach to the tree of life is mercy. Therefore Yahweh is used,
   as well as 'Elohim.

   Whereas in v. 8-21 We had the substance of what God spoke to man in
   mercy and in judgment, we have in v. 22 the persons of the Holy Trinity
   in divine counsel among themselves. As might well be expected, from the
   divine point of view man's act is not only trivial but sad. Man
   achieved in a relative sense a kind of parody of godlikeness. A divine
   and holy irony takes note of this. True, there is nothing in these
   remarks of God that could for a moment make it appear as though the
   Lord found fallen man a fit object for venting His amusement. Perhaps,
   since human terms but imperfectly describe the deity, words such as
   sarcasm or irony--over the relative propriety of which a vigorous
   debate is still being waged in reference to this passage--had better
   both be avoided, lest we create a conflict with the pure pity that,
   without a doubt, stamps his mercy as truly divine. We might, then,
   substitute the word "sadness" as descriptive of God's attitude. At the
   same time, the turn of the narrative practically requires that
   attention be drawn to the equivocal sense in which the promise was
   made: "Ye shall be as gods." What a sorry godlikeness, if we may use
   the paradox, and what a pitiable achievement on man's part!

   The expression "like one of us" cannot, be made to include the angels,
   as though God were saying that He and they constitute the class of
   higher beings. For, in the first place, in any case such a levelling
   process that puts God and created beings in one class is precarious;
   and, in the second place, the like expression 1:26 stands too near to
   leave room for anything other than a reference to the persons of the
   Trinity. If, then, it be claimed that the revelation of Scripture is up
   to this point too meagre to allow for a clear understanding of this
   fact, we readily admit that in the earlier stages of revelation this
   word may not have been fully apprehended. But some of the revelation
   coming from God must be progressively apprehended. The Old Testament
   pointed in the way of the full truth. The New Testament sheds its light
   back upon this word too clearly to be ignored. But as Luther already
   rightly claimed, this word shows the unity of the divine being ("God
   said") and a plurality of person ("us"), this latter fact, however,
   primarily in the light of the New Testament.

   At the same time, there is one very necessary step that must be taken
   before this episode of the Fall is completely adjusted, and that is,
   man must be completely shut off from access to "the tree of life."
   About the purpose of this tree we learn only from its name and from the
   remark here made in reference to it. It had the power to impart
   imperishable physical life-for the plain statement of the case is that
   had man eaten, he would have "lived forever." But since, to the best of
   our knowledge, no tree of itself can possess such virtue, it seems best
   again with Luther to assume that this remarkable power was
   characteristic of the tree not by its inherent natural qualities but by
   virtue of the power of the Word of God, who was pleased to ordain that
   such should be the effect of partaking of the fruit of this tree. For
   man in his fallen and sadly altered state the acquisition of the
   quality of imperishability for this sin-torn and sin-defaced body would
   have been a grievous calamity. He would never have been able to
   "shuffle off this mortal coil." Christ's work of restoration would have
   been precluded, where He "changes this body of humiliation that it may
   be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working
   whereby He is able even to subdue all things unto Himself" (Phm 3:21).
   Further speculation about the nature of this tree is useless. But this
   purpose is clearly revealed by this one word of divine revelation. The
   whole purpose of the narrative becomes distorted by the critics who
   claim to find in v. 22 a "crude form of the legend" besides "more of
   the characteristically pagan feeling of the envy of the Gods." There is
   nothing crude about divine pity. Nor, to tell the truth, can anything
   crude be extracted from this verse except it be first placed there by
   the critic.

   The construction ladhss'ath offers that use of the preposition which is
   best rendered "in respect of knowing." For the whole, see G. K. 114o.
   On the expression "as one from us" cf. G. K. 130d on the construct
   state before a preposition; also K. S. 277 n. K. S. tangles up the
   situation by supplying words before "lest" (pen). This negative clause
   of purpose must be attached to what follows.

   Of course, there is a bit of truth in what K. C. claims, that
   withholding man from the tree of life was punishment. But in the
   altered state of man the results of eating of the fruit of it would
   have been most disastrous.

   Now with v. 23 the sentence structure is altered. Direct discourse
   merges over into the doing of the thing that lay in the divine
   intention--an effective way of saying that God carries out His
   purposes.

   (23) The act of God in putting man out of the garden is here described
   as He "expelled" him (shillach). Being the Piel stem of the verb to
   "send," "expel" (Meek) is a good rendering. That is, however, only the
   more general statement of the case. The more specific word, describing
   the manner of doing it, is given in v. 24, and He "drove forth" the
   man. This second verb garash pictures Him vividly as driving man before
   Him. The first verb would be covered in all its connotations if Cod had
   merely ordered man to depart. Now according to v. 5 as well as v. 15 it
   was already ordained that one of the duties of man was to be to "till
   the soil." But now after his expulsion from the garden this remains as
   his only work, and there is the suggestion that there is something
   unwelcome and degrading about it all because the clause is added, "from
   whence thou wast taken." All the other noble prerogatives of man are
   largely cancelled, such as "having dominion" and "ruling." Man now
   actually stands in heavy bondage to the very soil that he was first
   privileged to control. Some try to make this verse a mere doublet of v.
   24, whereas, in reality, both tell two very different stories, even on
   the expulsion there is no overlapping: the one describes the act in
   general terms; the other is more specific.

   (24) There was something particularly shameful about being driven forth
   from the garden. Divine goodness aimed to make man feel his altered
   state very keenly: first blessed fellowship, then harsh expulsion. To
   make the severity of His judgments immediately apparent and the removal
   of them humanly impossible, a double guard is placed against any
   possible attempts at re-entering the garden. Between man and the
   garden, that is "to the east," "cherubim" are placed. They are a type
   of being somewhat like angels. Because they are elsewhere in the
   Scriptures definitely described as "the living ones," chayyoth and zwa,
   we are well justified in claiming that because of this distinctive name
   they must represent the highest type of living beings. They are
   particularly found in the Scriptures as honoured by the privilege to
   stand in the immediate presence of the heavenly King, and they are
   specially associated with Him in works of judgment, as here. K. W. well
   defines that they are "representatives and mediators of God's presence
   in the world" (Ps. 18:10), Repraesentanten und Vermittler der
   Weltgegenwart Gottes. The root from which the word may be derived would
   suggest that the word as such means "a brilliant appearance"
   (Glanzerscheinung). How these marvellous beings appeared was well
   remembered by the Israelites at least, for they seemed to require no
   further description when they were told to make two cherubim upon the
   mercy seat of the ark of the covenant and otherwise to use the figures
   of cherubim for ornamental purposes; cf. (Ex 25:18; 26:1).

   Quite distinct from these cherubim was the "revolving swordlike flame,"
   which is often represented erroneously as a sword in the hand of the
   cherubim. The only connection that the flame and the cherubim have is
   that they both effectually bar the way to the tree of life, and since
   God's wrath at man's misdeed is displayed by their presence, it is
   perfectly correct, as Keil does, to let the flame represent God's
   wrath. However, the literal expression is "the flame of the sword, the
   turning one." This is best taken as meaning a flame, swordlike in
   appearance and continually rotating-or even, perhaps, moving zigzag
   like flashes of lightning; at any event, a sight effectually deterring
   man from attempting to enter, so effectually, no doubt, that he did not
   even venture to approach the garden from any other side.

   All speculations as to how long the garden of Eden continued upon earth
   after the Fall are bound to be quite hopeless. Certainly, for at least
   a time after the expulsion the garden was still upon earth, and both
   the cherubim and the vibrant flame of fire continued in their
   God-appointed place. But to venture to say that the garden as such
   remained until it was destroyed by the Flood is an assertion that can
   be as little proved as the other claim that is was removed or "vanished
   from the earth with the expulsion of men from the garden of Eden"
   (Keil).

   We leave this chapter with a sigh over the glory that was lost and with
   deep regret over the loss of man's original innocence. There is no
   chapter in the Scriptures that more effectively reveals the source of
   all evil that is in the world; and so it becomes a very helpful chapter
   for the man that is ready to accept its truth.

  HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

   A few suggestions as to the homiletical use of this chapter. "The Fall
   into Sin" as such can be expounded on the basis of v. 1-8, though to an
   extent the basic elements of the narrative are fairly well known to
   most Christians from their childhood days. Yet many trivial conceptions
   have been carried over into maturity which may well be corrected. Since
   our day is particularly weak on the subject of sin and its pernicious
   effects, v. 9-19 presents a very suggestive portion for the treatment
   of "the Curse of Sin," or, "the Consequences of the Original Sin."
   Within this section is one verse that for all its brevity still
   contains enough material .for a complete sermon, namely v. 15 which
   contains "the First Gospel." As we showed above, v. 20 gives indication
   of man's penitence and faith. Therefore it would be quite in order to
   treat v. 20-24 under a heading like "Tokens of God's Mercy to Penitent
   Man."
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IV

    The Early Development of the Sinful Human Race

   The book of Genesis has thus far progressed in a very natural and
   logical sequence of thought. After the story of Creation was unfolded
   as an orderly work, displaying to the fullest extent the mighty power
   of Him who is its Creator, chapter two informed us more in detail in
   regard to the conditions of our first parents, enabling, us to
   appreciate fully the situations that were soon to be encountered. Then
   in chapter three came the necessary test of man, resulting in his
   tragic Fall; at the same time we were informed in detail what far
   reaching consequences grew out of this initial sin, consequences that
   burden the human race ever since and help us far more readily to
   understand what man's lot actually is and why it is as it is. Now, in
   the fourth chapter, we are shown what transpires as the human race
   embarks upon its career under the curse of sin but also with the
   promise of hope as a guiding star. Just what was the development of our
   race in its first steps toward fuller maturity?

   Unfortunately, students of history and of anthropology too largely
   ignore this one chapter, which happens to be the only authentic record
   of this early development. Having cast off the only reliable account of
   man's first deeds and achievements, practically all writers of the
   present then proceed to draw very largely upon their imagination, which
   happens to be cast into the thought-patterns of evolutionistic
   conceptions. Then they misread the available archaeological hints-for
   actual archaeological evidence for earliest man is not available-and
   the result is a highly fantastic and entirely incorrect story of man's
   development from the cave-man stage, as it is claimed, to the point
   where the first higher cultural achievements are found and the
   historical period actually begins. At the same time the very reliable
   Biblical chronology of chapter five is distorted and generous
   insertions of long periods of time are made, and so the value of our
   chapter (A) is completely lost sight of. For man not only did not start
   on the low anthropoid or simian state that is usually assumed, but as a
   human being he at once stood on the high intellectual and physical
   level that the preceding chapters described. But, unfortunately, the
   actual degradation that sin brought is not reckoned with. Whereas man
   was not an inferior being on a lower level, such writing of history
   degrades him without warrant. Whereas he was brought low by the Fall,
   this pseudo-science ignores his true degradation. In both respects the
   chapter before us, being strictly historical and entirely correct,
   serves to set the student of the history of mankind right; and at the
   same time it gives to all men a clear account as to how man progressed
   and how sin grew.

   The following is the natural division of our chapter: (a) v. 1-16 give
   an individual instance of the early development of The now sinful human
   race, as significant an instance as skilful writing of history could
   have found; (b) v. 17-24 give an account of the development of the
   family of those who were estranged from God; (c) v. 25, 26 give an
   account of the development of the family of the godly. All this, of
   course, is done in the characteristic lapidary style of the Scriptures,
   where significant individual instances are made to display graphically
   what course was being pursued. Modern criticism, proud in its own
   conceit and refusing to accept instruction, fails to see all this and
   loses itself in a seemingly wise discussion about the various and
   inconsistent sources from which the author (J) drew his material, but
   at the same time such criticism cannot successfully hide the fact that
   in reality it too knows nothing about these sources. Nobody does. At
   the same time criticism, seeks to undermine the credibility of the
   record by disparaging remarks. We, however, accept the chapter in its
   fullness of truth as an accurate and correct account as to how the
   development of the human race after the Fall progressed-a progress, by
   the way of which we cannot feel particularly proud.

   1. And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and
   she said, I have gotten a man-child with Yahweh.

   The relative completeness of the Biblical record appears from this that
   the first descendants of the first parents are reported in it. Adam,
   here still called by the generic title "the man," begets a son, Cain.
   With a significant delicacy and a very proper euphemism it is said he
   "knew" his wife. This common expression, used only in reference to
   connubial intercourse, signifies, as usual, a deeper knowing, an
   understanding of the divine purpose, in this instance the purpose which
   lay behind the forming of woman. As a protest against any notion of
   promiscuity on the part of the first man the account significantly adds
   to the proper name Eve, "his wife," as though to indicate that he knew
   and instinctively felt that the marital relation was intended to be
   monogamous: it would not have occurred to our first parent to "know"
   any other than "his wife." Apparently, the statement coming at this
   point, aims to indicate that Adam did not know Eve during the time of
   their stay in the garden. Whether this was largely due to
   circumstances, or to the brevity of the stay in the garden, or was
   providentially regulated, will, perhaps, never be fully determined,
   although it will be practically impossible to rule out the providential
   factor. With a certain measure of fullness of expression,
   characteristic of Hebrew style at times, it is reported that "she
   conceived and bare Cain." The giving of this name is at the same time
   accounted for by the remark that she made at the time he was born. She
   said, "I have gotten a man-child." The Hebrew verb for this is qanah;
   the Hebrew proper name is qa'yin. The similarity of the two is
   sufficiently apparent for practical purposes. It matters little if it
   be objected that as to form the noun can hardly come from the verb root
   qanah. Eve was not at the time of her remark aiming to establish an
   exact etymology as philologists might. She could well be satisfied with
   a kind of alliteration between the two; as long as the name only served
   to recall her significant utterance, and that it adequately did. Though
   now modern philology guesses about at various meanings of the word,
   from "smith" to "lament," it is sufficient to hold that to the first
   mother the name served to recall her hopeful utterance. Qanah, by
   almost universal consent, must here mean "acquire" or "get." To us it
   still seems that in spite of the philologists' protests she wanted
   after she had said "gotten" to give a name like "Got," if we may be
   permitted to coin an English parallel. Such a name would continually
   recall how she "got."

   However, the significant part of her remark is that she got this son
   "with Yahweh." The experience of birth with its travail having been
   successfully ferminated, she ascribes what she acquired to Jehovah's
   help. In this phrase lie both thankfulness and praise: thankfulness at
   deliverance from pain and danger, praise that Jehovah is manifesting
   His grace and faithfulness in giving a son. So the use of the name
   "Yahweh" should be observed. Apparently, then, since the name stresses
   His gracious faithfulness, Eve praises God that He who promised victory
   to the seed of the woman actually lets "seed of the woman" be born.
   Nothing indicates whether Eve did or did not anticipate that this very
   seed, Cain, should personally crush the serpent's head. But, in any
   case, she had a token of Yahweh's fidelity. That she expresses it as
   she does also affords proof that the mother of our race had not
   remained in her sin but had come to repentance and faith in God's
   promises. Consequently, her utterance is also to be regarded as a word
   of faith.

   This translation of the expression 'eth Yahweh is sanctioned by almost
   all versions: the Targum has "from"; the Greek has dia tou yeou; the
   Vulgate has per deum. The preposition 'eth has the meaning "with" or
   "with the help of" also in Gen. 49:25 a; Judg. 8:7 b; Esther 9:29.
   Luther translated.: "I have the man, the Lord," making `eth the regular
   sign of the accusative. However, grammatically we must object to this
   original rendering on the score that 'eth, being the sign of the
   definite object, sets the definite object Yahweh by the side of the
   very indefinite object 'ish, "a man." In the second place, nothing had
   as yet indicated to Eve the divine character of the seed of the woman.
   To claim that she could quite naturally have anticipated that fact,
   would practically make revelation unnecessary: man could adequately
   surmise the most vital of truths. Thirdly, Luther himself wavered on
   this point. In his commentary stands den Mann des Herrn, "the man of
   the Lord."

   That the word 'ish in that case must then mean "a human being" (Mensch)
   is not unusual. It has the same meaning in Num. 23:19. We believe we
   have caught the spirit of the word in rendering "manchild." Eve in
   spirit sees the child already grown to full manhood.

   It is necessary to observe that this remark of Eve's demonstrates
   clearly how our first parents put all their hope and trust in God's
   Word. They had but few words from the Lord. Outstanding was the word of
   gospel concerning the ultimate victory of the woman's seed. This
   furnished the ground for a true hope, for a distinct, though as yet not
   fully developed, faith in the Christ.

   An interesting argument for the unity of Genesis and its composition by
   one author may briefly be inserted here. Popular etymologies, like that
   of the name "Cain," are found repeatedly in Genesis, and, strange to
   say, in .all the chief so-called sources, J, P, and E. This constitutes
   one of the many strong arguments for the composition by one author,
   although criticism refuses to use this valid argument. Here are the
   facts (according to Strack): J has (Ge 2:23; 4:25; 5:29; 9:27; 10:25;
   11:9; 50:11) etc.; P offers (Ge 17:5); E gives (Ge 41:51, 52); cf. also
   chapters (Ge 29, 30; 35:18; Ex 2:10, 22) etc.

   On watta'har see G. K. 75 r.

   The fact that Eve, the mother, is the one that supplies the name is no
   indication that the Bible teaches that the matriarchate existed from
   days of old. Naturally, on occasion the mother will desire and fix a
   certain name upon a child. Occasionally the father's wish will prevail.
   Note that among the instances to be cited on v. 25 both sides of the
   matter stand out clearly.

   Meek's rendering is poor exegesis: "I have won back my husband; the
   Lord is with me." It requires several highly improbable things: a
   serious quarrel between the first parents and several grave
   deficiencies in the text. To alter texts when the desired meaning is
   not readily forthcoming is poor scholarship.

   2. After that she bore his brother Abel, and Abel was a keeper of sheep
   and Cain was a tiller of the soil,

   The scriptural record definitely knows who the second one of the sons
   of Adam was. The fact that it is not again reported that Adam "knew his
   wife and she conceived," but merely, "she bore," does not in any way
   indicate, as has been frequently maintained, that Abel was of the same
   birth and Cain's-twin brother. The following cases of the omission of
   the mention of conception without the suggestion of twin births may be
   listed: 4:20, 22, 25; 6:4; 22:20, 24; 25:2; 30:10, 12, 21; 35:16; 36:4;
   38:5 etc. (K. C.).

