God . This frequently used Hebrew name for God ( אֱלֹהִים ,’ elohim ) is a plural form. When it refers to the one true God, the singular verb is normally used, as here. The plural form indicates majesty; the name stresses God’s sovereignty and incomparability – he is the “God of gods.”


Darkness . The Hebrew word simply means “darkness,” but in the Bible it has come to symbolize what opposes God, such as judgment ( Exod 10:21 ), death ( Ps 88:13 ), oppression ( Isa 9:1 ), the wicked ( 1 Sam 2:9 ) and in general, sin. In Isa 45:7 it parallels “evil.” It is a fitting cover for the primeval waste, but it prepares the reader for the fact that God is about to reveal himself through his works.


The water . The text deliberately changes now from the term for the watery deep to the general word for water. The arena is now the life-giving water and not the chaotic abyss-like deep. The change may be merely stylistic, but it may also carry some significance. The deep carries with it the sense of the abyss, chaos, darkness – in short, that which is not good for life.


Light . The Hebrew word simply means “light,” but it is used often in scripture to convey the ideas of salvation, joy, knowledge, righteousness, and life. In this context one cannot ignore those connotations, for it is the antithesis of the darkness. The first thing God does is correct the darkness; without the light there is only chaos.


Let the water…be gathered to one place . In the beginning the water covered the whole earth; now the water was to be restricted to an area to form the ocean. The picture is one of the dry land as an island with the sea surrounding it. Again the sovereignty of God is revealed. Whereas the pagans saw the sea as a force to be reckoned with, God controls the boundaries of the sea. And in the judgment at the flood he will blur the boundaries so that chaos returns.


After their kinds . The Hebrew word translated “kind” ( מִין , min ) indicates again that God was concerned with defining and dividing time, space, and species. The point is that creation was with order, as opposed to chaos. And what God created and distinguished with boundaries was not to be confused (see Lev 19:19 and Deut 22:9-11 ).


Let there be lights . Light itself was created before the light-bearers. The order would not seem strange to the ancient Hebrew mind that did not automatically link daylight with the sun (note that dawn and dusk appear to have light without the sun).


Two great lights . The text goes to great length to discuss the creation of these lights, suggesting that the subject was very important to the ancients. Since these “lights” were considered deities in the ancient world, the section serves as a strong polemic (see G. Hasel, “The Polemical Nature of the Genesis Cosmology,” EvQ 46 [1974]: 81-102). The Book of Genesis is affirming they are created entities, not deities. To underscore this the text does not even give them names. If used here, the usual names for the sun and moon [ Shemesh and Yarih , respectively] might have carried pagan connotations, so they are simply described as greater and lesser lights. Moreover, they serve in the capacity that God gives them, which would not be the normal function the pagans ascribed to them. They merely divide, govern, and give light in God’s creation.


In days one to three there is a naming by God; in days five and six there is a blessing by God. But on day four there is neither. It could be a mere stylistic variation. But it could also be a deliberate design to avoid naming “sun” and “moon” or promoting them beyond what they are, things that God made to serve in his creation.


The instruction God gives to creation is properly a fuller expression of the statement just made (“God blessed them”), that he enriched them with the ability to reproduce. It is not saying that these were rational creatures who heard and obeyed the word; rather, it stresses that fruitfulness in the animal world is a result of the divine decree and not of some pagan cultic ritual for fruitfulness. The repeated emphasis of “be fruitful – multiply – fill” adds to this abundance God has given to life. The meaning is underscored by the similar sounds: בָּרָךְ ( barakh ) with בָּרָא ( bara ’), and פָּרָה ( parah ) with רָבָה ( ravah ).


The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann ( Genesis , 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use ( 2 Sam 24:14 ; Isa 6:8 ) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22 ; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6 ; Isa 6:1-8 ). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5 .) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7 ), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27 ). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.


The distinction of “humankind” as “male” and “female” is another point of separation in God’s creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated. The mention of male and female prepares for the blessing to follow.


The several imperatives addressed to both males and females together (plural imperative forms) actually form two commands: reproduce and rule. God’s word is not merely a form of blessing, but is now addressed to them personally; this is a distinct emphasis with the creation of human beings. But with the blessing comes the ability to be fruitful and to rule. In procreation they will share in the divine work of creating human life and passing on the divine image (see 5:1-3 ); in ruling they will serve as God’s vice-regents on earth. They together, the human race collectively, have the responsibility of seeing to the welfare of that which is put under them and the privilege of using it for their benefit.


G. J. Wenham ( Genesis [WBC], 1:34) points out that there is nothing in the passage that prohibits the man and the woman from eating meat. He suggests that eating meat came after the fall. Gen 9:3 may then ratify the postfall practice of eating meat rather than inaugurate the practice, as is often understood.


Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh ( Lord ) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis ). Gen 1:1 –2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh ( Lord ) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis . For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism . For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was ; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative , 131-54; and Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative , 111-34.


The name Eden ( עֵדֶן , ’ eden ) means “pleasure” in Hebrew.


Eden is portrayed here as a source of life-giving rivers (that is, perennial streams). This is no surprise because its orchard is where the tree of life is located. Eden is a source of life, but tragically its orchard is no longer accessible to humankind. The river flowing out of Eden is a tantalizing reminder of this. God continues to provide life-giving water to sustain physical existence on the earth, but immortality has been lost.


Cush . In the Bible the Hebrew word כּוּשׁ ( kush , “Kush”) often refers to Ethiopia (so KJV, CEV), but here it must refer to a region in Mesopotamia, the area of the later Cassite dynasty of Babylon. See Gen 10:8 as well as E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB), 20.


This is the first time in the Bible that the verb tsavah ( צָוָה , “to command”) appears. Whatever the man had to do in the garden, the main focus of the narrative is on keeping God’s commandments. God created humans with the capacity to obey him and then tested them with commands.


This poetic section expresses the correspondence between the man and the woman. She is bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Note the wordplay (paronomasia) between “woman” ( אִשָּׁה , ’ ishah ) and “man” ( אִישׁ , ’ ish ). On the surface it appears that the word for woman is the feminine form of the word for man. But the two words are not etymologically related. The sound and the sense give that impression, however, and make for a more effective wordplay.


Many theologians identify or associate the serpent with Satan. In this view Satan comes in the disguise of a serpent or speaks through a serpent. This explains the serpent’s capacity to speak. While later passages in the Bible may indicate there was a satanic presence behind the serpent (see, for example, Rev 12:9 ), the immediate context pictures the serpent as simply one of the animals of the field created by God (see vv. 1, 14 ). An ancient Jewish interpretation explains the reference to the serpent in a literal manner, attributing the capacity to speak to all the animals in the orchard. This text ( Jub. 3:28) states, “On that day [the day the man and woman were expelled from the orchard] the mouth of all the beasts and cattle and birds and whatever walked or moved was stopped from speaking because all of them used to speak to one another with one speech and one language [presumed to be Hebrew, see 12:26].” Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.41) attributes the serpent’s actions to jealousy. He writes that “the serpent, living in the company of Adam and his wife, grew jealous of the blessings which he supposed were destined for them if they obeyed God’s behests, and, believing that disobedience would bring trouble on them, he maliciously persuaded the woman to taste of the tree of wisdom.”


God . The serpent does not use the expression “Yahweh God” [ Lord God] because there is no covenant relationship involved between God and the serpent. He only speaks of “God.” In the process the serpent draws the woman into his manner of speech so that she too only speaks of “God.”


And you must not touch it . The woman adds to God’s prohibition, making it say more than God expressed. G. von Rad observes that it is as though she wanted to set a law for herself by means of this exaggeration ( Genesis [OTL], 86).


You will be like divine beings who know good and evil . The serpent raises doubts about the integrity of God. He implies that the only reason for the prohibition was that God was protecting the divine domain. If the man and woman were to eat, they would enter into that domain. The temptation is to overstep divinely established boundaries. (See D. E. Gowan, When Man Becomes God [PTMS], 25.)


This pericope ( 3:1-7 ) is a fine example of Hebrew narrative structure. After an introductory disjunctive clause that introduces a new character and sets the stage ( 3:1 ), the narrative tension develops through dialogue, culminating in the action of the story. Once the dialogue is over, the action is told in a rapid sequence of verbs – she took, she ate, she gave, and he ate.


Where are you? The question is probably rhetorical (a figure of speech called erotesis) rather than literal, because it was spoken to the man, who answers it with an explanation of why he was hiding rather than a location. The question has more the force of “Why are you hiding?”


Who told you that you were naked? This is another rhetorical question, asking more than what it appears to ask. The second question in the verse reveals the Lord God’s real concern.


The Hebrew word order (“Did you from the tree – which I commanded you not to eat from it – eat?”) is arranged to emphasize that the man’s and the woman’s eating of the fruit was an act of disobedience. The relative clause inserted immediately after the reference to the tree brings out this point very well.


The Hebrew word order puts the subject (“the serpent”) before the verb here, giving prominence to it.


Note that God asks no question of the serpent, does not call for confession, as he did to the man and the woman; there is only the announcement of the curse. The order in this section is chiastic: The man is questioned, the woman is questioned, the serpent is cursed, sentence is passed on the woman, sentence is passed on the man.


Dust you will eat . Being restricted to crawling on the ground would necessarily involve “eating dust,” although that is not the diet of the serpent. The idea of being brought low, of “eating dust” as it were, is a symbol of humiliation.


The Hebrew word translated “offspring” is a collective singular. The text anticipates the ongoing struggle between human beings (the woman’s offspring) and deadly poisonous snakes (the serpent’s offspring). An ancient Jewish interpretation of the passage states: “He made the serpent, cause of the deceit, press the earth with belly and flank, having bitterly driven him out. He aroused a dire enmity between them. The one guards his head to save it, the other his heel, for death is at hand in the proximity of men and malignant poisonous snakes.” See Sib. Or. 1:59-64. For a similar interpretation see Josephus, Ant. 1.1.4 (1.50-51).


You will attack her offspring’s heel . Though the conflict will actually involve the serpent’s offspring (snakes) and the woman’s offspring (human beings), v. 15 b for rhetorical effect depicts the conflict as being between the serpent and the woman’s offspring, as if the serpent will outlive the woman. The statement is personalized for the sake of the addressee (the serpent) and reflects the ancient Semitic concept of corporate solidarity, which emphasizes the close relationship between a progenitor and his offspring. Note Gen 28:14 , where the Lord says to Jacob, “Your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you [second masculine singular] will spread out in all directions.” Jacob will “spread out” in all directions through his offspring, but the text states the matter as if this will happen to him personally.


