I. The Ancient Hebrew Language

The name.--The greater part of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, usually called ancient Hebrew in order to distinguish it from Mishnaic and modern Hebrew. Mishnaic Hebrew is the Hebrew of the Christian Era, an artificially revived language in which the Jewish rabbis wrote their scholarly works, and which is now employed as the official language of the state of Israel. The term "Hebrew language," found for the first time in the prologue to the Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus (written in 132 B.C.), is also used by the Jewish historian Josephus in the 1st century of the Christian Era, and appears later in the rabbinical writings. The term "Hebrew tongue," used by Luke in Acts 21:40; 26:14, refers to Aramaic and not to Hebrew. Aramaic was the common language spoken in New Testament times.

The Biblical term used for the language spoken by the Old Testament Israelites is the "language of Canaan" (Isa. 19:18,) or "the Jews' language" (2 Kings 18:26, 28; Neh. 13:24.)

Characteristics of Hebrew.--Hebrew is a branch of the great family of ancient Semitic languages, which were spoken in Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Arabia. It is most closely related to the languages spoken by the ancient Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Syrians, and is almost identical with those of the Moabites, Edomites, and Ammonites. The language spoken by the natives of Canaan hardly differed from the Biblical Hebrew.

One interesting characteristic which Hebrew shares with all Semitic languages is that most of its basic words contain three consonants. (It should be noted that the written Hebrew of Biblical times consisted of consonants only. Not until several centuries after Christ, when Hebrew had become a dead language, were vowels added, in an endeavor to preserve a knowledge of how the language had been spoken. These vowels consisted of various marks added below, between, and above the consonants, known as vowel pointings.) Variations in verb forms are generally produced by a change in vocalization, that is, in the vowel sounds. By comparison, the present tense of our verb sing can be changed into the past tense, sang, and the past participle, sung, by merely changing the vocalization. A Hebrew example will show this principle. The verb to write contains three consonants, k-t-b. The following examples show how, through the use of different vowels, various verb forms are produced, while the three basic consonants remain unchanged:

katab, (he) has written

ketob, write! (imperative)

koteb, writing

katub, (it) is written

katob, to write

Personal pronouns are in most cases added to the verb as prefixes or suffixes. Thus the form "I have written," katab-ti, consists of the basic root katab and the ending -ti, representing the pronoun; and "I shall write," e-ktob, of the prefix e- and the root ktob. These short grammatical forms are the reason that Hebrew sentences are brief, compact, and forceful. For example, the seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Ex. 20:14), consists of five words in English, but of only two in Hebrew--lo' tin'aph. This brevity in Hebrew expressions is especially noticeable in the poetic parts of the Old Testament. In most cases the Hebrew text has only half as many words as the English translation. The famous 23d psalm, for example, has 57 words in the Hebrew Bible, but 122 in the English translation; Job 30:22, which has six words in Hebrew, has 18 in the KJV and 24 in the RSV.

Hebrew sentence structure is very simple. Sentences are usually short, and are connected one with another by the use of the conjunction "and," which may also be translated as "so," "but," "even," "then." A typical example of a great number of short sentences occurs in Gen. 12, where the word "and" is found 29 times in the first 9 verses of the KJV. In the respective Hebrew text the word "and" is found 32 times, the difference being due to the translators' rendering the word 3 times by other English equivalents.

Another characteristic of the Hebrew language is the lack of certain grammatical forms. It knows no compounds, except in proper names, and a term like the English "landlord" can be expressed only by the genitive form, "lord of the land." The Hebrew language is also poor in adjectives, and possesses almost no adverbs, a handicap for the ancient writers when expressing abstract thoughts.

In common with other Semitic languages Hebrew possesses a number of sounds that do not exist in Indo-European languages. It has two h sounds, for which Hebrew script has two characters, usually transliterated as h and ch, the latter pronounced as in the Scottish "loch." It also has several s sounds, like s, z, and sh in common with English, but two Hebrew sounds, transliterated s\ and sŒ, have no equivalents in English, the former being pronounced like tz, the latter as a soft s. The two Hebrew sounds aleph (transliterated ') and Ôayin (transliterated `) also have no equivalents in English. The Hebrew language originally possessed some additional sounds that were presumably dropped before the invention of the alphabetic Hebrew script. One of them was a second Ôayin, called ghayin, which still exists in Arabic. The early existence of this latter sound in Hebrew can be recognized from the fact that the names "Gaza" and "Gomorrah" both begin with the same consonant, Ôayin, as does the name of the high priest Eli. It is only through the ancient translations of the Bible (the Greek Septuagint and later the Latin Vulgate) that we know that the name of the doomed city in which Lot lived was pronounced "Gomorrah" and not "Omorrah," and that the name of the high priest of Samuel's time was "Eli" and not "Geli."

Hebrew verbal inflection expresses action only in terms of being complete or incomplete, never as being in the present, past, or future, like English verbs. Tense is implied rather than stated. Verbs denoting completed action, commonly spoken of as "perfect," are generally translated by a past tense, whereas those denoting incomplete action are said to be "imperfect" and are usually translated as if they were future. In general, this procedure may be comparatively accurate, but at times it is entirely misleading. To determine whether the action denoted by the verb actually occurred at the time of writing or speaking, or before or after that time, it is necessary to ascertain from the context the point of view of the writer. Furthermore, the writer may change his point of view back and forth in a given passage, to the future or to the past, without notice. Thus, if his time viewpoint is in the far future, he may discuss other future events as if they were in the past. In the next statement he may revert to the distant past and describe past or present events as if they were in the future. As if to complicate the matter still further, the wau consecutive construction, which binds the component parts of a narrative together in somewhat the same way as our system of paragraphing, often requires that an "imperfect" be understood as a "perfect," or vice versa.

At the time earlier translations of the Bible were made into English, this peculiarity of Hebrew verbs was imperfectly understood, with the result that the English is often at variance with the Hebrew. In general, more recent translations tend to reflect the time element of Hebrew verbs more accurately than do the earlier translations. At the same time, modern translations may not always represent the actual time viewpoint of the writer, owing to the fact that a decision as to the writer's viewpoint often, particularly in predictive prophecy, depends upon the reader's concept of inspiration. One who believes in the gift of prophecy will recognize that the prophet is projecting his mind into the future, often the remote future. But one who denies the validity of the predictive element in prophecy will say that the prophet is simply describing past events. It is obvious from this discussion that in order to ascertain with any degree of accuracy the precise time element in a given prophetic statement, the reader must (1) have a valid concept of inspiration, (2) discover the time viewpoint of the author in terms of his own concept of inspiration, and (3) interpret the verb tenses in harmony both with the requirements of Hebrew grammar and with the author's time viewpoint.