   The name Abel is significant. Hebhel means "breath," "vapour,"
   "vanity." Somehow the vanity of human existence had impressed itself on
   our first parents. The exact occasion for this realization cannot be
   determined. It may have been due to the fact that man was barred from
   access to the tree of life. Those that argue that Eve thought Cain to
   be the Messiah see in Abel's name proof of her disillusionment. Even
   more likely is the supposition that the sum total of human existence
   marred by sin had impressed man with the emptiness of it all.

   The expression, "after that she bore," in Hebrew offers the idiomatic
   statement: "she added to bear," the main verb being used almost as an
   adverb (G. K. 114 m). On laledheth cf. K. S. 399 b.

   The condensed account at once advances to the point where the two sons
   have each their own occupation. Abel was a shepherd of sheep, i. e. of
   tso'n, i. e. of smaller cattle like sheep and goats. Cain is a "server
   of the ground," the more realistic. Hebrew expression for "tiller of
   the soil." Nowhere does the account intimate that any one of these two
   occupations was inferior to the other. In fact, the great likelihood is
   that both were already followed by our first parent. He had warrant for
   the first both in his original destiny to tend the garden (2:15) as
   well as in the burden laid upon him in 3:17, 18, 23. He had warrant for
   the second in God's clothing him with skins (3:21). The word spoken in
   1:29 no doubt excluded the use of cattle for food; whether for milk
   will have to remain an open question. Each son assumed one phase of his
   father's double activity, and so each had a life's task well-pleasing
   to God. There is no need for man, as the Bible knows him, to wander
   through mazes of development because of his crude state before he can
   arrive at agriculture. In flat contradiction to evolution the first man
   was an agriculturalist and a shepherd-at least, these two occupations
   were followed by his children.

   3-5. And it came to pass after a time that Cain brought some of the
   Fruits of the field as an offering to Yahweh; and Abel on his part also
   brought some of the firstborn of his flock, namely, some of the fat
   pieces. And Yahweh regarded Abel and his sacrifice; but Cain and his
   sacrifice He did not regard. Then Cain became exceedingly angry and his
   glance Fell.

   With rapid strides the narration progresses and takes us to the point
   where on one occasion the two brothers bring a sacrifice. Nothing
   indicates that this episode marks the inauguration of sacrifice by
   mankind. It may not even have been the first time that these brothers
   offered sacrifices. The casual way of reporting the fact that they
   brought sacrifices would rather lead us to believe that something was
   being done which was not of a character to challenge attention because
   of its newness. There is no ground for the claim: "The whole manner of
   the narration suggests rather that the incident is conceived as the
   initiation of sacrifice," More nearly, true is the supposition that
   sacrifices were originated by their father, Adam. And since no
   commandment is recorded authorizing or requesting sacrifice from man as
   a thing divinely sought, we are, no doubt, nearer the truth when we let
   sacrifices originate spontaneously on man's part as a natural
   expression of a devout spirit and of gratitude toward the omnipotent
   Giver of all good things. Sacrifice meets a deep need of the human
   heart. If sacrifice had originated in a commandment of God, it might
   well be thought of as a thing of sufficient importance to be
   permanently recorded in divine Scriptures. The later Mosaic regulations
   merely take the sacrificial customs prevalent at the time and regulate
   and sanction them.

   Consequently, we dare not construe the terminology of our account after
   the analogy of Mosaic sacrificial terminology of the period of the
   wilderness wanderings. The word for offering, minchah, is used in its
   broadest sense, covering any type of gift man may bring. Nor do the
   later connotations of sacrifice apply at this time. Neither of the two
   sacrifices is made specifically for sin. Nothing in the account points
   in this direction. Consequently, the merit of the one over against the
   other does not lie in the fact that it was a bloody offering. The
   nature of the sacrifice as to its material is determined entirely by
   the occupation of him who brings it.

   In fact, throughout the narrative one should carefully guard against
   imputing to these sacrifices things that we cannot prove to have been
   part of them. We are not even sure that an altar was built for the
   purpose. The first altar is mentioned after the Flood. We cannot prove
   that fire was employed to consume the sacrifice. That the animal
   sacrifice was killed is made apparent by the use of the term "fat
   pieces."

   But to follow the account step for step-these sacrifices are brought
   "after a time" literally translated: "after the end of days." The
   expression is intentionally vague. It seems to suggest nothing as to
   the lapse of time since the birth of the brothers. Since sacrifices
   would most naturally be brought after the termination of the
   agricultural year, we may incline to think of the fall of the year. But
   the time element is entirely unimportant and therefore left indefinite.

   We can only surmise why Cain is mentioned first as bringing a
   sacrifice. It may be because he was the first-born. It is more likely
   that it is so reported because he actually brought his offering first.
   There is even the possibility that this particular incident occurred
   after the brothers had many times before brought their sacrifices after
   the example of what they had seen their father do. Though the first to
   bring his offering, Cain does not thereby prove himself the more devout
   in his religious observances.

   What he brings is described as "some of the fruits of the field." Min
   before peri is the "min partitive." These constitute an "offering to
   Yahweh." Minchah may be merely a "gift" or "tribute." But when brought
   to Yahweh, it constitutes an actual offering. "Fruits of the field" are
   the natural offering of the agriculturalist and are as acceptable as
   any kind, if brought in the right spirit. The law of Moses specifies
   many different kinds of vegetable or meal offerings as the natural
   offering of a grateful people. One of the most unwarranted claims made
   is that of Gunkel: "This myth indicates that God loves the shepherd and
   the offering of flesh, but as far as the farmer and the fruits of the
   field are concerned, He will have none of them." Apparently, this
   offering is described as brought "to Yahweh" because hitherto when
   sacrifices had been brought, it was because God was being thought of as
   the faithful and gracious Lord. To the Yahweh to whom sacrifice had
   regularly been brought Cain assayed to bring his sacrifice.

   It should not be overlooked that v. 3 begins with an idiomatic
   expression frequently used when details are to be introduced, the
   expression, namely, "and it came to pass" (wayhi). Instead of: "after a
   time he brought" the Hebrew prefers to say: "And it came to pass after
   a year and he brought," co-ordinating rather than subordinating clauses
   (K. S. 341 s; 369 i).

   (4) In order to make the contrast of Abel's offering more apparent, the
   construction of the sentence begins, not after the rule of the verb
   first, but with the subject "Abel," emphasized by a gam hu'-" even he"
   or "on his part." Since the contrast is so marked, there can be no
   doubt that the significant words "of the first-born" and "some of the
   fat pieces" in addition to "of his flock" aim to show a distinguishing
   feature of this sacrifice. Since one merely gave of what he had
   acquired, but the other gave "firstlings" and "fat pieces" of what he
   had acquired, it is evident that the one gave because it was time and
   custom to give--pure formalism; whereas the other gave the best--pure,
   devout worship. Chelebh means "fat." The plural of the noun cannot mean
   "fatlings" nor only "fat" (A. V.) but must be the "fat pieces." The
   "and" before this word is used, as often (cf. Exod. 24:12), in the
   sense of "namely" (waw explicative). Those that see the merit of Abel's
   sacrifice in the fact that it was bloody certainly do so without the
   least warrant from the text. Nothing anywhere indicates that that
   particular aspect of sacrifices had as yet been developed or considered
   at such an early age.

   (5) With characteristic spiritual discernment the Scripture goes to the
   heart of things. Formalistic worship is of no value in God's eyes; it
   is an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Our narrative gives
   expression to this thought by stating that "Yahweh regarded Abel and
   his offering; but Cain and his sacrifice He did not regard." The
   meaning of the verb sha'ah is "to gaze," but when it is used with 'el
   in a connection-such as this, it means "regard with favour." But the
   significant thing, noticed by Luther and most commentators since, is
   that this regarding with favour directs itself first to the person,
   then to the offering; so in the case of both the brothers. This fact
   very significantly shows that the determining factor in worship is the
   attitude of the individual. Him, or his heart, God weighs. If he is not
   found wanting, the gift is acceptable. If he fails to please the
   Almighty, his gift is reprobate. This fact is so important that it
   alone is stated. The writer regards it as quite unimportant to record
   how the divine favour or disfavour was expressed.

   Since this fact will never be determined, we may at least mention what
   has been suggested. An old Greek translation rendered the word sha'ah
   enepurisen, "He kindled." Evidently the translator had in mind that God
   on various occasions did kindle an acceptable sacrifice (Jud 6:21;
   13:19, 20). However, the double object "Abel and his sacrifice" makes
   this view untenable. Others think of some visible token such as

   the rising of the smoke of the one sacrifice as proof of its acceptance
   and the falling of the smoke of the other as proof of its rejection.
   This, however, is a pure guess. To suppose that God's favour was
   displayed in the ensuing prosperity of Abel and His displeasure in
   Cain's failure to prosper as time went on, seems the most reasonable of
   all but lies open to the criticism that such gradual unfolding of
   favour or disfavour would have come to light sooner or later anyhow,
   whereas our account centres attention on a particular sacrifice and
   what apparently were the immediate results. But, then, there is still a
   possibility which dare not be rejected. If the garden still remained on
   earth and was, as many suppose, the place of God's manifestation to men
   -for cherubim are the mediators of His presence to the world-then He
   will have conversed with these sons of Adam somewhat after the pattern
   of His conversing with, Adam and Eve in the garden. In that event they
   who brought their sacrifices would have brought them to Him whose
   presence was manifest in the garden, and they could have discerned from
   His attitude whether their offering was accepted or not. But all this
   raises the difficult question: "Was God's presence actually manifested
   in some visible way from the garden up to the time of the Flood?" Our
   answer must be, "No man knows," Enough that both brothers recognized
   how God felt about their offerings. The rest actually does not matter.

   Cain's reaction to God's disapproval is twofold: he "becomes
   exceedingly angry and his glance falls." God's displeasure had revealed
   to Cain a reprehensible state of heart. That such was his attitude
   should have duly alarmed Cain. God's not looking with favour was also a
   gracious divine warning (N. B. "Yahweh"). Cain adds a second sin to the
   first by his anger, and a very serious sin at that, by his excessive
   anger. The Hebrew uses the expression wayyichar leqssyin--"and it
   burned for Cain," the verb omitting the natural subject 'aph, "anger,"
   and using an impersonal expression. With true psychological insight the
   author narrates how this strong anger displayed itself outwardly. This
   was done by the falling of the glance, literally of "the face" (panim).
   Here, without a doubt, "the glance" is meant K. W.--Blick. For anger
   that does not break out into violence seeks to hide itself by not
   looking freely into the eye of the one at whom it is directed. Since
   the glance thus feels checked, it naturally falls. So there was the
   inward passion and the visible outward indication of its presence. Even
   if commentators insist on translating panim "face," they scarcely have
   anything different from our explanation above, for the falling of the
   countenance still centres in the expression of the eye.

   6, 7. And Yahweh said unto Cain: Why art thou angry and why has thy
   glance fallen? Is it not so, if thou doest right, there is acceptance;
   and if thou dost not do right, then at the door there is sin, a
   crouching beast, striving to get at thee, but thou shouldest rule over
   it?

   The wayyo'mer, "and He said," requires attention. It expressly forbids
   making this whole experience one that plays entirely in the heart of
   Cain as an inner struggle with the clash of conscience and the evil
   desire. The author does not play fast and loose with the expression
   "Yahweh said." Equally incorrect is the attempt to get around the
   problem as to how God may have spoken by assigning the words to Adam,
   the father, who, as an enlightened personality, admonishes his son with
   words that may be called God's words because they were suggested by His
   Spirit, But there is really nothing in the text to indicate Adam's
   participation in the admonition. The fact, then, remains that in some
   objective way God actually transmits this warning to the man Cain who
   stands on the verge of a very grievous sin. God's mercy to fallen
   mankind is amply displayed in this warning; therefore again "Yahweh."

   The first part of the warning is a question calculated to arouse Cain
   to a realization of some grievous disorder in his conduct. If he
   analyzes "why" he did begin to be angry and drop his glance, he will
   realize that what caused him to act thus-God's acceptance of one
   offering and the rejecting of the other-should rather have made him
   feel that the one who was justified in becoming angry was the Almighty
   Himself. Cain should have displayed sorrow over his sin rather than
   anger over the God who graciously warned him. This initial searching
   question is followed by another double question (v. 7) both parts of
   which are controlled by the initial interrogative particle halo', a
   particle suggesting an affirmative answer (K. S. 353 e; 353k; 318 1).
   The second question more definitely constitutes a warning, since Yahweh
   discerns that the initial suggestion is not being heeded. Note that all
   this is ascribed to "Yahweh" who displays His grace in what He does.

   Now the double question as such, though it has manifest difficulties,
   is not as perplexing as the critics stamp it, who either make it "the
   most difficult verse in the chapter, yea, in all Genesis" (Procksch),
   or else assail Scripture by asserting: "Every attempt to extract a
   meaning from the verse is more or less a tour de force." The first
   major difficulty is the rendering of the infinitive se'eth, from nasa'.
   This verb has as primary meaning, the idea of "lifting," "lifting up,"
   and "taking," and so occurs in a wide variety of meanings. However,
   several of these, though legitimate meanings, reject themselves as
   ill-suited to the connection. So the attempted improvement of the A. R.
   V. "shall it not be lifted up." This rendering supplies as object
   panim, "countenance," considering the expression to stand in contrast
   with v. 6, the falling of the countenance. Luther objects: "Is such a
   remark not just a little too trite and obvious? Of course, if you do
   right, you wear a cheerful countenance and a free and happy glance; but
   is that, of sufficient importance for a divine utterance to Cain?" So,
   in the second place, all attempts to supply the otherwise proper object
   "sin" or "guilt," and following the basic sense of "take away" for
   se'eth, and so causing the expression to be equivalent to
   "forgive"--all such attempts, we say, naturally shatter on the fact
   that Scriptures nowhere teach that forgiveness is achieved by our doing
   right: we simply do not merit forgiveness. Why impute such a saying to
   the Lord here? However, if we supply the panim of v. 6 as object, the
   resultant expression "take or accept the face" means "to receive
   graciously,", a meaning found also 32:21. This meaning is covered by
   our translation "acceptance." AV., therefore, was perfectly correct:
   "shalt thou not be accepted." Luther has the same thought: so bist du
   angenehm. The meaning of the whole statement, then, is this: As long as
   you do right you are acceptable to God, not in the sense of meriting
   such acceptance, but rather in the sense, warranted by the connection,
   of a warning and a searching question: Have you forfeited your
   acceptability by doing ill? This thought is also implied in the form of
   the verb tetibh, a Hifil, and therefore causative, emphasizing the
   moral responsibility. For if a man does not make his doings right, for
   that he is personally responsible.

   Now the warning becomes still more pointed, applying directly to Cain's
   case, showing what the situation is if a man does "not do right," or
   (Hifil) "cause his doing to be good." In that event "sin" (chatta'th,
   here mentioned for the first time in Scripture, a word bearing the
   basic meaning of "missing the mark") has become a very definite
   possibility, even a menacing threat. It is to be likened to a wild
   beast (therefore robhets, masculine, not feminine agreeing with "sin")
   crouching at the door. And as promptly as such a beast immediately at
   hand would seize a man going out at the door, so promptly will sin leap
   upon one and hurt him. This figure is appropriate also from this point
   of view: the hurt is inevitable, the ultimate escape possible but
   problematic. Completing the picture, there is the expression "striving
   to get at thee," which A. V. rendered: "unto thee shall be its desire."
   Literally the preposition and the noun must be rendered: "toward thee
   its striving." We believe we catch the meaning well in this connection
   by rendering: "striving to get at thee." The added thought is that this
   "crouching beast" is not a mild, passive thing, a tame leopard or some
   harmless pet. Rather, it thirsts after your blood. So the threatening
   character of the danger is made fully apparent to Cain, and the warning
   is complete.

   Now follows the clear suggestion, what course to take: "thou shouldest
   rule over it." Such a statement at this point does not imply that a
   sinful man of himself is readily capable of mastering sin that
   threatens. But we have here a statement in full conformity with the
   tenor of revealed truth: in the strength, which the Word of God here
   offers to man as a means of grace, supplies for man, he is to rule over
   and master the threatening danger. We believe that in this sense the
   imperfect timshol expresses obligation: "thou shouldest rule." If some
   of these words happen to occur in 3:16 in reference to the woman (there
   rendered: "unto your husband you shall be attracted (striving) and he
   shall rule over you"), we see nothing more than an accidental
   similarity in this. To hint at textual corruption because of this
   similarity is presumption.

   When Jamieson and others suggest that chattath should be translated
   "sin-offering," that imports a rare and technical meaning, of whose use
   we have no evidence until at a much later date, and necessitates as
   Jamieson himself suggests "previous instruction in the mode of
   worship." On the improbability of the divine institution of sacrifices
   we suggest the consideration that had this outward act been divinely
   ordained, man, too much inclined to purely outward acts in religion,
   might quite readily have overemphasized the importance of the external.
   Consequently, the Scriptures do not represent sacrifices as originating
   at God's command. When the practice, natural enough in itself, requires
   regulation and purification, God supplies such regulations in the days
   of Moses.

   There is something ominous about Cain's silence. He is not reported to
   have thanked for the warning, or to have repented of his jealousy, or
   to have mended his ways. A stubborn silence seems to have been all he
   had to offer.

   It should be pointed out more directly that Cain's sin in reference to
   his brother was primarily jealousy culminating in hatred, a sin that
   seems comparatively weak and insignificant but which carries
   possibilities of great development within itself.

   Now the account proceeds in a drastic manner to show what possibilities
   for development lay in the sin which had by this time fastened itself
   strongly upon man. Possibilities for evil that no man would have
   suspected lay hidden in sin. Of a sudden it breaks forth and displays
   to the full its vicious nature and terrible curse. There is no book
   that so emphatically reveals what a cursed thing sin is as the Bible.
   Man should know what an octopus fastened its tentacles upon the race
   when sin took hold of it. With terrible realism the narrative
   continues.

   8. And Cain said unto Abel his brother-and it came to pass when they
   were out in the field, Cain attacked Abel his brother and slew him.