For the ground to be cursed means that it will no longer yield its bounty as the blessing from God had promised. The whole creation, Paul writes in Rom 8:22 , is still groaning under this curse, waiting for the day of redemption.


Until you return to the ground . The theme of humankind’s mortality is critical here in view of the temptation to be like God. Man will labor painfully to provide food, obviously not enjoying the bounty that creation promised. In place of the abundance of the orchard’s fruit trees, thorns and thistles will grow. Man will have to work the soil so that it will produce the grain to make bread. This will continue until he returns to the soil from which he was taken (recalling the creation in 2:7 with the wordplay on Adam and ground). In spite of the dreams of immortality and divinity, man is but dust ( 2:7 ), and will return to dust. So much for his pride.


In general, the themes of the curse oracles are important in the NT teaching that Jesus became the cursed one hanging on the tree. In his suffering and death, all the motifs are drawn together: the tree, the sweat, the thorns, and the dust of death (see Ps 22:15 ). Jesus experienced it all, to have victory over it through the resurrection.


The name Eve means “Living one” or “Life-giver” in Hebrew.


The Lord God made garments from skin . The text gives no indication of how this was done, or how they came by the skins. Earlier in the narrative (v. 7 ) the attempt of the man and the woman to cover their nakedness with leaves expressed their sense of alienation from each other and from God. By giving them more substantial coverings, God indicates this alienation is greater than they realize. This divine action is also ominous; God is preparing them for the more hostile environment in which they will soon be living (v. 23 ). At the same time, there is a positive side to the story in that God makes provision for the man’s and woman’s condition.


The man has become like one of us . See the notes on Gen 1:26 and 3:5 .


The name Abel is not defined here in the text, but the tone is ominous. Abel’s name, the Hebrew word הֶבֶל ( hevel ), means “breath, vapor, vanity,” foreshadowing Abel’s untimely and premature death.


The Letter to the Hebrews explains the difference between the brothers as one of faith – Abel by faith offered a better sacrifice. Cain’s offering as well as his reaction to God’s displeasure did not reflect faith. See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.


The word “brother” appears six times in vv. 8-11 , stressing the shocking nature of Cain’s fratricide (see 1 John 3:12 ).


Where is Abel your brother? Again the Lord confronts a guilty sinner with a rhetorical question (see Gen 3:9-13 ), asking for an explanation of what has happened.


What have you done? Again the Lord ’s question is rhetorical (see Gen 3:13 ), condemning Cain for his sin.


I must hide from your presence . The motif of hiding from the Lord as a result of sin also appears in Gen 3:8-10 .


The symbolic number seven is used here to emphasize that the offender will receive severe punishment. For other rhetorical and hyperbolic uses of the expression “seven times over,” see Pss 12:6; 79:12 ; Prov 6:31 ; Isa 30:26 .


God becomes Cain’s protector. Here is common grace – Cain and his community will live on under God’s care, but without salvation.


The name Nod means “wandering” in Hebrew (see vv. 12, 14 ).


Seventy-seven times . Lamech seems to reason this way: If Cain, a murderer, is to be avenged seven times (see v. 15 ), then how much more one who has been unjustly wronged! Lamech misses the point of God’s merciful treatment of Cain. God was not establishing a principle of justice when he warned he would avenge Cain’s murder. In fact he was trying to limit the shedding of blood, something Lamech wants to multiply instead. The use of “seventy-seven,” a multiple of seven, is hyperbolic, emphasizing the extreme severity of the vengeance envisioned by Lamech.


The name Seth probably means something like “placed”; “appointed”; “set”; “granted,” assuming it is actually related to the verb that is used in the sentiment. At any rate, the name שֵׁת ( shet ) and the verb שָׁת ( shat , “to place, to appoint, to set, to grant”) form a wordplay (paronomasia).


The genealogy traces the line from Adam to Noah and forms a bridge between the earlier accounts and the flood story. Its constant theme of the reign of death in the human race is broken once with the account of Enoch, but the genealogy ends with hope for the future through Noah. See further G. F. Hasel, “The Genealogies of Gen. 5 and 11 and their Alleged Babylonian Background,” AUSS 16 (1978): 361-74; idem, “ Genesis 5 and 11 ,” Origins 7 (1980): 23-37.


With the seventh panel there is a digression from the pattern. Instead of simply saying that Enoch lived, the text observes that he “walked with God.” The rare expression “walked with” (the Hitpael form of the verb הָלָךְ , halakh , “to walk” collocated with the preposition אֶת , ’ et , “with”) is used in 1 Sam 25:15 to describe how David’s men maintained a cordial and cooperative relationship with Nabal’s men as they worked and lived side by side in the fields. In Gen 5:22 the phrase suggests that Enoch and God “got along.” This may imply that Enoch lived in close fellowship with God, leading a life of devotion and piety. An early Jewish tradition, preserved in 1 En. 1:9 and alluded to in Jude 14 , says that Enoch preached about the coming judgment. See F. S. Parnham, “Walking with God,” EvQ 46 (1974): 117-18.


The text simply states that God took Enoch. Similar language is used of Elijah’s departure from this world (see 2 Kgs 2:10 ). The text implies that God overruled death for this man who walked with him.


The name Noah appears to be related to the Hebrew word נוּחַ ( nuakh , “to rest”). There are several wordplays on the name “Noah” in the story of the flood.


The Hebrew phrase translated “sons of God” ( בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים , bÿne-ha ’ elohim ) occurs only here ( Gen 6:2, 4 ) and in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 . There are three major interpretations of the phrase here. (1) In the Book of Job the phrase clearly refers to angelic beings. In the “sons of God” are distinct from “humankind,” suggesting they were not human. This is consistent with the use of the phrase in Job. Since the passage speaks of these beings cohabiting with women, they must have taken physical form or possessed the bodies of men. An early Jewish tradition preserved in 1 En. 6-7 elaborates on this angelic revolt and even names the ringleaders. (2) Not all scholars accept the angelic interpretation of the “sons of God,” however. Some argue that the “sons of God” were members of Seth’s line, traced back to God through Adam in , while the “daughters of humankind” were descendants of Cain. But, as noted above, the text distinguishes the “sons of God” from humankind (which would include the Sethites as well as the Cainites) and suggests that the “daughters of humankind” are human women in general, not just Cainites. (3) Others identify the “sons of God” as powerful tyrants, perhaps demon-possessed, who viewed themselves as divine and, following the example of Lamech (see Gen 4:19 ), practiced polygamy. But usage of the phrase “sons of God” in Job militates against this view. For literature on the subject see G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:135.


The Hebrew verb translated “saw” ( רָאָה , ra ’ ah ), used here of God’s evaluation of humankind’s evil deeds, contrasts with God’s evaluation of creative work in , when he observed that everything was good.


Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil . There is hardly a stronger statement of the wickedness of the human race than this. Here is the result of falling into the “knowledge of good and evil”: Evil becomes dominant, and the good is ruined by the evil.


There is a vast body of scholarly literature about the flood story. The following studies are particularly helpful: A. Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and the Old Testament Parallels ; M. Kessler, “Rhetorical Criticism of ,” Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (PTMS), 1-17; I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was ; A. R. Millard, “A New Babylonian ‘Genesis Story’,” TynBul 18 (1967): 3-18; G. J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 28 (1978): 336-48.


On the divine style utilized here, see R. Lapointe, “The Divine Monologue as a Channel of Revelation,” CBQ 32 (1970): 161-81.


The Hebrew verb is an imperative. A motif of this section is that Noah did as the Lord commanded him – he was obedient. That obedience had to come from faith in the word of the Lord . So the theme of obedience to God’s word is prominent in this prologue to the law.


For a study of the Levitical terminology of “clean” and “unclean,” see L. E. Toombs, IDB 1:643.


On the prescientific view of the sky reflected here, see L. I. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World (AnBib), 46.


The Hebrew verb translated “prevailed over” suggests that the waters were stronger than the earth. The earth and everything in it were no match for the return of the chaotic deep.


Offered burnt offerings on the altar . F. D. Maurice includes a chapter on the sacrifice of Noah in The Doctrine of Sacrifice . The whole burnt offering, according to , represented the worshiper’s complete surrender and dedication to the Lord . After the flood Noah could see that God was not only a God of wrath, but a God of redemption and restoration. The one who escaped the catastrophe could best express his gratitude and submission through sacrificial worship, acknowledging God as the sovereign of the universe.


See the notes on the words “humankind” and “likeness” in Gen 1:26 , as well as J. Barr, “The Image of God in the Book of Genesis – A Study of Terminology,” BJRL 51 (1968/69): 11-26.


The disjunctive clause (conjunction + pronominal subject + verb) here indicates a strong contrast to what has preceded. Against the backdrop of the warnings about taking life, God now instructs the people to produce life, using terms reminiscent of the mandate given to Adam ( Gen 1:28 ).


On the making of covenants in Genesis, see W. F. Albright, “The Hebrew Expression for ‘Making a Covenant’ in Pre-Israelite Documents,” BASOR 121 (1951): 21-22.


The Hebrew word קֶשֶׁת ( qeshet ) normally refers to a warrior’s bow. Some understand this to mean that God the warrior hangs up his battle bow at the end of the flood, indicating he is now at peace with humankind, but others question the legitimacy of this proposal. See C. Westermann, Genesis , 1:473, and G. J. Wenham, Genesis (WBC), 1:196.


The concluding disjunctive clause is parenthetical. It anticipates the following story, which explains that the Canaanites, Ham’s descendants through Canaan, were cursed because they shared the same moral abandonment that their ancestor displayed. See A. van Selms, “The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis,” OTS 12 (1958): 182-213.


The epithet a man of the soil indicates that Noah was a farmer.


For the second time (see v. 18 ) the text informs the reader of the relationship between Ham and Canaan. will explain that Canaan was the ancestor of the Canaanite tribes living in the promised land.


For more on the curse, see H. C. Brichto, The Problem of “ Curse ” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS), and J. Scharbert, TDOT 1:405-18.


Cursed be Canaan . The curse is pronounced on Canaan, not Ham. Noah sees a problem in Ham’s character, and on the basis of that he delivers a prophecy about the future descendants who will live in slavery to such things and then be controlled by others. (For more on the idea of slavery in general, see E. M. Yamauchi, “Slaves of God,” BETS 9 [1966]: 31-49). In a similar way Jacob pronounced oracles about his sons based on their revealed character (see ).