An illustration of this problem occurs in the latter part of the book of Isaiah, commonly referred to by higher critics as "deutero-Isaiah," on the theory that an anonymous second writer is the author. Partly on the basis of the fact that Isaiah speaks of the suffering of the Jews during the period of Babylonian captivity as if it were in the past (Isa. 40:1, 2; etc.), these critics conclude that chs. 40 to 66 were written by another author or authors after the captivity. However, the fact that the verb forms denote completed action in no way necessarily even implies that the events they describe had occurred at the time the prophet wrote. Evidently Isaiah had been shown the captivity and restoration by prophetic inspiration, and having already seen these events, he speaks of them as if they were in the past.

Another instance of the way in which the prophet's mind projects itself into the future occurs in Isa. 53. In the Hebrew of vs. 1 to 9 (and similarly in the RSV), Isaiah projects his mind into the prophetic future and speaks of the sufferings of Christ as if they were in the past. But in v. 10 his time viewpoint slips back to his own day, and he continues to describe the same event as if it were in the future. A comparison of the differences in the time element of the verbs of Isa. 53, as rendered in the KJV and the RSV, makes apparent the problem of translating Hebrew verb "tenses."

Linguistic Differences.--Slight dialectal differences between the various writers of the Bible can also be observed. The existence of such differences among the several tribes of Israel was well known in Bible times. This is learned from the story of the Ephraimites, who could not articulate the consonant sh. As a result, they pronounced the word "shibboleth" as "sibboleth" (Judges 12:5, 6).

On the whole, however, the language of the Hebrew Old Testament shows great uniformity. Linguistic differences between earlier and later writings are very small. This fact has been explained by critical scholars as evidence that all books of the Old Testament were produced in a comparatively short period. However, it is more reasonable to conclude that Hebrew had at an early time been fixed as a literary language, that is, it experienced only slight changes in the course of the centuries during which the Old Testament books were written.

However, there are marked differences between the prose and poetry of the Old Testament. To the latter belong not only Psalms and Job but also many parts of the prophetic books like Isaiah. Hebrew poetry differs from prose by its use of a poetic vocabulary and parallelisms. The reader of the KJV is not always aware of this parallelism, since the KJV is printed as if all the Bible were written in prose. But if one opens a modern translation, like the RSV, the parallelism is noticeable at once, because the poetic sections of the Old Testament are printed as poetry, as the following example, taken at random from the Psalms, will show.

"Give ear, O my people, to my teaching;

incline your ears to the words of my mouth!

I will open my mouth in a parable;

I will utter dark sayings from of old,

things that we have heard and known,

that our fathers have told us.

We will not hide them from their children,

but tell to the coming generation

the glorious deeds of the Lord, and his might,

and the wonders which he has wrought (Ps. 78:1-4, RSV)."

The poetic books abound in synonyms, which almost constitute a special poetic vocabulary of ancient Hebrew. Job 4:10, 11 may serve as an illustration of this. In these two verses are found five different terms for "lion," which, for lack of better equivalents, have been translated in the KJV by such prosaic terms as "lion," "fierce lion," "young lions," "old lion," and "stout lion." That the wealth of expressions in the poetic books of the Old Testament has often been a source of despair to the novice in Hebrew can easily be understood.

Since ancient Hebrew has been a dead language for many centuries, few people learn it so that they can use it as freely as a modern tongue. Those, however, who go to the trouble of thoroughly mastering ancient Hebrew discover unexpected beauties in it. It is a fact that the vividness, expressiveness, and beauty of Hebrew leave it unsurpassed as a vehicle of religious poetry.

Reformation Produces Revival of Hebrew Studies.--For many centuries Christians were not interested in the Hebrew Old Testament, nor were many attempts made to master its language. Only two of the Church Fathers, Origen and Jerome, made serious efforts to learn Hebrew. From the apostolic age to the time of the Protestant Reformation Jewish scholars were almost the sole guardians of the ancient language in which the Old Testament had been written.

The Reformers, being keen students of the Word of God, supported or produced new Bible translations. However, they insisted that each translation should be based on the original language, and not on a previous translation, be it Greek or Latin. This required a thorough knowledge of Hebrew among Protestant translators and scholars. The Reformation therefore provided a great impetus to Hebrew studies, as can be seen from the fact that in the 16th and 17th centuries 152 Hebrew grammars were published by Christian scholars, as compared with 18 by Jewish scholars.

During the last hundred years many Hebrew, Canaanite, and other inscriptions written in ancient Semitic languages have been discovered. Their contents have illuminated many Old Testament passages, thrown light on numerous obscure Hebrew words, and given illustrations for a better understanding of the grammar of the Old Testament language.

It should be stated, however, that a knowledge of ancient Hebrew with all its supporting evidence, by no means guarantees a right understanding of the Holy Scriptures. Some of the greatest Hebraists of the recent past have been the Bible's most destructive critics, whereas many men and women of God have soundly and forcefully expounded the sacred pages of the Old Testament without knowing Hebrew, and have led souls to a knowledge of truth. A knowledge of Hebrew is, of course, desirable and useful to the minister of the Word. However, modern translations are generally well made and more or less accurately convey the thoughts of the original writers. The best exponent of the Scriptures is therefore not necessarily the greatest Hebraist, but the man who has the greatest measure of the Holy Spirit, by which he searches out "the deep things of God" (1 Cor. 2:10).

II. Biblical Aramaic

A few chapters of the books Ezra (chs. 4:8 to 6:18; 7:12-26) and Daniel (chs. 2:4 to 7:28), one verse in Jeremiah (ch. 10:11), and a word in Genesis (ch. 31:47) are written, not in ancient Hebrew, but in Aramaic. Aramaic is about as closely related to Hebrew as Spanish is to Portuguese. However, the differences between Aramaic and Hebrew are not those of dialect, and the two are regarded as two separate languages.

The Dissemination of Aramaic.--The original home of Aramaic was Mesopotamia. Some Aramaean tribes, the Chaldeans, lived in southern Babylonia around Ur, others had their homes in Upper Mesopotamia between the Chebar (Khabûr) River and the great bend of the Euphrates, with Haran as their center. The fact that the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had connections with Haran is probably responsible for the statement made by Moses that Jacob was an "Aramaean" (Deut. 26:5, in Hebrew, and RSV; KJV has "a Syrian"). From its home in northern Mesopotamia Aramaic spread southward over all Syria. When the Syrian city-states, whose populations spoke Aramaic, were destroyed by the Assyrians in the 8th century b.c., their populations were transplanted to different parts of the Assyrian Empire. This caused a tremendous spread of Aramaic, which was so much simpler to learn than most of the other languages of the ancient Near East. Finally Aramaic became the lingua franca, the international language, of the civilized world, and became the official language first of the Neo-Babylonian Empire and then of the Persian Empire.