   There has been much needless speculation as to what Cain said to Abel.
   There are also unnecessary attempts to supply what some deem an
   accidental omission. A R V. acts on a wrong assumption when it
   translates wayyo'mer "told." There is a different verb for "telling."
   Wayyo'mer actually means "and he said." This verb is almost always
   followed by direct discourse. The few instances where it is used in the
   sense "and he spoke" like (2Ch 32:6; Ex 19:25) might allow us to
   translate "spoke" in this instance; but the result is practically the
   same if we assume that the obvious object of the verb is omitted, as in
   2:19 a; 3:21 b; 4:9 b. This object, as quite naturally follows from the
   ensuing context, is, "Let us go out into the field," as the Greek and
   the Latin translations, as well as the Samaritan translation suggest.
   But this merely supplies what is obviously meant. The text (contra
   Kittel) needs no correction. Therefore all the other suggestions fall
   away, such as: He told Abel what God had said; or, He feigned
   friendliness; or, He discoursed on God's providence, and the like. But
   if the object that we suggest be supplied, then, apparently, Cain, far
   from heeding the divine warning, has even gone to the point of planning
   to remove his brother from the scene of action. He induces him to go
   "out in the field," or "out in the country" (Meek), where both will be
   "safe from observation" (1Ki 11:29).

   When they are out there, Cain "attacks his brother." The Hebrew says:
   "he rose up against him." But in such connections that verb rise (qum)
   does not mean the literal rising from a sitting posture but, in a more
   general sense, "to undertake something"; therefore "attack," in this
   case. We could call this "arise in a hostile sense" (B D B). To make
   the horrid and wicked nature of the deed doubly apparent, the
   appositive noun, "his brother," is appended to the object "Abel." His
   attack is so successful that it results in actual murder: "and he slew
   him." So the first murder was fratricide. Sin could hardly have
   displayed more drastically the potentialities that lie in it. In the
   second generation it has already grown to the proportions of murder.
   Clearly, the term "seed of the woman" (3:15) must suffer modification.
   Here already is a clear instance how "the seed of the woman had already
   (in part) become the seed of the serpent" (Keil).

   Even more effective than the account of the nature and horribleness of
   sin is the account of God's mercy shown to the sinner, as v. 9-15
   records it. For though this mercy has to be tempered by justice, it,
   nevertheless, looms up large as being entirely undeserved by a murderer
   like Cain. This mercy first takes the sinner to account, trying to
   rouse him to repentance (v. 9). Note: Yahweh is the subject.

   9. And Yahweh said unto Cain: Where is Abel, thy brother? And he said:
   I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?

   As always, God does not ask in order to secure information. The
   question is pedagogic, in order to remind Cain that God knows where
   Abel is. To ascribe those words to Adam as a spokesman for God is
   farfetched. Here is the second cross-examination found in the
   Scriptures. The contrast with the first is apparent. The first found
   Adam and Eve humble, though given to evasion and excuses. The second
   finds Cain impudent and hardened, at least at the beginning of the
   interview. Yet the first question had effectually presented to Cain the
   startling reminder of the slain man lying inert in his own blood out in
   the field. The heartless lie and bold rejoinder on Cain's part is: "I
   do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" The question gains a slightly
   different force in the Hebrew, where the predicate stands first for
   emphasis: "Am keeper of my brother I?" like: "Am I supposed to watch
   him all the while?" He feels too guilty to draw attention to himself by
   way of contrast and to say: "Am I my brother's keeper?" The
   interrogative ha anticipates a negative answer.

   10. And He said: What hast thou done? The voice of the spilt blood of
   thy brother is crying out to Me from the ground.

   First the divine word attempts to waken in the man a realization of the
   enormity of his misdeed. The "what" naturally implies: "What horrible
   thing?" On the form meh see G. K. 37 d. Then the word proceeds to a
   direct charge which completely startles the sinner out of his security.

   God reveals that He knows of the blood that has been spilt, He refers
   to it as damim, plural, vividly suggesting the many drops shed, a shade
   of meaning that we have tried to convey by the rendering "spilt blood."
   This is represented as crying, out persistently and continually; for
   the participle expresses what continues in the present or keeps
   repeating itself (K. S. 236 a; 238 a). Here the participle involves the
   idea of a certain insistence. That a voice should be attributed to
   blood is not strange inasmuch as the soul is regarded as lodged in the
   blood of man (Le 17:11), and the death of God's saints is precious in
   His sight (Ps 116:15). That God requires blood, that is, seeks out and
   avenges all instances of unjust shedding of blood, appears from (Job
   16:18; Ge 9:5; Eze 3 :18; 24:7, 8.; 33:6; Ps 9:12). Men may esteem
   souls or blood lightly. Not so God.

   The tendency to render qol, "voice," as "hark," supported also by G. K.
   146 b, should be restricted. The far better and more vivid rendering
   here is "voice."

   Now with v. 11 the word of Yahweh reveals Cain's punishment. Behind
   this punishment and the revelation of its scope, no doubt, also lies
   divine mercy; for Cain's hard lot is to drive him to repentance.

   11, 12. And now cursed shalt thou be, driven away from the ground which
   has opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand. When
   thou tillest the soil, it shall not in the future yield its produce to
   thee; thou shalt be shifting and straying about in the earth.

   Hitherto the ground had been cursed (3:17) and the serpent (3:14),
   certainly not humankind. Now for the first time the divine curse is
   laid upon a mortal. This fact alone stresses, as perhaps nothing else
   could, God's earnestness over against sin. However, this curse is
   carefully defined as to what it includes, for it is not a curse that
   bars Cain from the possibility of salvation. This curse is not the
   sentence of damnation. It merely involves two things: (a) being driven
   away from the cultivated and arable portion of the land and winning his
   sustenance under the greatest of difficulties; and (b) being compelled
   to shift and stray about in the earth.

   There is something very proper about the first part of this curse. The
   precious human blood was spilled upon the 'adhamah, the tillable soil.
   That soil opened its mouth and greedily drank in the blood. This was a
   profaning of blood and a staining of the soil. Mankind must at once be
   taught that such precious things as blood, or life, are not to be
   wasted so lightly. This lesson can be taught in the fate of the first
   murderer. To make that fate stand out Cain is cursed min-ha'adhamah,
   "away from the ground." The construction is pregnant. The preposition
   min practically presents a condensed negative result clause, and the
   phrase means "so that there is no ground for you" (K. C.) or, as we
   have rendered somewhat more concisely: "driven away from the ground."
   Cain is not to be permitted to settle down where cultivated areas
   (Kulturland) offer themselves. Of course, he will have to do some work
   by way of raising fruits of the earth; he will till the soil. But from
   this time on (this is practically the force of lo'-thoseph; see G. K..
   109 d. h) the ground will not give of its strength (koach cf. (Job
   31:38), here, of course, means "produce") to Cain as readily as it does
   to others. Only with the hardest of struggles will Cain be able to gain
   a bare pittance.

   The second part of the curse may also quite properly be regarded as
   involved in the first, or as producing the first. For if a man be
   continually "shifting and straying about in the earth," it will not be
   possible for him to settle down to any fixed occupation like
   agriculture. So God lays on Cain the second part of the curse in order
   to gain the result, namely, the first part. Na' wanadh was rendered by
   the King James' translators as "a fugitive and a vagabond." This was a
   good rendering; not quite as apropos, however, as Luther's unstaet und
   fluechtig. "Vagabond," from the Latin vagare, "to stray about," has,
   however, come to mean "tramp" or "hobo." Therefore A. R. V. substituted
   "wanderer" quite appropriately. We have rendered "shifting and straying
   about" in an effort to recapture the telling an alliteration of the
   original. Na', from the root nua', is allied to the Arabic root meaning
   to sway like a branch. Nadh (root: nudh) basically means "to nod," "to
   stray about." Behind all this lay an added purpose: to impress the
   sanctity of human life and the enormity of the sin of murder upon
   mankind. Cain was not only known by report to these early generations
   of men, but he, the fugitive, had no doubt been seen by most of them,
   unhappy wretch that he was, straying about from place to place without
   peace or rest. Quite inaccurately and with a shallow interpretation
   Procksch sums up the case with the remark: "Thus Cain ceases to be a
   farmer and becomes a bedouin."

   13, 14. And Cain said unto Yahweh: My punishment is greater than I can
   bear. Behold, Thou hast this day driven me forth of the ground and I
   must stay hidden from Thee, and I must be shifting and straying about,
   in the earth, and it will happen that whoever finds me will slay me.

   The bold impudence of Cain's first answer to Yahweh now yields to a
   hopeless despair. Note that throughout the account God is designated as
   Yahweh, to remind the reader of the gracious faithfulness which
   characterizes His dealings with sinners. Cain's answer, however, gives
   no indication of a repentant spirit. There is no grief over sin in the
   word, "My punishment is greater than I can bear." Cain is very sorry to
   have gotten into such a mess. He does deplore the set of miserable
   consequences that he has brought down upon his head. All he speaks
   about is the punishment that has fallen to his lot. Therefore, the word
   `awon must be rendered "punishment." It might mean "guilt," or just
   "sin." But here the context demands the common enough meaning
   "punishment for sin." Therefore, it is not the enormity of his guilt
   that strikes heavily into his conscience, as Luther's translation
   suggests: "My sin is too great to be forgiven." Cain merely cringes at
   the thought of what he must bear. This is a rather common experience in
   the psychology of sinners: bold impudence becomes a whining fear and
   complaint. This thought is elaborated in v. 14. Gadhol as comparative,
   see G. K. I33 c, K. S. 308 b. Min introduces a negative result clause:
   K. S. 406h.

   (14) The "behold" (hen), used with perfects, only marks a measure of
   vivacity or agitation in the expression (Lebhaftigkeit: K. S. 131) and
   is akin to our "look," or "see." There is complaint in the words:
   "Look, you have this day driven, me off the ground." Cain recognizes
   that the fruitful portion of the earth, "the ground," is barred from
   him. He feels that in such favoured portions of the earth God can be
   thought of as being present in a more intimate sense. To be barred from
   this portion of the earth is, therefore, to him synonymous with being
   hidden from God. So he exclaims, still by way of complaint, "I must
   stay hidden from Thee." For though the sinner has no personal desire
   for communion with God, he may yet recognize, as a result of training
   and earlier experience, that to be kept from approaching God is a
   grievous punishment. An analogy to this view of the superior blessedess
   of the 'adhamah is found in 27:27 where Isaac speaks of "the field
   which God has blessed" as a particularly favoured spot. Similarly,
   Israel and David later considered the land of promise as a place of the
   very special manifestation of God's favour and felt that it was not a
   light thing to be separated from it, for there God had vouchsafed to
   manifest His goodness in richer measure; cf. (Ge 46:3, 4; 1Sa 26:19).
   Yet this way of looking at the situation does not imply wrong views
   about God's person, as though He were not omnipresent, for, as K. C.
   has pointed out, at once God is viewed in v. 15 as a God whose power
   reaches everywhere and is able to avenge wrong no matter where it be
   done. The earliest writers, like Moses, had an adequate and correct
   conception of God, as the spirit of inspiration speaking through them
   gave it to them. So, too, according to the Scriptures man is not a
   being, who is by slow degrees penetrating through, the mists of
   unenlightenment. From the very outset God has granted to him a true and
   correct conception of Himself. No trace of evolution here. We have
   tried to capture the imperfect, or present idea in 'esather by
   rendering it "stay hidden." Besides, the imperfect here rather
   expresses necessity ("must") than futurity (K. S. 181: soll ung muss).
   The article in hayyom, being the article of what is customary, comes to
   mean "today" or "this day" (K. S. 299 a).

   Two more items of bitter complaint are voiced by Cain. First: "I must
   be shifting and straying about." He has heard his doom and knows it is
   inescapable. Gone is the boldness with which he first faced God. His
   complaint reaches its climax in the last item, expressing his gravest
   fear: "It will happen that whoever finds me will slay me." The
   psychology of the reaction is characteristic. Murderers fear that they
   in turn will be slain by others. The coward Cain did not hesitate to
   slay Abel, but he is dreadfully afraid lest another slay him. In fact,
   he is so apprehensive that he anticipates that everyone whom he meets
   will be inclined to wreak vengeance upon him. The Bible records all
   this in order to make it very apparent that "the way of the
   transgressor is hard."

   Critics try to prove the unhistorical, if not mythical, character of
   the whole narrative by the oft repeated charge that Cain speaks as if
   he were living in a world quite full of people. Such an assumption is
   quite unnecessary. There is no flaw or inaccuracy in the record. The
   sequel proves that other children of Adam were already living at this
   time or shortly thereafter. These, as well as others who may yet arrive
   at years of maturity, the conscience-stricken, guilty murderer fears.
   Such an assumption squares with all facts and is perfectly natural.
   Such simple and satisfactory explanations, however, do not satisfy the
   critics. Procksch claims that the only satisfactory explanation of the
   statement is to be found in the assumption that Cain was not an
   individual but a clan (Stamm), and so the origin of a clan feud is here
   being described. A natural explanation is thereby rejected for an
   unproved and unprovable hypothesis.

   15. And Yahweh said to him:. Wherefore, if anyone slays Cain, vengeance
   shall be exacted sevenfold. And Yahweh gave Cain a sign that whoever
   found him would not murder him.

   Because Cain pleaded so earnestly "therefore" (lakhen) Yahweh (who is
   merciful) appointed that "vengeance was to be exacted" (yuqqam-Hofal of
   naqam) from such a one "sevenfold." This "sevenfold" apparently means
   "seven times as heavy a punishment as Cain had merited" (Delitzsch).
   The statement as such gives assurance to Cain. This divine word will
   become known. Men will not soon dare to fly in the face of it. The
   Jewish fables, reported by Luther, telling how Cain was later slain by
   Lamech, though accidentally, are not worth recording. For the
   presumption is very strong that Cain was not slain. In fact, the
   merciful Lord ("Yahweh" again) made assurance doubly sure by even
   giving Cain a sign.

   Now when the question is raised, "wherein did this `sign' consist?" it
   is usually regarded as a "mark" (A. V.) set upon him (so also Luther).
   But this assumption overlooks the fact that the text does not say that
   God set a mark in or on Cain (Hebrew, be) but for Cain (Hebrew le),
   marking a dative of interest or advantage. Consequently, we are rather
   to think of some sign that God allowed to appear for Cain's
   reassurance, "a sign of guaranty" (K. W.) or a "pledge or token" (B D
   B). As parallels might be cited the signs vouchsafed to certain men to
   whom God promised unusual things: Gideon (Jud 6:36-40); Elisha (2Ki
   2:9-12). God let this sign appear, therefore, for Cain, and he felt
   reassured. There is, therefore, no ground for supposing that Cain went
   about as a marked man all the rest of his life. Anyhow, 'oth does not
   mean "mark."

   Yet in the face of later developments, especially 9:6 where the
   principle of the need of execution of murderers is laid down without
   exceptions, it seems strange that the first murderer should have been
   spared. A multitude of reasons can, however, be adduced why God should
   have spared Cain. Among those that have been offered the following
   stand out. The presence of this tragic figure, the "fugitive and the
   vagabond" among men, served as a more potent warning, to men as to the
   enormity of the curse of murder by the very misery of his existence. In
   addition, it must be admitted that banishment from God's presence was
   the heaviest punishment of all, heavier than the loss of life, and this
   heavier punishment Cain knows he has suffered. Then, too, there was a
   salutary lesson in this that God reserved for Himself the right to
   determine which life was to be terminated and which not; so God's
   supremacy as the Judge of all flesh was guarded, and a premium put on
   the value of human life. Then we may also consider the validity of the
   principle enuntiated later, that it pleases the Almighty to let tares
   and wheat both grow together till the harvest. Closely allied to this
   is the other argument that God allows sin to run a free course and to
   develop to the full the potentialities that lie in it, so that the
   nature of evil as evil may be fully revealed in the historical
   development of mankind. To all these may yet be added the argument that
   the more rapid development of the human race, which had to be
   guaranteed in the days when men were few upon the earth, would
   certainly have been seriously checked if the first one of the sons of
   Adam had been put to death. However, it appears that one other argument
   perhaps ought not to be pressed, namely that God lengthened Cain's days
   that he might repent. True, God's mercy is displayed richly in His
   dealings with Cain as Yahweh, but it also has become very much apparent
   by this time that each successive advance of mercy resulted in a more
   rigid shutting of Cain's heart. Mercy apparently had done its work
   before this last provision was made by God. The ultimate impenitence of
   Cain seems to be suggested by the nature of his descendants, who are
   described in the following words.

   The participle horegh is rendered as a conditional sentence in this
   particular verse; see G. K. 116 w.

   16. And Cain went forth from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the
   land of wandering east of Eden.

   The expressions: "driven forth from the ground" (v. 11), and "driven
   forth from the ground and I must be hidden from Thee" (v. 14), and that
   of this verse, he "went forth from the presence of the Lord," all refer
   to the same thing. Where God had hitherto by preference revealed
   Himself, there Cain can no longer stay; he is shut off from God. It is
   somewhat precarious to assume, that the revelation of God took place in
   a special sense from the site of the old garden of Eden, where here by
   various statements the text associates it with the region where "the
   ground" was. The land which A. V. calls "the land of Nod," 'erets nodh,
   signifies "the land of wandering or straying," and it will, therefore,
   hardly signify any special land or country. Because of the nature of
   the curse upon him Cain was simply condemned to ceaseless wanderings,
   To these he now went forth, the text says. However, one general region
   alone saw him; that was the region "east of Eden," the region where
   mankind as a whole dwelt at first (3:24). No "land of Nod,"
   furthermore, has ever been identified.

   Not without reason the fathers saw in these first sons of Adam
   prototypes of the two divisions into which the human race is divided
   ever since: the church and the world. The antagonism between the two
   began at this point and is characteristic of all human history ever
   since. This is a point of view clearly maintained by the New Testament.
   There the opposition of Cain to. Abel is traced to the fact that "his
   works were evil and his brother's were righteous" (1Jo 3:12); and at
   the same time it is stated that "Cain was of the evil one." It was more
   than a momentary flash of anger that revealed itself in Cain's deed. A
   basic change of heart had taken place in him, a shift of allegiance to
   "the evil one." Since such opposition is fundamental, it is the
   beginning of the tragic division of the race that is in reality the
   explanation of a good bit of the history of the world.

