The Bible Knowledge Commentary Law

By John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck

From Creation to Our Story Today
 
The first five books of the Bible—known as the Pentateuch or the Law—form the foundation for our heritage, our faith, and relationship with God today.
 
In this detailed, highly researched exploration of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, Dallas Theological Seminary professors help us understand the theological and historical context for the first five books of the Bible. From creation to the Ten Commandments to the beautiful reminders to follow God’s ways, the biblical books of law offer us rich insight into how to live well in today’s world.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: David C Cook
• Release date: Mar 1, 2018
• ISBN: 9780830772919

John F. Walvoord

John F. Walvoord was president of Dallas Theological Seminary and author of numerous books on eschatology and theology. He held the A.M. degree from Texas Christian University in philosophy and the ThD degree from Dallas Theological Seminary in Systematic Theology.

Book preview

GENESIS

Allen P. Ross

INTRODUCTION

Genesis is the book of beginnings; it provides a dramatic account of the origins of mankind and his universe, the intrusion of sin into the world, the catastrophic effects of its curse on the race, and the beginnings of God’s plan to bless the nations through His seed.

Most of the books of the Bible draw on the contents of Genesis in one way or another. Apart from this, however, Genesis’ subject matter and the unembellished way in which it is written have captivated the minds of biblical scholars for ages.

As with biblical truth in general, this book has •been a stumbling block for many who have approached it with preconceived notions or antisupernatural biases. But for those who recognize it as the Word of God, whom they seek to serve, Genesis is a source of comfort and edification. And by them, the questions and difficulties of the book are approached differently.

The Titles of Genesis. The Hebrew title of the book is the initial word berēšîṯ, translated in the beginning. The English title Genesis was derived from the Greek translation of ṯôl’ḏôṯ, the key word of the book. In Genesis 2:4a, the Septuagint translation is, "This is the book of the geneseōs of heaven and earth."

The Authorship of Genesis. Both Scripture and tradition attribute the Pentateuch to Moses. This was enough to satisfy most people in the synagogue and the church for ages that Genesis, the first book of the Pentateuch, could be safely ascribed to Moses.

Indeed no one would have been better qualified to write the book. Since Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22), his literary skills would have enabled him to collect Israel’s traditions and records and to compose the work. His communion with God at Horeb and throughout his life would have given him direction for this task. Genesis provided the theological and historical foundation for the Exodus and the covenant at Sinai.

Critical scholars, however, deny the Mosaic authorship of both Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch. This is not a recent view; early in the Christian era theologians vacillated between Moses and Ezra as the author of the Pentateuch. But the modern view that the Pentateuch was compiled from various sources seems to be the product of rationalistic skepticism. Benedict Spinoza (A.D. 1632- 1677) believed that the Pentateuch was written by Ezra, who utilized a mass of traditions (including some by Moses).

The first attempt at a documentary theory of Pentateuchal origins was made in 1753 by Jean Astruc (1684-1766). He promoted the idea that Genesis was composed from two major and several minor documents. Over the next 124 years scholars debated and developed that idea until finally Julius Wellhausen (1844- 1918) restated the documentary approach forcefully and meticulously in 1877.

Wellhausen divided the Pentateuch into four literary sources, represented by the letters, J, E, D, and P. The J material (named because of its preference for the name Yahweh [Jehovah]) was supposedly written in the Southern Kingdom about 850 B.C. It was personal, biographical, and anthropomorphic. It included prophetic-like ethics and theological reflection. E (named because of its preference for Elohim [God]) was written in the Northern Kingdom about 750 B.C. It was more objective, less concerned with ethical and theological reflection, and given more to concrete particulars.

According to this view as elaborated by subsequent scholars these two documents were combined around 650 B.C. by an unknown redactor or editor. The result was JE.

The composition was completed by D and P material. D was composed under Hilkiah around 621 B.C. as part of Josiah’s reforms. This Deuteronomic school was also responsible for reworking the Books of Joshua through Kings. The P source (Ezra and the Holiness Code known as H), dated anywhere from 570 to 445 B.C., is said to be concerned with the origins and institutions of the theocracy, genealogies, rituals, and sacrifices.

What brought about this approach was an analytical study of the text that observed apparently irreconcilable difficulties. The critical scholars observed changes in the divine names (Yahweh vs. Elohim). They could not reconcile parallel stories (e.g., the endangering of Sarah told in Gen. 12:10-20 and chap. 20). Furthermore, linguistic differences showed up that seemed to coincide with other peculiarities of different sources (e.g., J might use Sinai, and E Horeb). Finally, diverse theological ideas seemed to harmonize with the various emerging sources.

This documentary theory, being highly developed and deceitfully plausible, has deceptively captured the scholarly world for decades. For further information, see R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966; Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis; and H. Wouk, This ls My God. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1959. pp. 312-20. J. Skinner’s book, Genesis (International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910), is an example of how this theory wrongly influences the exegesis of Genesis.

Criticism of the documentary theory must certainly begin with its antisupernaturalist base. Proponents of the view subjected the Bible to criticism as if it were merely a human book and therefore unreliable. The approach of the theory was anthropomorphic and evolutionary (Le., the monotheism seen in Gen. was of human origin and gradually evolved from primitive states). Hegelian dialecticism was employed to show how teaching evolved till it reached its final form of truth.

Apart from its fundamental presuppositions that undermine revelation, the approach is fraught with problems. One is the lack of unanimity concerning the four sources (J, E, P, D) and which passages belong to each of them. Another problem is the subjectivity involved. Too often circular reasoning appears. For example, a passage would be assigned to J because it frequently used the Hebrew word yālaḏ (to bear, to generate); therefore, it was argued, yālaḏ is peculiar to J. Though the approach claimed to be analytical it too often evaded, emended, or deleted a text when it contradicted the system.

Archeological discoveries have contributed material that not only calls into question the criteria of the documentary hypothesis, but also lends coloring to the Pentateuchal literature in its early setting. In the land of Canaan, Ugaritic literature (ca. 1400 B.C.) shows widespread use of cultic terms (attributed to P), poetic clichés, rare words originally considered late Aramaisms, a variety of divine names and compound names, as well as repetition in style. The recent discovery of the Ebia tablets in Syria also provides very early documentation of names, places, and ideas presented in the Pentateuch (cf. Giovanni Pettinato, The Archives of Ebia. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1981).

