Genesis 1-11:26: The Christian Standard Commentary

By Kenneth A. Mathews

Genesis 1-11:26 is part of The Christian Standard Commentary (CSC) series. This commentary series focuses on the theological and exegetical concerns of each biblical book, thoughtfully balancing rigorous scholarship with practical application. 
 
This series helps the reader understand each biblical book’s theology, its place in the broader narrative of Scripture, and its importance for the church today. Drawing on the wisdom and skills of dozens of evangelical authors, the CSC is a tool for enhancing and supporting the life of the church.
 
The author of Genesis 1-11:26 is Kenneth A. Mathews.
 

• Language: English
• Publisher: BH Publishing Group
• Release date: Jun 15, 2023
• ISBN: 9781087767611

Kenneth A. Mathews

Kenneth A. Mathews (ThM, Dallas Theological Seminary; PhD, University of Michigan) is professor of divinity at Beeson Divinity School, where he teaches Old Testament and Hebrew. Kenneth and his wife, Dea, have two adult children and seven grandchildren.

Book preview

Table of Contents

Series Introduction

Author Preface to Second Edition

Acknowledgements to Second Edition

Abbreviations

Introduction

1 Creation of Heaven and Earth (1:1–2:3)

2 The Human Family in and Outside the Garden (2:4–4:26)

3 Adam’s Family Line (5:1–6:8)

4 Noah and His Family (6:9–9:29)

5 The Nations and the Tower of Babel (10:1–11:9)

6 Shem’s Family Line (11:10–26)

Excurses

Excursus 1: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Modern Period

Excursus 2: Genesis 1–11 and Ancient Literature

Excursus 3: Creation Narratives and Modern Science

Excursus 4: Translating Genesis 1:1–2

Excursus 5: The Image of God

Excursus 6: The Human Soul

Excursus 7: The Origin of Civilization in ANE Mythology

Excursus 8: The Revelation of the Divine Name

Excursus 9: Life Spans of the Patriarchs

Excursus 10: The Flood Narrative

Select Bibliography

Name Index

Subject Index

Scripture Index

I am delighted to see this newly revised edition of one of my favorite commentaries on Genesis—from my friend and colleague of many years, Professor Kenneth A. Mathews. A superbly trained Old Testament scholar with the heart of a pastor, Ken writes for the soul as well as the mind, always with a view toward the Lordship of Jesus Christ over both testaments. May Marcion never dare raise his heretical head again!

Timothy George is distinguished professor at Beeson Divinity School of Samford University and the general editor of the 29-volume Reformation Commentary on Scripture.

Ken Mathews’s Genesis commentary combines those rare qualities of scholarly erudition, accessible prose, and Christian faithfulness. The commentary is a gem and a gift. It’s a gem because of its exegetical care and depth of insight. With a wide grasp of the scholarly literature and an expert’s handling of the biblical text, readers will quickly recognize the quality, care, and time given to a project of this magnitude. Genesis is also a gift because Mathews appears uninterested in flexing his capable intellectual and exegetical muscles for the sake of public demonstration. His commentary is an act of service to the biblical text itself, the commentary’s readers, and, most importantly, Scripture’s primary Author. Those who have the privilege of knowing Dr. Ken Mathews will not be surprised by any of these qualities. They mark a man who has given his life to the service of God, his Word, and students who wish to follow Jesus Christ. The commentary is a remarkable achievement and legacy. Soli Deo Gloria.

Mark Gignilliat, Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School of Samford University

Having preached lectio continua through the book of Genesis, I came to respect and treasure Kenneth Mathews’s remarkable commentary. Why was, and is, this? First, because Dr. Mathews brings his deep understanding of both Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern culture, and its cognate languages, to the sacred text—which he employs to convey what the text says—the truth of God’s Word and nothing but the truth.

Second, because Mathews writes with pastors in mind—to encourage and enhance their preaching of the magisterial truths of primeval and patriarchal history—his commentary is explicitly gospel-freighted. And, as he labors to convey what the text of Genesis says, he refrains from reading into God’s Word things that are not there though he does helpfully fill in the gaps and does not duck the hard questions. In all of this, it is evident that Mathews has worked to be clear and readable.

Now, after a quarter of a century, we have Dr. Mathews’s revised edition in hand, in which he has judicially assessed the subsequent scholarly monographs and commentaries on Genesis to further enrich his work.

Pastor, if you are contemplating the daunting task of preaching through Genesis, this is one that you will want close at hand.

R. Kent Hughes, Senior Pastor Emeritus of College Church in Wheaton

It is hard to believe that Dr. Mathews’s commentary on Genesis 1–11 was written over twenty-five years ago. There has been much scholarly discussion on this extremely important part of the Old Testament since then, thus it was definitely time for a revision. Even his original commentary was a well-balanced, clear commentary on a part of the book that was loaded with controversies, but his revision has significantly improved several of these discussions. While much of what he says has not lost its significance over the past twenty-five years, he needed to interact with many of the questions that modern scholars are asking—which he has done admirably well. He has dealt carefully with difficult issues while maintaining a conservative, evangelical perspective for the commentary. Leaving many of the technical matters to the footnotes allows for a very readable and useable commentary for the layperson as well as the scholar. This commentary will light the way for a very important part of the Pentateuch for another generation of scholars.

Paul D. Wegner, Distinguished Professor of the Old Testament, Gateway Seminary

Kenneth A. Mathews’s Genesis 1–11 commentary is in keeping with his distinguished career as a scholar and churchman. I know students and scholars will benefit from this commentary’s academic depth and theological substance. But I’m most excited for pastors and lay people to get their hands on this powerful exposition of the Book of First Things. Mathews draws on the best of ancient and modern commentary practices, deftly weaving together the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Scripture in a way that makes central the coherence of the Christian gospel. An invaluable resource for Christian proclamation and teaching. Highly recommended!