   Confirming our interpretation of the relative merits of the two
   sacrifices, comes the other New Testament passage (Heb 11:4), which
   with characteristic depth traces the ultimate source of every good work
   to "faith": "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent
   sacrifice." The same author (Heb 12:24) makes excellent use of the
   thought of Abel's blood crying for vengeance when he contrasts the
   efficacy of Christ's blood that, pleading for mercy for them that are
   sprinkled by it, will surely "speak better than that of Abel."

    (b) 17-24: The Development of the family of the Cainites

   17. And Cain knew his wife and she conceived and bare Enoch, and he
   (Cain) was engaged in building a city and he called the name of the
   city after the name of his son Enoch.

   Though this portion may rightly be said to sketch the development of'
   the family of the Cainites, it would not be incorrect to regard it as
   an account of the beginnings of civilization or culture. For, strange
   to say, civilization did make far greater strides among those alienated
   from God than among those who were devoted to Him. Yet this is not very
   strange, if closely considered, for they, being addicted and devoted to
   the things of the world and not satisfied with the world's
   treasures-for who can be?--they, we say, do all in their power to make
   an empty existence attractive by the cultivation of the natural
   resources of the world. Besides, the children of this world are in
   their generation wiser than the children of light.

   First, however, the development and growth of this family as such is
   sketched through several generations, with such brief historical events
   inserted as are of moment in this history.

   Cain is first disposed of. For that matter, a characteristic feature of
   the author of Genesis may well be noted at this point. He regularly
   disposes of the less relevant but necessary by taking it first and
   sketching it briefly. Then the heavier emphasis can be laid on what is
   of particular moment in the development of the kingdom of God. So here
   after the Cainites come the Sethites from 4:25 practically to 9:28.
   Then the families of Ham and Japheth are briefly disposed of, as well
   as that of Shem (ch. 10-11:26); to make room for that of Terah, or
   Abraham 11:27-25:11. Ishmael is treated briefly (25:12-18) to prepare
   for Isaac 25:19-35:29. Again Esau's development is sketched 36:1-37:1;
   then follows the story of Jacob at length from 37:2 to the end of the
   book.

   Cain's wife must have been his sister who followed him into exile; for
   Adam had sons and daughters according to 5:4. Nor can marriage to a
   sister at this early stage of the development of the human race be
   considered wrong or unnatural. If according to divine purpose the human
   race is to develop from one pair, then the marriage of brothers and
   sisters as well as of other close relatives will for a time be a
   necessity. Later on the nations may see fit to classify such unions as
   incestuous and seek to keep the human race from running its shoots back
   to the parent stem; and so they further its natural spread. But in the
   earlier history of mankind the union of those closely related was not
   abhorred. Abraham's wife was his half-sister (20:12); cf. also 24:4 and
   28:2.

   On the expression "knew his wife" see 4:1. The name Enoch, Hebrew
   chanokh, signifies, "dedication" and so by metonomy may come to mean
   "commencement" or more concretely "beginner"; K. W. Anfaenger. It
   appears that Cain promises himself a new beginning in life through this
   son; Enoch is to initiate a new start. At the time, however, when the
   son was born, the father was building a city, and with the pride
   characteristic of the children of the world sought to perpetuate his
   son's name by applying it to the city.

   Cain's building of a city does not conflict with and remove his curse
   (v. 12) which involved inability to settle permanently anywhere. It may
   have been on Cain's part a kind of titanic attempt to fly in the face
   of Heaven's decree. But the very nature of the statement implies that
   he did not complete what he undertook; for we read "he was building,"
   wayhi boneh, progressive, which we have rendered "he was engaged in
   building," to make the inceptive nature of the undertaking more
   prominent. The city may have been finished, but not by Cain. Others may
   have lived there, not he; Nothing points to an amelioration of the
   original divine sentence. On the participle boneh as expressing this
   idea of progression see K. S. 239 b. Consequently, the text correctly
   treats the participle as a verb with a direct object, as is indicated
   by the seghol; the treatment of it as a noun making him an actual
   builder would have necessitated the construct state of the participle
   and consequently a tsere.

   The critical objections to the idea of the building of a city at so
   early a date in history, fall away as soon as we remember that, of
   necessity, nothing more could be meant than a walled enclosure with a
   few houses. The primitive city need have been no more. Besides, this
   well accords with the accursed timorousness that marked Cain. In spite
   of promise and sign he never felt safe. He felt a city might afford a
   feeling of safety; but he was never able to complete his city. The
   Hebrew word for city agrees with our explanation. For `ir is most
   likely derived from the root 'ur, "to rouse" or "to raise an alarm."
   Consequently, the city was the place of refuge when an alarm was
   raised: K. W. succinctly: Alarmplatz.

   It is very interesting to note how early cities in reality appear on
   the scene. During the lifetime of the second generation of mortals the
   first one is built. Evolutionistic thinking, of course, grievously
   distorts the picture and tells fanciful tales about many many earlier
   stages through which human development had to run.

   We append a double list of names of Cainites and Sethites in order to
   make the similarity of the names as apparent as possible. It will be
   observed that Enoch and Lamech appear in both. All the rest bear
   strange resemblances each to some one of the other group.

   Adam                   Adam
   Cain                   Seth
   Enoch                  Enosh
   Irad                   Kenan
   Mehujael               Mahalalel
   Methushael             Jared
   Lamech                 Enoch
   Jabal-Jubal-Tubal Cain Methuselah
   Lamech
   Noah
   Shem-Ham-Japheth.

   It is quite reasonable to assume that the identity or similarity of
   names is traceable to the contact, more or less close, that the two
   branches of the human family had with one another. No one will be able
   definitely to say which group did the borrowing. Both may have done it
   in a measure. Nor does the fact that one group runs through seven
   generations before it branches out into three prominent characters, and
   the other through ten before it does the same prove these to be
   artificially constructed genealogies. The God of history may well have
   guided things according to a definite pattern of numbers even as He
   does in the field of botany or chemistry. Unfortunately, we cannot be
   very sure about the meaning of many of these names, a difficulty which
   is increased by the fact that these are Hebrew equivalents of the
   original language of the race.

   If one critic remarks about this section that "it involves a series of
   anachronisms and is not historical," and goes so far as to claim that
   this is so self-evident that it "requires no proof," we regard such
   bold assertions unwarranted; for the truth has often been explained,
   but some people fail to see it. If, then, another critic praises
   Buttmann for having been the first to recognize that the two
   genealogical tables, 4:17-24 and chapter 5, are but two variant forms
   of one tradition concerning the genealogy of the human race, we can do
   no more than marvel at the unproven claims that men will make when they
   seek to discredit the Scriptures.

   18. And to Enoch was born Irad; and Ifad begat Mehujael; and Mehijael
   begat Methushael; and Methushael begat Lamech.

   No one will ever satisfactorily explain, as far as we are able to
   discern, how the two variant forms of the one name crept into this
   verse: Mehujael and Mehijael. That the subject 'Iradh is counted as a
   kind of retained object with the passive is discussed K. S. 108; G. K.
   121 b. Ifad may mean "townsman" (Keil). Mehujael may mean "God is the
   giver of life" (K. W.). Mehijael seems to mean "God is the fountain of
   life" (K. W.). Methushael perhaps means "man of God," the sh being a
   kind of relative. The meaning of "Lamech" is extremely doubtful. It
   seems strange to find at least three of these names compounded with the
   divine name 'el--God. However, that may indicate that occasionally a
   Cainite was devout or at least had better aspirations, or it may be
   traceable to the borrowing of names by the Cainites from the Sethites.
   Many a man has a name of the noblest meaning without even being aware
   of it. At least the great antiquity of the name 'el is indicated by
   these compounds (K. T. A. T. p. 143).

   19. And Lamech took unto himself two wives; the name of the one was
   Adah, the name of the other Zillah.

   In this simple statement is. recounted the origin of bigamy. Note well
   that the practice originated among those who had become estranged from
   God. Up till this age the original purpose of God in creating one man
   and one wife and uniting them in marriage had apparently been
   understood as sanctioning only monogamous marriage. In the seventh
   generation from Adam comes a man in the line of the Cainites who dares
   to fly in the face of this divine institution. The names of these two
   wives, if they be at all indicative of their character, as names in
   these, early days often were, suggest that physical attractiveness may
   have been a governing motive in Lamech's choice. For Adah means either
   "ornament" or "morning"; whereas Zillah may signify "shade" or
   "shelter." Nevertheless, the ungoverned lust of the flesh will, as
   usual, have played a large part in inducing the man to take a second
   wife. It should also be noted that the expression "take a wife" (laqach
   `ishshah) is the one that signifies "to marry." The dative of the
   personal pronoun lo is used as a reflexive (K. S. 28).

   20-22. Adah bore Jabal. He was the ancestor of those who live in tents
   and have cattle. And the name of his brother was Jubal. He was the
   ancestor of all who play, the lyre and the pipe. Zillah on her part
   bore Tubal Cain, a hammerer (smith) who devised all manner of things of
   bronze and iron. Tubal Cain's sister was Naamah.

   Here we have the record, of the most important cultural achievements of
   early days. Strange to say, they are traceable to the gifted sons of
   the bigamist. Of these sons Adah bore two and Zillah one.

   Jabal perhaps means "wanderer," a name indicative of the later nomadic
   habits of the man. It appears that many of the names of these early
   days may not originally have been given, to their bearers, but may have
   originated in the course of time as descriptive of the outstanding
   characteristic of the person. The notable thing about Jabal is that he
   hit upon and developed the idea of having a movable domicile, a tent,
   to use while travelling about with his flocks in search of pasturage.
   This new departure, of course, describes nomadism. The noun 'abh,
   "father," is used to describe him as the "originator" of the idea or as
   the "ancestor" of all such-one of the many and varied uses of the word
   'abh. A still more elastic use is found when miqueh, "cattle" (more
   than tso'n, including even camels and asses Ex 9:3) is attached, thus:
   "father of cattle." This may also be explained by the figure zeugma,
   where one verb takes two objects, the second of which ought more
   properly to be joined to a second verb. The participle yoshebh is used
   collectively and is used with the accusative, as in our English phrase,
   "inhabiting a tent"; cf. G. K. 117 bb.

   "Jubal" may mean "sound" (Hall--K. W.) because the man originated sweet
   sounds. He had inventive genius along another less practical line. He
   was the originator ('abh) of all who "catch" (tophes) the strings of
   the "lyre and pipe." Kinnor is more of a zither than a harp; therefore
   we render the word lyre, because only as lyres developed did harps
   result. The 'ughabh was by far not as elaborate as an "organ" (A. V.)
   but merely a combination of a few reed pipes. However primitive they
   may have been, these two instruments laid the foundation of musical
   development; for both stringed instruments and wind instruments owe
   their origin to this invention.

   (22) Zillah's son was an inventive genius too. "She too" (gam hi') or,
   as we translated above, "on her part," shared in producing famous men.
   Her son's name, "Tubal Cain," is sometimes explained as meaning "Tubal
   the smith," or again Eisenspan von Schmiederei (K. W.), "the splinter
   of iron resulting from pounding the iron." The words that follow are
   variously translated: either as above, or as "the hammerer of every
   cutting device of bronze and iron." This latter construction puts four
   successive words in the construct relation to one another--rather
   unusual. Therefore we take kol in the sense of "all kinds of things"
   and construe it as the object of choresh and make "bronze and iron"
   accusative of material. In both cases the meaning is much the same,
   with this major difference: the one lets the man devise only cutting
   instruments, the other, all kinds of instruments and utensils. Observe,
   though, that bronze precedes iron.

   Na'amah's name means "pleasant." This is significant. This family knew
   by various devices to make life pleasant for itself. Though these
   inventions bring a kind of taint with them, being originated by the
   godless, yet two things must be remembered. Music, for example, carries
   many elements in itself that can distract the soul unduly; so can other
   worldly productions unduly absorb the soul. On the other hand, all such
   achievements may be taken in hand and sanctified by injecting in them a
   spirit from on high. Such is again especially the case with music,
   which has thus been taken in hand and has experienced its noblest
   development in sanctified use.

   23, 24. And Lamech said unto his wives: Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
   Ye wives of Lamech, give ear unto my speech. I slay a man for wounding
   me And a youth for giving me a stripe. For, if Cain is to be avenged
   sevenfold Then Lamech seventy-seven fold.

   This portion caused commentators in days of old untold difficulties.
   Jamieson reports that Origen devoted two whole books of his Genesis
   commentary to these verses, and finally rendered the verdict that they
   were inexplicable. Other commentators were misled by the Jewish fable
   of the accidental slaying by Lamech of old Cain and a youth who guided
   him through the forest, and so for a long while they went off on a
   false scent.

   Yet, on the whole, the present-day approach, which classifies this as'
   "Lamech's Sword Song," is correct. Incidentally, here is the first
   piece of poetry of which we have a record, not so noble an origin, it
   is true, but under such circumstances did it take its rise. We claim
   that approach, then, to be correct which pictures Lamech as handling
   one of the weapons just manufactured by his son Tubal Cain and as
   sensing the possibilities that lie in possessing such a weapon. For the
   waw conversive which binds the opening wayy'omer to the preceding
   section, bears just this connotation; as a result of his son's
   invention of weapons, Lamech, seeing what possibilities lay in such
   weapons, "said." This poem does not hang suspended on thin air. That it
   is a poem is apparent from the very manifest parallelism of the
   members; the characteristic feature, at least, of Hebrew poetry. From
   one point of view, of course, this poem is a glorification of the
   sword. But penetrating deeper into its character, we find it to be a
   glorification of the spirit of personal revenge. So the poem has an
   unholy savour and reflects admirably the spirit of those who have grown
   estranged from God and His Word. So all human culture and the
   achievement of civilization degenerate apart from God.

   It need not surprise us that this word was spoken to Lamech's wives.
   They are an audience that needs must listen, and boasting is most
   safely done at home before their ears. Whether Lamech really was the
   dangerous fellow that his words make him out to be we have no means of
   knowing. The elevated tone of the poem is made apparent by the sonorous
   and dignified double address. "Adah and Zillah" and "ye wives of
   Lamech." Again, the poetic character of the piece is reflected in the
   use of a poetic shortened form for the imperative, shema'an (G. K. 46
   f), as well as by a term used largely in poetic diction, 'imrah,
   "utterance, speech."

   The perfect tenses that follow have been the source of much difficulty.
   Some, taking them as simple historical perfects, read them as a record
   of a deed done. But in that event it strikes us as most peculiar that
   Lamech should have slain both a man and a young man. Murderers very
   rarely proceed to wholesale slaughter, all the more not when, as in
   Lamech's case, they have reason to recall what befell a notorious
   ancestor of theirs when he committed murder. Then, since apparently the
   preceding verses had just recorded an invention, the next and more
   natural step in the narrative would be to canvass the possibilities
   latent in the invention. So it would be far more plausible to picture
   Lamech as handling a newly forged sword or swinging it boldly about his
   head and uttering this sonorous bit of poetry as he does so. In this
   event, the perfects would have to be regarded as expressing complete
   assurance, or definite certainty, or promise. Some compare 1:29 and
   4:14 a. They are, of course, then analogous to prophetic perfects and
   refer definitely to the future. What Lamech threatens is: if any man
   wounds me, or if any young man bruises me, I shall kill the offender.
   "Man" and "young man" constitutes a more picturesque way of saying:
   "anyone." "Wound" (pits'i, a cut wound, introduced by le of norm) and
   "bruise" (chabburathi, a stripe caused by a blow) include all forms of
   hurt, the more grievous and the less grievous. Consequently, the threat
   covers every case where a painful wrong is inflicted, no matter who
   does it. Lamech tries to give his threat a veneer of just retribution
   by making the distinction: for a real wound, I shall take a man's life;
   for a bruise, the life of a youth. Yeledh here hardly means "child," as
   its first meaning might lead us to suppose. The suffix on "wound" and
   "stripe" is called by Strack the suffix expressing the eventual. Not:
   the "wound," etc., that I have received, but: the wound I may receive.
   We have sought to indicate this by: "for wounding me," etc.

   Now comes the climax of this ungodly song of hate. The "for"
   introducing it introduces as reason not what immediately follows but
   "the second part of the sentence." Lamech remembers the sentence and
   the divine promise to his ancestor. On this he builds up. If God will
   see to it that the one who harms Cain will have a sevenfold measure of
   punishment, Lamech, not needing or even despising God's avenging
   justice, will provide for himself by the strength of his own arm,
   re-enforced by his son's weapon, a far more heavy punishment than God
   would have allowed-seventy-seven fold. The arrogance and presumption
   are unbelievable. The spirit of self-sufficiency here expressing itself
   overleaps all bounds. This, then, coupled with its hate and
   revengefulness, makes it one of the most ungodly pieces ever written.
   Such are the achievements of human culture divorced from God, "My fist
   shall do more for me than God's vengeance for Cain," Strack
   paraphrases. An allusion, by way of contrast to this wicked utterance,
   apparently lies in (Mt 18:21), where such a high measure of
   forgiveness, "seventy and seven," is laid upon Christ's followers. They
   are not only to be free of the spirit of retaliation but are to possess
   instead a rare spirit of forgiveness.

    c. An account of the Development of the Family of the Godly (v. 25, 26)

   Without lengthy introduction, without the use of explanatory phrases,
   the writer sets another group that was developing in those days into
   sharp contrast with the development of the group just described. This
   makes for very effective writing, Such contrasts by their very
   sharpness give evidence of comsummate literary skill. The critics,
   somehow, cannot understand such skill and see merely what they claim to
   be evidence of a different document. So they speak with great erudition
   on a subject about which no man knows anything. Incidentally, they
   hardly notice that the two branches of mankind are as widely different
   from one another as they possibly can be. Simplicity of life and
   devotedness to their God characterize this second group, the Sethites.

   25. And Adam again knew his wife and she begat a son and called his
   name Sheth, for God hath set for me other seed in place of Abel; for
   Cain slew him.