Farther east the Nuzi tablets discovered in 1925 and the Mari tablets brought to light in 1933 record many customs and laws that are comparable to those reflected in the patriarchal narratives in Genesis.

Though these and many other contributions from archeology do not prove the existence of the patriarchs or the early date of the narratives, they do fit rather well with the Pentateuchal material and the manner in which the narratives are presented in Genesis. With the ever-increasing archeological finds there is less and less reason for a later date for the material.

Form criticism, pioneered in Old Testament studies by Hermann Gunkel, recognized the antiqity of the traditions (e.g., that Genesis 1-11 must be compared with the Sumerian-Akkadian literature of the third and second millennia B.C. and that the patriarchs would be strangely out of place against an Assyrian background of the first half of the first millennium). Form criticism sought to determine the genre, structure, setting, and intention of each literary unit behind the extant material in order to reconstruct the original unit and to relate the texts to the people in ancient Israel.

This method isolates the literary units, often following the arrangement of the JEDP sources. It then identifies the form (or genre) of the unit (e.g., blessings, oaths, hymns, legends, etc.) and compares common motifs, common vocabulary, and common structure. It then seeks to state the setting for the unit in the life of ancient Israel in order to determine its original intent. In order to do this the form critic must often seek to determine how the unit was transmitted.

Gunkel listed six kinds of narratives in Genesis which reflected an early poetic, oral stage of the material (Hermann Gunkel, Genesis. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1922). They are: (a) etiological (e.g., a narrative explains why man is sinful), (b) ethnological (e.g., a narrative explains why Canaan was enslaved), (c) etymological (e.g., a narrative explains a well-known name such as Babel), (d) ceremonial (e.g., a narrative explains the Sabbath), (e) geological (e.g., a narrative explains salt near Sodom), and (f) a group of unclassified types.

Form criticism has produced much that is valuable in Old Testament studies. In general, it takes a more cautious view of the text, often being concerned with the final, fixed form of the text as a part of the study. Its emphasis on literary types and ancient oral tradition point out Israel’s ancient literary development.

However, form-critical scholarship is often plagued with the same weaknesses as the documentary approach. The presupposition that the literature developed naturally rather than supernaturally leads to false conclusions: that Israel’s monotheism developed out of polytheism, that miracles were later explanations of early events, and that the records may not tell the real history.

The idea that sagas existed as distinct oral literary units before they were collected may be correct in some cases, but it would be difficult to prove. The idea that these oral traditions were edited and embellished as they reached their final form is problematic. Too often the critical interpretation considers this embellishing to be an extensive reshaping and reinterpreting of the tradition. Consequently much of form-critical exegesis is concerned with reconstructing the original tradition-a procedure that is often quite subjective and probably impossible.

However, the emphasis in form criticism on the literary units, the types of literature, the structure, and the setting in the life of ancient Israel are important for exegesis. Exegesis is concerned with the final form of the biblical text, not with possibly preliterary stages of the traditions. (For further information, see Gene Tucker, For111 Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.)

Out of form criticism a number of emphases in the study of the Pentateuch developed. Most notable has been traditio-historical criticism. Several scholars criticized the old literary analytical approach (JEDP) from various perspectives. They believed that a complete analytical approach was needed-one that took into account oral tradition, comparative mythology, and Hebrew psychology-for the purposes of discovering the formation and transmission of Israelite tradition in its preliminary stage.

Though the subjectivity prompted by such an approach has led to a great diversity among the critics, the essential elements in the theory are as follows: The story was transmitted from memory at the preliterary stage; it was accompanied by an interpretation; it was reformulated in accordance with various forces (perhaps, e.g., a Canaanite etiology, or a redemptive motif in the period of the monarchy). The cycles of stories were next redacted into a literary unit by a creative editor. The collections of stories then became normative for faith in the postexilic period.

The two long-developing, contemporaneous tradition collections that traditio-historical criticism posits are the P and the D collections. The former is largely Genesis through Numbers; it centers on the Passover in which the Feast is historicized. The D work is Deuteronomy through 2 Kings. So even though literary sources of the old documentary approach are rejected, a similar source analysis is maintained. Too often the history of the tradition is considered more important than the tradition itself.

Traditio-historical criticism places too much emphasis on oral tradition. No doubt there was oral tradition, but it was usually accompanied by written documents (Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, p. 136). Archeological evidence relevant to Palestine (E. Nielsen, e.g., draws also on Hindu and Old Icelandic materials [Oral Tradition. London: SCM Press, 1954]) emphasizes the great care taken in copying documents in the ancient world (see W.F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1957).

The emphasis on comparative mythology presupposes that Israel’s religion was comparable to the pagan religions. Similarities exist, but essentially Yahwism (Israel’s worship of the true God, Yahweh) is distinct. Following this approach, one is left without an explanation of the origin of the Hebrew faith.

Finally, concentration on the supposed reformation of traditions lacks scientific control, a fact evidenced by the lack of agreement over the reconstructions. Reconstructions indeed are often the products of critics’ predispositions. Though many contributions to the study of the Old Testament have been made by these approaches, they all fail to place a proper emphasis on the final form of the text, the canonical shape of the biblical material. If one could trace these levels of development with certainty-which he cannot-and if one used sources to explain difficulties, he would still be left with the question as to why the material was recorded in the form in which it now exists.

Consequently more emphasis is now being placed on the present shape of the text. Repetition, diversity of style, variation of vocabulary, and the like, are often considered proof of the unity of the text by scholars following a modified structuralism or rhetorical criticism.

The traditional view that Genesis (and the Pentateuch) possesses unity and is the work of Moses has not been destroyed. On the contrary, the evidence points more and more to the antiquity and unity of the work. This is not to say that the present form of the book has not been edited by subsequent writers whose work was guided by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration; it does affirm that widespread reshaping of the accounts is unfounded and unnecessary. Any reshaping of the traditions of Genesis would have been done by Moses under divine inspiration, with the result that the book reports actual events and gives correct theological interpretations of them.