Sons were born to them . A vertical genealogy such as this encompasses more than the names of sons. The list includes cities, tribes, and even nations. In a loose way, the names in the list have some derivation or connection to the three ancestors.


The Greek form of the name Japheth, Iapetos , is used in Greek tradition for the ancestor of the Greeks.


Gomer was the ancestor of the Cimmerians. For a discussion of the Cimmerians see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 49-61.


For a discussion of various proposals concerning the descendants of Magog see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 22-24.


Madai was the ancestor of the Medes, who lived east of Assyria.


Javan was the father of the Hellenic race, the Ionians who lived in western Asia Minor.


Tubal was the ancestor of militaristic tribes that lived north of the Black Sea. For a discussion of ancient references to Tubal see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 24-26.


Meshech was the ancestor of the people known in Assyrian records as the Musku . For a discussion of ancient references to them see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 24-26.


Tiras was the ancestor of the Thracians, some of whom possibly became the Pelasgian pirates of the Aegean.


The descendants of Gomer were all northern tribes of the Upper Euphrates.


Askenaz was the ancestor of a northern branch of Indo-Germanic tribes, possibly Scythians. For discussion see E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 63.


The descendants of Riphath lived in a district north of the road from Haran to Carchemish.


Togarmah is also mentioned in Ezek 38:6 , where it refers to Til-garimmu, the capital of Kammanu, which bordered Tabal in eastern Turkey. See E. M. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier (SBA), 26, n. 28.


The descendants of Elishah populated Cyprus.


The descendants of Tarshish settled along the southern coast of what is modern Turkey. However, some identify the site Tarshish (see Jonah 1:3 ) with Sardinia or Spain.


The name Kittim is associated with Cyprus, as well as coastlands east of Rhodes. It is used in later texts to refer to the Romans.


The descendants of Cush settled in Nubia (Ethiopia).


The descendants of Mizraim settled in Upper and Lower Egypt.


The descendants of Put settled in Libya.


The descendants of Canaan lived in the region of Phoenicia (Palestine).


The descendants of Seba settled in Upper Egypt along the Nile.


The Hebrew name Havilah apparently means “stretch of sand” (see HALOT 297 s.v. חֲוִילָה ). Havilah’s descendants settled in eastern Arabia.


The descendants of Sabtah settled near the western shore of the Persian Gulf in ancient Hadhramaut.


The descendants of Raamah settled in southwest Arabia.


The descendants of Sabteca settled in Samudake, east toward the Persian Gulf.


Sheba became the name of a kingdom in southwest Arabia.


The name Dedan is associated with à Ula in northern Arabia.


Erech (ancient Uruk, modern Warka), one of the most ancient civilizations, was located southeast of Babylon.


Akkad , or ancient Agade, was associated with Sargon and located north of Babylon.


Shinar is another name for Babylonia.


Nineveh was an ancient Assyrian city situated on the Tigris River.


The name Rehoboth-Ir means “and broad streets of a city,” perhaps referring to a suburb of Nineveh.


Calah (modern Nimrud) was located twenty miles north of Nineveh.


Mizraim is the Hebrew name for Egypt (cf. NRSV).


The Ludites were African tribes west of the Nile Delta.


The Anamites lived in North Africa, west of Egypt, near Cyrene.


The Lehabites are identified with the Libyans.


The Naphtuhites lived in Lower Egypt (the Nile Delta region).


The Pathrusites are known in Egyptian as P-to-reshi ; they resided in Upper Egypt.


The Casluhites lived in Crete and eventually settled east of the Egyptian Delta, between Egypt and Canaan.


The Caphtorites resided in Crete, but in Egyptian literature Caphtor refers to “the region beyond” the Mediterranean.


Sidon was the foremost city in Phoenicia; here Sidon may be the name of its founder.


The Jebusites were the Canaanite inhabitants of ancient Jerusalem.


Here Amorites refers to smaller groups of Canaanite inhabitants of the mountainous regions of Palestine, rather than the large waves of Amurru, or western Semites, who migrated to the region.


The Girgashites are an otherwise unknown Canaanite tribe, though the name is possibly mentioned in Ugaritic texts (see G. J. Wenham, Genesis [WBC], 1:226).


The Hivites were Canaanite tribes of a Hurrian origin.


The Arkites lived in Arka, a city in Lebanon, north of Sidon.


The Sinites lived in Sin, another town in Lebanon.


The Arvadites lived in the city Arvad, located on an island near the mainland close to the river El Kebir.


The Zemarites lived in the town Sumur, north of Arka.


The Hamathites lived in Hamath on the Orontes River.


The Hebrew name Elam ( עֵילָם , ’ elam ) means “highland.” The Elamites were a non-Semitic people who lived east of Babylon.


Asshur is the name for the Assyrians. Asshur was the region in which Nimrod expanded his power (see v. 11 , where the name is also mentioned). When names appear in both sections of a genealogical list, it probably means that there were both Hamites and Shemites living in that region in antiquity, especially if the name is a place name.


The descendants of Arphaxad may have lived northeast of Nineveh.


Lud may have been the ancestor of the Ludbu, who lived near the Tigris River.


Aram became the collective name of the northern tribes living in the steppes of Mesopotamia and speaking Aramaic dialects.


traces the line of Shem through Eber ( עֵבֶר , ’ ever ) to Abraham the “Hebrew” ( עִבְרִי , ’ ivri ).


The name Almodad combines the Arabic article al with modad (“friend”). Almodad was the ancestor of a South Arabian people.


The name Sheleph may be related to Shilph, a district of Yemen; Shalph is a Yemenite tribe.


The name Hazarmaveth should be equated with Hadramawt, located in Southern Arabia.


The name Jerah means “moon.”


Uzal was the name of the old capital of Yemen.


The name Diklah means “date-palm.”


Obal was a name used for several localities in Yemen.


The name Abimael is a genuine Sabean form which means “my father, truly, he is God.”


The descendants of Sheba lived in South Arabia, where the Joktanites were more powerful than the Hamites.


Ophir became the name of a territory in South Arabia. Many of the references to Ophir are connected with gold (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:28, 10:11, 22:48 ; 1 Chr 29:4 ; 2 Chr 8:18, 9:10 ; Job 22:24, 28:16 ; Ps 45:9 ; Isa 13:12 ).


Havilah is listed with Ham in v. 7 .


The whole earth . Here “earth” is a metonymy of subject, referring to the people who lived in the earth. begins with everyone speaking a common language, but chap. has the nations arranged by languages. It is part of the narrative art of Genesis to give the explanation of the event after the narration of the event. On this passage see A. P. Ross, “The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9 ,” BSac 138 (1981): 119-38.


The Hebrew verb פָּוָץ ( pavats , translated “scatter”) is a key term in this passage. The focal point of the account is the dispersion (“scattering”) of the nations rather than the Tower of Babel. But the passage also forms a polemic against Babylon, the pride of the east and a cosmopolitan center with a huge ziggurat. To the Hebrews it was a monument to the judgment of God on pride.


Babel . Here is the climax of the account, a parody on the pride of Babylon. In the Babylonian literature the name bab-ili meant “the gate of God,” but in Hebrew it sounds like the word for “confusion,” and so retained that connotation. The name “Babel” ( בָּבֶל , bavel ) and the verb translated “confused” ( בָּלַל , balal ) form a paronomasia (sound play). For the many wordplays and other rhetorical devices in Genesis, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).


The phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers, designating the location of Ur. From all evidence there would have been no Chaldeans in existence at this early date; they are known in the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium b.c.


The name Sarai (a variant spelling of “Sarah”) means “princess” (or “lady”). Sharratu was the name of the wife of the moon god Sin. The original name may reflect the culture out of which the patriarch was called, for the family did worship other gods in Mesopotamia.


The name Milcah means “Queen.” But more to the point here is the fact that Malkatu was a title for Ishtar, the daughter of the moon god. If the women were named after such titles (and there is no evidence that this was the motivation for naming the girls “Princess” or “Queen”), that would not necessarily imply anything about the faith of the two women themselves.


The Lord called Abram while he was in Ur (see Gen 15:7 ; Acts 7:2 ); but the sequence here makes it look like it was after the family left to migrate to Canaan ( 11:31-32 ). Genesis records the call of Abram at this place in the narrative because it is the formal beginning of the account of Abram. The record of Terah was brought to its end before this beginning.


To the land that I will show you . The call of Abram illustrates the leading of the Lord . The command is to leave. The Lord ’s word is very specific about what Abram is to leave (the three prepositional phrases narrow to his father’s household), but is not specific at all about where he is to go. God required faith, a point that Heb 11:8 notes.


I will bless you . The blessing of creation is now carried forward to the patriarch. In the garden God blessed Adam and Eve; in that blessing he gave them (1) a fruitful place, (2) endowed them with fertility to multiply, and (3) made them rulers over creation. That was all ruined at the fall. Now God begins to build his covenant people; in Gen 12-22 he promises to give Abram (1) a land flowing with milk and honey, (2) a great nation without number, and (3) kingship.


So Abram left . This is the report of Abram’s obedience to God’s command (see v. 1 ).


The Hebrew word Moreh ( מוֹרֶה , moreh ) means “teacher.” It may well be that the place of this great oak tree was a Canaanite shrine where instruction took place.


Abram went down to Egypt . The Abrahamic narrative foreshadows some of the events in the life of the nation of Israel. This sojourn in Egypt is typological of Israel’s bondage there. In both stories there is a famine that forces the family to Egypt, death is a danger to the males while the females are preserved alive, great plagues bring about their departure, there is a summons to stand before Pharaoh, and there is a return to the land of Canaan with great wealth.


Tell them you are my sister . Abram’s motives may not be as selfish as they appear. He is aware of the danger to the family. His method of dealing with it is deception with a half truth, for Sarai really was his sister – but the Egyptians would not know that. Abram presumably thought that there would be negotiations for a marriage by anyone interested (as Laban does later for his sister Rebekah), giving him time to react. But the plan backfires because Pharaoh does not take the time to negotiate. There is a good deal of literature on the wife-sister issue. See (among others) E. A. Speiser, “The Wife-Sister Motif in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Oriental and Biblical Studies , 62-81; C. J. Mullo-Weir, “The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis,” GOT 22 (1967-1970): 14-25.


He did treat Abram well . The construction of the parenthetical disjunctive clause, beginning with the conjunction on the prepositional phrase, draws attention to the irony of the story. Abram wanted Sarai to lie “so that it would go well” with him. Though he lost Sarai to Pharaoh, it did go well for him – he received a lavish bride price. See also G. W. Coats, “Despoiling the Egyptians,” VT 18 (1968): 450-57.