   When the expression is a bit more detailed, there is not always a
   special significance attached to it. Here we are hardly justified in
   supposing that the author is trying to say that sexual communion was
   interrupted for a time because of Abel's death but was now again
   resumed. The fact is a son was born. How thoroughly different the
   spirit of this family is from that which we have just studied appears
   from the fact that in the birth of their children already these parents
   see the gracious hand of God. This son is "set" (shah) by God in place
   of Abel. The mother wishes this fact to be continually in evidence and
   so gives her son a name indicative of this fact: sheth, A. V.: "Seth."
   The play on words is: thus made apparent in English. Since "set in
   place of" means "to substitute" we may adequately interpret the name
   Seth to mean "substitute," Ersatzmann (K. W.). Procksch, without good
   reason, questions the propriety of this very obvious interpretation.
   The explanatory remark "for Cain slew him" is not inserted by Moses as
   his own explanation, the fact being too evident to require explanation.
   But as a word of Eve it definitely connects the two acts and states
   that God meant Seth to be a substitute for the slain Abel; or, because
   Cain slew the one, God gave the other --an explanation which amounts to
   the same thing as the first.

   In this verse we have the first undoubtedly clear use of 'adham as a
   proper noun. Apparently, from this point onward, Adam is under
   consideration as an individual more than as the first "man," as his
   name signifies (K. S. 295 b). Besides, it may be well to append a list
   of the instances where the father or the mother give the names to their
   children and so to show the futility of the contention that the
   matriarchate prevailed of old according to the Scriptures. The mother
   gives the name in 19:37 f.; 29:32 f., 35; 30:6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20 f.,
   24; 35:18; 38.4 f. The father gives the name in 4:26; 5:29; 16:15;
   21:3; 38:3; 41:51f. The impersonal subject "one" is found in 25:25 f.;
   38:29 f. in the matter of giving names.

   26. Also unto Sheth there was a son born, and he called his name Enosh.
   At that time a beginning was made of calling upon the name of the Lord.

   For the present there is no need of tracing this family through many
   generations. The spirit that animates becomes evident at once. When
   Sheth, or Seth, who has the godly spirit of Adam begets a son, he gives
   to him the name 'enosh, a word which we still believe bears the basic
   meaning of "frailty." For though the lexicographers unanimously (Buhl,
   B D B, K. W.) derive it from a root "to be intimate with" in the sense
   of social familiarity, we yet feel that that derivation fails to do
   justice to those instances of the use of 'enosh as a common noun, where
   it is used in contrast with God, as B D B lists these passages. In
   fact, this gets to be so distinctive a use of the term that it stands
   out. Cf. especially in Job the passages: (Job 4:17; 7:17; 9:2; 10:4, 5;
   15:14; 25:4; 33:12). Other significant instances are (2Ch 14:10) (Eng.
   v. 11); (Ps 8:5; 9:20; 90:3; 103:15) etc. Since this third root 'anash,
   according to Arabic parallels, is quite possible, we strongly cast our
   vote for this meaning: `enosh-the "frail one," "the mortal." Seth was
   so impressed with the weakness of mortals that he gave his son a name
   indicative of this truth. Such a name, however, does not reflect
   pessimism or discouragement. It is expressive of truth, deep
   unvarnished truth. But the very next statement now goes on to show what
   this family did when their own frailty became clearly apparent to them:
   they turned all the more eagerly to their God and sought him, making a
   regular and public practice of it in worship. For by common consent the
   lexicons interpret the expression qara' beshem yahweh to mean: to "use
   the name of Yahweh in worship" (B D B). The preposition be before
   Yahweh expresses a kind of means: to call out by the use of the name.
   K. S. makes it a Beth of interest (212 c). The adverb 'az, "at that
   time," distinctly binds such public worship back to the time when Seth
   called his son Enosh. The "name" here, as usual, means the whole truth
   that God had revealed about Himself. Since the name "Yahweh" is
   attached to "name," this means that from days of old God was known in
   the capacity of Yahweh, or in the character of Yahweh, whether that
   word as such was known at this early date or not. The thing that the
   name stood for was known. Men do not first in the age of Abraham or
   Moses begin to comprehend God's faithfulness, unchangeableness, and
   mercy. Since this calling out by the use of the' name definitely
   implies public worship, we have here the first record of regular public
   worship, Private worship is presupposed as preceding. The great
   importance of public worship, both as a matter of personal necessity as
   well as a matter of public confession, is beautifully set forth by this
   brief record. This act bears eloquent testimony to the courage, of this
   group, who wanted to be known as such whose hope was placed only in
   Yahweh. It is not enough to say that "Yahweh's religion began with
   Enoch." It began with Adam and developed into regular public worship in
   three generations.

  HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

   The first fifteen verses of this chapter may be used as a unit. In that
   event they may be treated under the head of "the First Murder," or "the
   Rapid Development of Sin," or even "the Horrible Possibilities Latent
   in Sin." Verses 9-15. lend themselves to the treatment of the subject
   of "Impenitence" or "the Despair of the. Impenitent."

   The second half of the chapter offers a topic that is always helpful
   and perhaps more timely now than ever. In v. 16-24 one may find "the
   Beginnings of Civilization." Here, of course, a certain caution is in
   order. Though it was the Cainite group that devised these beginnings,
   and though this was a typical instance of worldly-mindedness, yet over
   against these undeniable facts it should be clearly stated that
   attempts made by godly men to "subdue" the world and the created things
   in it are in conformity with God's original purpose. (1:28). If worldly
   minded men make inventions and discoveries because they know no higher
   goal, godly men should make endeavours along the same line in order
   to-fulfil their God-given destiny and to please their Father in heaven.
   If the entire section v. 16-26 is treated, in some way the contrast
   between the spirit of the world and the spirit of God's children should
   be the dominant thought.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER V

    III. The History of Adam (5:1-6,8)

   We may find subdivisions in Genesis and append to them our own titles.
   Moses has taken care of the major divisions by inserting them himself
   as "histories" (toledoth). On the meaning of the term toledoth and the
   instances of its occurrence see 2:4.

   As it was necessary at 2:4 to determine with what propriety the section
   there beginning could be called the "history of heaven and earth," so
   here there is necessity to discern how very appropriate it is to term
   this portion "the history of Adam." Had the choice of title been left
   to us, we should perhaps have felt inclined to term this a genealogy of
   the patriarchs, which it also certainly is. But with greater propriety
   Moses speaks of the "history" or "story" of Adam. For this whole period
   of development of the line of godly men was Adam's history working
   itself out; the age was dominated by the spirit and the influence of
   Adam. This group, not the other described in 4:16-24, had the spirit of
   Adam. So we notice at the same time that only the group described in
   chapter 5 carries along with it the promise of the seed of the woman.
   The men here described are for the present the woman's seed, and in
   this line the Seed of the woman is ultimately to develop. The writer
   saw this, for he knew the promise given to Abraham and Israel and
   observed that only this one line terminated in Abraham. We may further
   say that in another sense Adam dominated this age and this group. For
   what he taught as truth or as God's Word concerning the original state,
   concerning the Fall and God's promises after the Fall, as well as his
   attitude in faith toward all these promises of God dominated more than
   one half of the entire period, namely Adam's lifetime, and continued to
   be the controlling influence during the rest of it. For this whole
   group walked in his footsteps. True, in the concluding section 6:1-8
   the definite departure from what he taught and exemplified is recorded,
   but just that prepares for the definite conclusion of this era. It
   certainly was in a prominent sense the Story of Adam.

   On the whole, these patriarchs, it appears, may well be regarded as men
   deserving of an unusual measure of renown. If during a millennium and a
   half these are the only names worthy of being handed down in the
   inspired record, we may well conclude with Luther that they "were the
   very greatest heroes who ever came upon earth barring Christ and John
   the Baptist." Besides, since this point of view is supported even by
   the fact that in point of longevity their strength and natural vigour
   far excelled that of later generations, it would seem quite proper to
   conclude that in other respects also they represented a less decayed
   stage of human life.

    (a) The Separate Development of the Godly (5:1-32)

   1, 2. This is the book of the history of Adam. At the time when God
   created Adam He made him in the likeness of God. Male and female He
   created them and He blessed them, and He called their name man at the
   time of their being created.

   In this instance the demonstrative "this" points forward: what follows
   is Adam's history. The heading is unusual: instead of the usual
   expression, as in 2:4 and in all other headings of this character in
   Genesis, "this is the story," we read: "this is the book of the story."
   "Book" (sepher) refers to any document, long or short, as long as it is
   complete in itself. In Deut. 24:1 the term is applied to a bill of
   divorce; in (Jer 32:12) to a deed. Here 5:1-6:8 is the "book." Does
   this seem to indicate a written document from antiquity which Moses
   incorporated in his book? Who can say? At least, such a possibility
   cannot be ruled out. Since we have no means of knowing who was the one
   that penned the document, we are hardly safe in following Whitelaw,
   when he ascribes the writing to antediluvians and so arrives at
   conclusions concerning the culture and the degree of advancement of
   these early peoples. Yet the possibility of what he contends for cannot
   be denied. The first Adam, 'adham in v. 1, is certainly a proper name,
   according to the analogy of all the other headings of this nature in
   Genesis, in all of which, with the necessary exception of 2:4, proper
   names occur. The next 'adham in v. 1 seems to hover on the border-line
   between the proper noun and the generic word "man." The 'adham of v. 2
   is quite likely the generic. Then v. 3 ff. the word again is to be
   regarded as the proper noun. Such seeming vacillation is due to the
   process of gradual crystallization of the generic noun into a proper
   noun (K. C.).

   The rest of v. 1, plus v. 2, is not to be combined into a very complex
   sentence, a thing foreign to the simple style of Genesis here (K. S.
   416 a). But why repeat things previously stated? Why recall the God
   likeness, the two sexes, God's blessing and the naming of the race?
   This brief recapitulation serves to recall the first chapter and the
   glorious original state of the first man as well as his glorious
   destiny. After the things recorded in chapters 3 and 4 man, destined to
   such high things as the opening chapters indicate, achieves a record no
   higher than that of this fifth chapter. All things in these opening
   chapters belong together in a most intimate sense. Here is not a more
   or less clumsy combining of various sources, P dominating the scene
   (except in v. 29) for the first time since 1:1-2:3. The whole is poured
   into one mold by one author, and part balances and supplements part in
   the most skilful style of writing possible.

   Verse I b and 2 recall the following to our mind: "At the time (beyom
   "in the day" in the broader sense) when 'elohim (the Creator who is to
   be feared) did create man He made him in the likeness (not "after the
   likeness" as in 1:26, for the two prepositions are often used
   interchangeably) of God" (not merely His likeness--emphatic
   repetition); besides, even as in 1:26; 2:5, 2:18 ff. man is first
   referred to generically and then follows the definite indication that
   man had a woman at his side, so here v. 2 supplies "male and female He
   created them"--the separate mention of woman's being created as well as
   man's being quite necessary for the Orient in days of old already. That
   these persons enjoyed God's blessing is recalled as a matter still
   calling for grateful remembrance. A fact not previously mentioned is
   supplied here, that the naming .of man, which might have been inferred
   from 1:26, was attended to by God at the time when He created man.
   After such a beginning of man's history what a marvellous future could
   not have been expected! Instead, what a poor and meagre history--as the
   chapter now proceeds to unfold!

   3-5. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years and begat (a son) in
   his likeness, according to his image, and he called his name Seth. And
   the days of Adam after his begetting Seth were eight hundred years, and
   he begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Adam which he lived
   were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

   This gives the brief record of the first of the patriarchs in the form
   which is stereotyped after this pattern with a few exceptions, such as
   the more elaborate form of v. 3; v. 22 and v. 24; the words after
   "saying" in v. 29; v. 32; wayhi v. 31 for wayyihyu in the preceding
   instances. Of course; the critical assertion is now almost universal;
   that so precisely formal a style is one of the outstanding
   characteristics of P. But the simpler and more obvious explanation is
   that Moses, the inspired writer, possessed the capacity of employing a
   great variety of styles as the circumstances suggested. What is more
   concise than such a formal style when a broad area of time is to be
   covered rapidly in a condensed account that emphasizes the
   chronological aspect of history? Yet, even so, the author is complete
   master of the situation. Outstanding matters like 3 a, v. 22 and-24, as
   well as v. 29 are preserved, and the iron fetters of routine form are
   broken. Criticism ascribes v. 29 to another author J, so postulating
   for P a binding rigidity of style. This priestly author appears to them
   to have been so tightly manacled by his style that, after he once had
   cast the mold, it was impossible for him to extricate himself. But by
   the solemn repetition of the concluding phrase, "and he died," Moses
   was able to emphasize besides the sad mortality of man. There is
   something appalling about the dread finality of this phrase. Bonar is
   said to have described this as "the solemn toll of the patriarchal
   funeral bell." When discussing the style of the chapter, critics should
   extol the merits of it and laud that capable flexibility of it which
   Moses, like other great masters of style, displays--although this is a
   matter that has to do purely with externals.

   At once we are struck by the longevity of these patriarchs; all except
   three lived in excess of nine hundred years, It is useless to attempt
   to evade this fact. The attempt to let the personal names represent
   tribes shatters on the clear statement of how old each father was when
   he begot a son. A complete generation is not thus brought forth within
   a tribe. Equally abortive is the attempt to claim that numerous links
   in the chain may have been omitted. Again the precise measuring of each
   forward step in reference to successive individuals peremptorily rules
   out such a claim. The most common suggestion by way of escape from the
   difficulty is to make "year" mean a shorter period, either one month or
   two, etc. Unfortunately, the term "year" knows of no such usage, and
   the suggestion must be treated as a mere surmise. He, however, who is
   duly impressed by the excellence of man's original estate, will have no
   difficulty in accepting the common explanation that even under the
   curse of sin man's constitution displayed such vitality that it did not
   at first submit to the ravages of time until after many centuries had
   passed. Besides--a fact established by fossil finds--there are ample
   indications of a more salubrious climate in the antediluvian days. Nor
   should we forget that here is the race of godly men who lived
   temperately and sanely.

   If Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when Seth was born, and
   if, on the other hand, it seems extremely likely that Cain and Abel had
   been born quite a while before that, we may well wonder at the great
   lapse of time between the birth of the first two and the birth of Seth.
   The common explanation is not without merit, that the grief over Abel
   weighed very heavily upon the first parents. On the other hand, there
   is a very strong possibility that, as in many instances, a century or
   more passed before the son was born that carried on the line, so in the
   more deliberate course of events of these early days Adam may have been
   nearly a hundred years old before Cain and Abel were born. But we do
   observe distinctly that all life was marked by a certain leisureliness
   and temperate self-control that makes it stand out over against the
   hectic present.

   The outstanding thing to be remarked about Seth is that he was in the
   likeness and according to the image of his father. First, note that the
   order of nouns and of prepositions is reversed from 1:26; for here we
   read, "in his likeness, according to his image." This, of course,
   proves nothing more than that the distinction between "image" and
   "likeness," as well as the distinction between the two prepositions
   "in" (be) and "according to" (ke), is not very pronounced. Yet this use
   of both phrases here emphatically asserts what it asserted when it was
   said of man that he was to be made in God's image and according to His
   likeness, namely: he was made in a very distinct resemblance with, and
   correspondence to, the original Pattern. Here now with emphasis: Seth
   was a being essentially like Adam. Now, as stands out as clearly as it
   can, between 1:26 and 5:3 the Fall intervened. The pristine likeness is
   God. It may yet be said with far less emphasis than in 1:26 that man is
   "according to the likeness of God," but after all that chapter three
   told that implies, as our dogmaticians so aptly have stated the case,
   that the formal side of the divine image alone remains; the material
   side has been lost. Therefore Scriptures do in a modified sense assert
   that man has something of the divine image left; cf. I Cor. 11:7; Jas.
   3:9. This verse, then, by contrast actually may be read thus: "Adam
   begat a son in his image according to his likeness."

   Criticism, treating Genesis as a book made up of composite elements
   that have not been fused into a unified and harmonious whole, gets into
   somewhat of a tangle at this point, a tangle that works out to the sad
   discredit of Genesis. Since this is ascribed to P, and P did not write
   chapters three and four, P knows nothing of a Fall (argument purely
   from silence). Therefore, if 5:1 says God made man in His image, and v.
   3 says Seth was in man's image, ergo: Seth must be in God's image as
   Adam originally was. Then, concludes criticism, the Bible does not rate
   the Fall half as seriously as do our dogmaticians. But notice what this
   says about the Scriptures. The author of chapter three (J) knows of a
   Fall extremely serious in its consequences. Chapter five (P) knows of
   no such Fall: contradiction within the Scriptures. So, while forfeiting
   the reliability of the Scriptures, the natural powers of man are
   exalted and man is praised and flattered. What a sorry denial of truth!

   Seth is mentioned as the one who carried on the line of promise. Cain
   belongs to another group, see 4:16 ff. Abel is dead. Criticism again
   makes the assertion: P knew nothing of Cain and Abel.

   After the birth of Seth other sons and daughters are born. How many, we
   are not told. The emphasis lies on the chronology and on setting forth
   the prominent links of the chain. Adam came to be among the oldest of
   mankind. His total age was 930 years.

   The solemn "and he died" is offset by the fact that in spite of death
   God's promise prevailed in the more abundant seed of the woman. God's
   justice and wrath against sin as well as His mercy are thus strongly
   emphasized in this chapter. These two facts are held in clear balance
   over against one another. "Death reigned" indeed "from Adam" (Ro 5:14)
   onward; so by emphasizing the mortal consequences of sin the scriptural
   record lets no man esteem lightly the transgressing of the commandments
   of God. But where sin prevails, grace does the more prevail. This the
   Scriptures never minimize. Man is not to be left comfortless.

   For convenience sake we tabulate at this point what the record offers,
   as well as a few suggestive computations based on the figures of this
   chapter.

    Chronological Table--Adam to Noah

   Age at birth
   of first sone

   Year of
   birth

   Years after
   birth of son

   Total
   age

   Year
   of death
   Adam>       130         1    800 930 930
   Seth>       105         130  807 912 1042
   Enos>       90          235  815 905 1140
   Kenan>      70          325  840 910 1235
   Mahalalel>  65          395  830 895 1290
   Jared>      162         460  800 962 1422
   Enoch>      65          622  300 365 (987)
   Methuselah> 187         687  782 969 1656
   Lamech>     182         874  595 777 1651
   Noah>       (500)       1056 450 950 2006

   N. B. We have included two of the above numbers in parenthesis. The 987
   stands under the caption, "Year of death," but Enoch did not die;
   consequently marks of parenthesis, In the case of Noah the same mark
   enclosing the 500 indicates a mere possibility: nowhere does the
   account indicate that the above, mentioned after Adam, are really the
   first-born. Seth definitely was not. The likelihood is very strong that
   the three sons of. Noah, born when he was 500 years old, will not have
   been his eldest children.