Todd Wilson, Cofounder & President, The Center For Pastor Theologians

General Editors

E. Ray Clendenen

Brandon D. Smith

Series Associate Editors

Old Testament

R. Dennis Cole

J. Gary Millar

Andrew E. Steinmann

Heath A. Thomas

New Testament

Darrell L. Bock

David S. Dockery

Darian R. Lockett

Richard R. Melick Jr.

Genesis 1-11

Christian Standard Commentary: Genesis 1–11

Copyright © 2022 by Kenneth A. Mathews

All rights reserved.

ISBN: 9781087767611

Dewey Decimal Classification: 222.11

Subject Heading: BIBLE. O.T. GENESIS 1-11\CREATION

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the Christian Standard Bible®, copyright © 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2017 by Holman Bible Publishers. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are taken from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®). ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. The ESV® text has been reproduced in cooperation with and by permission of Good News Publishers. Unauthorized reproduction of this publication is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are taken from the King James Version of the Bible, which is in the public domain.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from THE HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®, NIV®, copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.® Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NRSV are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

1 2 3 4 5 6 • 26 25 24 23

Printed in China

RRD

Dedication

To Dea Grayce Mathews Wife, Mother, Grandmother, and Great-Grandmother 1970–Present

SERIES INTRODUCTION

The Christian Standard Commentary (CSC) aims to embody an ancient-modern approach to each volume in the series. The following explanation will help us unpack this seemingly paradoxical practice that brings together old and new.

The modern commentary tradition arose and proliferated during and after the Protestant Reformation. The growth of the biblical commentary tradition largely is a result of three factors: (1) The recovery of classical learning in the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries. This retrieval led to a revival of interest in biblical languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). Biblical interpreters, preachers, and teachers interpreted Scripture based on the original languages rather than the Latin Vulgate. The commentaries of Martin Luther and John Calvin are exemplary in this regard because they return to the sources themselves (ad fontes). (2) The rise of reformation movements and the splintering of the Catholic Church. The German Reformation (Martin Luther), Swiss Reformation (John Calvin), and English Reformation (Anglican), among others (e.g., Anabaptist), generated commentaries that helped these new churches and their leaders interpret and preach Scripture with clarity and relevance, often with the theological tenets of the movements present in the commentaries. (3) The historical turn in biblical interpretation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This turning point emphasized the historical situation from which biblical books arise and in which they are contextualized.

In light of these factors, the CSC affirms traditional features of a modern commentary, evident even in recent commentaries:

Authors analyze Old and New Testament books in their original languages.

Authors present and explain significant text-critical problems as appropriate.

Authors address and define the historical situations that gave rise to the biblical text (including date of composition, authorship, audience, social location, geographical and historical context, etc.) as appropriate to each biblical book.

Authors identify possible growth and development of a biblical text so as to understand the book as it stands (e.g., how the book of Psalms came into its final form or how the Minor Prophets might be understood as a book).

The CSC also exhibits recent shifts in biblical interpretation in the past fifty years. The first is the literary turn in biblical interpretation. Literary analysis arose in biblical interpretation during the 1970s and 1980s, and this movement significantly influenced modern biblical commentaries. Literary analysis attends to the structure and style of each section in a biblical book as well as the shape of the book as a whole. Because of this influence, modern commentaries assess a biblical book’s style and structure, major themes and motifs, and how style impacts meaning. Literary interpretation recognizes that biblical books are works of art, arranged and crafted with rhetorical structure and purpose. Literary interpretation discovers the unique stylistic and rhetorical strategies of each book. Similarly, the CSC explores the literary dimensions of Scripture:

Authors explore each book as a work of art that is a combination of style and structure, form and meaning.

Authors assess the structure of the whole book and its communicative intent.

Authors identify and explain the literary styles, poetics, and rhetorical devices of the biblical books as appropriate.

Authors expound the literary themes and motifs that advance the communicative strategies in the book.

As an ancient commentary, the CSC is marked by a theological bent with respect to biblical interpretation. This bent is a tacit recognition that the Bible is not only a historical or literary document but is fundamentally the Word of God. That is, it recognizes Scripture as fundamentally both historical and theological. God is the primary speaker in Scripture, and readers must deal with him. Theological interpretation affirms that although God enabled many authors to write the books of the Bible (Heb 1:1), he is the divine author, the subject matter of Scripture, and the One who gives the Old and New Testaments to the people of God to facilitate her growth for her good (2 Tim 3:16–17). Theological interpretation reads Scripture as God’s address to his church because he gives it to his people to be heard and lived. Any other approach (whether historical, literary, or otherwise) that diminishes emphasis on the theological stands deficient before the demands of the text.

Common to Christian (patristic, medieval, reformation, or modern) biblical interpretation in the past two millennia is a sanctified vision of Scripture in which it is read with attention to divine agency, truth, and relevance to the people of God. The ancient commentary tradition interprets Scripture as a product of complex and rich divine action. God has given his Word to his people so that they may know and love him, glorify him, and proclaim his praises to all creation. Scripture provides the information and power of God that leads to spiritual and practical transformation.

The transformative potential of Scripture emerges in the ancient commentary tradition as it attends to the centrality of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the One whom God sent to the world in the fullness of time and whom the OT anticipates, testifies to, and witnesses to. Further, he is the One whom the NT presents as the fulfillment of the OT promise, in whom the church lives and moves and has her being, and who the OT and NT testify will return to judge the living and the dead and who will make all things new.