The Aramaic Sections in the Bible.--The fact that Aramaic had become an international language under the Babylonians and Persians was the reason that some parts of the Bible were written in Aramaic. Officials living under Aramaic-speaking Babylonians, like Daniel, or those working for the Persians, like Ezra, were men who used Aramaic by mouth and pen just as readily as their native Hebrew. The book of Daniel clearly reflects the bilingual abilities of its author. In writing down the experience that Daniel had in connection with Nebuchadnezzar's dream he began his narrative in Hebrew, but when he came to the place where he introduced the speech of the wise men to the king, who spoke "Aramaic" (Dan. 2:4, in Hebrew, and RSV margin; KJV reads "Syriack"), he switched--perhaps unconsciously--over to the language of these men, and continued to write in it for several chapters before returning to his native Hebrew.

There was a time when the existence of Aramaic portions in the books of Daniel and Ezra were taken as proof of a very late date for these books. However, since numerous Aramaic documents from the time of Daniel and Ezra have been found in nearly every part of the ancient Near East, it can be shown that it was not strange for these men to insert in their books Aramaic documents, as Ezra did, or to relate historical events in Aramaic as both Daniel and Ezra did.

Aramaic, Christ's Language.--As the result of the Babylonian captivity, the Jews, during the last centuries of the pre-Christian Era, adopted Aramaic in place of the Hebrew language. By the time of Christ, Aramaic had become the mother tongue of the population of Palestine. A number of Aramaic expressions in the New Testament show clearly that it was the language of Jesus. "Talitha cumi" (Mark 5:41), "Ephphatha" (Mark 7:34), and "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Mark 15:34) are some of Christ's Aramaic expressions.

The Bible was still read in Hebrew in the synagogue services in the time of Christ, but many people, especially the women, could not understand it. It had therefore become customary for the readers in the synagogues to translate Scripture passages into Aramaic. Later on, written translations of the Old Testament into Aramaic were made--the so-called Targums. Spoken Hebrew had largely become obsolete in pre-Christian times, and has experienced only artificial revivals; Aramaic has been kept alive continuously as a spoken language to the present day, and is still used in certain parts of the Near East, where it is known as Syriac.

III. Old Testament Manuscripts

Ancient Writing Material.--The ancients used different kinds of writing material, like clay or wooden tablets, chips of limestone or broken pieces of pottery, tanned animal hides, or papyri. The last-mentioned writing material, the forerunner of our modern paper, was made from the papyrus plant that grows in marshes. For longer documents, this was presumably the oldest writing material used in Egypt. In view of the fact that the first books of the Bible may have been written on papyrus scrolls, an explanation of this writing material is therefore in place.

The stem of the papyrus plant was cut into thin strips nine to ten inches long. The strips were placed alongside each other, and a second layer was glued over them crosswise under pressure. The sheets thus produced were then hammered, and rubbed with pumice stone in order to produce an even, smooth surface. The sheets, generally measuring not more than 10 inches square, were then pasted together into rolls, usually not longer than 30 feet, although much longer rolls are known--the famous Papyrus Harris in the British Museum being 150 feet long. Writing was usually done only on the horizontal layer (recto), but occasionally also the vertical layer (verso) was used.

The oldest inscribed papyri known are from the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty, dated in the middle of the 3d millennium b.c. Egypt was a great papyrus-producing country, and exported large quantities of this writing material. Since Moses, the author of the earliest Bible books, had received his education in Egypt, and wrote in the vicinity of Egypt, it is possible that the first books of the Bible were written on papyrus scrolls.

The information is gained from Jeremiah that documents were kept in jars (ch. 32:14), a statement whose truth has been corroborated by many ancient records found in jars during the excavations of old cities.

From the 15th century b.c. on, the use of leather scrolls is attested in Egypt by documentary evidence. The earliest extant leather manuscripts come from the 5th century b.c. Leather scrolls were used in cases where more durable writing material was needed. Hence the Dead Sea scrolls presently to be mentioned, coming probably from a synagogue library, are of leather.

Vellum (or fine parchment), a specially prepared hide from young animals--cattle, goats, sheep, or deer--did not come into prominence before the 2d century b.c. It was the most expensive of all writing materials, and was used only for very valuable manuscripts, like the Bible manuscripts of the Christian church during the 4th century, which by then had come to honor and wealth.

The writing pens used on papyri were of reed beaten into a fine brush, but for writing on hides, sharp-pointed pens were used. Most of the ink employed by ancient scribes was made of soot with a gum solution, but ink specimens have been found, dating as far back as the 6th century b.c., which contain some iron, probably from oak galls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls.--Prior to 1947 the earliest known manuscript of any part of the Hebrew Bible was a fragmentary papyrus leaf containing the Decalogue and the words of Deut. 6:4, 5. This document, known as the "Nash Papyrus," comes from about 100 B.C., and was until 1947 about one thousand years older than any other known Hebrew Bible manuscript.

In 1947 the greatest discovery of Biblical manuscripts of modern times was made, when some Bedouins found several leather scrolls and fragments in a cave near the northwestern shore of the Dead Sea. Since such scrolls had never before been found, the native owners had some difficulty in disposing of them. Buyers feared they might be forgeries. Finally, however, the scrolls came partly into the hands of Prof. E. L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University, and partly into the possession of the Syrian monastery in Jerusalem. Dr. John C. Trever, then acting director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, was the first scholar who recognized their antiquity, and brought the scrolls to the attention of experts in America.

In the spring of 1948, when the news first reached the Western world of their discovery, the Dead Sea scrolls caught the imagination of Christians and Jews alike as no other archeological discovery had done since the finding of the unspoiled tomb of King Tutankhamen in Egypt some 25 years earlier. A feverish hunt for more scrolls began when it became clear that the dry climate of the Judean desert had preserved perishable ancient material such as leather scrolls, which in any other part of the Holy Land would have disintegrated long ago because of the humid winters. Soon more caves were discovered containing scrolls and thousands of scroll fragments. In the area of Qumran, where the first cave was located, 11 manuscript-containing caves were ultimately discovered, some by Bedouins, others by archeologists. These are called the Qumran scrolls, but the term "Dead Sea scrolls" includes, in addition, those from other areas of the dry desert of Judea near the Dead Sea. Some came to light in the Wadi MurabbaÔat, southeast of Bethlehem, others in the Wadi Hever, south of En-gedi, and some in the excavations of the ruins of the Jewish fortress of Masada, destroyed by the Romans in a.d. 73.