   Other suggestive points to be discerned from this Table are that
   Enoch's translation (987) occurred about midway between Creation and
   the Flood (1656). Again, Adam was still living when Lamech, Noah's
   father, was born (874). Any tradition, that Adam desired to hand down
   was only in the second generation at the time the Flood came: Adam to
   Lamech. Methuselah died in the year; of the Flood (1656), yet he need
   not have perished in the Flood. It is facetiousness to let him perish
   in the Flood and then to remark that he died "of an accident."
   Apparently, the Flood did not sweep a single one of the Sethites, the
   true "seed of the woman," away. There is a fine propriety of divine
   grace in that fact. Besides, it may be remarked that Noah barely missed
   knowing Adam and Seth; Lamech did know Adam. What a power for godliness
   that should have been to see so many staunch believers living
   simultaneously and encouraging one another in steadfastness!

   There is no reason for doubting the correctness of the chronology
   submitted by the Hebrew Masoretic text. This is and is intended to be a
   complete chronology, complete as far as marking the actual lapse of
   time is concerned. No other nation has anything to compare with it.
   Yet, strange to say, the only reliable chronology which we have, which
   actually purports to be an adequate chronology dating back to Creation,
   is continually being questioned, corrected, amended and condemned in
   favour of fallible documents which are historically but poorly attested
   and marked by many a gap. The claim that the Scriptures do not give a
   complete and accurate chronology for the whole period of the Old
   Testament that they cover is utterly wrong, dangerous and mischievous.
   At the slightest objection men are ready to cast aside as inadequate
   the only adequate chronology mankind possesses.

   The variations, offered both by the Septuagint and by the Samaritan
   Pentateuch are so manifestly altered according to a particular
   principle as to be useless, especially when we consider that both
   groups were ready to alter the text to suit their convenience, a charge
   that cannot be laid against the Jewish scribes. So, for example, the
   Greek version lengthens almost all the figures in the first column,
   usually by adding one hundred years, so that their first column would
   read 230, 205, 190, 170, 165, 162!, 165, 167!, 188!, 500. Then they are
   able later on to give a total for the age of the postdiluvians until
   Abraham that is more nearly like the age limit of Moses' time, i. e.,
   seventy to eighty years. Again, the Samaritans have diminished a few of
   the totals of the first column to make it appear that the decrease in
   age from Adam on was more regular. The numbers of the first column, if
   taken from the Samaritan Pentateuch, would run thus: 130, 105, 90, 70,
   65, 62, 65, 67, 53, 500. Such artificial regularity does not mar the
   Hebrew numbers. Volumes have been written on this question, and most of
   the present-day treatment is entirely without value, because the
   reliable figures of the Hebrew text are, without valid reason, treated
   as undependable. If a man wants the only correct chronology reaching
   back to the beginning, here it is--Chapter Five.

   The famous list of the first ten Babylonian kings, as given by the
   Babylonian priest Berossus, quoted by Eusebius, has nothing in common
   with our chapter, except the number ten and perhaps a few very minor
   points of similarity on the meaning of certain names. But these points
   of correspondence become the merest trifles if held over against the
   glaring dissimilarities of the two lists, which Strack has successfully
   emphasized. Chief among the dissimilarities is the fantastic age limit
   of these Babylonian kings: Alorus begins with 36,000; Megalorus,
   Euedorachus, and Xisouthrous each achieve 64,800 years. This whole
   fantastic record may have retained a few traces of the original
   tradition which the Bible gives with unimpaired correctness. N. B.
   "begat" (v. 3) has no object; the object is easily supplied.

   Verse 3 says: "he called"; 4:25 says: "she called his name Seth." No
   contradiction. Both concurred in calling him Seth; Eve may have first
   suggested the name.

   6-8. And Seth lived one hundred and five years and begat Enosh. And
   Seth lived after his begetting Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and
   he begat sons and daughters, and all the days of Seth were nine hundred
   and twelve years; and he died.

   The meaning of the names Seth and Enosh has been discussed; see 4:25
   and 26.

   9-11. And Enosh lived ninety years and begat Kahan. And Enosh lived
   after his begetting Kahan eight hundred and fifteen years and begat
   sons and daughters. And all the days of Enosh were nine hundred and
   five years; and he died.

   "Kenan" perhaps means "smith." As might have been remarked above on v.
   5, the expression "all the days of" is idiomatic for "the whole length
   of his life."

   12-14. And Kenan was seventy years old and begat Mahalalel. And Kahan
   lived after his begetting Mahalalel eight hundred and forty years and
   begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Kahan were nine hundred
   and ten years; and he died.

   The name Mahalalel may be interpreted to mean "Praiseworthy is God."

   15-17. And Mahalalel lived sixty-five years and begat Jared (or Heb.
   Jeredh). And Mahalalel lived after his begetting Jared eight hundred
   and thirty years and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of
   Mahalalel were eight hundred and ninety-five years; and he died.

   Jared means "descent." It may indicate the decline in longevity which
   has been in evidence in each successive case, Jared being the first man
   to fall under the total of nine hundred. This explanation acts on the
   assumption that Jared may not have been the name originally given at
   birth, because he was born in the year 460 from Creation. The name
   surely has nothing to do with the chimerical Jewish notion that the
   name was given in remembrance of the fact that in his day angels began
   to "descend" to earth in order to commingle with men.

   18-20. And Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years and begat Enoch.
   And Jared lived after his begetting Enoch eight hundred years and begat
   sons and daughters. And all the days of Jared were nine hundred, and
   sixty-two years; and he died.

   Enoch (Heb. chanokh), means, as in 4:17, "beginner.". This name and
   that of Lamech are identical in the Cainite and the Sethite line.

   21-24. And Enoch lived sixty-five years and begat Methuselah. And Enoch
   walked with God after his begetting Methuselah three hundred years and
   begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Enoch were three hundred
   and sixty-five years. And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for
   God took him.

   Methuselah seems to mean "man of the weapon" or spear (Mann mit
   Wurfgeschoss--K. W.). Why he should be so called is hard to determine,
   except that he may have excelled in the use of the spear, but surely
   not for murderous purposes like Lamech the Cainite. Then also not for
   the purpose, of hunting, unless it be for securing the pelts of animals
   for clothing.

   But this man Enoch, who represents the seventh generation in his line,
   even as Lamech the Cainite did in his, commands attention. If seven, be
   the number of divine operation, then Enoch's case would exemplify what
   divine grace can accomplish by way of complete consecration. We do not
   believe that the seven is secured in this instance by manipulation of
   the genealogy or by skipping intervening grades. Enoch actually was the
   seventh from Adam.

   Now the significant thing reported concerning him is that he "walked
   with God". (hithkallekh'eth ha'elohim) The Hithpael stem signifies "to
   walk about"--"to live." The particular preposition used, `eth, denotes
   "intimacy, fellowship" (B D B). Here it is customary to collate the
   other prepositions that are used in connection with the same stem.
   "Before God" (Heb. liphne) is found in 17:1; 24:40; or "after"
   ('acharey) in De 13:5 (4); 1Ki 14:8. Now it is true that 'eth in
   reference to God appears only in reference to Enoch and Noah (6:9) and
   so gains the meaning in Mal 2:6 of the most intimate communion with God
   as exemplified by the most godly of men. But true as all this is, the
   expression as such is not sufficiently, analyzed when this fact is
   determined. Does "to walk with God" actually mean a physical, outward
   meeting as the expression of closest fellowship? So some maintain,
   citing the following supposition as proof: God still had the place of
   his manifestation on earth at the Garden; there Enoch met with Him and
   walked with Him. But several valid objections rise at this point. Was
   Enoch, not a sinner also? If so, was not he, as well as all his
   fellow-sinners, to be kept from the garden by the cherubim and the
   swords of fire? Besides, was not the general rule of Moses' day,
   applicable in this instance as well as in all others: "man shall not
   see me and live" (Ex 33:20)? This maxim was not a human opinion but
   spoken by God Himself.

   We are thus driven to take the expression, "to walk with God,"
   figuratively, in the sense of inner communion, as living one's life in
   such a way that in faith one remains uninterruptedly conscious of the
   nearness of the almighty God and so walks as the thought of that
   presence determines. Life was lived to please God, so far as this was
   humanly possible. This involved, in complete Conformity with what the
   New Testament teaches, a life of prayer and of watchful use of the
   means of grace, that is, in this instance, holding fast and feeding
   upon the promise of victory through the Seed of the woman. To interpret
   "to walk with God" in this sense is further recommended by certain
   grammatical considerations. Certainly, the parallel expressions are to
   be taken figuratively and not literally: 17:1 cannot be taken in any
   other sense than this; De 13:5 (4) plainly refers to fidelity in
   following after Jehovah in the sense of the explanatory expressions
   following: "fear Him, and keep His commandments, and obey His voice,
   and--serve Him and cleave unto Him." In other words, the type of
   walking with God which is still possible is the type that Enoch
   exemplified. Even the article ha'elohim, i.e., "the true God," points
   in this direction. Any other type of communion with the true God is
   visionary and the dreamer's choice. The versions, finally, fully
   confirm this interpretation. For the Septuagint says: eu hoesthsen tw
   yew--"he was well-pleasing to God." The Targum has: "He walked in the
   fear of Yahweh." See also Heb. 11:5.

   One side of such walking with God is very fortunately stressed by
   Luther on good scriptural grounds over against the purely mystical and
   contemplative aspect of it that we might be inclined to overstress.
   Developing the thought expressed in (Jude 14,15), Luther rightly
   contends that Enoch's communion with God was coupled with aggressive
   testimony to the unbelievers of his generation, and, therefore, he is
   to be regarded as a man who manifested "great boldness in testifying
   for the Lord and His church against Satan's church and that of the
   Cainites." To this must be added another factor clearly contained in
   the text. Such communion with God went hand in hand with raising a
   family and begetting children: "Enoch walked with God and--begat sons
   and daughters." Celibacy is not requisite for a holy life.

   When the statement occurs a second time (v. 24), "and Enoch walked with
   God," it is for the purpose of binding it up closely with what follows:
   "and he was not, for God took him." These two so combine that their
   meaning is designed to be: the reason why God did this unusual thing in
   Enoch's case was because Enoch walked with God. The expression "he was
   not" ('enennu) means he was translated. See Heb 11:5. It could not
   mean: he died, because of the double preceding emphasis on his
   communion with God, and because "God took him" (laqach) involves the
   same word as that used in the translation of Elijah (2Ki 2: 3,5). In a
   chapter where every other life (except that of Noah and his sons for
   the present) closed with: "and he died," the omission of that phrase is
   too significant to allow for the conclusion that he did die.

   Standing thus halfway between Adam and the Flood, this translation of
   Enoch constitutes a most welcome testimony to the prospect of life
   eternal, both to the older generation as well as to all those who were
   to follow as his younger contemporaries. For a group of believing men,
   such as the Sethites were, would not have failed to see the purpose of
   his being taken away. Skinner must have ranked the spiritual capacity
   of godly men like these patriarchs very low to advance the claim: "it
   is hardly correct to speak of it (the use of "He took") as containing a
   presentment of the idea of immortality." It was the first definite
   indication of immortality offered in the Scripture when God took Enoch.

   Some take grave exception to the thought apparently involved in this
   translation of Enoch if it be claimed that this translation involves
   immediate glorification. This, they say, is impossible, because "the
   first-fruits" of the resurrection must be Christ (1Co 15:20). Correct
   as is this claim in reference to Christ, it should be particularly
   noted that this involves only being the first-fruits in the
   resurrection. However, in Enoch's case glorification only is involved.
   Not having died, Enoch could not be resurrected. But since Enoch was of
   the Sethite line where faith in the Saviour to come prevailed, he
   having lived in such faith, after his removal shares the glory that is
   theirs who believed on the Saviour. He is glorified as believers in
   Christ are, and that, of course at once. They who here invent an
   intermediate state, a receptacle where the Old Testament saints abode
   till Christ came, are building up an unscriptural speculation. This
   modern view of Sheol is wrong and very mischievous. Such an
   interpretation runs afoul of the verb here used: God "took" him. What
   manner of taking would that be where the individual taken is left in
   Sheol to wait in a shadow existence for long centuries? Besides, the
   Bible teaches nothing about a Totenreich with various compartments.

   The total age of Enoch, 365 years, presents an accidental
   correspondence with the number of the days of the year. No further
   significance is to be attached to the fact.

   On the forms and the use of 'enennu see G. K. 152 m. Though the term
   means "he is not," yet in connection with a past tense in the narrative
   it comes to mean: "he was not" (K. S. 140 b).

   25-27. And Methuselah lived one hundred and eighty-seven years and
   begat Lamech. And Methuselah lived after his begetting Lamech seven
   hundred and eighty-two years and begat sons and daughters. And all the
   days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died.

   "Lamech" may mean "warrior or conqueror." Methuselah was that one of
   the patriarchs who lived the greatest number of years.

   28-31. And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years and begat a
   son. And he called his name Noah, saying: This one will bring us
   comfort in the face of our work and (more particularly) in the face of
   the toil of our hands (arising) from the soil which Yahweh has cursed.
   And Lamech lived after his begetting Noah five hundred and ninety-five
   years and begat sons and daughters. And all the days of Lamech were
   seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.

   "Noah" means "rest." The birth of this son is recorded in such a way as
   at once to make it evident that he stands out in connection with a
   critical juncture in the history of the race. For, first of all,
   departing from the stereotyped expression used in the chapter, Moses
   says: "Lamech begat"--not Noah--but "a son" and called his name, etc.
   Then, in the second place, with a measure of formality he adds, "and he
   called his name," an expression not used since v. 3. Thirdly, the
   reason for the giving of this name is mentioned: "He will bring us
   comfort." He is called Noach for yenach (ch) am. The author is not
   giving etymological derivatives. Noach as such comes from an entirely
   different word, viz. nuach, "to rest." But the two verbs nuach and
   nacham have a kind of assonance, they sound somewhat alike, and Lamech
   played upon this similarity in a perfectly permissible pun. The name
   Noach was to remind of the comfort this man would bring. By the spirit
   of prophecy Lamech, like other godly patriarchs, sensed that in an
   unusual way this one would bring comfort to the troubled race. In
   reality Noah did this by preserving the small godly remnant in the ark.
   This unusual form of the comfort Lamech may never have dreamed of. Yet
   his prophecy is a valid one. No doubt, in expressing it he had hoped
   for much more. His prophecy, however, may meet its highest fulfilment
   in the removal of the curse from the earth, which removal came after
   the Flood, 8:21 f.

   This comfort was to come in the face of (min, like 4:11,--"over
   against," gegenueber--K. W.) "our work," "and in particular (waw
   augmentativum, K. S. 375d) in the face of the toil of our hands."
   Apparently, the misery of work in the sweat of the face as "toil of the
   hands" was beginning to weigh heavily upon men. Life in the externals
   was a ceaseless round of toil. Men longed for deliverance or at least
   for comfort under the burden. They knew definitely the whole situation
   that had made human existence so wretched; they traced their
   wretchedness back to the curse pronounced upon the ground because of
   man (3:17). Here Lamech says of their misery that it is "(arising) from
   the soil which Yahweh has cursed." The particular emphasis on "which he
   has cursed" is secured by putting in the clause after the sentence
   seems to run to a conclusion (K. S. 375 d). In reality, according to
   9:8 ff., Noah does become the mediator of a new and definite
   relationship between God and mankind, a relationship guaranteed by a
   covenant with a particular sign, the bow in the heavens. In the face of
   all this it is not good to claim that Lamech prophesied but missed the
   mark, as even Luther suggests.

   On the other hand, the favourite modernistic interpretation of the
   comfort brought by Noah is both shallow and unscriptural. The wine,
   (9:20 ff.) which Noah discovered, was, it is claimed, the comfort of
   which Lamech prophesied. In the face of the much greater things that
   came from God through Noah, as indicated above, such an interpretation
   is quite trivial. Besides, also 9:20 ff. makes it more than doubtful
   whether the author regards wine as a great comfort of the human race,
   not to mention the many warnings against abuse of this divine gift
   recorded here and there in the Scriptures. Meek must have been trying
   to incorporate this misconception when, misconstruing and misplacing
   phrases, he arrives at the rendering: "This is the one, after the work
   and the labour of our hands, to bring us consolation from the very soil
   which God cursed."

   Interpreters misconstrue the passage and the spirit it breathes if they
   lay into it the idea that some personal, purely human achievement of
   Noah's is the ultimate source of the comfort that is to be brought to
   mankind. Prophecy does not thus glorify human prowess and capacity. The
   basic thought of the prophecy is that God has destined this son to be
   the channel or mediator of great comfort to the human race. The divine
   agency in the blessing is the big factor.

   32. And Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and
   Japheth.

   At this point important developments in the history of the race appear,
   developments in which the three sons of Noah figure. Therefore, the
   line of descent has to supply more than one name. The Hebrew idiom uses
   the noun ("son of") for the adjective ("old"), see K. S. 306h. Certain
   details that might satisfy our curiosity but are otherwise unimportant
   are not definitely decided by the brief statement of this verse; such
   as: Were other sons begotten of Noah before these three? (Most likely
   not!) or, Were these three triplets? (most likely not; for begat here
   has the looser meaning, "began to beget," as in 11:26).

   The meaning of these three names involves etymological difficulties.
   "Shem" may mean "renown." Ham, Hebrew cham, may be derived from the
   root chamam, "to be hot," and may thus involve a reference to the fact
   that most Hamites live in hot, southern countries. Therefore, perhaps,
   "Southlanders"; (K. W,). Its resemblance to the original Egyptian for
   Egypt is etymotogically doubtful (Buhl). "Japheth" might mean "beauty"
   (K. W,); hut compare 9:27.

   But this "History" (toledoth) involves more than the genealogical table
   of the Sethites: it includes 6:1-8.