With Christ as the center of Scripture, the ancient commentary tradition reveals an implicit biblical theology. Old and New Testaments work together as they reveal Christ; thus, the tradition works within a whole-Bible theology in which each Testament is read in dialectic relationship, one with the other.

Finally, the ancient commentary tradition is committed to spiritual transformation. The Spirit of God illumines the hearts of readers so they might hear God’s voice, see Christ in his glory, and live in and through the power of the Spirit. The transformational dimensions of Scripture emerge in ancient commentary so that God’s voice might be heard anew in every generation and God’s Word might be embodied among his people for the sake of the world.

The CSC embodies the ancient commentary tradition in the following ways:

Authors expound the proper subject of Scripture in each biblical book, who is God; further, they explore how he relates to his world in the biblical books.

Authors explain the centrality of Jesus appropriate to each biblical book and in the light of a whole-Bible theology.

Authors interpret the biblical text spiritually so that the transformative potential of God’s Word might be released for the church.

In this endeavor, the CSC is ruled by a Trinitarian reading of Scripture. God the Father has given his Word to his people at various times and in various ways (Heb 1:1), which necessitates a sustained attention to historical, philological, social, geographical, linguistic, and grammatical aspects of the biblical books that derive from different authors in the history of Israel and of the early church. Despite its diversity, the totality of Scripture reveals Christ, who has been revealed in the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God (Heb 1:1; John 1:1) and the One in whom all things hold together (Col 1:15–20) and through whom all things will be made new (1 Cor 15; Rev 21:5). God has deposited his Spirit to his church so that they might read spiritually, being addressed by the voice of God and receiving the life-­giving Word that comes by Scripture (2 Tim 3:15–17; Heb 4:12). In this way, the CSC contributes to the building up of Christ’s church and the Great Commission to which all are called.

AUTHOR PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION

How does one revise a work that is twenty-five years old (1996)? At first I considered the opportunity a straightforward one, assuming it involved updating notes and bibliography. It was more challenging than I had thought, given the numerous scholarly works released since the first edition and new trends in Pentateuchal studies (e.g., modifications in critical viewpoints and new interpretive methods).

Issues vital to contemporary readers are explained and nuanced in light of ongoing debate (e.g., creationism and science, human sexuality and identity, ethnicity, and women in society and in the church). The extensive history of interpretation as a distinct section in the introductory matters of the first edition is reduced to the debate regarding the interpretive models for Genesis and the Pentaeuch in Excursus 1: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Modern Period. Nevertheless, the approaches in the pre-modern periods, encompassing major perspectives and voices in Jewish and Christian circles, occur throughout the exegetical sections. Readability was also a major concern as I made changes at many places to achieve a more accessible understanding for readers. The technical matters are reserved for the footnotes, and my revised excurses are placed at the end of the text, giving readers a clear arrangement of the commentary parts, free from detailed additions.

I gave more attention to commentaries, monographs, and edited volumes that are more accessible than to journal articles. It is true to Genesis that across twenty-five years of scholarship we expect wide diversity of studies in exegesis, theology, and literature. I selected representative ones and did not attempt exhaustive coverage. John Goldingay’s exegetical and theological commentary on Genesis (2022) included forty pages of bibliography.¹

---

¹ J. Goldingay, Genesis, Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 723–63.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TO SECOND EDITION

I appreciate the sustained prayer and encouragement that my wife Dea provided in the writing of this commentary. She invested many hours at the keyboard, inputting hundreds of changes. She made helpful recommendations for accuracy and better readability. My friend of forty-five years, Dr. E. Ray Clendenen, co-general editor of the series, supported me with valuable suggestions that have made the commentary better in content and style. Emily Hall Hazelton, my former student, read the exegetical sections and made many valuable suggestions for including new content and improved readability. She committed hours to checking Scripture references and the CSB’s quotations. Emily also caught technical Hebrew and Greek errors. Dr. J. Gary Millar, principal of Queensland Theological College in Brisbane, Australia, and associate editor of this series, offered engaging questions that resulted in better exposition. I also am grateful to Evan Musgrave, research assistant/project manager to Timothy George, who read the final draft and offered helpful ideas to pursue. I appreciate all the editorial and production staff at B&H Publishers. I am privileged to serve on the faculty of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University. I am completing my thirty-third year. The Divinity School provides a faculty development fund that has supported my work on this project.

Kenneth Mathews

Professor of Divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

January 24, 2022

ABBREVIATIONS

Bible Books

Gen

Exod

Lev

Num

Deut

Josh

Judg

Ruth

1, 2 Sam

1, 2 Kgs

1, 2 Chr

Ezra

Neh

Esth

Job

Ps (pl. Pss)