Since the quarreling was between the herdsmen, the dispute was no doubt over water and vegetation for the animals.


Obliterated . The use of the term “destroy” ( שַׁחֵת , shakhet ) is reminiscent of the Noahic flood ( Gen 6:13 ). Both at the flood and in Sodom the place was obliterated by catastrophe and only one family survived (see C. Westermann, Genesis , 2:178).


The narrative places emphasis on what Lot saw so that the reader can appreciate how it aroused his desire for the best land. It makes allusion to the garden of the Lord and to the land of Egypt for comparison. Just as the tree in the garden of Eden had awakened Eve’s desire, so the fertile valley attracted Lot. And just as certain memories of Egypt would cause the Israelites to want to turn back and abandon the trek to the promised land, so Lot headed for the good life.


Shinar (also in v. 9 ) is the region of Babylonia.


On the geographical background of vv. 1-2 see J. P. Harland, “Sodom and Gomorrah,” The Biblical Archaeologist Reader , 1:41-75; and D. N. Freedman, “The Real Story of the Ebla Tablets, Ebla and the Cities of the Plain,” BA 41 (1978): 143-64.


The Salt Sea is the older name for the Dead Sea.


The story serves as a foreshadowing of the plight of the kingdom of Israel later. Eastern powers came and forced the western kingdoms into submission. Each year, then, they would send tribute east – to keep them away. Here, in the thirteenth year, they refused to send the tribute (just as later Hezekiah rebelled against Assyria). And so in the fourteenth year the eastern powers came to put them down again. This account from Abram’s life taught future generations that God can give victory over such threats – that people did not have to live in servitude to tyrants from the east.


The line of attack ran down the eastern side of the Jordan Valley into the desert, and then turned and came up the valley to the cities of the plain.


The reference to the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah must mean the kings along with their armies. Most of them were defeated in the valley, but some of them escaped to the hills.


E. A. Speiser ( Genesis [AB], 103) suggests that part of this chapter came from an outside source since it refers to Abram the Hebrew . That is not impossible, given that the narrator likely utilized traditions and genealogies that had been collected and transmitted over the years. The meaning of the word “Hebrew” has proved elusive. It may be related to the verb “to cross over,” perhaps meaning “immigrant.” Or it might be derived from the name of Abram’s ancestor Eber (see Gen 11:14-16 ).


The use of the name Dan reflects a later perspective. The Danites did not migrate to this northern territory until centuries later (see Judg 18:29 ). Furthermore Dan was not even born until much later. By inserting this name a scribe has clarified the location of the region.


The King’s Valley is possibly a reference to what came to be known later as the Kidron Valley.


Salem is traditionally identified as the Jebusite stronghold of old Jerusalem. Accordingly, there has been much speculation about its king. Though some have identified him with the preincarnate Christ or with Noah’s son Shem, it is far more likely that Melchizedek was a Canaanite royal priest whom God used to renew the promise of the blessing to Abram, perhaps because Abram considered Melchizedek his spiritual superior. But Melchizedek remains an enigma. In a book filled with genealogical records he appears on the scene without a genealogy and then disappears from the narrative. In the Lord declares that the Davidic king is a royal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.


Who delivered . The Hebrew verb מִגֵּן ( miggen , “delivered”) foreshadows the statement by God to Abram in Gen 15:1 , “I am your shield” ( מָגֵן , magen ). Melchizedek provided a theological interpretation of Abram’s military victory.


The noun “shield” recalls the words of Melchizedek in 14:20 . If God is the shield, then God will deliver. Abram need not fear reprisals from those he has fought.


The sentence in the Hebrew text employs a very effective wordplay on the name Damascus : “The son of the acquisition ( בֶּן־מֶשֶׁק , ben-mesheq ) of my house is Eliezer of Damascus ( דַּמֶּשֶׁק , dammesheq ).” The words are not the same; they have different sibilants. But the sound play gives the impression that “in the nomen is the omen.” Eliezer the Damascene will be Abram’s heir if Abram dies childless because “Damascus” seems to mean that. See M. F. Unger, “Some Comments on the Text of Genesis 15:2-3 ,” JBL 72 (1953): 49-50; H. L. Ginsberg, “Abram’s ‘Damascene’ Steward,” BASOR 200 (1970): 31-32.


I am the Lord . The Lord initiates the covenant-making ceremony with a declaration of who he is and what he has done for Abram. The same form appears at the beginning of the covenant made at Sinai (see Exod 20:1 ).


The phrase of the Chaldeans is a later editorial clarification for the readers, designating the location of Ur. From all evidence there would have been no Chaldeans in existence at this early date; they are known in the time of the neo-Babylonian empire in the first millennium b.c.


You will go to your ancestors . This is a euphemistic expression for death.


The term generation is being used here in its widest sense to refer to a full life span. When the chronological factors are considered and the genealogies tabulated, there are four hundred years of bondage. This suggests that in this context a generation is equivalent to one hundred years.


A smoking pot with a flaming torch . These same implements were used in Mesopotamian rituals designed to ward off evil (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 113-14).


The river of Egypt is a wadi (a seasonal stream) on the northeastern border of Egypt, not to the River Nile.


On the cultural background of the story of Sarai’s childlessness see J. Van Seters, “The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel,” JBL 87 (1968): 401-8.


The passage records the birth of Ishmael to Abram through an Egyptian woman. The story illustrates the limits of Abram’s faith as he tries to obtain a son through social custom. The barrenness of Sarai poses a challenge to Abram’s faith, just as the famine did in chap. . As in chap. , an Egyptian figures prominently. (Perhaps Hagar was obtained as a slave during Abram’s stay in Egypt.)


To be his wife . Hagar became a slave wife, not on equal standing with Sarai. However, if Hagar produced the heir, she would be the primary wife in the eyes of society. When this eventually happened, Hagar become insolent, prompting Sarai’s anger.


The name Ishmael consists of the imperfect or jussive form of the Hebrew verb with the theophoric element added as the subject. It means “God hears” or “may God hear.”


A wild donkey of a man . The prophecy is not an insult. The wild donkey lived a solitary existence in the desert away from society. Ishmael would be free-roaming, strong, and like a bedouin; he would enjoy the freedom his mother sought.


The Hebrew name Beer Lahai Roi ( בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי , bÿ ’ er lakhay ro ’ i ) means “The well of the Living One who sees me.” The text suggests that God takes up the cause of those who are oppressed.


Your name will be Abraham . The renaming of Abram was a sign of confirmation to the patriarch. Every time the name was used it would be a reminder of God’s promise. “Abram” means “exalted father,” probably referring to Abram’s father Terah. The name looks to the past; Abram came from noble lineage. The name “Abraham” is a dialectical variant of the name Abram. But its significance is in the wordplay with אַב־הֲמוֹן (’ av-hamon , “the father of a multitude,” which sounds like אַבְרָהָם , ’ avraham , “Abraham”). The new name would be a reminder of God’s intention to make Abraham the father of a multitude. For a general discussion of renaming, see O. Eissfeldt, “Renaming in the Old Testament,” Words and Meanings , 70-83.


For a discussion of male circumcision as the sign of the covenant in this passage see M. V. Fox, “The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ‘ ot Etiologies,” RB 81 (1974): 557-96.


Sarah . The name change seems to be a dialectical variation, both spellings meaning “princess” or “queen.” Like the name Abram, the name Sarai symbolized the past. The new name Sarah, like the name Abraham, would be a reminder of what God intended to do for Sarah in the future.


Laughed . The Hebrew verb used here provides the basis for the naming of Isaac: “And he laughed” is וַיִּצְחָק ( vayyitskhaq ); the name “Isaac” is יִצְחָק ( yitskhaq ), “he laughs.” Abraham’s (and Sarah’s, see 18:12 ) laughter signals disbelief, but when the boy is born, the laughter signals surprise and joy.


It is important to note that even though Abraham staggers at the announcement of the birth of a son, finding it almost too incredible, he nonetheless calls his wife Sarah, the new name given to remind him of the promise of God (v. 15 ).


The Hebrew verb translated “I have heard you” forms a wordplay with the name Ishmael , which means “God hears.” See the note on the name “Ishmael” in 16:11 .


The reader knows this is a theophany. The three visitors are probably the Lord and two angels (see Gen 19:1 ). It is not certain how soon Abraham recognized the true identity of the visitors. His actions suggest he suspected this was something out of the ordinary, though it is possible that his lavish treatment of the visitors was done quite unwittingly. Bowing down to the ground would be reserved for obeisance of kings or worship of the Lord . Whether he was aware of it or not, Abraham’s action was most appropriate.


Three measures ( Heb “three seahs”) was equivalent to about twenty quarts (twenty-two liters) of flour, which would make a lot of bread. The animal prepared for the meal was far more than the three visitors needed. This was a banquet for royalty. Either it had been a lonely time for Abraham and the presence of visitors made him very happy, or he sensed this was a momentous visit.


The bread was the simple, round bread made by bedouins that is normally prepared quickly for visitors.


Sarah will have a son . The passage brings God’s promise into clear focus. As long as it was a promise for the future, it really could be believed without much involvement. But now, when it seemed so impossible from the human standpoint, when the Lord fixed an exact date for the birth of the child, the promise became rather overwhelming to Abraham and Sarah. But then this was the Lord of creation, the one they had come to trust. The point of these narratives is that the creation of Abraham’s offspring, which eventually became Israel, is no less a miraculous work of creation than the creation of the world itself.


The short phrase if not provides a ray of hope and inspires Abraham’s intercession.


Will not the judge of the whole earth do what is right? For discussion of this text see J. L. Crenshaw, “Popular Questioning of the Justice of God in Ancient Israel,” ZAW 82 (1970): 380-95, and C. S. Rodd, “Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Just?” ExpTim 83 (1972): 137-39.


The town square refers to the wide street area at the gate complex of the city.


This chapter portrays Lot as a hypocrite. He is well aware of the way the men live in his city and is apparently comfortable in the midst of it. But when confronted by the angels, he finally draws the line. But he is nevertheless willing to sacrifice his daughters’ virginity to protect his guests. His opposition to the crowds leads to his rejection as a foreigner by those with whom he had chosen to live. The one who attempted to rescue his visitors ends up having to be rescued by them.


The language has to be interpreted in the light of the context and the social customs. The men are called “sons-in-law” (literally “the takers of his daughters”), but the daughters had not yet had sex with a man. It is better to translate the phrase “who were going to marry his daughters.” Since formal marriage contracts were binding, the husbands-to-be could already be called sons-in-law.