Khirbet Qumran, a ruin near the first cave, lies near the mouth of the Wadi Qumran, which enters the Dead Sea about 9 miles south of Jericho. When excavated, it turned out to have been the community center of a strict Jewish sect, probably the Essenes. The excavation shed much light on the life of the sect, whose members had been the owners of the scrolls found in the vicinity. In this monasterylike compound the sectaries worked, ate their meals, performed their religious rituals, and worshiped their God together, though they lived in the surrounding caves. The structures at Qumran were destroyed in the first Roman-Jewish War (a.d. 66-73). During that time the members of the sect may have perished, because the group seems to have vanished at that time. Many of the scrolls had apparently been hidden in the caves when destruction threatened. Evidently the owners never returned to retrieve their books.

The manuscripts discovered there are of a varied nature. The first cave yielded one complete and one incomplete copy of Isaiah, a part of a commentary on Habakkuk, fragments of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Judges, and Daniel--all written in the Hebrew square script, which was used after the Babylonian Exile--and fragments of Leviticus written in the pre-exilic script. Also found early in other caves were Psalms, Samuel, and Leviticus in fairly large portions. Eventually fragments of all the other Old Testament books except Esther were found in the caves. Other Hebrew books represented by scrolls or fragments are known apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works, previously unknown books of a sectarian nature, and some secular works. The script is consonantal, since the Hebrew did not yet have vowels.

The study of these scrolls has produced a new branch of Biblical science. Even now, nearly three decades after the discovery of the first Qumran cave, not half of all manuscripts discovered have been published. Yet the articles and books dealing with the Dead Sea scrolls number many thousands, and the bibliography of this published material fills several volumes. One scholarly journal, the Revue de Qumran, is devoted to nothing else but scroll studies. This indicates how much interest exists among scholars in the scrolls from the Dead Sea.

During the first years after their discovery, a heated battle raged among scholars concerning their genuineness and age, but the voices of doubt have long ago been silenced. When the same kinds of scrolls as those found by the Bedouins came to light in explorations and excavations carried out by professional archeologists it became abundantly clear, even to the strongest doubter, that the Dead Sea scrolls were no modern or medieval forgeries, but genuine ancient manuscripts.

It is generally accepted that the Qumran scrolls date from the 3d century b.c. to the 1st century a.d. The manuscripts found in the other areas mentioned above come from the 1st and 2d centuries a.d. These finds have provided us with Bible manuscripts that are a thousand years earlier than the earliest Hebrew Bible texts known before these scrolls came to light. This is of great importance, because we have thus obtained samples of every Old Testament book, save one, as it existed during the time of Christ's ministry. In other words, we now know what the Bible of Christ's time looked like; in fact, we have discovered that its text differed scarcely at all from the one on which our modern translations were based. While the Dead Sea scrolls contain numerous linguistic variants, such as in spelling or grammatical form, for example, these differences are of such a minor nature that they are hardly apparent in any English translation of the scrolls if one compares their text with that of any of the other English Bible translations. The scrolls thus bear an eloquent witness to the faithful transmission of the Hebrew text through the many centuries of copying the Bible by hand. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls has provided us therefore with proof that in the Old Testament we still possess the Bible of Jesus Christ in the same form He knew and recommended.

The Work of the Masoretes.--The Jewish scholars of the first five centuries of the Christian Era completed the work of dividing the Bible text into greater and smaller paragraphs, as they are still found in the Hebrew Bible texts today. These divisions should not be confused with the chapters and verses found in our English Old Testament, which are of later origin. The Jewish rabbis introduced also a number of symbols to point out the location of difficult passages, which were explained in their writings. Since no Bible manuscripts written during this period are extant, our information concerning the work of these Jewish scholars with regard to the Hebrew Bible is gained from the Talmud.

Since about a.d. 500, the Jewish scholars who perpetuated the tradition concerning the Old Testament text have been called Masoretes, from Masora, the Hebrew technical term for the "early tradition as to the correct form of the text of the Scriptures." These men made efforts to ensure the exact transmission of the text to future generations, and laid down the results of their labors in monographs and annotations to the Bible.

Since the Hebrew language had been dead for centuries, replaced completely by Aramaic as the spoken language, there was danger that its pronunciation would be entirely lost in the course of time. It was for this reason that the Masoretes invented a system of vowel signs that were added to the Hebrew consonants. Reading of the Hebrew Bible was thus simplified, and the retention of the then-existing pronunciation was guaranteed. It should not be overlooked, however, that the pronunciation known through the current Hebrew Bible text is that of the Masoretes of the 7th century of the Christian Era, which, as we know now, varies somewhat from that of the Old Testament period.

The Masoretes also invented two complicated systems of accents, one for the prose books and another one for the Psalms and Job. The accents consist of many different signs added to the text, designed to indicate the various shades of pronunciation and accent.

Whenever the Masoretes felt that something should be read differently from the way it was written in the text, they put their suggested changes in the margin, but did not change the text itself. An example is the reading of the name of God, consisting of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH (called the Tetragrammaton), which was probably pronounced Yahweh in ancient times. But for centuries devout Jews, fearing to profane the holy name, had not pronounced it. Instead, when they came to the word YHWH, they said Adonai, Lord. The Masoretes, true to their principle of not changing the Scriptures, left the four Hebrew consonants YHWH wherever they were found, but added to them the vowels of the word Adonai. Every initiated Jewish reader coming to this word would therefore read Adonai, although he had only the vowels of the word Adonai added to the consonants YHWH. Since this principle was not understood by Christians when they learned to use the Hebrew Bible in the early days of the Reformation, the divine name of God was transliterated as Jehovah and pronounced accordingly.