Prov

Eccl

Song

Isa

Jer

Lam

Ezek

Dan

Hos

Joel

Amos

Obad

Jonah

Mic

Nah

Hab

Zeph

Hag

Zech

Mal

Matt

Mark

Luke

John

Acts

Rom

1, 2 Cor

Gal

Eph

Phil

Col

1, 2 Thess

1, 2 Tim

Titus

Phlm

Heb

Jas

1, 2 Pet

1, 2, 3 John

Jude

Rev

Other Ancient Writings

General Abbreviations

Genesis 1–11

INTRODUCTION OUTLINE

1 Reading Genesis

2 Commenting on Genesis

2.1 Genesis as Literary Text

2.2 Genesis as Historical Text

2.3 Genesis as Theological and Canonical Text

2.3.1 Theological

2.3.2 Canon

3 Literary Genesis

3.1 Structure

3.2 Summary Contents

3.3 Conclusion

4 Genesis and Canon

4.1 Title

4.2 Genesis and Pentateuch

4.3 Interdependence of the Pentateuch

4.4 Structure of the Pentateuch

4.5 Theme of the Pentateuch

4.6 Genesis and the Mosaic Community

4.7 Genesis and the Christian Proclamation

5 Theology of Genesis

5.1 Patriarchal Promises

5.1.1 Blessing

5.1.2 Seed

5.1.3 Land

5.2 God and His World

5.3 Human Life

5.4 Sin

5.5 Civilization

5.6 Covenant

Outline of Genesis 1:1–11:26

INTRODUCTION

1 READING GENESIS

Genesis stands second to none in its importance for proclaiming the whole plan of God (Acts 20:27). It presents the literary and theological underpinning of the canonical Scriptures. If we possessed a Bible without Genesis, we would have a house of cards without foundation. Thus, we cannot ensure the continuing fruit of our spiritual heritage if we do not give place to it. The first verse declares that God is, that is, he is a present, transcendent Creator-God, who is the cornerstone of the entire biblical revelation.² Just as we have no gospel without the cross, we have no salvation story without the sacred events of Moses’s first book. Although this is apparent of the ancestral account with its emphasis on the call of Abraham as the recipient of divine blessing (12:1–3), it is also true for the primeval history of chaps. 1–11. Israel’s faith in God as Creator, not just Redeemer, provided an all-embracing framework, as the fundamental, all-underlying premise for any talk about God, the world, Israel, and the individual.³

Our Christian proclamation of hope has antecedents in the theological soil of three divine programmatic expectations first heard in Genesis. (1) God will bless the human family with procreation and dominion (1:26–28); (2) he will achieve victory over humankind’s enemy (3:15); and (3) he will bring about both the above through the offspring of Abraham (12:1–3)—namely, the one man, Jesus Christ (Rom 5:17). Although in Genesis we discover the embryonic stages of God’s historical-eschatological plan for all humanity, it is left to the unfolding revelation of God to nurture and clarify the outworking of that divine agenda by means of historic Israel and its greater Son, Jesus of Nazareth, our living Lord.

This book of beginnings provides the seed for what we come to know and see confirmed through the complete collection of Holy Writ. What is said about God, human beings, the world, and salvation history in the succeeding library of biblical books is already present in microcosm in the book of creation and blessing. Those books clarify, specify, and explicate these matters; but there is nothing new under the sun (Eccl 1:9) of the precursory light of Genesis. Can we possibly understand law and gospel, in fact, without their genesis? Do we have Matthew and Luke’s historical Gospels without the Genesis genealogies? Does not Paul’s Romans rely on Adam and Abraham? And can we still appreciate the future Eden in John’s Apocalypse without the imagery of the world’s idyllic past? It is not too much to say that as there is no community without its first parents, there is no Christian world and worldview without its Genesis.

It is imperative in our day of pluralism to impart to all a gospel that has a coherent center that accommodates the whole of life’s issues that men and women seek to have answered. This gospel is not a potpourri of disparate ideas but a unified revelation in history, interpreted by the sacred Scriptures. It has its pinnacle in the cross and resurrection of our Savior, who alone holds all things together in his one Person (Col 1:16–17). Creator and creatures, the now and the not yet, life and death, Eden lost and Eden regained, virtues and vices, family kinship and the community of nations—all these and more are the theological substance of the book of first things. In the language of Genesis, let us covenant together to proclaim these things of the past so that we encourage our brethren to endure in faith and hope (see Rom 15:4).

2 COMMENTING ON GENESIS

The focus of this commentary is a literary-theological exposition of the text that draws on its compositional features with the aim of detecting what is highlighted by the text itself. The character of Genesis requires me to read it as reporting in narrative true historical events. Indeed, it requires such an approach if I am to let Genesis speak on its own terms. The search for meaning involves the tandem of biblical content and the literary genre that conveys the message.

The author’s intention of a biblical composition is rarely stated; rather, it is to be inferred. Thus, we must depend on the grammatical and narrative structures as signposts. Only through the window of the text can we discern the intent of the ancient writer. Since the Bible is revelatory and divine in authorship as well as humanly produced, however, the meaning is not restricted to the human author’s conscious intent. There are multiple layers of meaning; therefore, I consider Genesis theologically dense, opening the way for Christian interpretation as legitimate and necessary, fairly characterizing the Bible as divine revelation. By virtue of God’s superintendence of the human authors, there are transcendent meanings beyond the finite human authors’ awareness. I turn now to three important factors in this commentary’s remarks on Genesis.

2.1 Genesis as Literary Text

Genesis in its present, final form is a cohesive unit that shows thoughtful order and a self-consistent theology. Since Genesis (and the Pentateuch) is anonymous, we first face the challenge of locating its historical setting. John Walton comments, All biblical traditions connect the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) in general with Moses, and the biblical profile given of the man Moses makes him perfectly suited, indeed, a most logical candidate, to compile this book.⁴ To support this conclusion I have addressed the broader issue of the compositional history of the Pentateuch in Excursus 1: The Interpretation of Genesis in the Modern Period (1.1). Essentially, there was one mind that designed the book. I believe that mind belonged to Moses—providing a Mosaic core. Therefore, I am comfortable speaking of him as author, although some compiling of actual sources was involved (e.g., genealogies, cf. Gen 5).

However, not every word is attributable to Moses since there are obvious statements that are retrospective (viewed from a later time), updating historical events and place names. For example, in the account of Abraham’s rescue of Lot from marauding kings, he pursued the abductors as far as Dan (14:14). Dan must be a secondary clarification of the city’s location because the Danites’ migration to that area occurred in the settlement period following Moses’s death: They named the city Dan, after the name of their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel. The city was formerly named Laish (Judg 18:29). Such additions show that the purpose of Genesis and the Pentateuch includes speaking to future covenant generations. This is in keeping with the future orientation of the Pentateuch that looks beyond itself to have a fitting conclusion.