The Hebrew word חֶסֶד ( khesed ) can refer to “faithful love” or to “kindness,” depending on the context. The precise nuance here is uncertain.


The sun had just risen . There was very little time for Lot to escape between dawn (v. 15 ) and sunrise (here).


God’s removal of Lot before the judgment is paradigmatic. He typically delivers the godly before destroying their world.


The meaning of the name Moab is not certain. The name sounds like the Hebrew phrase “from our father” ( מֵאָבִינוּ , me ’ avinu ) which the daughters used twice (vv. 32, 34 ). This account is probably included in the narrative in order to portray the Moabites, who later became enemies of God’s people, in a negative light.


The name Ben-Ammi means “son of my people.” Like the account of Moab’s birth, this story is probably included in the narrative to portray the Ammonites, another perennial enemy of Israel, in a negative light.


For a discussion of the term prophet see N. Walker, “What is a Nabhi?” ZAW 73 (1961): 99-100.


A thousand pieces [ Heb “shekels”] of silver . The standards for weighing money varied considerably in the ancient Near East, but the generally accepted weight for the shekel is 11.5 grams (0.4 ounce). This makes the weight of silver here 11.5 kilograms, or 400 ounces (about 25 pounds).


To your ‘brother.’ Note the way that the king refers to Abraham. Was he being sarcastic? It was surely a rebuke to Sarah. What is amazing is how patient this king was. It is proof that the fear of God was in that place, contrary to what Abraham believed (see v. 11 ).


The Hebrew verb translated “visit” ( פָּקַד , paqad ) often describes divine intervention for blessing or cursing; it indicates God’s special attention to an individual or a matter, always with respect to his people’s destiny. He may visit (that is, destroy) the Amalekites; he may visit (that is, deliver) his people in Egypt. Here he visits Sarah, to allow her to have the promised child. One’s destiny is changed when the Lord “visits.” For a more detailed study of the term, see G. André, Determining the Destiny (ConBOT).


Just as God had commanded him to do . With the birth of the promised child, Abraham obeyed the Lord by both naming ( Gen 17:19 ) and circumcising Isaac ( 17:12 ).


Sarah’s words play on the name “Isaac” in a final triumphant manner. God prepared “laughter” ( צְחֹק , ysÿkhoq ) for her, and everyone who hears about this “will laugh” ( יִצְחַק , yitskhaq ) with her. The laughter now signals great joy and fulfillment, not unbelief (cf. Gen 18:12-15 ).


Children were weaned closer to the age of two or three in the ancient world, because infant mortality was high. If an infant grew to this stage, it was fairly certain he or she would live. Such an event called for a celebration, especially for parents who had waited so long for a child.


A bowshot would be a distance of about a hundred yards (ninety meters).


God heard the boy’s voice . The text has not to this point indicated that Ishmael was crying out, either in pain or in prayer. But the text here makes it clear that God heard him. Ishmael is clearly central to the story. Both the mother and the Lord are focused on the child’s imminent death.


Here the verb heard picks up the main motif of the name Ishmael (“God hears”), introduced back in chap. .


The wilderness of Paran is an area in the east central region of the Sinai peninsula, northeast from the traditional site of Mt. Sinai and with the Arabah and the Gulf of Aqaba as its eastern border.


God is with you . Abimelech and Phicol recognized that Abraham enjoyed special divine provision and protection.


This well . Since the king wanted a treaty to share in Abraham’s good fortune, Abraham used the treaty to secure ownership of and protection for the well he dug. It would be useless to make a treaty to live in this territory if he had no rights to the water. Abraham consented to the treaty, but added his rider to it.


The name Beer Sheba ( בְּאֵר שָׁבַע , bÿ ’ er shava ’) means “well of the oath” or “well of the seven.” Both the verb “to swear” and the number “seven” have been used throughout the account. Now they are drawn in as part of the explanation of the significance of the name.


The verb forms a wordplay with the name Beer Sheba .


The Philistines mentioned here may not be ethnically related to those who lived in Palestine in the time of the judges and the united monarchy. See D. M. Howard, “Philistines,” Peoples of the Old Testament World , 238.


The planting of the tamarisk tree is a sign of Abraham’s intent to stay there for a long time, not a religious act. A growing tree in the Negev would be a lasting witness to God’s provision of water.


The Hebrew verb used here means “to test; to try; to prove.” In this passage God tests Abraham to see if he would be obedient. See T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah , 44-48. See also J. L. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment (OBT), 9-30; and J. I. Lawlor, “The Test of Abraham,” GTJ 1 (1980): 19-35.


Take your son…Isaac . The instructions are very clear, but the details are deliberate. With every additional description the commandment becomes more challenging.


There has been much debate over the location of Moriah ; 2 Chr 3:1 suggests it may be the site where the temple was later built in Jerusalem.


A whole burnt offering signified the complete surrender of the worshiper and complete acceptance by God. The demand for a human sacrifice was certainly radical and may have seemed to Abraham out of character for God. Abraham would have to obey without fully understanding what God was about.


It is impossible to know what Abraham was thinking when he said, “we will…return to you.” When he went he knew (1) that he was to sacrifice Isaac, and (2) that God intended to fulfill his earlier promises through Isaac. How he reconciled those facts is not clear in the text. Heb 11:17-19 suggests that Abraham believed God could restore Isaac to him through resurrection.


He took the fire and the knife in his hand . These details anticipate the sacrifice that lies ahead.


Abraham built an altar there . The theme of Abraham’s altar building culminates here. He has been a faithful worshiper. Will he continue to worship when called upon to make such a radical sacrifice?


Then he tied up . This text has given rise to an important theme in Judaism known as the Aqedah, from the Hebrew word for “binding.” When sacrifices were made in the sanctuary, God remembered the binding of Isaac, for which a substitute was offered. See D. Polish, “The Binding of Isaac,” Jud 6 (1957): 17-21.


Heb “the messenger of the Lord ” (also in v. 15 ). Some identify the angel of the Lord as the preincarnate Christ because in some texts the angel is identified with the Lord himself. However, see the note on the phrase “the Lord ’s angel” in Gen 16:7 .


For now I know . The test was designed to see if Abraham would be obedient (see v. 1 ).


In this context fear refers by metonymy to obedience that grows from faith.


On the expression to this day see B. Childs, “A Study of the Formula ‘Until this Day’,” JBL 82 (1963): 279-92.


The saying connected with these events has some ambiguity, which was probably intended. The Niphal verb could be translated (1) “in the mountain of the Lord it will be seen/provided” or (2) “in the mountain the Lord will appear.” If the temple later stood here (see the note on “Moriah” in Gen 22:2 ), the latter interpretation might find support, for the people went to the temple to appear before the Lord, who “appeared” to them by providing for them his power and blessings. See S. R. Driver, Genesis , 219.


This parenthetical note about Kemuel’s descendant is probably a later insertion by the author/compiler of Genesis and not part of the original announcement.


On the expression all who entered the gate see E. A. Speiser, “‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ at the City Gate,” BASOR 144 (1956): 20-23; and G. Evans, “‘Coming’ and ‘Going’ at the City Gate: A Discussion of Professor Speiser’s Paper,” BASOR 150 (1958): 28-33.


Four hundred pieces of silver . The standards for weighing money varied considerably in the ancient Near East, but the generally accepted weight for the shekel is 11.5 grams (0.4 ounce). This makes the weight of silver here 4.6 kilograms, or 160 ounces (about 10 pounds).


Put your hand under my thigh . The taking of this oath had to do with the sanctity of the family and the continuation of the family line. See D. R. Freedman, “Put Your Hand Under My Thigh – the Patriarchal Oath,” BAR 2 (1976): 2-4, 42.


You will be free . If the prospective bride was not willing to accompany the servant back to Canaan, the servant would be released from his oath to Abraham.


I will also give your camels water . It would be an enormous test for a young woman to water ten camels. The idea is that such a woman would not only be industrious but hospitable and generous.


A beka weighed about 5-6 grams (0.2 ounce).


A shekel weighed about 11.5 grams (0.4 ounce) although weights varied locally, so these bracelets weighed about 4 ounces (115 grams).


Laban’s obsession with wealth is apparent; to him it represents how one is blessed by the Lord . Already the author is laying the foundation for subsequent events in the narrative, where Laban’s greed becomes his dominant characteristic.


The Hebrew name Beer Lahai Roi ( בְּאֵר לַחַי רֹאִי , bÿ ’ er lakhay ro ’ i ) means “The well of the Living One who sees me.” See Gen 16:14 .


The names Sheba and Dedan appear in Gen 10:7 as descendants of Ham through Cush and Raamah. Since these two names are usually interpreted to be place names, one plausible suggestion is that some of Abraham’s descendants lived in those regions and took names linked with it.


The cave of Machpelah was the place Abraham had purchased as a burial place for his wife Sarah ( Gen 23:17-18 ).


God blessed Isaac . The Hebrew verb “bless” in this passage must include all the gifts that God granted to Isaac. But fertility was not one of them, at least not for twenty years, because Rebekah was barren as well (see v. 21 ).


Beer Lahai Roi . See the note on this place name in Gen 24:62 .


This is the account of Ishmael . The Book of Genesis tends to tidy up the family records at every turning point. Here, before proceeding with the story of Isaac’s family, the narrative traces Ishmael’s family line. Later, before discussing Jacob’s family, the narrative traces Esau’s family line (see ).


The name Asshur refers here to a tribal area in the Sinai.


This is the account of Isaac . What follows for several chapters is not the account of Isaac, except briefly, but the account of Jacob and Esau. The next chapters tell what became of Isaac and his family.


Some valuable information is provided here. We learn here that Isaac married thirty-five years before Abraham died, that Rebekah was barren for twenty years, and that Abraham would have lived to see Jacob and Esau begin to grow up. The death of Abraham was recorded in the first part of the chapter as a “tidying up” of one generation before beginning the account of the next.


Asked the Lord . In other passages (e.g., 1 Sam 9:9 ) this expression refers to inquiring of a prophet, but no details are provided here.


By metonymy the two children in her womb are described as two nations of which the two children, Jacob and Esau, would become the fathers. The language suggests there would be a struggle between these nations, with one being stronger than the other. The oracle reveals that all of Jacob’s scheming was unnecessary in the final analysis. He would have become the dominant nation without using deception to steal his brother’s blessing.