The Nature of Genesis. Much of the discussion regarding the historicity and origin of Genesis is related to a consideration of the nature of its contents, especially the primordial events recorded in chapters 1-11.

1. Is Genesis myth? Many writers describe the contents of Genesis as myth or attribute its origin to myth. Mythological literature seeks to explain the origins of things in symbolic forms. Myth records so-called sacred history rather than actual history; it reports how reality came into existence through the deeds of gods and supernatural creatures. It purports to establish reality, the nature of the universe, the function of the state, and the values of life (cf. J.W. Rogerson, Myth in Old Testament Interpretation. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1974).

Pagan literature that records supernatural activities such as Creation, the Flood, and other divine interventions in man’s world are often compared with Genesis. Some scholars envision a wholesale borrowing of such mythologies by Israel, with a subsequent demythologizing (removal of pagan elements) to make them satisfactory for Yahwism. But when Semitic mythology is correctly understood, it is clear that this was not possible.

Myths were not merely symbolic language or reflections of primitive mentality. They were ancient man’s expression of his view of reality. At the center of a myth is its doctrine of correspondence (e.g., the god dies; therefore vegetation dies). Consequently ritual based on sympathetic magic was enacted to ensure the vital forces of life and fertility.

The Old Testament makes a radical break with this philosophy of the ancient world. One does not do justice to the Old Testament by saying that Israel borrowed myth, or used mythological language to describe its faith. To the Hebrew, an absolutely sovereign God brought them into existence as a nation. Their concept of time was not cyclical but eschatological; their ritual at the temple was not cosmic and magical but an enactment of their redemption; and their concept of space was not limited to the primeval world but was actualized in history. In a word, reality to Israel was within her concept of history (Brevard S. Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, 1960, p. 13).

Therefore Genesis is not myth. The Hebrew faith was a radical departure from the characteristic mythical thought of the pagans. James Barr says, The main battle of the Hebrew faith is fought against the confusion of human and divine, of God and nature so prevalent in pagan myth (The Meaning of ‘Mythology’ in Relation to the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum 9. 1959:3). If the Old Testament preserves any vestiges of myth, it is to show that such were done away with in Yahwism. Gerhard Hase! says that Genesis employs certain terms and motifs, partly taken from theologically incompatible predecessors and partly chosen in deliberate contrast with comparable ancient Near Eastern concepts, and uses them with a meaning that is consonant with and expressive of faith in Yahweh. It represents a parting of the spiritual ways brought about by a deliberate antimythical polemic which undermined the prevailing mythological views (The Polemic Nature of the Genesis Cosmology, Evangelical Quarterly 46. 1974: 81-102). Thus the Old Testament in general and Genesis in particular are a cemetery for lifeless myths and gods.

2. Is Genesis etiology? The narratives of Genesis have also been classified as etiologies, stories that explain some given phenomenon, a topographical, ethnological, cultic, or customary reality (see S. Mowinckel, Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Toppelmann, 1964, p. 81; and Brevard S. Childs, The Etiological Tale Re-examined, Vetus Testamentum 24. 1974:387-97).

If the etiological narrative is the tradition and not simply a motif, that is, if it is a primary etiology, then doubt is cast over the historicity of the event. John Bright correctly observes that it is impossible to prove that an etiology is the creative force of the tradition (Early Israel in Recent History Writing. London: SCM Press, 1956, p. 90). The narratives no doubt record actual events. If there is an etiological element added in the use made of the tradition, it is usually responsible for a single detail or application of the story. To say a story explains why something exists is one thing; but to say a story employs .some mythical episode to form the tradition is quite another.

Etiological motifs do occur in general in the Bible, especially in Genesis which explains the beginnings of many things. But these narratives cannot be referred to as etiological tales that came into being to answer certain questions.

3. Is Genesis history? All this raises the question of the historicity of the accounts. Scholars have been unwilling to use the term history unless it is adequately qualified as distinct from modern philosophies of history. Norman Porteous explains, The fact that Israel’s religious traditions made frequent reference to supernatural interventions is usually enough to make the historian look askance at them and assume that the actual course of events must have been very different (The Old Testament and History, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 8. 1972:22).

For many, the evidence of events from Genesis is not reliable as history. Without outside sources to verify the events, historians must depend on the biblical records themselves. Even the many findings of archeology, though confirming the cultural setting of the events, do not actually prove the existence of an Abraham or a Joseph. So critical scholars hesitate to designate Genesis as factual history.

However, one must remember that the Bible is a unique Book. Genesis was not intended to be a mere chronicle of events, a history for history’s sake, or even a complete biography of the nation. It is a theological interpretation of selected records of the ancestors of Israel. As with all histories, Genesis explains the causes behind the events-but its causes are divine as well as human. because it is part of the revealed Word of God, and not merely human history comparable to ancient pagan mythologies, both the events and the explanations are true.

For the Israelites some of the basic questions about life were answered within this theological interpretation of the events of their history. These events were recognized as integral parts of the God-planned and God-directed course of history, extending from Creation to the last days. In between this starting point and finishing point is biblical history. Thus faith was an essential part of understanding national and international events.

At the heart of this biblical history was God’s covenant. It began with election-God chose Israel through Abram. God’s people could look B.C. and see what God had done, and on the basis of that they could look forward to the fulfillment of the promises. Even though promise and fulfillment were predominant motifs of the biblical history, obedience to the covenant was uppermost in the minds of the narrators. So the events of the past were recounted for apologetic, polemic, and didactic reasons.

The fact that Genesis is a theological interpretation of ancient events does not destroy its historicity. As Porteous says, It would seem reasonable to suppose that interpretation is a response to something that demands interpretation (The Old Testament and History, p. 107). E.A. Speiser says that while the material may not be history in the conventional sense of the term, it cannot be set down as fancy. The author retells the events in his own inimitable way; he does not invent them. What is thus committed to writing is tradition, in the reverent care of literary genius. Where the tradition can be independently checked, it proves to be authentic. This much has been evident for some time in respect to a number of incidental details. It now turns out that the main framework of the patriarchal account has been accurately presented (The Biblical Idea of History in the Common Near Eastern Setting, Israel Exploration Journal 7. 1957:202). For evangelicals, of course, it comes as no surprise that the biblical narratives prove to be authentic.