It may be useful to explain in this connection the devices used by the translators of the KJV (also followed in the RSV) to indicate in the English which of the different Hebrew terms for the Deity is found in the Hebrew text. They followed the custom of reading "Lord" for the divine name, a usage sanctioned by the apostles and Gospel writers in the New Testament. However, not only the word YHWH, pronounced Adonai by the Jewish readers, is found in the Hebrew Bible as the name of God, but also the word Adonai, "Lord," with consonants as well as vowels of Adonai. Therefore, the name YHWH is rendered "Lord," but in cases where it follows the word Adonai, YHWH is rendered "God." Note that in the KJV and RSV the word Lord or God with the small capitals always represents the personal name YHWH, which was transliterated "Jehovah" in the ASV. Wherever the word Adonai (consonants and vowels) is found it is given as "Lord," and the Hebrew term Elohim is always translated as "God" when it refers to the true God. If these simple rules are kept in mind, it is easy to recognize which of the divine names or titles are used in the Old Testament. The following examples may be helpful as a summary of the foregoing facts:

God, Elohim (Gen. 1:1)

Lord God, YHWH Elohim (Gen. 2:4)

Lord, YHWH (Gen. 18:33)

Lord, Adonai (Gen. 18:30)

Lord God, Adonai YHWH (Gen. 15:2)

The Masoretes also established exact and detailed rules to be followed in the production of new Bible copies. Nothing was left to the decision of the scribes, neither the length of lines and columns, nor the color of the ink to be used. The words of each book were counted, and its middle word established, to provide means for checking the accuracy of new copies. At the end of each book a statement was attached giving the number of words the book contained, and also telling which was the middle word, besides some other statistical information.

Extant Manuscripts of the Masoretic Text.--With the exception of the Dead Sea scrolls all of our oldest Hebrew Bible manuscripts are of the late Masoretic period. Probably the oldest of these is a 9th-century copy of the Pentateuch in the British Museum. However, the date is not absolutely certain, since it is based on the style of its writing. The earliest dated Hebrew Bible manuscript is a copy of the Latter Prophets in Leningrad, written in a.d. 916. Other famous copies of the Hebrew Bible are two from the 10th century: Codex Laudianus of Oxford, containing almost the whole Old Testament, and Codex Ben Asher of Aleppo, which in 1948 largely escaped destruction in anti-Jewish riots.

Other old Hebrew Bible manuscripts were found in a Cairo synagogue, where they had escaped destruction. These are now for the greatest part in Russian collections, and in the Cambridge University Library, England. The reason for the dearth of old Hebrew Bible manuscripts is a Jewish law that prohibits the use of worn-out and dilapidated Bibles. They had to be buried or otherwise destroyed to prevent any profanation of the divine name of God which they contained. If, therefore, a manuscript became old and worn out it was put into a room of the synagogue, called genizah, to be disposed of later. To date only one genizah has been found containing old manuscripts--the one in Cairo. So far as we know, all other Bible manuscripts of the first millennium of the Christian Era have been lost.

However, the extreme care with which manuscripts were written by the Jewish scribes is a guarantee of the accuracy of the extant Bible copies. The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, which has recently provided texts that are a thousand years older than the previously oldest known Hebrew Bible copies, has demonstrated the truth of the assertion that the text of the Old Testament has been handed down to us practically in the same form as Christ knew it.

IV. The History of the Old Testament Canon

A correct understanding of the history of the Bible and the collection of its books not only is of great interest to the reader of the Word of God but is necessary to refute the false claims of those who are influenced in their thinking by higher critics. Since it has occasionally been claimed that the collection of Old Testament books was made either just before Jesus Christ's ministry or at the Jewish council of Jamnia after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in a.d. 70, one must know the facts to see the fallacy of such claims.

The Canon.--The word canon was used by the Greeks to designate a rule invested with authority. The apostle Paul uses the word in this sense in Gal. 6:16. From the 2d century on, appeal was made continually to the rule of Christian teachings under phrases like the "canon of the church," the "canon of truth," or the "canon of faith" (see Brooke Foss Westcott, History of the Canon, 7th ed., p. 514).

To designate the collection of Bible books recognized as a rule of faith and practice, the word canon was used for the first time by the church Father Origen (a.d. 185?-254?), who said that "no one should use for the proof of doctrine books not included among the canonized Scriptures" (Commentary on Matt., sec. 28); Athanasius (a.d. 293?-373) then called the whole collection of books sanctioned by the church the "canon," and this is the meaning by which the word found entrance into the language of the church (Westcott, History of the Canon, pp. 518, 519).

Modern and Ancient Division of the Old Testament.--The term, the "Canon of the Old Testament," means simply the 39 books of the Protestant Old Testament, which were written by inspired prophets, historians, and poets in pre-Christian times. The present division into 3 sections--historical, poetical, and prophetic--containing 39 books, originates from the Greek and Latin translations of the Bible where such a division is found. The Hebrew Old Testament consisted of 24 books, which were divided in the following 3 main divisions:

1. The Law (torah) containing the five books of Moses, or the Pentateuch.

2. The Prophets (nebi'im), subdivided into:

(a) four "Former," Joshua, Judges, (1 and 2) Samuel, and (1 and 2) Kings, and

(b) four "Latter," Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve Minor Prophets as one book.

3. The Writings (kethubim), consisting of the remaining eleven books, of which Ezra-Nehemiah as well as 1 and 2 Chronicles formed one book each.

The threefold division of the Hebrew Old Testament in the time of Christ is attested by His own words, as follows: "All things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms [the first book of the third division]" (Luke 24:44).

Before the Babylonian Exile.--The origin of many of the individual books of the Old Testament can be traced back to their authors. (The authorship is discussed in the Introduction at the beginning of each book in this commentary.) However, no information is available in regard to greater collections of Old Testament books before the Babylonian exile. Pre-exilic references to Biblical books refer to the Pentateuch.

God admonished Joshua that "this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" (Joshua 1:8), and Joshua, Moses' successor, encouraged the people "to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses" (ch. 23:6). He held also a great gathering where instructions were publicly read from "the book of the law" (ch. 8:34).

David also knew the Pentateuch and attempted to live according to its precepts, as can be concluded from the counsel he gave to his son Solomon to keep the Lord's statutes, commandments, judgments, and testimonies, "as it is written in the law of Moses" (1 Kings 2:3). Also King Amaziah of Judah is given credit for following certain regulations as they were "written in the book of the law of Moses" (2 Kings 14:6). These intermittent Biblical testimonies show that the Pentateuch was known from the time of Moses to the period of the kings of Judah. However, there were times, especially under the reign of wicked kings, when the Scriptures were hardly known at all, and had, as it were, to be rediscovered. This happened, for example, in the time of King Josiah, when during temple repair work "the book of the law" was found and read, and its regulations once more put into effect (2 Kings 22:8 to 23:24).