Since Genesis is not an autonomous work but is introductory to the book of Moses (i.e., the Torah/Pentateuch), the larger canonical setting of the Torah contributes to the meaning of Genesis and how its message functioned in the Mosaic community (see 4.2 Genesis and Pentateuch and 4.6 Genesis and the Mosaic Community). Also, I address how the passage speaks to the Christian community as we are guided by NT interpretation. Thus, I set each passage in the theological contexts of two succeeding stages of interpretive meaning: (1) Genesis and Israel’s Torah and (2) Genesis and the Christian canon.

2.2 Genesis as Historical Text

As noted already, the literary character of Genesis requires historical inquiry. In other words, the narrative of the text is anchored in historical events. Understanding the place and time are vital to the interpreter’s task. Determining how Genesis and the Pentateuch evolved has dominated biblical studies in the post-Enlightenment era. Genesis has always been a fascinating sample text for scholars in applying experimental methods of biblical research. Yet the history of interpretation did not begin with the rise of source criticism in the eighteenth century with H. B. Witter and J. Astruc. Until the modern period there was a consensus that the Pentateuch was a unified, coherent work that came substantially from the pen of Moses, although there were diverse hermeneutical systems employed, including Jewish midrash and Jewish and Christian allegorical and literal readings. Some quarters pondered whether Moses was the author at every point, as did the medieval Jewish commentator Ibn Ezra (1092–1167). Indeed, most commentators recognized that Moses made use of sources in some sense, especially in the writing of Genesis. The Jewish philosopher Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632–1677), dubbed the pioneer of biblical criticism, considered the Pentateuch a late compilation of different writers edited in the postexilic period, thus radically rejecting the tradition of Mosaic authorship. With the rise of historical-critical methods, the centuries-long agreement of an essentially homogeneous Pentateuch was displaced by the new paradigm of a composite text based on essentially four literary documents constructed by many hands across many centuries.

In the case of Genesis, its compositional history was attributed to three putative interwoven documents—J(ehovist=Yahwist), E(lohist), and P(riestly)—that could be excavated from the extant text by employing literary and historical criteria (see more below). Once extricated, the sources could be delineated as to contents and theology, and they could be dated within a half century with reasonable assurance. By the end of the nineteenth century this source approach dominated all OT scholarship with few exceptions, and it has reigned supreme to the present with important variations, such as form and tradition criticisms.

Since the 1970s, alternative approaches have developed, capturing sectors of the scholarly guild. Pentateuchal studies that followed the source and tradition-history model as the starting point of scholarly inquiry lost its hegemony. There is no certain replacement on the horizon, and while some scholars have sung a dirge for the source and tradition-history model, doing so is premature because it remains staunchly defended by neo-documentarians.

It is important to interpretation how the interpreter views the compositional character and history of Genesis (or the Pentateuch). R. E. Clements comments on the rabbinic practice of ascribing biblical literature to prominent figures: It is a matter of significance that the Pentateuch is ascribed to Moses, whereas it hardly matters at all to the understanding of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel that they have been ascribed to Samuel’s authorship, at least up to the point of his death.⁵

Authorship is important for the exegesis of the Pentateuch; for as the rabbinic community recognized, so much of the Pentateuch was anchored in Moses’s personal experiences, and thus it attributed the core to Moses himself. But this is not the case for Genesis, it would seem, since it antedates Moses’s experience. Yet a trend among commentators in at least the last fifty years is to recognize, as did the rabbis, that Genesis is not an isolated literary work, serving only as a prologue to Exodus–Deuteronomy. Rather, the recounting of Genesis has been shaped by the Mosaic experience in the wilderness. We cannot interpret Genesis fully unless we recognize its place under the shadow of Sinai (see 4.6 Genesis and the Mosaic Community).

First, the question of authorship impacts the issue of the historical value of the pentateuchal witness.⁶ The consequence of historical-critical reconstructions has been that most modern interpreters are at best skeptical and at worst nihilistic when evaluating the historicity of the patriarchs.⁷ Defense of the general reliability of the patriarchal narratives was led by W. F. Albright, whose American school of archaeology had argued that the patriarchs were real persons living in the second millennium. John Bright’s influential view of a second millennium setting in History of Israel (1959, 1972, 1981)⁸ came upon hard times with the recent undermining of the archaeological evidence for a second millennium date. Albrecht Alt’s German school of thought was suspicious of finding much historical certainty in the stories of Israel’s fathers. Also, the supposed source Yahwist (called J for the German spelling Jahwist), once widely accepted by critics as coming from the time of the monarchy, has been dated later, removing it all the more from patriarchal times. Rolf Rendtorff recognized the interplay between the revisionists’ postexilic dating and Israelite history when he observed, The late dating of texts is an indication of the loss of confidence in their historical credibility.⁹ Is there a correspondence between what Genesis affirms and how it really was?¹⁰ The resounding no to this question among critics is deafening.

Second, the question of composition influences whether it is feasible to do a biblical theology.¹¹ Does Genesis have a coherent theology based on a literary unity, or does it consist of competing theological traditions, reflecting different viewpoints from many eras? Which theology imbedded in Genesis is normative? Wherein lies the Word of God? The historicism of the nineteenth century had abandoned the task of doing biblical theology other than as a purely descriptive or comparative religions approach. The attempt to recover the Reformation heritage of preaching the Bible to hear the Word of God led to the biblical theology movement,¹² but it stumbled when no satisfactory scientific basis could be found for doing theology. Despite the renewed efforts of the canon criticism movement at staking a claim to biblical theology (see 2.3.2 Canon below), the question of how to integrate historical-critical advances and a holistic biblical theology remains. In other words, what role does history have in doing theology?