Reddish . The Hebrew word translated “reddish” is אַדְמוֹנִי (’ admoni ), which forms a wordplay on the Edomites, Esau’s descendants. The writer sees in Esau’s appearance at birth a sign of what was to come. After all, the reader has already been made aware of the “nations” that were being born.


Hairy . Here is another wordplay involving the descendants of Esau. The Hebrew word translated “hairy” is שֵׂעָר ( se ’ ar ); the Edomites will later live in Mount Seir, perhaps named for its wooded nature.


Jacob cooked some stew . There are some significant words and wordplays in this story that help clarify the points of the story. The verb “cook” is זִיד ( zid ), which sounds like the word for “hunter” ( צַיִד , tsayid ). This is deliberate, for the hunter becomes the hunted in this story. The word זִיד means “to cook, to boil,” but by the sound play with צַיִד it comes to mean “set a trap by cooking.” The usage of the word shows that it can also have the connotation of acting presumptuously (as in boiling over). This too may be a comment on the scene. For further discussion of the rhetorical devices in the Jacob narratives, see J. P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art in Genesis (SSN).


Esau’s descendants would eventually be called Edom . Edom was the place where they lived, so-named probably because of the reddish nature of the hills. The writer can use the word “red” to describe the stew that Esau gasped for to convey the nature of Esau and his descendants. They were a lusty, passionate, and profane people who lived for the moment. Again, the wordplay is meant to capture the “omen in the nomen.”


And sold his birthright . There is evidence from Hurrian culture that rights of inheritance were occasionally sold or transferred. Here Esau is portrayed as a profane person who would at the moment rather have a meal than the right to inherit. He will soon forget this trade and seek his father’s blessing in spite of it.


The style here is typical of Hebrew narrative; after the tension is resolved with the dialogue, the working out of it is recorded in a rapid sequence of verbs (“gave”; “ate”; “drank”; “got up”; “went out”). See also Gen 3:1-7 for another example.


So Esau despised his birthright . This clause, which concludes the episode, is a summary statement which reveals the underlying significance of Esau’s actions. “To despise” means to treat something as worthless or with contempt. Esau’s willingness to sell his birthright was evidence that he considered it to be unimportant.


This account is parallel to two similar stories about Abraham (see Gen 12:10-20; 20:1-18 ). Many scholars do not believe there were three similar incidents, only one that got borrowed and duplicated. Many regard the account about Isaac as the original, which then was attached to the more important person, Abraham, with supernatural elements being added. For a critique of such an approach, see R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative , 47-62. It is more likely that the story illustrates the proverb “like father, like son” (see T. W. Mann, The Book of the Torah , 53). In typical human fashion the son follows his father’s example of lying to avoid problems. The appearance of similar events reported in a similar way underscores the fact that the blessing has now passed to Isaac, even if he fails as his father did.


Do not go down to Egypt . The words echo Gen 12:10 , which reports that “Abram went down to Egypt,” but state the opposite.


My charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws . The language of this verse is clearly interpretive, for Abraham did not have all these laws. The terms are legal designations for sections of the Mosaic law and presuppose the existence of the law. Some Rabbinic views actually conclude that Abraham had fulfilled the whole law before it was given (see m. Qiddushin 4:14). Some scholars argue that this story could only have been written after the law was given (C. Westermann, Genesis, 2:424-25). But the simplest explanation is that the narrator (traditionally taken to be Moses the Lawgiver) elaborated on the simple report of Abraham’s obedience by using terms with which the Israelites were familiar. In this way he depicts Abraham as the model of obedience to God’s commands, whose example Israel should follow.


Rebekah, unlike Sarah, was not actually her husband’s sister .


You have become much more powerful . This explanation for the expulsion of Isaac from Philistine territory foreshadows the words used later by the Egyptians to justify their oppression of Israel (see Exod 1:9 ).


The name Esek means “argument” in Hebrew. The following causal clause explains that Isaac gave the well this name as a reminder of the conflict its discovery had created. In the Hebrew text there is a wordplay, for the name is derived from the verb translated “argued.”


The name Sitnah ( שִׂטְנָה , sitnah ) is derived from a Hebrew verbal root meaning “to oppose; to be an adversary” (cf. Job 1:6 ). The name was a reminder that the digging of this well caused “opposition” from the Philistines.


The name Rehoboth ( רְהֹבוֹת , rehovot ) is derived from a verbal root meaning “to make room.” The name was a reminder that God had made room for them. The story shows Isaac’s patience with the opposition; it also shows how God’s blessing outdistanced the men of Gerar. They could not stop it or seize it any longer.


The name Shibah ( שִׁבְעָה , shiv ’ ah ) means (or at least sounds like) the word meaning “oath.” The name was a reminder of the oath sworn by Isaac and the Philistines to solidify their treaty.


The name Beer Sheba ( בְּאֵר שָׁבַע , bÿ ’ er shava ’) means “well of an oath” or “well of seven.” According to Gen 21:31 Abraham gave Beer Sheba its name when he made a treaty with the Philistines. Because of the parallels between this earlier story and the account in 26:26-33 , some scholars see chaps. 21 and 26 as two versions (or doublets) of one original story. However, if one takes the text as it stands, it appears that Isaac made a later treaty agreement with the people of the land that was similar to his father’s. Abraham dug a well at the site and named the place Beer Sheba; Isaac dug another well there and named the well Shibah. Later generations then associated the name Beer Sheba with Isaac, even though Abraham gave the place its name at an earlier time.


Which are you, my son? Isaac’s first question shows that the deception is going to require more subterfuge than Rebekah had anticipated. Jacob will have to pull off the deceit.


He has tripped me up . When originally given, the name Jacob was a play on the word “heel” (see Gen 25:26 ). The name (since it is a verb) probably means something like “may he protect,” that is, as a rearguard, dogging the heels. This name was probably chosen because of the immediate association with the incident of grabbing the heel. Esau gives the name “Jacob” a negative connotation here, the meaning “to trip up; to supplant.”


You will tear off his yoke from your neck . It may be that this prophetic blessing found its fulfillment when Jerusalem fell and Edom got its revenge. The oracle makes Edom subservient to Israel and suggests the Edomites would live away from the best land and be forced to sustain themselves by violent measures.


But they seemed like only a few days to him . This need not mean that the time passed quickly. More likely it means that the price seemed insignificant when compared to what he was getting in the bargain.


The Hebrew verb translated tricked here ( רָמָה , ramah ) is cognate to the noun used in Gen 27:35 to describe Jacob’s deception of Esau. Jacob is discovering that what goes around, comes around. See J. A. Diamond, “The Deception of Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem,” VT 34 (1984): 211-13.


The name Reuben ( רְאוּבֵן , rÿ ’ uven ) means “look, a son.”


The name Simeon ( שִׁמְעוֹן , shim ’ on ) is derived from the verbal root שָׁמַע ( shama ’) and means “hearing.” The name is appropriate since it is reminder that the Lord “heard” about Leah’s unloved condition and responded with pity.


The name Levi ( לֵוִי , levi ), the precise meaning of which is debated, was appropriate because it sounds like the verb לָוָה ( lavah , “to join”), used in the statement recorded earlier in the verse.


The name Judah ( יְהוּדָה , yÿhudah ) means “he will be praised” and reflects the sentiment Leah expresses in the statement recorded earlier in the verse. For further discussion see W. F. Albright, “The Names ‘Israel’ and ‘Judah’ with an Excursus on the Etymology of Todah and Torah ,” JBL 46 (1927): 151-85; and A. R. Millard, “The Meaning of the Name Judah,” ZAW 86 (1974): 216-18.


The name Dan means “he vindicated” or “he judged.” The name plays on the verb used in the statement which appears earlier in the verse. The verb translated “vindicated” is from דִּין ( din , “to judge, to vindicate”), the same verbal root from which the name is derived. Rachel sensed that God was righting the wrong.


The name Naphtali ( נַפְתָּלִי , naftali ) must mean something like “my struggle” in view of the statement Rachel made in the preceding clause. The name plays on this earlier statement, “[with] a mighty struggle I have struggled with my sister.”


The name Gad ( גָּד , gad ) means “good fortune.” The name reflects Leah’s feeling that good fortune has come her way, as expressed in her statement recorded earlier in the verse.


The name Asher ( אָשֶׁר , ’ asher ) apparently means “happy one.” The name plays on the words used in the statement which appears earlier in the verse. Both the Hebrew noun and verb translated “happy” and “call me happy,” respectively, are derived from the same root as the name Asher.


Mandrake plants were popularly believed to be an aphrodisiac in the culture of the time.


The name Issachar ( יְשָּׁשכָר , yishakhar ) appears to mean “man of reward” or possibly “there is reward.” The name plays on the word used in the statement made earlier in the verse. The Hebrew noun translated “reward” is derived from the same root as the name Issachar. The irony is that Rachel thought the mandrakes would work for her, and she was willing to trade one night for them. But in that one night Leah became pregnant.


The name Zebulun ( זְבֻלוּן , zevulun ) apparently means “honor.” The name plays on the verb used in the statement made earlier in the verse. The Hebrew verb translated “will honor” and the name Zebulun derive from the same root.


The name Joseph ( יוֹסֵף , yoseph ) means “may he add.” The name expresses Rachel’s desire to have an additional son. In Hebrew the name sounds like the verb ( אָסַף ,’ asasf ) translated “taken away” in the earlier statement made in v. 23 . So the name, while reflecting Rachel’s hope, was also a reminder that God had removed her shame.


He put the branches in front of the flocks…when they came to drink . It was generally believed that placing such “visual aids” before the animals as they were mating, it was possible to influence the appearance of their offspring. E. A. Speiser notes that “Jacob finds a way to outwit his father-in-law, through prenatal conditioning of the flock by visual aids – in conformance with universal folk beliefs” ( Genesis [AB], 238). Nevertheless, in spite of Jacob’s efforts at animal husbandry, he still attributes the resulting success to God (see 31:5 ).


The Hebrew word translated “gotten rich” ( כָּבוֹד , cavod ) has the basic idea of “weight.” If one is heavy with possessions, then that one is wealthy ( 13:2 ). Abraham, Jacob, and Joseph all became wealthy when they left the promised land. Jacob’s wealth foreshadows what will happen to Israel when they leave the land of Egypt ( Exod 12:35-38 ).


I will be with you . Though Laban was no longer “with him,” the Lord promised to be.


You anointed the sacred stone . In Gen 28:18 the text simply reported that Jacob poured oil on top of the stone. Now that pouring is interpreted by the Lord as an anointing. Jacob had consecrated the place.