At the Time of Ezra-Nehemiah.--In the books of the Old Testament that were written after the Exile, such as Ezra and Nehemiah, reference is made, either by name or by quotation, to various of the earlier books of the Bible. Reference is also made to certain books that have been either partly incorporated into postexilic Scriptural books or lost. The 5 books of Moses, mentioned under names like "book of Moses," "law of the Lord," "book of the law of the Lord," etc., are referred to 7 times in 1 and 2 Chronicles, 17 times in Ezra and Nehemiah, and once in Malachi. That the book of the law (torah) was considered to be inspired and "canonical" in the 5th century b.c. is shown by the great reverence the people demonstrated when that book was opened (Neh. 8:5, 6). It would seem that the expression "book of the law" (torah) had a wider meaning than only the "Pentateuch," since the same term is used once by Jesus in referring to the Psalms when introducing quotations From Ps. 35:19 and 69:4 with the words "written in their law" (John 15:25).

Many books of pre-exilic origin survived the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity. This can be seen from the fact that Daniel used the book of Jeremiah during the exile in Babylonia (Dan. 9:2), and that about 20 different books are mentioned in the books of Chronicles as either having provided the source material for the contents of that work, or as books where additional information could be secured concerning many points that were only lightly touched in Chronicles. The postexilic chronicler (see 2 Chron. 36:22) referred to many books, such as "the book of Samuel the seer" (1 Chron. 29:29), "the book of Nathan the prophet" (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29), and "the story of the prophet Iddo" (2 Chron. 13:22).

That Ezra and Nehemiah took a definite part in the collecting of the sacred books is indicated by Jewish tradition. The Apocryphal second book of Maccabees, written during the early part of the 1st century b.c., contains a letter allegedly written by Palestinian Jews and Judas Maccabaeus to the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and other Jews in Egypt (2 Macc. 1:10). This letter refers to the "archives or memoirs of Nehemiah," and states also that Nehemiah had "founded a library and collected the books about the kings and the prophets, and the books of David" (2 Macc. 2:13, translated by Mofatt in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 1).

Another writer who places the completion of the Old Testament canon in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah is the Jewish historian Josephus, who shortly after the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70, made the following significant statement:

"From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.

"We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own Scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable" (Josephus, Against Apion i. 8, Loeb ed.).

This statement shows that the Jews in Christ's time were convinced that the canon had been fixed in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, who both worked under Artaxerxes I. They were reluctant to reverse this action or to supplement the Scriptures as fixed 500 years earlier, especially since no man clearly recognized as a prophet had risen since the days of Malachi.

Josephus' significant statement agrees well with observations which the careful reader can make in the Old Testament itself. The latest historical books, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, bring the history of Israel, for instance, down to the period following the Exile. The Chronicles, and their continuation, Ezra-Nehemiah, record events that took place during the 6th and 5th centuries, but not later. The writing of the Old Testament, as it is known now, must have been completed, therefore, by the end of the 5th century b.c., for the further continuation of the history was not added to the earlier record. It was not even preserved along with the canonical Scriptures. The canon, therefore, must have been closed. For a further statement on the relation of Ezra to the collecting of the sacred books, see PK 609.

Between Nehemiah and the Maccabees.--There are hardly any records extant of the history of the Jews during the 4th and 3d centuries b.c. Only two records of this period are known which have any bearing on the history of the Bible: (1) the tradition of Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, and (2) the production of the Greek translation of the Old Testament in Egypt, called the Septuagint (generally abbreviated LXX).

Alexander's visit to Jerusalem, according to Josephus, took place after the fall of Gaza, in November, 332 B.C. As the story goes, when he came to punish the Jews for having refused to aid him with troops in his war against the Persians, he was met outside of the city walls of Jerusalem by a procession of priests, led by the high priest, Jaddua. The king was then said to have been brought to the Temple, where he was given an opportunity to offer sacrifice, and was shown from the book of Daniel that one of the Greeks--presumably Alexander--was designated by divine prophecies to destroy the Persian Empire. This pleased Alexander so much that he bestowed favors on the Jews (Josephus, Antiquities xi. 8. 4, 5). The story as told by Josephus has been regarded by most scholars as fictitious. Its acceptance would require the existence of the book of Daniel in the time of Alexander the Great, whereas they hold that the book was not written before the period of the Maccabees, in the 2d century b.c. However, there is much internal evidence in favor of the truth of this story (see the Introduction to the Book of Daniel). If true, the story provides an added proof that the Jews not only possessed that book but were also studying the prophecies it contained.

The Septuagint translation was produced for the Greek-speaking Jews in Egypt, but quickly gained a considerable circulation among the widely dispersed Jews. The sources for its origin are the reputed Letter of Aristeas, written possibly between 96 and 63 B.C., a statement made by Philo, an Alexandrian Jewish philosopher of the time of Christ (Philo, Life of Moses ii. 5-7), and Josephus' writings shortly afterward (Antiquities xii. 2; Against Apion ii. 4). In these works a legendary story is told about the translation of the Pentateuch by 72 Jewish scholars in 72 days during the reign of King Ptolemy II of Egypt (285-247 B.C.). These men, the story tells us, worked independently, but produced 72 copies of one translation in which every word agreed, showing that their translations had been carried out under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Although this story was fabricated with the purpose of securing a ready acceptance for the Greek translation among the Jews, and of placing it on an equal footing with the Hebrew text, it doubtless contains some historical facts. One of them is that the translation started with the Pentateuch, and that it was carried out under Ptolemy II. It is not known when the translation of the whole Old Testament was completed. This may have happened in the 3d century b.c. or early in the 2d century. However, the completed Septuagint is mentioned by the translator of Jesus ben Sirach's Ecclesiasticus in the prologue which he added to this Apocryphal work. The prologue was written about 132 B.C., and refers to the Greek Bible as something then in existence.

While referring to the book Ecclesiasticus, or "Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach," which was composed in Hebrew about 180 B.C., it is of value to point out in passing that its author had access to most of the books of the Old Testament. This is seen from the fact that he either quoted from or referred to at least 19 of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible.

From the Maccabees to Christ.--In the 2d century b.c. a determined attempt was made by the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize the Jews and crush their nationalistic spirit. He took away their religious rites, changed their way of life, and attempted to destroy their sacred literature. After a description of the efforts made at that time to introduce pagan rites, 1 Macc. 1:56, 57 says the following in regard to this point:

"And the books of the Law which they found they rent in pieces, and burned them in the fire. And with whomsoever was found a book of the covenant, and if he was (found) consenting unto the Law, such an one was, according to the king's sentence, condemned to death" (translated by Oesterly in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 1).