2.3 Genesis as Theological and Canonical Text

Two significant movements in academia, canon criticism and theological interpretation of Scripture, are reactions to the crass modernism that treats the Bible as valid only in those areas that can be historically demonstrated as reliable. The strictly historical method failed to deliver satisfactory results because its claims were not clearly demonstrated and it resisted what the Bible declared for itself as theological proclamation. Each of these two responses was greeted with enthusiasm by those who rejected the tired arguments of historical reconstructionists, but the two trends also bear some disappointing assumptions that evangelicals must consider.

2.3.1 Theological

The method identified as Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) recognizes that the Bible is theological from its beginning to its end. The movement must be described in terms of the academic world, yet ironically it is an approach that is focused on interpretation by the church and for the church.¹³ The historical-critical method reigned from the late nineteenth century without challenge among scholars. In doing so, they bracketed out the discipline of theology as outside the scope of the historically based inquiry whose results were only rational if they were historically verifiable. Historical analysis was viewed as the only legitimate study for academicians. Ecclesial authorities may do as they please, they felt, but the facts could only be obtained by canons of historical method. In response, advocates of theological interpretation announced a new program, although in some ways it was a revival of premodern approaches by Jewish and Christian interpreters.

What theological interpretation purports is varied and no one practitioner holds to all and cannot claim to speak for all advocates. Nonetheless, many theological interpretations share at least four prominent features. First, the biblical text requires both sound historical exegesis and theological study because both levels contribute to the fabric of the text itself and thus both enterprises provide readers the Bible’s material form and a theological message. Its message is spiritually transformational and morally formative. Second, the subject matter of the Bible is God, and by this definition theological reading most closely corresponds to the nature and purpose of the Bible. Third, theological interpretation addresses the ecclesial audience in community. The Bible is written by believers for believers. Fourth, the hermeneutical practices of the patristic fathers with their commitments to the veracity of Scripture and confessional tenets of the Christian faith are retrieved and their Trinitarian impulses adopted, giving the ancient church its formative theological confessions.¹⁴ It is openly admitted that theological interpretation is a faith-based, confessional endeavor.

What are we to make of this?¹⁵ For the most part, I welcome the new focus and assumption that the nature of Scripture necessitates theological interpretation. The Bible, though trustworthy on historical matters, is not a history book or even the history of Israel’s religion in the OT or a history of the Christian church in the NT. Rather, it is proclamation as a witness to God’s creation and redemption through Christ Jesus the Lord. In doing theological reading, we cannot overlook or diminish the historical character of the Bible since the character of revelation is grounded in historical events.

History and theology are not hostile enemies. Since the Bible is revelatory and theological in nature, it must be interpreted accordingly if we do justice to the purpose of the biblical authors. This does not mean that historical and literary studies are excluded; on the contrary, they too are indispensable, given the nature of Scripture. The Bible is God’s revelation in history and is conveyed through human agents who self-consciously produced theological literature. Its theological claims were grounded in real historical persons and events. Carl F. H. Henry commented on the relationship of narrative and history: The notion that the narrative simply as narrative adequately nurtures faith independently of all objective historical concerns sponsors a split in the relationships of faith to reason and to history that would in principle encourage skepticism and cloud historical referents in obscurity.¹⁶ Together, the content and the form of the text give us its meaning and call us to engage the Bible as Scripture, that is, the voice of God’s Spirit who makes known the mind of Christ through human processes.

The relationship between event as revelation and Scripture as revelation can be clarified. Events are revelatory but ambiguous, subject to different interpretations, and must be viewed through the lens of the authoritative divine perspective presented throughout the written Scriptures. Both event and text are needed, although the locus of revelation is the text. The event should not be divorced from the text. Information in background provided by historical studies may enhance our reading but not control the textual meaning. John Sailhamer observed that readers today experience the events by reading the Bible: It is the next best thing to being there.¹⁷

Sailhamer made a good point, but I think we can go further to say that receiving the revealed biblical witness in its canonical form is better than being there. The disciples who lived with Jesus and witnessed all his teachings and historical events, after all, were confused about his identity. They gained a partial understanding. It was only after the resurrection and the gift of the Spirit that they grasped the significance of Jesus’s identity and the kingdom he had inaugurated (e.g., John 16:13; 20:22; Eph 3:3–5). Sometimes Christians mourn, If only I had walked alongside Jesus! But most of Jesus’s contemporaries did not understand who he was or was about. The parables, for example, were intended only for the minority (see Matt 13:10–11; Mark 4:10–13; Luke 8:9–10).

The post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus illustrates different levels of narrative significance (Luke 24:13–35). As readers we enter the world of the biblical narrative created by the author yet observe several overlays of significance embedded in the narrative. The two disciples report to the stranger who has joined them on the road (But they were prevented from recognizing him, v. 16) what they heard regarding the essential facts of the events pertaining to Jesus’s crucifixion and the witness of the women to the vision of angels. The report continues by the two disciples, telling of members in their group who at hearing the women’s testimony went to see the empty tomb for themselves (Peter and probably John). The next action is Jesus (still unrecognized) informing the travelers of the significance of the events in terms of the teaching of Moses and the Prophets, that is, the OT. Here we have a hermeneutical impulse that the whole of the canonical witness was related to the Messiah and his mission. The two disciples had expressed their disillusionment at the death of Jesus because they expected a different outcome if he were the Messiah who would free Israel. What they failed to comprehend was that the crucifixion was a prophetic stage in the climactic events of the Messiah’s mission. They remained in a state of confusion because they did not make sense of the post-resurrection reports of Jesus’s death and the reports by the women and the disciples’ witness. Their analysis was wrong, and it was not until Jesus explained the significance of the events in accord with what the OT says that they knew what to do with the facts. It was only at the breaking of bread that they experienced the enlightenment needed to process the whole. Clearly, this was a reflex of having observed the Last Supper and the feeding of the five thousand.