And made a vow to me . The second clause reminds Jacob of the vow he made to the Lord when he anointed the stone ( Gen 28:20-22 ). God is now going to take him back to the land, and so he will have to fulfill his vow.


Yet why did you steal my gods? This last sentence is dropped into the speech rather suddenly. See C. Mabee, “Jacob and Laban: The Structure of Judicial Proceedings,” VT 30 (1980): 192-207, and G. W. Coats, “Self-Abasement and Insult Formulas,” JBL 91 (1972): 90-92.


The Hebrew word for “pile” is גַּל ( gal ), which sounds like the name “Galeed” ( גַּלְעֵד , gal ’ ed ). See v. 48 .


Jegar Sahadutha . Laban the Aramean gave the place an Aramaic name which means “witness pile” or “the pile is a witness.”


Galeed also means “witness pile” or “the pile is a witness,” but this name is Canaanite or Western Semitic and closer to later Hebrew. Jacob, though certainly capable of speaking Aramaic, here prefers to use the western dialect.


The name Mizpah ( מִצְפָּה , mitspah ), which means “watchpost,” sounds like the verb translated “may he watch” ( יִצֶף , yitsef ). Neither Laban nor Jacob felt safe with each other, and so they agreed to go their separate ways, trusting the Lord to keep watch at the border. Jacob did not need this treaty, but Laban, perhaps because he had lost his household gods, felt he did.


Beginning with 31:55 , the verse numbers in the English Bible through 32:32 differ by one from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text ( BHS ), with 31:55 ET = 32:1 HT, 32:1 ET = 32:2 HT, etc., through 32:32 ET = 32:33 HT. From 33:1 the verse numbers in the ET and HT are again the same.


The phrase angels of God occurs only here and in Gen 28:12 in the OT. Jacob saw a vision of angels just before he left the promised land. Now he encounters angels as he prepares to return to it. The text does not give the details of the encounter, but Jacob’s response suggests it was amicable. This location was a spot where heaven made contact with earth, and where God made his presence known to the patriarch. See C. Houtman, “Jacob at Mahanaim: Some Remarks on Genesis XXXII 2-3,” VT 28 (1978): 37-44.


The name Mahanaim apparently means “two camps.” Perhaps the two camps were those of God and of Jacob.


Your servant . The narrative recounts Jacob’s groveling in fear before Esau as he calls his brother his “lord,” as if to minimize what had been done twenty years ago.


Heb “me, [the] mother upon [the] sons.” The first person pronoun “me” probably means here “me and mine,” as the following clause suggests.


The Hebrew noun translated gift can in some contexts refer to the tribute paid by a subject to his lord. Such a nuance is possible here, because Jacob refers to Esau as his lord and to himself as Esau’s servant (v. 4 ).


Hebrew narrative style often includes a summary statement of the whole passage followed by a more detailed report of the event. Here v. 22 is the summary statement, while v. 23 begins the detailed account.


Reflecting Jacob’s perspective at the beginning of the encounter, the narrator calls the opponent simply “a man.” Not until later in the struggle does Jacob realize his true identity.


The verb translated “wrestled” ( וַיֵּאָבֵק , vayye ’ aveq ) sounds in Hebrew like the names “Jacob” ( יַעֲקֹב , ya ’ aqov ) and “Jabbok” ( יַבֹּק , yabboq ). In this way the narrator links the setting, the main action, and the main participant together in the mind of the reader or hearer.


Jacob wrestled with a man thinking him to be a mere man, and on that basis was equal to the task. But when it had gone on long enough, the night visitor touched Jacob and crippled him. Jacob’s request for a blessing can only mean that he now knew that his opponent was supernatural. Contrary to many allegorical interpretations of the passage that make fighting equivalent to prayer, this passage shows that Jacob stopped fighting, and then asked for a blessing.


What is your name? The question is rhetorical, since the Lord obviously knew Jacob’s identity. But since the Lord is going to change Jacob’s name, this question is designed to bring focus Jacob’s attention on all that his name had come to signify.


The name Israel is a common construction, using a verb with a theophoric element ( אֵל , ’el ) that usually indicates the subject of the verb. Here it means “God fights.” This name will replace the name Jacob; it will be both a promise and a call for faith. In essence, the Lord was saying that Jacob would have victory and receive the promises because God would fight for him.


You have fought . The explanation of the name Israel includes a sound play. In Hebrew the verb translated “you have fought” ( שָׂרִיתָ , sarita ) sounds like the name “Israel” ( יִשְׂרָאֵל , yisra ’ el ), meaning “God fights” (although some interpret the meaning as “he fights [with] God”). The name would evoke the memory of the fight and what it meant. A. Dillmann says that ever after this the name would tell the Israelites that, when Jacob contended successfully with God, he won the battle with man ( Genesis , 2:279). To be successful with God meant that he had to be crippled in his own self-sufficiency (A. P. Ross, “Jacob at the Jabboq, Israel at Peniel,” BSac 142 [1985]: 51-62).


Tell me your name . In primitive thought to know the name of a deity or supernatural being would enable one to use it for magical manipulation or power (A. S. Herbert, Genesis 12-50 [TBC], 108). For a thorough structural analysis of the passage discussing the plays on the names and the request of Jacob, see R. Barthes, “The Struggle with the Angel: Textual Analysis of Genesis 32:23-33,” Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis (PTMS), 21-33.


The name Peniel means “face of God.” Since Jacob saw God face to face here, the name is appropriate.


I have seen God face to face . See the note on the name “Peniel” earlier in the verse.


The name is spelled Penuel here, apparently a variant spelling of Peniel (see v. 30 ).


On the use of the expression to this day , see B. S. Childs, “A Study of the Formula ‘Until This Day’,” JBL 82 (1963): 279-92.


This kind of ranking according to favoritism no doubt fed the jealousy over Joseph that later becomes an important element in the narrative. It must have been painful to the family to see that they were expendable.


But Jacob traveled to Succoth . There are several reasons why Jacob chose not to go to Mt. Seir after Esau. First, as he said, his herds and children probably could not keep up with the warriors. Second, he probably did not fully trust his brother. The current friendliness could change, and he could lose everything. And third, God did tell him to return to his land, not Seir. But Jacob is still not able to deal truthfully, probably because of fear of Esau.


The name Succoth means “shelters,” an appropriate name in light of the shelters Jacob built there for his livestock.


The expected response would be anger or rage; but Jacob remained silent . He appears too indifferent or confused to act decisively. When the leader does not act decisively, the younger zealots will, and often with disastrous results.


The gate . In an ancient Near Eastern city the gate complex was the location for conducting important public business.


God is calling on Jacob to fulfill his vow he made when he fled from…Esau (see Gen 28:20-22 ).


The actions of removing false gods, becoming ritually clean, and changing garments would become necessary steps in Israel when approaching the Lord in worship.


On the basis of a comparison with and , G. J. Wenham argues that the foreign gods and the rings could have been part of the plunder that came from the destruction of Shechem ( Genesis [WBC], 2:324).


Jacob buried them . On the burial of the gods, see E. Nielson, “The Burial of the Foreign Gods,” ST 8 (1954/55): 102-22.


The name El-Bethel means “God of Bethel.”


Deborah . This woman had been Rebekah’s nurse, but later attached herself to Jacob. She must have been about one hundred and eighty years old when she died.


Called the name of the place . In view of the previous naming of Bethel in Gen 28:19 , here Jacob was confirming or affirming the name through an official ritual marking the fulfillment of the vow. This place now did become Bethel, the house of God.


Another son . The episode recalls and fulfills the prayer of Rachel at the birth of Joseph ( Gen 30:24 ): “may he add” another son.


The name Ben-Oni means “son of my suffering.” It is ironic that Rachel’s words to Jacob in Gen 30:1 , “Give me children or I’ll die,” take a different turn here, for it was having the child that brought about her death.


This explanatory note links the earlier name Ephrath with the later name Bethlehem . map For location see Map5-B1 ; Map7-E2 ; Map8-E2 ; Map10-B4 .


The location of Migdal Eder is not given. It appears to be somewhere between Bethlehem and Hebron. Various traditions have identified it as at the shepherds’ fields near Bethlehem (the Hebrew name Migdal Eder means “tower of the flock”; see Mic 4:8 ) or located it near Solomon’s pools.


Chapter records what became of Esau. It will list both his actual descendants as well as the people he subsumed under his tribal leadership, people who were aboriginal Edomites. The chapter is long and complicated (see further J. R. Bartlett, “The Edomite King-List of Genesis 36:31-39 and 1 Chronicles 1:43-50 ,” JTS 16 [1965]: 301-14; and W. J. Horowitz, “Were There Twelve Horite Tribes?” CBQ 35 [1973]: 69-71). In the format of the Book of Genesis, the line of Esau is “tidied up” before the account of Jacob is traced ( 37:2 ). As such the arrangement makes a strong contrast with Jacob. As F. Delitzsch says, “secular greatness in general grows up far more rapidly than spiritual greatness” ( New Commentary on Genesis , 2:238). In other words, the progress of the world far out distances the progress of the righteous who are waiting for the promise.


The term father in genealogical records needs to be carefully defined. It can refer to a literal father, a grandfather, a political overlord, or a founder.


The same pattern of sons, grandsons, and chiefs is now listed for Seir the Horite . “Seir” is both the name of the place and the name of the ancestor of these tribes. The name “Horite” is probably not to be identified with “Hurrian.” The clan of Esau settled in this area, intermarried with these Horites and eventually dispossessed them, so that they all became known as Edomites ( Deut 2:12 telescopes the whole development).


The next section begins with the heading This is the account of Jacob in Gen 37:2 , so this verse actually forms part of the preceding section as a concluding contrast with Esau and his people. In contrast to all the settled and expanded population of Esau, Jacob was still moving about in the land without a permanent residence and without kings. Even if the Edomite king list was added later (as the reference to kings in Israel suggests), its placement here in contrast to Jacob and his descendants is important. Certainly the text deals with Esau before dealing with Jacob – that is the pattern. But the detail is so great in chap. that the contrast cannot be missed.


Some interpreters see Joseph as gloating over his brothers, but the text simply says he told his brothers about it (i.e., the dream). The text gives no warrant for interpreting his manner as arrogant or condescending. It seems normal that he would share a dream with the family.


The response of Joseph’s brothers is understandable, given what has already been going on in the family. But here there is a hint of uneasiness – they hated him because of his dream and because of his words . The dream bothered them, as well as his telling them. And their words in the rhetorical question are ironic, for this is exactly what would happen. The dream was God’s way of revealing it.