It was probably during this time when all the books of the Pentateuch were forbidden to be read that the practice arose of reading in religious services passages from the prophets instead of those from the Law. These passages from the prophetic books were later called Haftaroth, and were read in connection with sections from the Law as soon as the restrictions were lifted (cf. Luke 4:16, 17; Acts 13:15, 27).

Many books escaped destruction during that time of national distress, when the whole religious life of the Jews was at stake. The Jewish tradition claims that the saving of many books was due to the courage and efforts of Judas Maccabaeus. In the second book of Maccabees, written in the beginning of the 1st century b.c., the statement is made that Judas had collected "for us all the writings which had been scattered owing to the outbreak of war. They are still with us" (2 Macc. 2:14).

About 132 B.C. Jesus ben Sirach's grandson translated into Greek his grandfather's Hebrew work, called Ecclesiasticus. He added a historical prologue to it, in which the threefold division of the Old Testament canon is mentioned three times.

It was about that time also that the Apocryphal first book of Maccabees was written. The book of Psalms is quoted (1 Macc. 7:16). Daniel is mentioned (1Macc. 2:60), as well as his three friends, together with Abraham, Joseph, Joshua, David, Elijah, and other early men of God. The definite impression is gained here that the author of 1 Maccabees considered the book whence he received his information concerning Daniel as one of the old works, and not as a new addition of the Maccabean age, as higher critics of the Bible claim.

The first witness to the expression "Scripture" used to designate certain parts of the Bible is the Letter of Aristeas (see secs. 155, 168, in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2), written possibly between 96 and 63 B.C. This term, regularly used by the later New Testament writers with reference to books of the Old Testament, is employed by Aristeas to designate the Pentateuch.

The Testimony of Christ and the Apostles.--Christ testified not only to the existence of the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible (Luke 24:44), but also to the fact that the sequence of the books was known to Him. The sequence of the books in the Hebrew Bible is quite different from that of our modern English Bibles. According to the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible already explained, the section Writings comes last, with the two books of Chronicles (one in Hebrew) at the end of the Old Testament. When Jesus said to the Pharisees that from them would be required an account for the crimes committed "from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple" (Luke 11:51; cf. Matt. 23:35), He made reference to the first martyr, Abel, mentioned in the first book of the Bible (Gen. 4:8), and to Zechariah, whose martyrdom is described in the last book of the Hebrew Bible (2 Chron. 24:20-22). Had Jesus used the word "unto" in a chronological sense, He would have mentioned the prophet Urijah, who was killed by Jehoiakim more than a century later than Zechariah (Jer. 26:20-23). Christ's statement thus provides clear evidence that the sequence of the Hebrew Bible was already firmly established in His time.

That Zechariah is called the "son of Barachias" in Matt. 23:35, but the "son of Jehoiada" in 2 Chron. 24:20, should not be explained, with some commentators, as the result of confusion on the part of Matthew or a later copyist with the prophet "Zechariah, the son of Berechiah," who lived centuries later, in the time of Darius I (Zech. 1:1). Zechariah's father Jehoiada may have had a second name, as so many Jews had, or Barachias may have been either Zechariah's maternal grandfather or else his real father and Jehoiada the more famous grandfather. The word "son" to mean "grandson" was recognized in Hebrew usage (see 2 Kings 9:2, 20). Whatever may be the correct interpretation of this seeming difficulty, commentators from Jerome on have almost unanimously seen in the Zacharias mentioned by Jesus the man of 2 Chron. 24:20.

Jesus Christ was, of course, a firm believer in the authority of the Bible as it existed in His time, and so were His apostles. This is clearly seen from several statements. Jesus said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures" (Matt. 22:29). Jesus submitted proof of His Messiahship by citing the three divisions of the Old Testament Scripture, saying that "all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44; cf. vs. 25-27). He also placed belief in Moses' writings along with belief in His own teachings: "If ye believe not his writings," asked the Saviour, "how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47; cf. v. 46). Paul stated that God had made certain promises "by his prophets in the holy scriptures" (Rom. 1:2). He said to Timothy, a younger fellow worker, "From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures. ... All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:15, 16). Another equally certain claim is made by the apostle Peter: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; ... no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:19-21). These statements show clearly that Christ and His apostles were firmly convinced that the Old Testament, the Bible of their day, was inspired and authoritative.

The expression "Old Testament" is used for the first time with reference to books of the Hebrew Bible in the apostolic age. In a much-discussed passage the apostle Paul says that a veil remained on the eyes of the Jews until his day "in the reading of the old testament" (2 Cor. 3:14). Commentators are divided in their interpretation of the term "old testament" in this passage, but since Paul refers to something that is read by the Jews, the most plausible explanation is to see in it a reference to either the Pentateuch or the whole Hebrew Bible. Since the term Old Testament implies the existence of the term New Testament, it is possible that the apostle and other Christians may already have used the term New Testament for writings describing the life and work of Christ--perhaps one of the Gospels.

The many quotations from the Old Testament found in the New also bear an important witness to the authority ascribed to the books of the Old Testament by the authors of the Christian writings. Some of the quotations are short, and many expressions in the book of Revelation are very similar to those found in Daniel, but may not actually be quotations.

The writer of this article counted 433 clear quotations in the New Testament, and found that 30 of the 39 Old Testament books are definitely quoted. The names of 10 books or their authors are mentioned in 46 New Testament passages; the inspiration of 11 Old Testament books is attested by quotations introduced with the words that their author was God or the Holy Spirit, and the term "scripture" is applied in 21 passages from 11 Old Testament books, while in 73 passages Old Testament statements are introduced by the technical term "It is written."

First-Century Jews.--Philo of Alexandria (died about a.d. 42) was a Jewish philosopher who wrote in the time of Christ. His works contain quotations from 16 of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible. That his writings contain no quotations from Ezekiel, Daniel, the Chronicles, and five other small books may be accidental.

The historian Josephus, writing about a.d. 90, made a most important statement on the canon in his work Against Apion, which because of its significance is quoted here:

"We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time.

"Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life"

(Josephus, Against Apion i. 8, Loeb ed.).

Josephus' statement that the Bible of the Jews contained 22 books needs an explanation, because it is known that there were actually 24 books in the Hebrew Bible before and in his time. His division into 5 "books of Moses," 13 books of "prophets," and 4 books of "hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life," follows more closely the sequence of the Septuagint than that of the Hebrew Bible, an understandable procedure, since he wrote for Greek-speaking readers. But the basis for his statement that the Hebrew Bible had 22 books was probably due to a Hebrew practice that arose among certain men who sought to adjust the number of books of the Scriptures to accord with the number of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Josephus probably counted Ruth along with Judges, and Lamentations along with Jeremiah, or possibly left out two of the books that may have seemed to him of little importance.