4. Is Genesis tradition? Many biblical scholars prefer to describe the Genesis narratives as traditions or sagas (which should have been used instead of legends in translating Gunkel’s book The Lexends of Genesis). By these terms they mean the people’s recollections of historical events. In this view historicity is not endangered; it is just not assured. Gerhard von Rad says that saga is more than history because God, not man, is the subject (Genesis. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961, p. 31).

Conservative scholars do not share this hesitancy to regard the narratives as true. Certainly the primeval accounts and genealogies could have been brought from Mesopotamia by the ancestors. To these would have been added the family records of the patriarchs. All the traditions-oral and written-could have been preserved in Egypt by Joseph along with his own records. Moses could then have compiled the work in essentially the form in which it exists today, being preserved from error and guided in truth by the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Old Testament in Its Context: 1, Theoloxical Students Fellowship Bulletin 59. 1971:1-9). So whether the narratives are called traditions or history, they record God’s true revelation and therefore correspond with what actually happened.

Genesis is the first book of the Torah, the five Books of the Law. It may be best to classify the work as Torah literature. It may not be legal literature specifically, that is, laws and commandments, but it lays the foundation for the Law. It is a theological interpretation of the historical traditions behind the formation of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. Throughout Genesis one may discern that Moses was preparing his readers for the revelation of the Law. It is in this that Genesis conveys its didactic nature.

But the material in Genesis is closely related to wisdom literature as well, especially in the Joseph narratives. The emphasis in the book on God’s blessing for those who walk in faithful obedience suggests many parallels with the Books of Wisdom, as will be observed. Genesis, then, is a unique book but it is also a book that is like the rest of the Bible in many ways. It is here that theology and history begin.

The Literary Composition of Genesis.

Genesis is a literary unity, arranging the traditions from the past according to accounts ( ṯôl’ḏôṯ in Heb.) which develop the motifs of blessing and cursing. Also it presents the historical basis in tradition for the election of and covenantal promises to Abraham and his descendants.

1. The purpose of Genesis. Genesis supplies the historical basis for God’s covenant with His people. This can be traced through the entire Pentateuch, for, as Moses Segal states, "The real theme of the Pentateuch is the selection of Israel from the nations and its consecration to the service of God and His Laws in a divinely appointed land. The central event in the development of this theme is the divine covenant with Abraham and its ... promise to make his offspring into the people of God and to give them the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance" (The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies, p. 23, italics his).

Within the development of this theme, Genesis forms an indispensable prologue to the drama that unfolds in Exodus. As a literary and explanatory pendant to the summons to go forth from Egypt to the Promised Land, Genesis demonstrates that such a command was in fulfillment of a covenant with Abraham and Isaac, and with Jacob, the founding father of those tribes. Wilhelm M.L. DeWette stated that Genesis was the foundation of the theocracy, showing that the people of God were gradually separated from others because their whole history was penetrated by a clear and constant plan of divine government of the world, to which individual circumstances were subordinated (A Critical and Historical Introduction to the Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament, trans. Theodore Parker. 2 vols. Boston: Charles C. Little & James Brown, 1850, pp. 1-22). The outworking of the divine plan begins with sovereign Creation, and develops toward the selection of Israel in the man Abraham. Genesis 1-11 appears to be designed to explain the reason for setting apart the worship of God in the world of a special people, Israel, in a special land, Canaan (Segal, The Pentateuch, p. 28).

Two opposite progressions appear in this prologue: (a) God’s orderly Creation with its climax in His blessing of man, and (b) the totally disintegrating work of sin with its two greatest curses being the Flood and the dispersion at Babel (Derek Kidner, Genesis, p. 13). The first progression demonstrates God’s plan to bring about perfect order from the beginning in spite of what the reader may know of man’s experience. The second progression demonstrates the great need of God’s intervention to provide the solution for the corrupt human race.

The moral deterioration of mankind was connected with the advance of civilization; and when it was corrupted beyond repair, it had to be destroyed by the Flood. Yet even after the new beginning, vices were also multiplied and human insolence had far-reaching effects. It was not for a group but for all mankind. Arrogance and ambition in the race brought universal dispersion.

Consequently Genesis has taken these events and constructed a theological picture of man’s revolt against his Maker and its terrible consequences. These narratives, woven into the prologue of Genesis, precede Abrahai in time and prepare the reader for him. Rebellious man is left looking for a solution to his dilemma.

The whole of the primeval history may be described as continuous punishment and gracious provision. Yet with rebellious humanity cursed through dispersion around the world, the reader wonders about God’s relationship to the cursed race. After the judgment at Babel, when people scattered throughout the world, was God’s relationship with the human race broken?

That is the question intended by the whole plane of primeval history. Only then is the reader ready for the election and program of blessing through Abraham (Gen. 12-50). The moral deterioration of mankind dispersed over the earth led to the election of a people who would serve as a source of blessing for all humanity. This was done by focusing on one man and his seed. God’s saving will was extended to the scattered nations through one who was loosed from his tribal ties among the nations and made the founder of a new nation, the recipient of promises reaching even beyond Israel. Only with Genesis 12:1-3 does the significance of the universal preface to saving history became understandable, and only with this prologue does 12:1-3 became fully clear (von Rad, Genesis, p. 148).

2. The motifs of Genesis. The entire Book of Genesis turns on the motifs of blessing and cursing. The promised blessing would give the seed to the patriarchs and the land to the seed; the cursing would alienate, deprive, and disinherit the seed. Later, prophets and historians expanded these motifs and applied them to future events. It is no surprise that these motifs seen throughout the Scriptures drew on the book of beginnings. Blessing and cursing envelop man from his beginning.

In the Old Testament the verb to curse mean;, to impose a ban or a barrier, a paralysis on movement or other capabilities (H.C. Brichto, The Problem of Curse in the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1963, p. 217). Such power belongs only to God or an agency endowed by Him with special power. Anyone could imprecate; but imprecation is strongest when it invokes supernatural power. The curse involves separation from the place of blessing or even from those who are blessed. The prologue of Genesis (chaps. 1-11) preeminently portrays the curse from the very first sin to the curse of Canaan.