  HOMILETICAL SUGGESTIONS

   Not every man would venture to use this chapter as a text. We should
   hardly favour that method of treatment which picks out a few verses at
   random and uses them separately or jointly, like v. 3, 24 and 29. But
   if it is borne in mind that the chapter tells how the race of godly men
   developed in the days before the Flood, We certainly have a unity in
   the text, and certain items of this development are true as long as the
   world stands. The factors that stand out call for a rearrangement in
   homiletical treatment. To give due prominence to the hope
   characteristic of such lives the truth expressed in v. 29 should be
   given the strongest emphasis: Men of God had hope, hope to come of one
   born of woman; their life was not aimless; God-promised deliverance
   made life worth living. Then it may well be pointed out how such hope
   influenced the lives of godly men: in Enoch's case this was
   particularly apparent; he lived a godly life and received a gracious
   reward. But the stern realities of life are also reckoned with by godly
   men: they know how sin has mutilated man--now each man begets children
   "in his own' image" (v. 3) no longer in God's image (v. 1); now every
   man must reckon with the closing chapter that reads: "and he died." The
   longevity referred to in this chapter shows the high original estate
   from which we have fallen and to which we shall be renewed.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VI

    (b) The Commingling of the Two Races (6:1-8)

   We have just emphasized the fact that this is the closing portion of
   this particular history. Since this appears as plainly as possible, if
   the headings of the parts of the book are accepted on their face value
   as natural marks of division, and if the literary unity of the book is
   adhered to, we should do foolishly to lose sight of the fact. Here now
   is the natural sequence of thought: after the Cainites were observed to
   be going in one definite direction in their development, and the
   Sethites, tool were seen to be going in an entirely different
   direction, and these two streams of mankind Were strictly keeping apart
   because they were so utterly divergent in character, now (ch. 6) the
   two streams begin, to commingle, and as a result moral distinctions are
   obliterated and the Sethites, too, become so badly contaminated that
   the existing world order must be definitely terminated.

   With this natural sequence of thought growing out of the text and
   supported by a correct interpretation, criticism fails to see the
   obvious and introduces elements of thought entirely foreign to the
   connection and makes a mythical tale out of a simple and practical
   lesson, as we shall indicate presently. The best refutation of this
   erroneous view is first of all the unfolding of the natural meaning of
   the passage.

   1, 2. And it came to pass when mankind began to multiply upon the face
   of the earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw
   the daughters of men that they were fair and they took to themselves
   wives, whichever they liked best.

   In point of time, as will appear in connection with v. 3, we are
   shortly before the birth of Noah's sons (5:32). Men have become quite
   numerous upon the face of the earth. No man will ever determine how
   many they were. But where mankind comes to be of great numbers, somehow
   the places where they congregate together thickly become the scenes of
   the development of evil on a greater scale. So here. However, when it
   is remarked that "daughters were born unto them," that certainly cannot
   mean to describe something new: daughters had been born right along.
   However, this fact is mentioned as having a bearing upon the situation
   about to be described. Mark well that the bringing forth of daughters
   is being considered as taking place throughout all "mankind"
   (ha'adham), for the lahem, "to them," refers to the collective singular
   "mankind."

   Now "the sons of God" are found looking indiscriminately at this group
   and observing only the fact that "fair" ones (tobhoth) were to be seen
   in the whole group. That is all that they observe. They ask or care
   nothing about anything else. Whether these fair ones are Sethite or
   Cainite means nothing to them. That is the sad moral indifference that
   the author emphasizes.

   But who are these "sons of God"? Without a shadow of doubt, the
   Sethites--the ones just described in chapter five as having in their
   midst men who walked with God, like Enoch (v. 22), men who looked to
   higher comfort in the midst of life's miseries, like Lamech (v. 29),
   men who publicly worshipped God and confessed His name (4:26). Such men
   merit to be called the "sons of God" (bene `elohim), a title applied to
   true followers of God elsewhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. When
   the psalmist refers to such (Ps 73:15) as "the generation of thy
   children," he uses the same word "sons," describing them as belonging
   to God. De 32:5 uses the same word "sons" ("children," A. V.) in
   reference to Israel. Hos 1:10 is, if anything, a still stronger
   passage, saying specifically to Israel, "Ye are sons of the living God"
   (Heb. bene `el chay). Ps 80:17 also belongs here. Criticism resorts to
   a technicality at this point. If God said to me: "Thou art my Son,"
   criticism's claim would be: "You have not been called `God's son,' but
   `my son,' "--a mere technicality. So in the face of the passages we
   have just cited criticism claims the Scriptures do not use the
   expression "sons of God" for the godly, because "thy children" is used
   in three instances and in the fourth another name is used for God, 'el
   chay. We might word the case thus: strictly speaking, "sons of God" is
   a title applied to the godly; grammatically, the very expression "sons
   of God" does not happen to be used in reference to them in that very
   form.

   Over against this usage that we have cited criticism arrays another,
   the substance of which is: The title "sons of God" is used in reference
   to the angels. This claim cannot be denied; see Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 and
   Da 3:25; also bene `elim, "sons of the Mighty," Ps 29:1; 89:7. But this
   claim becomes erroneous when it is thus worded: The title "sons of God"
   is used only in reference to the angels.

   But of these two uses of the title, which shall we choose in this
   instance? We have had no mention made of' angels thus far in Genesis.
   We have met with other sons of the true God, in fact, the whole
   preceding chapter, even 4:25-5:32, has been concerned with them. Who
   will, then, be referred to here? Answer, the Sethites, without a doubt.

   At this point criticism leads forth its strongest argument, saying that
   the contrast between "sons of God" and "daughters of men" demands that
   the former be divine and the latter human. We answer: Not at all; least
   of all in the face of the very natural approach we have just
   established, namely, that the sons of God of 4:25-5:32 are still under
   consideration. We have shown above how "daughters of men" refers
   indiscriminately to all "the daughters of mankind," which were
   unfortunately lumped together by the sons of God without regard to
   their classification, whether Sethite or Cainite. When God's children,
   lose sight of such basic distinctions and look about only for the
   pretty faces and the shapely forms, then, surely, degeneracy has set
   in.

   If the objection be raised, that in the preceding section the title
   "sons of God" had not been used in reference to the Sethites, we
   answer: It was reserved for use by Moses until this point to make the
   high standards that the Sethites should have observed in this matter
   all the more prominent. Or if it be objected: "sons of God" or "sons"
   is used of Israel as a people, not of individuals, this objection
   matters little. Here the Sethites are also being referred to as a
   separate group or people, and not as individuals.

   The reference to heathen legends about the promiscuous mingling of gods
   and men in mythological adventures, certainly can have no bearing upon
   our case. Such mythological tales about racy escapades on the part of
   the old gods would hardly be matter by which Biblical material is to be
   judged or with which it is to be compared. Critics, however, have waxed
   so bold in this instance that Procksch simply offers the superscription
   "The Marriages with Angels" (Die Engelehen), for this section. Besides,
   they are so sure that the section is of mythological, import that they
   claim the original account did not read "sons of God" but "gods,"
   striking out "sons of." So Meek translates, "the gods noticed that the
   daughters of men were attractive; so they married those whom they liked
   best."

   Such an approach introduces the mythological element as well as
   polytheism into the Scriptures and makes the Bible a record of strange
   and fantastic tales and contradicts the passage Mt 22:30: "For in the
   resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as
   angels in heaven." For the expression used here (v. 2), "they took to
   themselves wives" (wayyiqechu nashim), is the standing expression for
   marital union. This verse does not refer to adulterous irregularities
   but to permanent union. Critics nowadays readily admit this, but
   usually wind up by wondering, not at their interpretation, which speaks
   of actual marital union with angels who took up a settled habitation on
   earth, but by wondering at the fact that J, as they say, should have
   written such strange tales, which they themselves do not believe
   possible. On this use of laqach cf. Ge 24:4; 21:21; 11:29; 12:19 etc.

   The closing words, "whichever they liked best," help to clinch our
   interpretation, for they indicate that the controlling factor was the
   chance fancy of the moment, rather than sound judgment which weighs the
   moral character and the suitability of the one chosen. Literally
   translated this expression would be: "from all whom they chose." The
   min here used is the "min of explanation," which does not mean
   selecting some from "all" but carries the force of "whichsoever" (K. S.
   83).

   Those who wish to find a New Testament reference to these angel
   marriages point to II Pet. 2:4 and to Jude 6, but neither of these
   passages refer to anything other than the original fall of the angels,
   as Keil has adequately shown. The marriages of angels have to be
   injected into these New Testament passages. Besides, then there would
   be a twofold fall of angels: the original and this, the second.

   There is another harsh dissonance resulting from this strange critical
   construction as one tries to reason out the connection of v. 3 with
   what precedes. For v. 3, as we shall see at once, speaks of sharp
   restrictions laid upon man for his misdeeds. Here, then, would be the
   very queer sequence of thought: v. 2, angels sin; v. 3, men are
   punished. In vain the critics urge that, of course, the punishment of
   angels is presupposed but only that of man is mentioned. But if the
   angels really acted with the bold presumption the text indicates
   ("whichever they liked best they took"), then the women taken were
   practically innocent. Besides, what none of these commentators seems to
   have realized: if all mankind is punished as a result of what happened,
   these irregularities must have been quite common, well-nigh the rule,
   in fact. Is any critic ready to admit that? In a parallel case the evil
   angel has his punishment meted out first (3:14, 15); it is not simply
   taken for granted. Feeling all this, some critics charge the section
   with lacking logical progression of thought, failing to detect that the
   lack of logic lies in their erroneous interpretation. Procksch even
   charges J with creating intentional obscurities and blurring the
   connection of parts, an almost unbelievable course of procedure. But
   when critical hypotheses fail, it cannot be the critics who are wrong,
   but the original writers were guilty of absurdities.

   3. And Yahweh said: My spirit shall not judge among mankind forever,
   because they also are flesh. Yet shall their days be one hundred and
   twenty years.

   This verse is a veritable crux interpretum. The critics magnify the
   difficulty to the point where they render the verse: "My spirit shall
   not (in?) man forever; he is flesh." Our rendering above, which is in
   reality the substance of Luther's, except that Luther preferred a
   passive for the sake of better idiomatic German, we believe can be
   sustained by good arguments, makes good sense, and fits well into the
   context.

   In the first place, we have rendered the verb yadhon "judge." In
   support of this rendering observe that Symmachus and Luther rendered it
   thus. Besides, the fact that din means "judge" cannot be questioned.
   But in how many instances verbs like din run parallel forms like don or
   dun! K. W. admits this meaning. With the Hebrew meaning so readily
   available, it seems quite unnecessary to seek out Assyrian or Arabic
   parallels. Now the meaning that results is simple and most appropriate.
   A measure of the truth had been available for these antediluvians. This
   divinely revealed truth counted as God's Word for them. God's Word,
   according to the consistent and the uniform teaching of the Scriptures,
   is the means of grace. Through it God's Holy Spirit (ruchi) operates,
   instructing or also reproving and judging men. This work of His had
   gone on until this point, aiming to correct and to check the strong
   propensity toward evil during the days of progressive degeneration. In
   spite of all the Spirit's corrective efforts "mankind" ('adham) had
   persisted in abandoning the way of truth and life. Men had finally, as
   the one suggestive illustration showed, no longer cared about having
   their homes centres of godly instruction where divine truth prevailed,
   being taught by father and by mother, but instead chose any woman
   whatsoever, as the fancy of the moment moved them, to rear their
   offspring. At that point God determines that He will let His Spirit no
   longer do His work of reproving and restraining (yadhon), because man
   has degenerated. Man is no longer simply sinful, as he has been right
   along since the Fall; the race has also as a whole practically sunk to
   the level of being "flesh" (basar), just plain, ordinary, weak and
   sinful stock, abandoned to a life of sin. Man has forfeited all hope of
   further efforts of God's grace. So the expression: "because they also
   are flesh" fits into the picture. "Also" refers to something in
   addition to what had been in evidence till now, the ordinary sinful
   state prevalent since the Fall. This additional something is: they have
   degenerated to the point of being mere "flesh"--the word having the
   ethical connotation as in the New Testament. See the same use in Ge
   6:12,13 and Job 10:4.

   Of course, we are reading beshaggam (with short a) on good textual
   grounds (see Kittel), and as the Septuagint translators read: dia to
   einai autouv sacav. Unfortunately, they, like Luther, omitted the
   "also." We render beshaggam:" because that also."

   On first thought we seem to concur with B D B that the rendering of
   yadhon as "strive with" (A. V., A. R. V.). "is hardly justified." Yet,
   on second thought, is not the judging activity of the Spirit at the
   same time a striving with men to restrain them from their evil ways?
   The King James translators apparently were thinking of the same thing
   as Luther, and their rendering must be classed as quite satisfactory.
   We can well leave the welter of confusion and conjecture offered by
   criticism off at one side. It boots nothing of value.

   Entirely in harmony with our rendering is the concluding statement of
   the verse, which marks the setting of the time limit of divine grace.
   For these words, "yet shall their, days be one hundred and twenty
   years," are to be taken in the sense of the traditional interpretation:
   one last period of grace is fixed by God for the repentance of mankind.
   The previous word indicated (3a) that God might well have cut off all
   further opportunities of grace. This word (3b) shows that grace always
   does more than could be expected. Before disposing of the guilty ones a
   time of grace of no less than one hundred and twenty years is allowed
   for their repentance. This, use of "days" (v. 3) is established by the
   use of the same word (v. 4) "those days." Consequently, the modern
   interpretation that takes this word to mean that God here decreed that
   in the future the span of man's life was not to exceed one hundred
   twenty years is quite unfounded. This view is proved untenable by the
   fact that quite a few after the Flood lived in excess of this limit: Ge
   11:11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25; 25:7; 35:28; 47:9. The evasions of
   the critics in meeting this argument need not be mentioned, being too
   palpable.

   On the use of the divine names notice the expression "sons of God"
   ('elohim) v. 2, because theirs is a general relation to God, not a
   specifically theocratic one (Lange). On the other hand, v. 3 brings
   "Yahweh" because it offers a special display of God's mercy in
   providing for years of grace.

   We append, as worthy of note, the traditional Jewish interpretation
   which makes "the sons of God" of v. 2 to be persons of rank an
   impossible thought--and "the daughters of men" to be women of low
   rank--equally unlikely.

   4. The Nephilim were in the earth in those days and also afterwards
   when the sons of God went in unto the daughters of men and they bore
   unto them. Their were the heroes, which in olden days were renowned
   men.

   Really quite a simple verse, unless one proceeds from the
   misinterpretation of the preceding verses and tries to link it up with
   the idea of angel marriages, a misconstruction prevalent since the days
   of the Septuagint translation. The basic rules of interpretation merely
   have to be observed: the presupposition, namely, that the Scriptures
   make good sense, develop their thoughts logically and naturally, and
   that simple grammatical rules still are in force. Says Skinner: "It was
   precisely this perspicuity of narration which the editor wishes to
   avoid." But why charge a Biblical writer with trying to write something
   not clear! Procksch assumes that the author J had quite a different
   original account, which he doctored up but left in a "wrecked state"
   (truemmerhafte Gestalt), which, of course, rather perplexes us. So men
   speak when they cannot find their meaning in the text.

   Note now the simple fact that v. 4 does not follow v. 2. Note also that
   it does not attach itself by the expressive Hebrew "and" to what
   precedes. Verse 4 begins without a conjunction. It does not try to show
   what manner of persons the children of the misalliance of-v. 2 were.
   Anybody can figure that thing out for himself. If fathers do not care
   to choose God-fearing wives to rear their children, the result will be
   that the children are not taught the fear of God, and so the godly ways
   of the patriarchs are abandoned. That's the result, nothing more. But
   v. 4 speaks of another class of ungodly men of olden times, setting the
   noun "nephilim" first by way of emphasis to make the new more
   prominent. But who were the Nephilim? Apparently, a type of men who
   were the climax of all such who inspired fear, as the only other
   passage where the term is used indicates, Nu 13:33. For there the spies
   first call all Canaanites "men of stature," and then they mention that
   even "Nephilim," sons of Anak, were there. Consequently, we are driven
   to seek some meaning for the word which makes them awe-inspiring.
   Following the Hebrew root naphal is by far the simplest. One meaning of
   this verb is to "fall upon= attack" (B D B): see Jer 48:32; Jos 11:7;
   and without any preposition, Job 1:15. This verb could readily yield
   this noun in the sense of "attackers," "robbers," "bandits." So we have
   the thought: the descendants of the godly patriarchs abandoned their
   spiritual heritage (v. 1, 2) so that God was moved to determine upon
   their destruction (v. 3); and there were also violent attackers and
   robbers abroad in those days (v. 4). There was a negative breakdown of
   some, positive aggressive wickedness of others. Such an interpretation
   makes good sense. Besides, the very clause that follows makes it clear
   that these Nephilim, whom Luther describes quite aptly as "tyrants,"
   were on the earth already at the time when the Sethites commingled with
   the Cainites, but also that they continued after that sad confusion.
   The time clause, "when the sons of God went in," makes this sad
   confusion stand out as a major calamity, so important that one could
   actually reckon time from it. Then the text adds that these Nephilim
   were the "heroes" of antiquity, the men of renown (Heb. "men of the
   name"). They achieved a reputation the world over by their violence,
   but a reputation better deserving of the term notoriety. The world
   certainly did not in those days, even as it does not now, esteem godly
   men highly. Only the wicked were renowned or had a name (shem).

   The translation "giants" (A. V.) is most unfortunate. It originated
   with the Septuagint (gigantev). It does not follow from Nu 13:33, even
   if there the "attackers" should also happen to have been giants. For
   "sons of Anak" means "sons of the long-necked one," and this may refer
   to gigantic stature. The unfortunate thing about this mistranslation is
   that it directs attention away from the moral issue (wicked bandits) to
   a physical one (tall stature). Besides, then, with a show of propriety
   modern interpreters combine the idea of giants with the
   misinterpretation about angel marriages and claim that the giants were
   the result of this union. But, in reality, nothing of the sort is found
   in the text. It is the result of a clever combination or of a
   mistranslation. Meek renders: "There were giants in the earth who were
   born to the gods whenever they had intercourse with the daughters of
   men."` This amounts to an unwarranted alteration of the text in the
   interest of a dogmatic preconception. Note well, too, that if there
   were a notice about giants inserted here it would not at all fit into
   the connection. Several critics are compelled to admit that they do not
   know why v. 4 does not follow v. 2. Certain older translators were
   nearer the truth than the Septuagint. Aquila, who like Symmachus wrote
   to correct the Greek version, rendered Nephilim epipiptontev =" they
   who fall upon." Symmachus, in a similar strain, biaioi =" powerful."