We as the privileged readers take an author’s viewpoint and cooperate with his commentary. (Remember that the two disciples had not read Luke’s account!) Luke’s perspective is the readers’ guide. The characters were caught up inside the story, whereas the readers have a fuller understanding from their position outside the story. Competent readers will bring the prophetic and apostolic witness of the canon together to provide the theological framework and a deeper understanding.

Since my task is to comment on the meaning of the biblical text for today’s Christian readers, I will do so on our present, received form of the text. The governing paradigm by the church fathers and the Reformers for interpretation was the conviction that the Bible was theological, revealing through Sacred Writ the very words of God that we might know about God and know God. They too applied some of the same hermeneutical principles that modern interpreters do, such as commenting on the repetitions in the text, the challenges to difficulties in the text, and what appeared to be contradictions. In the commentary sections, I include references to premodern Jewish and Christian understandings because they engaged the final form of the text and gave full attention to close textual readings. Their instincts rightly led them to recognize that the Bible is inherently theological and spiritual.

Conclusion: Christian theological interpretation is said to be by the church and for the church, but let us be clear that it is not limited to the church. Obviously, the Bible is most heartily received by Christians; however, the text also speaks to those outside the church—it is for all people. There is no Gnosticism here. Although personal interpretation has its place as a part of hearing the Word of God, it is not fully faithful to the purpose of Genesis (or Scripture as a whole) if we do not consider that communities of believers across the ages contribute to our understanding. Here I am talking about what we as interpreters and as an interpreting body bring to the text. The interpretations we give, however, must be organically connected to the original biblical setting and not an imposition on the text. Something like the infinity symbol’s shape (∞), without a break in the design, illustrates the unending movement between the text’s voice and the interpreter’s and community’s reception.

We are members of the hearing community of faith, intended to receive the promises of God as given to Abraham, our father in the faith (Rom 4:16; Gal 3:7). This means that there are levels of textual meaning that must be kept in mind. Yet, this recognition of interaction serves as a preemptive caution against illegitimate agendas that drown out the voice of the text. It is not the communities of faith that legitimize the text’s voice; it is the authority of Scripture as divine revelation. Christians respond by submitting to and engaging the text under the workmanship of the Spirit. John Webster says it well: The texts of the canon are [a whole] because they testify to a single overarching work of God in the economy of creation and reconciliation: the canon is a whole because it refers to the united divine work.¹⁸

2.3.2 Canon

Canon criticism can be coupled with theological interpretation, for they agree on reading the Testaments as one Bible, privileging the final form of the text instead of the prehistory of the text, and acknowledging that the chief task for interpreters is to read the Bible as the theological norm for the church.¹⁹ Before I comment on its distinctives, however, I will say a brief word on the method’s founders. Its initial proponents were the biblical scholars B. S. Childs and J. Sanders.²⁰ Childs argued that the proper beginning point for criticism is the final form of the canon, which functions as the normative expression of religious faith by the believing communities of Judaism and Christianity. The proper stance toward the Bible, contends Childs, is that of a person of faith within the community who views the text as Scripture.²¹ Approaching the text as Scripture gives the text its referential orientation in the roots of historic Israel, whereas the classic forms of synchronic study view the Bible as not referring beyond itself to actual time-space events. Nevertheless, Childs speaks of canonical context in the sense of its literary rather than historical context.

Sanders agreed that historical criticism effectively cuts the Bible off from the very communities that revered it.²² Sanders, however, differs from Childs by viewing his "canonical criticism (not canon criticism") as the natural extension of historical-critical methods. For him, the proper canonical context includes the precanonical stages in its historical development. Historical-critical tools, therefore, are needed to isolate the various stages of canonical development, tracing the function of those traditions that finally reside in the extant canon.

Childs’s canon criticism recognizes that the individual books, however they came about, took on different meaning as they were sequentially set in the framework of the Bible. So, in the case of Genesis, it has an additional function when it is read in the collection of the Pentateuch or when set in the ongoing historical account from Genesis to 2 Kings in the Hebrew arrangement. Further, Genesis serves its role in the OT as a whole and next in the totality of the Old and New Testaments. Canonical reading shares in the premodern interpretations of Scripture because both value the canon as the complete, fuller revelation over the historical approach alone, which can only provide an intermediary meaning in a stage of development. Christopher Seitz clarifies for us that the Christian reading, that is, reading the whole two-Testament witness, understands the formation of the second Testament [New], as a theological witness, took place as commentary on the Old in the light of the gospel, showing Christ to be ‘in accordance with the Scriptures.’²³

The canonical approach is a positive move toward acknowledging the theological significance of the biblical revelation. Likewise, it attempts to bridge the chasm created between a solely historical study of the Bible and the theological study of the Bible. Its emphasis on the unity of the biblical books where there are historical or theological tensions is advantageous as opposed to the common opinion of historical criticism that emphasizes the diversity and seeming contradiction within the Bible. Another helpful aspect of canonical reading is its acknowledgement that the authors of Scripture and the audience whom they addressed accepted the authoritative writing of the prophets and apostles as the Word of God. This provided the basis for forming and informing the community.