The question What is this dream that you had? expresses Jacob’s dismay at what he perceives to be Joseph’s audacity.


Joseph’s brothers were already jealous of him , but this made it even worse. Such jealousy easily leads to action, as the next episode in the story shows. Yet dreams were considered a form of revelation, and their jealousy was not only of the favoritism of their father, but of the dreams. This is why Jacob kept the matter in mind.


With these words Joseph is depicted here as an obedient son who is ready to do what his father commands.


From their hands . The instigators of this plot may have been the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (see v. 2 ).


The verbs translated shed , throw , and lay sound alike in Hebrew; the repetition of similar sounds draws attention to Reuben’s words.


On the close relationship between Ishmaelites (v. 25 ) and Midianites , see Judg 8:24 .


It was with two young goats that Jacob deceived his father ( Gen 27:9 ); now with a young goat his sons continue the deception that dominates this family.


A wild animal has eaten him . Jacob draws this conclusion on his own without his sons actually having to lie with their words (see v. 20 ). Dipping the tunic in the goat’s blood was the only deception needed.


The expression captain of the guard might indicate that Potiphar was the chief executioner.


Raise up a descendant for your brother . The purpose of this custom, called the levirate system, was to ensure that no line of the family would become extinct. The name of the deceased was to be maintained through this custom of having a child by the nearest relative. See M. Burrows, “Levirate Marriage in Israel,” JBL 59 (1940): 23-33.


After some time . There is not enough information in the narrative to know how long this was. The text says “the days increased.” It was long enough for Shelah to mature and for Tamar to realize she would not have him.


The Hebrew noun translated “cult prostitute” is derived from a verb meaning “to be set apart; to be distinct.” Thus the term refers to a woman who did not marry, but was dedicated to temple service as a cult prostitute. The masculine form of this noun is used for male cult prostitutes. Judah thought he had gone to an ordinary prostitute (v. 15 ); but Hirah went looking for a cult prostitute, perhaps because it had been a sheep-shearing festival. For further discussion see E. M. Yamauchi, “Cultic Prostitution,” Orient and Occident (AOAT), 213-23.


The name Perez means “he who breaks through,” referring to Perez reaching out his hand at birth before his brother was born. The naming signified the completion of Tamar’s struggle and also depicted the destiny of the tribe of Perez who later became dominant ( Gen 46:12 and Num 26:20 ). Judah and his brothers had sold Joseph into slavery, thinking they could thwart God’s plan that the elder brothers should serve the younger. God demonstrated that principle through these births in Judah’s own family, affirming that the elder will serve the younger, and that Joseph’s leadership could not so easily be set aside. See J. Goldin, “The Youngest Son; or, Where Does Belong?” JBL 96 (1977): 27-44.


Perhaps the child was named Zerah because of the scarlet thread . Though the Hebrew word used for “scarlet thread” in v. 28 is not related to the name Zerah, there is a related root in Babylonian and western Aramaic that means “scarlet” or “scarlet thread.” In Hebrew the name appears to be derived from a root meaning “to shine.” The name could have originally meant something like “shining one” or “God has shined.” Zerah became the head of a tribe ( Num 26:20 ) from whom Achan descended ( Josh 7:1 ).


Captain of the guard . See the note on this phrase in Gen 37:36 .


The Hebrew verb translated became his personal attendant refers to higher domestic service, usually along the lines of a personal attendant. Here Joseph is made the household steward, a position well-attested in Egyptian literature.


The Hebrew word translated blessed carries the idea of enrichment, prosperity, success. It is the way believers describe success at the hand of God. The text illustrates the promise made to Abraham that whoever blesses his descendants will be blessed ( Gen 12:1-3 ).


The passage gives us a good picture of Joseph as a young man who was responsible and faithful, both to his master and to his God. This happened within a very short time of his being sold into Egypt. It undermines the view that Joseph was a liar, a tattletale, and an arrogant adolescent.


The Hebrew verb translated left indicates he relinquished the care of it to Joseph. This is stronger than what was said earlier. Apparently Potiphar had come to trust Joseph so much that he knew it was in better care with Joseph than with anyone else.


The expression except the food he ate probably refers to Potiphar’s private affairs and should not be limited literally to what he ate.


For discussion of this episode, see A. M. Honeyman, “The Occasion of Joseph’s Temptation,” VT 2 (1952): 85-87.


A Hebrew man . Potiphar’s wife raises the ethnic issue when talking to her servants about what their boss had done.


That Hebrew slave . Now, when speaking to her husband, Potiphar’s wife refers to Joseph as a Hebrew slave, a very demeaning description.


The story of Joseph is filled with cycles and repetition: He has two dreams (chap. ), he interprets two dreams in prison (chap. ) and the two dreams of Pharaoh (chap. ), his brothers make two trips to see him (chaps. 42-43 ), and here, for the second time (see 37:24 ), he is imprisoned for no good reason, with only his coat being used as evidence. For further discussion see H. Jacobsen, “A Legal Note on Potiphar’s Wife,” HTR 69 (1976): 177.


The baker may be the Egyptian retehti , the head of the bakers, who had privileges in the royal court.


The Hebrew verb translated offended here is the same one translated “sin” in 39:9 . Perhaps there is an intended contrast between these officials, who deserve to be imprisoned, and Joseph, who refused to sin against God, but was thrown into prison in spite of his innocence.


He served them . This is the same Hebrew verb, meaning “to serve as a personal attendant,” that was translated “became [his] servant” in 39:4 .


The cupbearer’s dream is dominated by sets of three: three branches, three stages of growth, and three actions of the cupbearer.


Joseph became the grand vizier of the land of Egypt . See W. A. Ward, “The Egyptian Office of Joseph,” JSS 5 (1960): 144-50; and R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel , 129-31.


The name Asenath may mean “she belongs to the goddess Neit” (see HALOT 74 s.v. אָֽסְנַת ). A novel was written at the beginning of the first century entitled Joseph and Asenath , which included a legendary account of the conversion of Asenath to Joseph’s faith in Yahweh. However, all that can be determined from this chapter is that their children received Hebrew names. See also V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph – a Haggadic Literary-Historical Study,” HUCA 1 (1924): 239-306.


On (also in v. 50 ) is another name for the city of Heliopolis.


The name Manasseh ( מְנַשֶּׁה , mÿnasheh ) describes God’s activity on behalf of Joseph, explaining in general the significance of his change of fortune. The name is a Piel participle, suggesting the meaning “he who brings about forgetfulness.” The Hebrew verb נַשַּׁנִי ( nashani ) may have been used instead of the normal נִשַּׁנִי ( nishani ) to provide a closer sound play with the name. The giving of this Hebrew name to his son shows that Joseph retained his heritage and faith; and it shows that a brighter future was in store for him.


The name Ephraim ( אֶפְרַיִם , ’ efrayim ), a form of the Hebrew verb פָּרָה ( parah ), means “to bear fruit.” The theme of fruitfulness is connected with this line of the family from Rachel ( 30:2 ) on down (see Gen 49:22 , Deut 33:13-17 , and Hos 13:15 ). But there is some difficulty with the name “Ephraim” itself. It appears to be a dual, for which F. Delitzsch simply said it meant “double fruitfulness” ( New Commentary on Genesis , 2:305). G. J. Spurrell suggested it was a diphthongal pronunciation of a name ending in -an or -am , often thought to be dual suffixes ( Notes on the text of the book of Genesis , 334). Many, however, simply connect the name to the territory of Ephraim and interpret it to be “fertile land” (C. Fontinoy, “Les noms de lieux en -ayim dans la Bible,” UF 3 [1971]: 33-40). The dual would then be an old locative ending. There is no doubt that the name became attached to the land in which the tribe settled, and it is possible that is where the dual ending came from, but in this story it refers to Joseph’s God-given fruitfulness.


Why are you looking at each other? The point of Jacob’s question is that his sons should be going to get grain rather than sitting around doing nothing. Jacob, as the patriarch, still makes the decisions for the whole clan.


Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down before him . Here is the beginning of the fulfillment of Joseph’s dreams (see ). But it is not the complete fulfillment, since all his brothers and his parents must come. The point of the dream, of course, was not simply to get the family to bow to Joseph, but that Joseph would be placed in a position of rule and authority to save the family and the world ( 41:57 ).


But pretended to be a stranger . Joseph intends to test his brothers to see if they have changed and have the integrity to be patriarchs of the tribes of Israel. He will do this by putting them in the same situations that they and he were in before. The first test will be to awaken their conscience.


You are spies . Joseph wanted to see how his brothers would react if they were accused of spying.


The same Hebrew word is used for Joseph’s imprisonment in 40:3, 4, 7 . There is some mirroring going on in the narrative. The Hebrew word used here ( אָסַף , ’ asaf , “to gather”) is not normally used in a context like this (for placing someone in prison), but it forms a wordplay on the name Joseph ( יוֹסֵף , yosoef ) and keeps the comparison working.


For I fear God . Joseph brings God into the picture to awaken his brothers’ consciences. The godly person cares about the welfare of people, whether they live or die. So he will send grain back, but keep one of them in Egypt. This action contrasts with their crime of selling their brother into slavery.


The repetition of the Hebrew noun translated distress draws attention to the fact that they regard their present distress as appropriate punishment for their refusal to ignore their brother when he was in distress.


Joseph’s brothers soften the news considerably, making it sound like Simeon was a guest of Joseph ( Leave one of your brothers with me ) instead of being bound in prison. They do not mention the threat of death and do not at this time speak of the money in the one sack.


The expression he alone is left meant that (so far as Jacob knew) Benjamin was the only surviving child of his mother Rachel.


The expression bring down my gray hair is figurative, using a part for the whole – they would put Jacob in the grave. But the gray head signifies a long life of worry and trouble.


The report given here concerning Joseph’s interrogation does not exactly match the previous account where they supplied the information to clear themselves (see 42:13 ). This section may reflect how they remembered the impact of his interrogation, whether he asked the specific questions or not. That may be twisting the truth to protect themselves, not wanting to admit that they volunteered the information. (They admitted as much in 42:31 , but now they seem to be qualifying that comment.) On the other hand, when speaking to Joseph later (see 44:19 ), Judah claims that Joseph asked for the information about their family, making it possible that 42:13 leaves out some of the details of their first encounter.


I will bear the blame before you all my life . It is not clear how this would work out if Benjamin did not come back. But Judah is offering his life for Benjamin’s if Benjamin does not return.