On the other hand the verb to bless-being the great benediction word of the Bible-basically means to enrich. Here too God is its source, even when man offers it. As used in Genesis, the promise of blessing is largely concerned with offspring in the land of Canaan (Claus Westermann, Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978, pp. 18-23). The promised blessing included prosperity with respect to fertility (of both the land and the patriarch). The blessing reflected divine approval; therefore it was ultimately spiritual. The contrast between blessing and cursing reflects man’s obedience by faith or disobedience by unbelief and describes God’s approval or disapproval in a graphic form.

3. The structure of Genesis. The structure of Genesis is marked by an initial section and then 11 sections with headings. The major structural word is ṯôl’ḏôṯ (these are the generations of ... ). It is a feminine noun from ya/ad (from the causative form of the verb to bear, to generate). The noun is often translated generations, histories, or descendants. Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs explain it as account[s] of men and their descendants (A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p. 410). The NIV translates it account.

This word has been traditionally viewed as a heading of a section. According to this view the book has the following arrangement:

1. Creation (1:1-2:3)

2. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the heavens and the earth (2:4-4:26)

3. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Adam (5:1-6:8)

4. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Noah (6:9-9:29)

5. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Shem, Ham, and Japheth (10:1-11:9)

6. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Shem (11:10-26)

7. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Terah (11:27-25:11)

8. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Ishmael (25:12-18)

9. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Isaac (25:19-35:29)

10. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Esau (36:1-8)

11. ‘Ṯôl’ḏôṯ1 of Esau, father of the Edomites (36:9-37:1)

12. Ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Jacob (37:2-50:26)

The views on this arrangement vary. For example, Speiser takes ṯôl’ḏôṯ as a heading in all places except 2:4; 25:19; and 37:2. In these places he suggests it means story or history and that it refers to the preceding not the following narrative (Genesis, p. xxiv). Skinner, however, doubts that this word could be used in reference to what preceded; he says that it served as a heading (Genesis, pp. 39-40).

As stated earlier, since ṯôl’ḏôṯ is derived from yālaḏ (to bear, to generate) it refers to what is brought forth. This formula word for Genesis, then, marks a starting point, combining narrative and genealogy to move from the one point (ṯôl’ḏôṯ) to the end ( the next ṯôl’ḏôṯ). It is Moses’ means of moving along the historical lines from a beginning to an ending, including the product or result of the starting point. S.R. Driver explained that the word referred to the particulars about a man and [his] descendants (The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen & Co., 1904, p. 19).

Some do not agree with this traditional approach that each ṯôl’ḏôṯ is a heading. P.J. Wiseman and R.K. Harrison suggest that these are similar to the colophons on clay tablets and refer to the preceding material in the narrative (Wiseman, New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis. London: Marshall, ·Morgan & Scott, 1937, p. 8; Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, p. 548). They think the Genesis traditions were recorded on clay tablets and finally collected into the present form of Genesis.

Wiseman argues that the Genesis ṯôl’ḏôṯ are like the Babylonian colophons in that each contains a title, date of the writing, serial number, and statement of the completion of a series (if it completes one), and the scribe or owner’s name (Creation Revealed in Six Days. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1949, p. 46).

This view is unconvincing, however. The colophons on the tablets are not like the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Genesis (see, e.g., Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, pp. 25, 30; A. L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 240-1). In the cuneiform tablets each title is a repetition of that tablet’s first line and not a description of its contents. Also the owner’s name seems to refer to the present owner, not the original owner. Moreover, the Akkadian equivalent of ṯôl’ḏôṯ is not used in the formula.

If the Genesis ṯôl’ḏôṯ are references to what had immediately preceded the phrase, then the statement in Genesis 5:1 should have come at 4:16, at the end of the story of Adam and not later after the intervening material in 4:17-26. Another passage that would be improbable as a concluding form is 10:1, the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the sons of Noah. But it is unlikely that it concludes the Flood and the curse, especially in view of 10:32. Besides these problems of harmonization is the difficulty of having the story of Abraham preserved by Ishmael (the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Ishmael would be the colophon concluding that preceding history), having Isaac keep Ishmael’s archives, Esau those of Jacob, and Joseph those of Jacob.

Nowhere in the Old Testament does ṯôl’ḏôṯ clearly refer to what has preceded; in every place it can and often must refer to what follows (e.g., in Ruth 4:18 the word looks forward to Perez’s line, and in Num. 3:1 the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Aaron and Moses cannot refer to the preceding census in Num. 1-2). In Genesis when the ṯôl’ḏôṯ are taken to refer to the following sections, these ṯôl’ḏôṯ fit nicely.

Also Genesis 2:4 includes a heading for the following section. Wiseman himself avows that 2:1-3 forms a natural conclusion for the Creation account. Genesis 2:4a would then be the heading and 2:4b would be the beginning dependent clause (much like the beginning of the Enuma Elish: When above ... ). This structure is similar to 5:1, as seen in these two verses:

"These are the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When Yahweh God made earth and heaven ... (2:4, author’s trans.). This is the book of the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Adam. When God created man ... " (5:1, author’s trans.).

The fact that Yahweh God is used throughout 2:4-3:24 also leads one to connect the contents of that passage with the title in 2:4. (However, evidences of some tailpieces-expressions other than ṯôl’ḏôṯ, which are virtually colophons-in Gen.-do exist in 10:5, 20, 31-32. Also 25:16 concludes vv. 12-16; 36:19 concludes vv. 1-19; 36:30b concludes vv. 20- 30; and 36:43 concludes all of chap. 36.) The ṯôl’ḏôṯ heading introduces the historical result of an ancestor and could be loosely rendered, This is what came of ... or This is where it started from (with reference to the following term) (M.H. Woudstra, "The To/edot of the Book of Genesis and Their RedemptiveHistorical Significance," Calvin Theological Journal 5. 1970:187). In Genesis 2:4, then, ṯôl’ḏôṯ introduces the historical result of the cosmos, and 2:4-4:26 presents what became of the heavens and the earth. What follows, of course, is the story of the Fall, the murder of Abel, and the development of sin within civilization. The story does not present another Creation account; instead, it carries the account from the point of the climax of Creation (reiterated in chap. 2) to the corruption of Creation by sin. This is what became of it.