Nevertheless, there are some cautions required. The question of authority must be addressed with clarity. (1) Does it reside with the biblical books as texts or with the final canonical context? Since the inspiration of the original writings were first recognized as canonical in the sense that they were divine Scripture, the emphasis of our work must reside with the books themselves. Yet, since the core of the Pentateuch was written by one author (Moses), I am further helped in understanding Genesis by considering the whole context of the five books. Canonical criticism, however, rests the ultimate authority in the final canonical form. The canonical steps proposed for the arrangement are typically speculative since we do not know who the editors were or the basis for the editorial selection, arrangement, and changing of the precanonical sources. Bruce Metzger’s observations regarding the books of the Bible (in his case, NT) and canon are still valuable: [T]he books within the collection are regarded as possessing an intrinsic worth prior to their having been assembled, and their authority is grounded in their nature and source.²⁴ For this reason the Jews recognized the inherent authority of the Hebrew books as did the church later. The canonical view is the canon is invested with dogmatic significance arising from the activity of canonization.²⁵ Metzger shows that the apostles produced self-authenticating Scripture that was innately the very Word of God, and the church at receiving it recognized it as authoritative (cf. 1 Thess 2:13). To say otherwise does not consider what is historically the case.

(2) Another caution is the question of intention, which is critical to understanding the locus of revelation. I agree that the interpreter cannot do a psychological work up on an author’s state of mind. All we get is the deposit in the Scriptures, albeit sufficient, for knowing the divine Word. It is the written Scriptures that were God-breathed and are adequate for the witness that the writers of Scripture have given us (2 Tim 3:16–17). This does not mean that what the authors themselves understood limited the message of their scriptures. The orientation in the literary and theological character of Genesis and the Pentateuch is directed toward the future, thus addressing future generations in terms of their meaning for new communities of faith. That which was promised in the Pentateuch has its realization in previously undisclosed specifics that only could be recognized by the later community of faith. In particular, for example, the apostle Peter acknowledged that what the (OT) prophets sought to understand was meant for Christian believers to grasp by the revelation of the Holy Spirit (1 Pet 1:10–12; cf. Isa 8:16; 30:8).

(3) Another concern is Childs’s reliance on the findings of historical criticism, specifically, the traditio-redaction criticism. Despite his rejection of historical-critical methods and many of its conclusions, Childs still begins with the assumption of precanonical diverse sources that have been brought together despite their different and even contradictory viewpoints. He agrees that Gen 1 and 2 tell two different versions of creation (the Priestly and the Yahwist), for example. But he explains that they were joined, according to historical critics, to preserve the two accounts that gave readers of the composite a fuller interpretation of the two but now one tradition.

Conclusion: The entry point to interpretation is what I recognized above: the literary character of Genesis and the Pentateuch. In this introduction, I will first remark on the literary arrangement of these. In other words, what can we learn from observing the nature of the composition? Next, I will speak to the compositional history of the Pentateuch and to the question of historicity regarding the events that Genesis recounts. How did we receive the book of Genesis and when? Last, the commentary sections would be incomplete, even self-defeating, if the theological and spiritual purpose of the writing is neglected. So, I will address the theological theme and message of the book. What was the purpose of the book and what does it say about God, creation, and the covenant people of Israel?

3 LITERARY GENESIS

The literary makeup of Genesis is analogous to the architectural features of a stained-glass window adorning an edifice. At a distance the viewer sees the window holistically and recognizes the identity of the scene or person depicted in the representation; but as the glass collage is approached, proximity reveals the intricate design of the juxtaposed pieces—differing in shape, size, and color—whose lines, unnoticed from afar, become obvious. Genesis is a complex literary composition with symmetrical unity but a diversity of genres (e.g., narrative, genealogy, and lyric poetry). These literary pieces, some previously written and some original compositions by the author, have been brought together by the author/compiler who did not always blend them to a modern reader’s satisfaction. Yet together they form an unmistakably coherent, unified story line.

The Joseph story (chaps. 37–50), for example, possesses a different rhetorical style from the preceding patriarchal narratives and can be read as an independent, self-standing discourse. Yet it has been integrated into the structure of the whole by means of the book’s framing device (family records tôlədōt, 37:2) so that it makes a vital contribution to the book’s overarching theme. These chapters show how the Jacob family fared after the patriarch’s return to Canaan and how God preserved the family and thus the promise, placing the Jacob clan of seventy souls (KJV, Gen 46:27; Exod 1:5) in Egypt. Also we can consider within the Joseph narrative the embedded Judah and Tamar account (chap. 38), which appears at first reading to be foreign to the narrative flow of a consecutive plot line. Its placement shows that the author/compiler was not opposed to such disjuncture in fastening his materials. There has been a joining of two literary elements: the Joseph story proper (chaps. 37; 39–48) and the wider narrative of Jacob and the family (chaps. 38; 49–50).²⁶ Yet it is not a mere adding of another story regarding a son of Jacob. Rather, the narrative advances the book’s thematic concern for the spiritual succession of the promises within the Joseph pericope. Chapter 38 involves the motif of barrenness (though here due to the fault of the men, not the woman), which echoes the recurring trauma of a missing heir in the Abraham clan (Abraham-Sarah, Isaac-Rebecca, Jacob-Rachel). The Judah-Tamar story concludes with another echo of the past, the birth struggle of twins, reminding the reader of the birth of Esau and Jacob (chap. 25). This sibling-rivalry pattern occurs when Zerah, whose hand first emerged from Tamar’s womb, is supplanted by his twin, Perez, bringing to the fore the recurring issue of patriarchal succession. Reuben, Jacob’s eldest son, and Simeon and Levi, next in line, had disqualified themselves to succeed Jacob by their treacherous actions against their father (34:18–31; 35:22).

Whereas Joseph’s dreams in chap. 37 appeared to designate him as the successor to Jacob, chap. 38 hints by virtue of the odd birth of Judah’s twins, Perez and Zerah, that the lineage of Judah-Perez would carry forth the Jacob tradition. This is confirmed in the blessing of Jacob upon Judah (49:8–12), which possesses allusions