   The article before Nephilim is categorical (K. C.). Yabho'u, imperfect,
   expresses continuance: "they kept going in" (K. S. 157; G. K. 107 e).
   Bo' is euphemistic. Hemah is a characteristic sudden change of subject
   (K. S. 399 B).

   5. And Yahweh saw that the wickedness of mankind was great upon the
   earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
   evil continually.

   The verses 5-8 represent the divine reaction to the wickedness of man.
   Therefore v. 5 looks back directly upon what preceded. Two significant
   instances have told the whole story: the Sethites had grown indifferent
   to their heritage; the Cainites had developed high-handed violence.
   When Yahweh regards this, he sees that it constitutes "great
   wickedness." Aside from these outward manifestations, He discerns the
   inner trend of men's thoughts: they have put no restraint upon their
   natural inclinations, consequently their thoughts are only evil
   continually. It is true that the antediluvian generation is being
   described--God is not here discovering the innate human depravity--yet
   since the description shows man as simply having let himself go, this
   still must rank as a locus classicus for the natural depravity of the
   human heart, as Luther so staunchly contends. Yet the mode of
   expression is very suggestive: The heart is the place of the activity
   of man's thoughts, "the thought-workshop" (Denkwerkstaette, K. C.).
   These thoughts produce yetser, "formings," "imaginings," "thought
   combinations," Dickten und Trachten, (Luther). But what a sweeping
   condemnation: "only evil continually." A striking alliteration and
   assonance makes the statement unique and most expressive in Hebrew: raq
   ra'. This natural trend would have been checked, and among the growth
   of weeds would have sprung up plants delightful to God and to man, if
   men had accepted the judging and correcting work of God's Holy Spirit
   (v. 3). But that work was being consistently refused.

   On the heart as primarily the place of thought, see Ps 33:11; Pr 19:21;
   1Ch 29:18.

   6-8. And it repented Yahweh that He had made mankind upon the earth and
   it grieved Him at His heart. And Yahweh said: I will wipe out mankind
   which I have created from the face of the ground, from man to animals,
   to creepers, and to the birds of the heaven; for it repenteth me that I
   made them. But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.

   When God's repentance is mentioned, it should be noted that we are
   using an inadequate human term for a perfect and entirely good divine
   action. Luther especially stresses that such expressions are found in
   the Scriptures so that we mortals with our feeble understanding might
   be helped to catch hold on divine truth according to the measure of our
   poor human ability. Procksch well defines this repentance on God's part
   not as a change of purpose but of feeling out of which a new course of
   action develops. Scriptures frequently use the phrase "God-repented"
   (see Ex 32:14; Jer 18:7, 8; Jer 26: 3,13,19; Jon 3:10; 1Sa 15:11); but
   .sometimes in the same breath repentance in the sense of alteration in
   God is denied (Nu 23, :1.9; 1Sa 15:29). This repentance is the proper
   divine reaction to man's sin. The parallel expression well defines it:
   "it grieved Him at His heart," Hebrew even stronger: "into His heart,"
   'el-libbo.

   7. The gravity of the situation is made apparent by the severity of the
   divine resolution: "I will wipe out mankind." Sin has become so
   predominant and crass that the extremest measures alone can cope with
   it. There can have been no prospect of the reform of the corrupt mass
   of mankind. The ease with which God's greatest works are done is
   revealed in the word "wipe out," which, by the way, contains a
   significant allusion to God's mode of procedure in this instance.
   Strange to say, this word is ascribed to Yahweh, the God of fidelity
   and grace; for the destruction of mankind at this time was for the
   purpose of making possible the development of the seed of the woman
   destined to crush the serpent's head. Yahweh's right thus to destroy
   the major part of mankind is indicated by the adjective clause: "which
   I have created." The Giver of life is the Supreme Lord over life and
   death. The thoroughness with which He is about to do His work is
   indicated by the enumeration of all other forms of life that are to
   perish with man: "animals" (behemah, here including wild as well as
   domesticated animals, as in v. 20; 7:23; 8:17), "creepers" and "birds
   of the heavens." Fish naturally are not mentioned because of the mode
   of the destruction in this instance. The universality of the judgment
   thus serves to impress upon man how serious the issues really are.
   Beasts and other creatures, which were originally created for man's
   sake, may well perish if a purpose salutary to man is served.

   8. Evidence of the fact that it is Yahweh that does this work lies also
   in the preservation of Noah. In the midst of God's judgments His
   "grace" (chen) also shines forth. Though the word is often used of the
   favour one man enjoys in the sight of another, such favour, when it
   flows forth from God, is that unmerited, rich favour we are wont to
   call "grace." In spite of A. R. V. the richer connotation of "grace"
   (A. V.) should be preserved. This closing statement prepares a
   transition for the following story of the Flood.

   An instance of the purely mechanical method of procedure of the critics
   is given in their labelling the two expressions "which I created" and
   "from man to--heavens" (v. 7) as glosses because they are claimed to be
   in the style of P. Such criticism of style, purely arbitrary as it is,
   makes it impossible for J to enumerate the classes that must perish. P
   carries a monopoly on enumerations as well as on these particular
   words.

    IV. The History of Noah (6:9-9:29)

   If any measure of competence can be ascribed to the author, then there
   is no need of providing a heading for this section by the use of our
   own ingenuity, for Moses has inserted a very accurate and usable one:
   "the history (toledoth) of Noah." This is not the story of the Flood.
   It is Noah's story. As Keil has rightly pointed out, three elements of
   Noah's story are presented. First, an indication of Noah's piety (very
   brief); then, the story of his preservation; lastly, an account of
   God's covenant with Noah as the father of a new race. Everything has to
   do with Noah. No one can deny that such a treatment of the subject
   matter is perfectly permissible.

   The critics assign this portion of chapter six (v. 9-22) to P. In fact,
   throughout the Flood story they claim to be able to separate the two
   documents P and J in a very clear-cut fashion and point to this
   unravelling as proof of the brilliance of their achievements. So
   Skinner claims: "The resolution of the compound narrative into its
   constituent elements in this case is justly reckoned amongst the most
   brilliant achievements of purely literary criticism." In fact, critics
   know the very pattern after which the compiler worked. They tell us
   that he "instead of excerpting the entire account from a single source,
   has interwoven it out of excerpts taken alternately from J and P,
   preserving in the process many duplicates, as well as leaving unaltered
   many striking differences of representation and phraseology." Such
   positive claims have unduly impressed many. They have struck terror
   into the hearts of those who believed otherwise. Yet there have perhaps
   never been such misleading and unfounded claims as just these in
   reference to so-called sources. Aside from some incidental refutation
   which may be made as we proceed, we shall offer a detailed examination
   of the critical position and its major arguments at the close of our
   treatment of chapter six.

   (a) Two verses cover the report concerning Noah's piety, v. 9, 10. Yet
   v. 9-12 may be regarded as forming the entire section, because v. 11,
   12 fit in the dark background to the bright picture of v. 9 and 10.

   9. This is the history of Noah. Noah was a righteous-perfect man among
   his contemporaries. With God Noah did walk.

   Since so much depends in this instance on the personal character of
   Noah, nothing is more natural than to indicate very plainly just what
   manner of man he was. If out of all his contemporaries he alone with
   his family is saved, then he must have been most unusual. To stand
   one's ground and to remain uninfluenced by the attitude and conduct of
   all men to the contrary, gives indication of a strength of character
   almost without parallel in history. All the world said he was wrong in
   holding fast to his piety; he knew they were wrong and he was right.
   Few as the words are that describe this character, they have unusual
   weight. First of all he was "righteous-perfect." By hyphenating these
   two adjectives we really do not intend to express a compound but rather
   to indicate that we have here two words that constitute a phrase or a
   double expression. The same combination appears in Job 12:4. There as
   well as here there is no conjunction connecting the two. Together,
   then, these two words constitute an expression that covers a state
   approximating perfection as nearly as man can. "Righteous" (tsaddiq) is
   a word commonly used in reference to men. It means that they conform to
   a standard. Since Noah conformed to the divine standard, he met with
   God's approval. However, the term is basically forensic. Therefore,
   though there be divine approval, that does not imply perfection on
   Noah's part. It merely implies that those things that God sought in man
   were present in Noah. Primarily, God desired man to believe Him and His
   promise of help through the seed of the woman. This basic requirement
   Noah met, and his conduct showed it. Because of such faith Noah is
   justified. The complementary expression is "perfect" (tamim). Since the
   Hebrew root involves the idea of "complete," we are justified in
   concluding only that there was an all-sided life, well rounded out in
   all its parts, with no essential quality missing. This term, too, does
   not connote moral perfection. But both together describe a life of true
   faith and sincere consecration. It is not quite accurate to let
   "righteous" refer only to Noah's relation to the first table of the
   law; the word reaches farther. Nor is it quite correct to limit
   "perfect" to the second table. But rightness and completeness are
   stressed. They who see in the word "righteous" the idea of
   righteousness by faith interpret soundly, even though the fullest New
   Testament Connotation dare not yet be laid into the expression.

   The modifying phrase "among his contemporaries" involves a contrast.
   Noah stood out over against his contemporaries, for they lacked these
   qualities. Doroth, which we have rendered "contemporaries," is
   generally a very expressive term here. It does mean "generations" and
   pictures for us the successive generations that have come and gone
   during the five hundred years of Noah's life. Over against them all he
   stood out as "righteous-perfect."

   The deepest source of Noah's godliness is revealed in the words: "with
   God did Noah walk." The inversion, different from 5:22, puts "with God"
   first for emphasis. Though living among successive, mostly wicked
   generations, his walk was with God. Cf. 5:22 for the very same
   expression. Personal communion with God was the taproot of this
   outstandingly good life. The marvel of this whole description is that
   it says so much about Noah in so very few words. One would expect a man
   to whom this description applies to stand firm in the face of a world
   gone to seed, and would also expect that God would make an exception in
   his case when He came to destroy the world.

   10. And Noah begat three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

   The purpose of this verse is not usually discerned. True, 5:32 is
   almost identical. But whereas the first statement concerning Noah's
   three sons naturally served to round out the Sethite genealogy, here,
   by following directly upon the statement of Noah's piety, the object
   must be to remind the readers of the effect that that piety must have
   had on his sons. If a man like the one described in v. 9 might well be
   spared by God, so might the sons who were deeply influenced by the
   father's example.

   11, 12. But the earth was corrupt before God and the earth was filled
   with violence; and God beheld the earth and behold it was corrupt, for
   all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.

   Since the waw conversive ("and") introduces this verse, it binds it
   closely to the preceding. In this instance, however, a definite
   contrast is involved to the bright clear example of Noah. Therefore we
   translate the conjunction "but." Besides, we are here now definitely
   informed of the universality of the corruption of mankind. Outstanding
   examples of wickedness had been mentioned in the beginning of the
   chapter. In v. 1-8 we were informed how deep sin had penetrated. Now we
   are shown how far it had spread. Since a judgment of moral values lies
   before us, "earth" must be used by synecdoche for the "inhabitants of
   the earth." "Before God" means "in the judgment of God." Here is,
   therefore, not a merely pessimistic utterance of some disgruntled
   individual. The emphasis of the verb lies primarily on the fact that in
   God's esteem devastation had been wrought. Man had received the earth
   at God's hands and had sadly ruined his heritage. The second half of v.
   11 marks a climax: "the earth was filled with violence." Chamas is
   highhanded dealing; violating the rights of others. This term most
   correctly describes the form of moral corruption prevalent in the
   earth. Men's rights were being trampled upon. Nor were these cases
   isolated: the earth was filled with deeds of this sort. Chamas is
   accusative of the thing wherewith another is filled (K. S. 112).

   12. The form and the nature of the opening statement of this verse
   remind very definitely by way of contrast with 1:31. As then a divine
   inspection resulted in a verdict of approval, now just as positively
   the fact that was revealed was that the earth was corrupt. The
   expressive "behold" points to the unexpected: it would hardly be
   believed that the earth would so soon and so completely have
   degenerated. The expression "all flesh" can here refer only to mankind
   because of the qualifying nature of the object "its way." "Way" is the
   course man is to follow. Only a moral being can corrupt its way.
   Therefore "all flesh" refers to the totality of mankind in so far as it
   is not submitting to the Spirit's guidance, as in 6:3.

   Critics have difficulties with these two verses. Ascribing them to P,
   they miss entirely in P an indication of where the world went wrong.
   Consequently, they try to make v. 12 present the case as strongly as
   possible and draw in the beasts as well under those who had corrupted
   their way in "commencing to prey upon each other and to attack man." B
   D B is right when it refers the word "way" of v. 12 to "moral action
   and character." Moral issues exclusively are under consideration here.

   The word "earth", is taken proleptically, and its clause really
   follows, as in 1:4 (K. S. 414b.).

   Of course, the point of view of v. 12 is purely anthropomorphic. Its
   purpose is not to state that now God first discovered that the earth
   had really grown quite corrupt. God had been thoroughly aware of. every
   increase of wickedness. But the verse does indicate that in the esteem
   of God, the perfect and righteous Judge, the measure of the world's
   iniquity was full.

   b) The second portion of Noah's story now follows in 6:13-8:22, telling
   how he was preserved in the universal destruction.

   13. And God said to Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for
   the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I am about
   to destroy them together with the earth.

   In God's judgment the destruction of the world is determined. His
   purpose is here communicated to Noah. The 120 years of grace must have
   been concluded. The "end" (qets) is here used, of course, in the sense
   of "destruction." "All flesh" here, as in v. 12, describes all mankind
   in so far as it has rejected the Spirit's guidance. "Before me" is used
   exactly as in v. 11 in the sense of "according to my judgment." The
   whole statement cannot mean: "has come to my knowledge" (as Es 9: 11)
   but "has entered my purpose" (Skinner). Meek renders quite acceptably:
   "I have resolved on the extermination of all mortals," but,
   unfortunately, he introduces a tone of arbitrariness which is just the
   thing that is not involved in the phrase "before me."

   There come times in the events of this world when God's gracious
   dealings with men are definitely terminated. Such times come only when
   grace has been offered in richest measure. But when the end is resolved
   upon, there is no recall. Such a case is marked by the "end" that God
   here determines. His reason for His steps shows, this course to be
   entirely just: "the earth is filled with violence through them."
   "Through them" (mippenehem) is really: "from their faces" or from
   before them. But that clearly means that the violence has gone out from
   them. The phrase could also be translated "because of them." Man has no
   one to blame but himself. But this end is not coming on like a blind
   fate. God indicates His initiative in the work of destruction, in fact,
   vividly points to His participation by a "behold." Works of retribution
   are as much holy and good works and worthy of God as any other. The
   participle after hinneh indicates an act as imminent: "I am about to
   destroy" (K. S. 237 g.). But in order to make the sweeping nature and
   the dread earnestness of this destruction most clearly apparent, it is
   His purpose to destroy men "together with the earth." Thus, when man is
   wiped away and his habitation with him, men realize more fully how
   serious the nature of their misdeeds is. The critics did not expect the
   phrase "with the earth" and so subject it to severe criticism. It makes
   too good sense to call for criticism.

   The suffix in mippenehem refers back to the collective basar.

   14, 15. Make thyself an ark of gopher-wood; make the ark with cells;
   and smear it with pitch within and without. And this is how thou shalt
   make it: three hundred cubits is to be the length of the ark, fifty
   cubits its width, and thirty cubits its height.

   The means by which God will destroy mankind and the earth has not yet
   been revealed to Noah. For the present only the device by which Noah is
   to be saved is revealed to him, but the nature of the device is such
   that it is comparatively easy for Noah to draw conclusions as to the
   impending catastrophe, which will be mentioned in v. 17. This entire
   revelation to Noah proceeds in a very orderly fashion. He is first
   given the essential directions about the ark. It is called tebhah.
   Since the same word is used only in reference to Moses' ark of
   bulrushes besides, it appears quite likely to be akin to an Egyptian
   word, teb (t), although it will not do to be too positive about such
   things, as this word may be carried over from the original language of
   mankind. No one knows what type of tree is meant by the name "gopher."
   It may contain the root of the Greek word "cyprus." The translators
   have been puzzled by it from days of old. The Greek rendered it
   "square," the Latin "smoothed," etc. The word for "cells" (qinnim) is
   used also for "nests." Consequently, such rooms are meant as may suit
   the needs of various beasts. Since rooms on shipboard are "cabins," the
   word may also be rendered thus. But as the description proceeds, we
   discover that it is rather inaccurate to speak of a ship. This was not
   a ship but a huge floating box with dimensions quite nearly
   proportionate to those of a ship. This vessel was not intended for
   sailing or navigating of any sort. It was designed to float. It is
   rendered watertight by a generous coating inside and out with "pitch"
   (kopher). The Assyrian word for "pitch" kuprun, as well as the Arabic
   parallel guarantee this meaning. From this noun, perhaps, the verb
   kaphar is derived, yielding the expression here used "to pitch with
   pitch." The definite article with kopher is the article of conformity
   (der Zugehoerigkeit--K. C.). "Cells" is a kind of accusative of
   product: "make it cells" (G. K. 117 ii.; K. S. 327 w.).

   15. Reckoning the cubit at eighteen inches, we have the following
   dimensions: length, 300 cubits--450 feet; width, fifty
   cubits--seventy-five feet; height, thirty cubits--forty-five feet.

   The introductory zeh illustrates the neuter use of the demonstratives
   (K. S. 45).

   Efforts to find an allegorical meaning in the ark such as that it
   represents Christ's body, that is the church, and that its one door
   represents Baptism are perhaps best described by the adjectives Luther
   employs in reference to them when he labels them as "harmless" and "not
   so very skilful." No one can deny the propriety of the thought, as long
   as it is used only as an illustration and not offered as a deeper
   meaning of the text as such.

   16. An