When the crucial passages in the Old Testament are looked at in this way, this definition is the most satisfactory. The term cannot be restricted to mean a genealogy because the contexts are frequently more than that. Nor does the word depict only biographies or histories, because the narratives certainly do not follow that through. The narratives depict what became of so and so in the details relevant to the purpose of Genesis. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Terah is not about Terah, but is primarily concerned with what became of Terah, namely, Abraham and his kin.The 16tdt51 of Isaac has Jacob at its center, with other parts relating to Esau. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Jacob traces the family from him through the life of Joseph. The name following the ṯôl’ḏôṯ is usually the starting point, not the central character, in the narrative. So in this commentary the phrase will be translated, this is the succession from....

Two additional observations may be made about the material in each succession section. One is that in the tracing of each line there is also a narrowing process. After the new beginnings with Noah, the writer supplied the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But immediately afterward, the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Shem is selected. The next ṯôl’ḏôṯ is that of Terah, a descendant of Shem. This account is concerned with the life of Abraham. The line then narrows to Isaac, the son of Abraham, but the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Ishmael, the line not chosen, is given first. The same development holds true of the next generation; before the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Jacob is developed, Esau is dealt with.

A second observation is that the material within each ṯôl’ḏôṯ is a microcosm of the development of the Book of Genesis itself, with the motifs of blessing and cursing playing a dominant role. Within each of the first several ṯôl’ḏôṯ is a deterioration to cursing until 12:1-2, where the message moves to the promise of blessing. From this point on there is a constant striving for the place of blessing, but still with each successive narrative there is deterioration, for Isaac and Jacob did not measure up to Abraham. Consequently at the end of Genesis the family is not in the land of blessing but in Egypt. Kidner expressed this development by stating the "man had traveled far from Eden to a coffin, and the chosen family far from Canaan to Egypt" (Genesis, p. 224).

The Development of the Message of Genesis. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ headings are the very fabric around which the whole of Genesis has been constructed (Woudstra, "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis," pp. 188-9). Each ṯôl’ḏôṯ, explaining what became of a line, shows a narrowing and a deterioration in the development of the theology of blessing.

1. Creation. The first section (1:1-2:3) is not headed by a ṯôl’ḏôṯ, and logically so. Being the beginning, there is no need to trace what became of Creation. Rather, its own heading ·in 1:1 depicts the contents of the chapter. The significance of the section is that the work is wrapped in divine approval and blessing over the fulfillment of the plan. Animal life (vv. 22- 25), human life (v. 27), and the seventh day (2:3) were all blessed specifically. This trilogy is important to the argument: man, made in the image of God, enjoying sovereignty over the creatures of the earth, and observing the Sabbath rest of God, had a blessed beginning.

2. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the heavens and the earth. In this section (2:4-4:26), Genesis reports what became of the cosmos. The section begins with a description of the creation of Adam and Eve and traces their sin, God’s curse on sin, and the expansion of sin in their descendants. No longer at rest, mankind experienced flight and fear, making his way in the world, surviving, and developing civilization. As if in answer to the blessings of Creation, this passage supplies a threefold cursing (of Satan [3:14], of the ground because of man [3:17], and of Cain [4:111).

Yet in this deteriorating life there is a token of grace (4:15) and a ray of hope (man began to call on Yahweh).

3. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the book of Adam. Here too in this central genealogy of the line from Adam to Noah man’s downward drift is seen (5:1-6:8). The section begins with a reiteration of Creation and concludes with God’s intense displeasure over man’s existence. Genesis 5:1-2 recalls the Creation with the use of biirak (to bless); verse 29 records the birth of Noah as a token of grace for comfort from the curse with the use of ‘iirar (to curse). The blessing that began the race was enshrouded by the notice of all of the descendants’ deaths. One exception to the curse of death (Enoch) provides a ray of hope that the curse was not final.

4. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Noah. This section (6:9- 9:29) is one of judgment (curse) and blessing in that God promised never again to curse the ground like this (8:21). Nevertheless the story of Noah begins with his finding grace and ends with his cursing Canaan.

Yet in this section there is a new beginning out of a watery world, parallel in many ways to chapter 1: the destruction of a violent world in chaos, the gracious provision of redemption so that man can sail into the new world, the appearance of dry land for a fresh beginning, the Noahic Covenant, and blessing on Noah and his sons (parallel to that for Adam). Here the race began anew, and from this beginning point the blessing motif became s more prominent in antithesis to the cursing. Shem was blessed.

5. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the sons of Noah. As the population expanded in line with Noah’s worldwide oracle, the direction of the book turned to the nations. The writer consistently developed the message that man’s bent is toward ruin and chaos. This section begins with the fruitful population from Shem, Ham, and Japheth, but ends with the explanation of the origin of the nations by the dispersion at Babel (10:1-11:9). It is a stroke of genius to put such a climactic story at the end, especially when it precedes it chronologically. This leaves the reader looking for the answer to man’s continual decay. It prepares him for the promised blessing.

6. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Shem. Predicated on the world view of the expanding race in the previous section, this section (11:10-26) forms another transition in the book, narrowing the choice from the line of Shem to Abram. This list traces the line from Noah to Abram within the blessings of prosperity and posterity (whereas chap. 5 traced the line from Adam to Noah and the Flood). God would not leave the world to an expanding and divided population under the curse without hope; He would select a man and build a nation that would provide blessing for the earth. Anyone knowing of Abraham would immediately catch the significance of this ṯôl’ḏôṯ that spans the sections of dispersion and promised blessing (11:10-26).

7. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Terah. Whereas chapters 1-11 generally portray man’s rebellion, chapters 12-50 detail God’s bringing man into a place of blessing. This section (11:27-25:11) tells what became of Terah, the last man on the list (11:32). The story traces his son’s life and becomes the key to the book as well as the Old Testament plan for blessing. God promised Abraham, who was blessed above all, a nation, the land, and a name. The narrative develops the account of his growth in obedient faith.

8. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Ishmael. This section (25:12-18) explains what became of Ishmael since his was not the line God had chosen. The writer dealt with Ishmael’s line before returning to the chosen line.

9. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Isaac. In explaining what became of Isaac, the son of promise, this section records the story of Jacob, his son, the struggle within the family, and the emergence of the people of Israel (25:19-35:29). The promises in 12:2 begin to unfold. The blessing given to Abram was now uniquely transferred to Jacob (chap. 27). Jacob also developed in faith, but he was crippled in the process. He was not the man his grandfather was; yet Israel was born.

10. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Esau. Once again Genesis continues the development from Isaac. Yet before discussing the ṯôl’ḏôṯ of the son of succession, this section (36:1-8) discusses Esau, the brother from whom Jacob stole the birthright and the blessing. The nation that came from Jacob would frequently encounter their relatives, the Edomites, descended from Esau. This section accounts for three of Esau’s wives and his five sons.

11. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Esau, father of the Edomitcs. Another accounting of the development from Esau is added because of the great significance of Edomite, Amalekite, and Horite chieftains (36:9-37:1).

12. The ṯôl’ḏôṯ of Jacob. What became of Jacob? His sons became the founding fathers of Israel’s tribes (37:2-50:26). This narrative is concerned with the life of Joseph and the move of Jacob’s family to Egypt. In essence, the narrative relates why God’s people were in Egypt and how they were related to the promised blessings. In Canaan the family had deteriorated to the point of merging with the Canaanites. To preserve the line of blessing, God moved amazingly through the evil will of Joseph’s brothers to bring him into power in Egypt. When the land of promise was cursed with a famine, blessing was provided through Joseph’s power and wisdom. However, the book closes in anticipation of another visitation of blessing from God.

Conclusion. Because Genesis is the foundation of the rest of the Pentateuch, the Book of Exodus goes B.C. to God’s remembering His covenant with Abraham: God heard their groaning and He remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about (lit., ‘took notice of’) them (Ex. 2:24-25). In fact the final events and the closing words of Genesis anticipate the Exodus: God will surely come to your aid (lit., ‘take notice of you’) and take you up out of this land to the land He promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Gen. 50:24). This statement was reiterated by Moses when he took the patriarch’s bones out of Egypt (Ex. 13:19).

Therefore Genesis gives Israel the theological and historical basis for her existence as God’s Chosen People. Israel could trace her ancestry to the patriarch Abraham, whom God had elected out of the dispersed nations, and to whom God had made the great covenantal promises of posterity and land.

Because of the importance of lineal offspring (the first promised blessing) much space is devoted to the family concerns of the patriarchs, such as their wives, sons, heirs, and birthrights and blessings. After Jacob’s oracle (Gen. 49), the Pentateuch spans four centuries. So Genesis stands as a statement of the birthright of the tribes of Israel as they labored in Egypt and then were called to leave it.

Recognizing that they had indeed became the great nation promised in the blessing to Abraham, they would realize also that there was no future in Egypt, or in Sodom, or in Babylon. Their future was in the land that had been promised by divine oath, the land of Canaan.

The contents of Genesis would assure the Israelites that God had promised them such a future, and that He was able to fulfill His promises. Over and over again the book tells of God’s supernatural dealings in the lives of the ancestors to bring Israel to this point. Certainly the God who had begun a good work would complete it (Phil. 1:6). If the people would recognize that they owed their existence to sovereign election and blessing, they would respond in obedience. Genesis is well suited, then, for Moses’ task of drawing Israel out of Egypt.

The Theology of Genesis. Genesis is written with the presuppositions that God exists and that He has revealed Himself in word and deed to Israel’s ancestors. The book does not argue for the existence of God; it simply asserts that everything exists because of God.

The subject matter of the theology in Genesis is certainly God’s work in establishing Israel as th means of blessing the families of the earth. This book forms the introduction to the Pentateuch’s main theme of the founding of the theocracy, that is, the rule of God over all Creation. It presents the origins behind the founding of the theocracy: the promised blessing that Abraham’s descendants would be in the land.

Exodus presents the redemption of the seed out of bondage and the granting of a covenant to them. Leviticus is the manual of ordinances enabling the holy God to dwell among His people by making them holy. Numbers records the military arrangement and census of the tribes in the wilderness, and shows how God preserves His promised blessings from internal and external threats. Deuteronomy presents the renewal of the covenant.

In the unfolding of this grand program of God, Genesis introduces the reader to the nature of God as the sovereign Lord over the universe who will move heaven and earth to establish His will. He seeks to bless mankind, but does not tolerate disobedience and unbelief. Throughout this revelation the reader learns that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6).

OUTLINE

I. The Primeval Events (1:1-11:26)

A. The Creation (1:1-2:3)

B. The succession from the creation of the heavens and earth (2:4-4:26)

1. The creation of the man and the woman (2:4-25)

2. The temptation and the Fall (chap. 3)

3. The advance of sin in Cain’s murder of Abel (4:1-16)

4. The spread of godless civilization (4:17-26)

C. The succession from Adam (5:1-6:8)

1. The genealogy from Adam to Noah (chap. 5)

2. The corruption of the race (6:1-8)

D. The succession from Noah (6:9-9:29)

1. The judgment by the Flood (6:9-8:22)

2. The covenant with Noah (9:1-17)

3. The curse of Canaan (9:18-29)

E. The succession from the sons of Noah (10:1-11:9)

1. The table of nations (chap. 10)

2. The dispersion at Babel (11:1-9)

F. The succession from Shem (11:10-26)

II. The Patriarchal Narratives (11:27-50:26)

A. The succession from Terah (11:27-25:11)

1. The making of the covenant with Abram (11:27-15:21)

2. The provision of the promised seed for Abraham whose faith was developed by testing (16:1-22:19)

3. The transition of the promises to Isaac by faithful Abraham (22:20-25:11)

B. The succession from Ishmael (25:12-18)

C. The succession from Isaac (25:19-35:29)

1. The transfer of the promised blessing to Jacob instead of to Esau (25:19-28:22)

2. The blessing of Jacob in his sojourn (chaps. 29-32)

3. The return of Jacob and the danger of corruption in the land (chaps. 3 35)

D. The succession from Esau (36:1-8)

E. The succession from Esau, father of the Edomites (36:9-37:1)

F. The succession from Jacob (37:2-50:26)

1. The selling of Joseph into Egypt (37:2-36)

2. The corruption of Judah’s family and confirmation of God’s choice (chap. 38)

3. The rise of Joseph to power in Egypt (chaps. 39-41)

4. The move to Egypt (42:1-47:27)

5. The provision for the continuation of the promised blessing (47:2 50:26)

COMMENTARY

I. The Primeval Events (1:1-11:26)

A. The Creation (1:1-2:3)

The account of Creation is the logical starting point for Genesis, for it explains the beginning of the universe. These verses have received much attention in connection with science; this is to be expected. But the passage is a theological treatise as well, for it lays a foundation for the rest of the Pentateuch.

In writing this work for Israel, Moses wished to portray God as the Founder and Creator of all life. The account shows that the God who created Israel is the God who created the world and all who are in it. Thus the theocracy is founded on the sovereign God of Creation. That nation, her Law, and her customs and beliefs all go back to who God is. Israel would here learn what kind of God was forming them into a nation.

The implications of this are great. First, it means that everything that exists must be under God’s control. The Creation must be in subjection to the Creator. Forces of nature, enemies, creatures and objects that became pagan deities-none of these would pose a threat to the servants of the living God.

Second, the account also reveals the basis of the Law. If indeed God was before all things and made all things, how foolish it would be to have any other gods before Him! There were none. If indeed God made man in His image to represent Him, how foolish it would be ,to make an image of God! If indeed God set aside one day for rest from His work, should not man who is walking with God follow Him? The commandments find their rationale here.

Third, the account reveals that God is a redeeming God. It records how He brought the cosmos out of chaos, turned darkness into light, made divisions between them, transformed cursing into blessing, and moved from what was evil and darkness to what was holy. This parallels the work of God in Exodus, which records His redeeming Israel by destroying the Egyptian forces of chaos. The prophets and the apostles saw here a paradigm of God’s redemptive activities. Ultimately He who caused light to shine out of darkness made His light shine in the hearts of believers (2 Cor. 4:6) so that they became new creations (2 Cor. 5:17).

1:1-2. These verses have traditional­ly been understood as referring to the actual beginning of matter, a Creation out of nothing and therefore part of day one. But the vocabulary and grammar of this section require a closer look. The motifs and the structure of the Creation account are introduced in the first two verses. That the universe is God’s creative work is perfectly expressed by the statement God created the heavens and the earth. The word bārā’ (created) may express creation out of nothing, but it certainly cannot be limited to that (cf. 2:7). Rather, it stresses that what was formed was new and perfect. The word is used throughout the Bible only with God as its subject.

But 1:2 describes a chaos: there was waste and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. The clauses in verse 2 are apparently circumstantial to verse 3, telling the world’s condition when God began to renovate it. It was a chaos of wasteness, emptiness, and darkness. Such conditions would not result from God’s creative work (bārā’); rather, in the Bible they are symptomatic of sin and are coordinate with judgment. Moreover, God’s Creation by decree begins in verse 3, and the elements found in verse 2 are corrected in Creation, beginning with light to dispel the darkness. The expression formless and empty (ṯōhû wāḇōhû) seems also to provide an outline for chapter 1, which describes God’s bringing shape and then fullness to the formless and empty earth.

Some have seen a middle stage of Creation here, that is, an unfinished work of Creation (v. 2) that was later developed (vv. 3-25) into the present form. But this cannot be sustained by the syntax or the vocabulary.

Others have seen a gap between the first two verses, allowing for the fall of Satan and entrance of sin into the world that caused the chaos. It is more likely that verse 1 refers to a relative beginning rather than the absolute beginning (Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Commentary on the Old Testament. 2 vols. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981, 1:5). The chapter would then be accounting for the Creation of the universe as man knows it, not the beginning of everything, and verses 1-2 would provide the introduction to it. The fall of Satan and entrance of sin into God’s original Creation would precede this.

It was by the Spirit that the Lord God sovereignly created everything that exists (v. 2b). In the darkness of the chaos the Spirit of God moved to prepare for the effectual creative word of God. 1:3-5. The pattern for each of the days of Creation is established here. There is (a) the creative word, (b) the report of its effect, (c) God’s evaluation of it as good, (d) at times the sovereign naming, and (e) the numbering of each day. Regarding the word day (yam) several interpretations have been suggested. (1) The days of Creation refer to extended geological ages prior to man’s presence on earth. (2) The days are 24-hour periods in which God revealed His creative acts. (3) They are literal 24-hour days of divine activity. In favor of the third view is the fact that the term yam with an ordinal (first, second, etc.) adjective means 24-hour days wherever this construction occurs in the Old Testament. Also the normal understanding of the fourth commandment (Ex. 20:11) would suggest this interpretation.

God’s first creative word produced light. The elegance and majesty of Creation by decree is a refreshing contrast with the bizarre creation stories of the pagans. Here is demonstrated the power of God’s word. It was this word that motivated Israel to trust and obey Him.

The light was natural, physical light. Its creation was an immediate victory because it dispelled darkness. Light and darkness in the Bible are also symbolic of good and evil. Here began God’s work which will culminate in the age to come when there will be no darkness (Rev. 22:5). Israel would know that God is Light-and that the Truth and the Way are with Him. In the darkness of Egypt (Ex. 10:21-24) they had light; and in the deliverance they followed His light (Ex. 13:21).

1:6-8. On the second day God separated the atmospheric waters from the terrestrial waters by an arching expanse, the sky. This suggests that previously there had been a dense moisture enshrouding the earth. God’s work involves making divisions and distinctions.

1:9-13. Dry land with its vegetation was formed on the third day. Vegetation is part of the ordered universe of the true God. There is no cyclical, seasonal myth to explain it. God started it, once and for all. Moreover, while pagans believed in deities of the deep as forces to be reckoned with, this account shows that God controls the boundaries of the seas (cf. Job 38:8-11).

1:14-19. Day four included the sun to rule (govern, v. 16) the day and the moon and the stars to rule the night. Either these were created with apparent age, or they had been previously created and were then made visible on the earth on days one and two when God separated light from darkness and waters above from water below.

These heavenly bodies were to serve as signs for seasons and days and years (v. 14). These terms,