Another Jewish author of that time, writing the spurious work called 4 Ezra (the 2 Esdras of the Apocrypha), is the first witness who clearly indicates that the number of books in the Hebrew Bible was 24.

Toward the end of the 1st or at the beginning of the 2d century a council of Jewish scholars was held at Jamnia, south of Jaffa in Palestine. This council was presided over by Gamaliel II, with Rabbi Akiba, the most influential Jewish scholar of that time, as its leading spirit. Since some Jews considered certain Apocryphal books as of equal value with those of the canonical Old Testament books, Jewry wanted to place its official stamp on a canon which had existed unchanged for a long time, and which, it was felt, needed safeguards against additions. This council therefore did not establish the Old Testament canon, but only confirmed a position held for centuries in regard to the books of the Hebrew Bible. It is true, however, that in certain quarters the canonicity of the books Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs, and Esther was questioned. But Rabbi Akiba, the greatest and most influential Jewish scholar of his time, dispersed the doubts by his authority and eloquence, and these books retained their place in the Hebrew canon.

The Early Christian Church.--In the writings of the early church Fathers all of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible were accepted as canonical. It was only in the Eastern church that an occasional slight doubt in regard to the inspiration of the book Esther was raised. However, the Apocryphal Jewish books were not accepted by the earliest writers of the Christian church. The writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, who produced their works after the death of the apostles to about a.d. 150, do not contain any real quotations from the Apocrypha, but only a few references to them. This shows that the Apocryphal books originally enjoyed no equality with the canonical writings of the Old Testament in the mind of these church leaders.

The church Fathers of the later periods, however, make hardly any difference between the Apocrypha and the Old Testament, and introduce quotations from both collections with the same formulas. This development does not seem strange in view of the early trends of apostasy noticeable in many quarters of the early Christian church. When the simplicity of the Christian faith was forsaken, men turned to books that supported their non-Biblical stand in regard to certain teachings, and found this partial support in the Jewish Apocryphal books, rejected even by the Jews themselves.

The Eastern and Western Churches.--Jerome (5th cent.), the translator of the Bible into Latin, called the Vulgate, which has become the official Roman Catholic Bible, was the last writer of his church who strongly argued in favor of accepting nothing but the true Hebrew writings, and of rejecting the Apocrypha. However, most Western church leaders accepted the Apocryphal books in his time, and assigned to them the same authority as to the Old Testament. This can be seen from the writings of various authors of the Middle Ages, some teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which find their basis in the Apocrypha, and from the decisions made by several regional church councils (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397). The Western church generally has recognized the Apocryphal books as having the value of the canonical books of the Old Testament, but writers of the Eastern churches have generally used them much more sparingly than their Western colleagues.

The first ecumenical council that took an action in favor of accepting the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament was the Council of Trent. Its primary objective was to lay plans for combating the Reformation. Since the Reformers sought to remove all practices and teachings which had no Scriptural basis, and the Catholic Church could find no support for some of its doctrines in the Bible, except as the Apocryphal writings were considered part of the Bible, it was forced to recognize them as canonical. This canonization was done on April 8, 1546, when for the first time a list of canonical Old Testament books was published by an ecumenical council. This list contained not only the 39 books of the Old Testament, but also 7 Apocryphal books, and Apocryphal additions to Daniel and Esther. Since that time these Apocryphal books, not even recognized by the Jews as canonical, have the same authoritative value for a Roman Catholic as any book of the Bible.

Protestant Views on the Canon.--The Reformers accepted the 39 books of the Old Testament as canonical without exception, and almost without any reservations. However, the Apocryphal books were generally rejected. Martin Luther translated them into German and published them with the remark on the title page that they "are books which are not equal to the Holy Scriptures, but profitable and good for reading."

The Church of England was more liberal toward the use of the Apocrypha. The Book of Common Prayer in 1662 prescribed the reading of certain sections of the Apocryphal books for various feast days, as well as for daily reading during some weeks in the autumn. Yet the Thirty-nine Articles make a difference between the Apocrypha and the canon.

The Reformed Church took up the issue of the Apocrypha during its Council of Dordrecht in 1618. Gomarus and other theologians demanded the removal of the Apocrypha from the printed Bibles. Although this demand was not followed, the council's denunciation of the Apocryphal books was nevertheless so vigorous that the Reformed Church from that time on was strongly opposed to the use of the Apocrypha.

The greatest fight against the Apocryphal books took place in England during the first half of the 19th century. A great mass of literature was produced from 1811 to 1852, investigating the merits and errors of these extracanonical books of the Old Testament. The result was a general rejection of the Apocrypha by church leaders and theologians, and a clear decision by the British and Foreign Bible Society to exclude the Apocrypha henceforth from all the Bibles published by that society.

Summary.--The brief survey of the history of the Old Testament canon leads to the conclusion that the collection of books we call the Old Testament took place in the 5th century b.c., with Ezra and Nehemiah, the two great leaders of that restoration period, most probably the leading spirits in this work. The basis of this conclusion is the fact that the Old Testament does not contain any later books. Jewish tradition of the 1st century b.c. confirms this conclusion.

The production of the Septuagint, beginning in the 3d century b.c., is evidence for the existence of an Old Testament canon at that time. Other witnesses are Jesus ben Sirach's quotations and references to the Old Testament early in the 2d century b.c., a few years later the edict of Antiochus Epiphanes to destroy the sacred books of the Jews, and the statements of Jesus ben Sirach's grandson about 132 B.C., mentioning the threefold division of the Hebrew Bible and the existence of its Greek translation in his time.

Jesus Christ and the apostles definitely believed in the authority and inspiration of the Hebrew Bible, as is seen from numerous testimonies witnessing to this fact. Their Bible had the same threefold division and probably the same sequence of books as found in the present Hebrew Bible. Furthermore, hundreds of quotations taken from at least 30 Old Testament books show the high esteem in which these writings were held by the founder of the Christian faith and His immediate followers.

The history of the Old Testament canon in the Christian church following the apostolic age centers in the question about the acceptance or rejection of the Jewish Apocrypha. Though these books were rejected by the apostles and the Christian writers up to the middle of the 2d century, and indeed, even by the Jews themselves, these spurious writings unfortunately found a welcome in the Christian church toward the end of the 2d century. From that time on they were never banned from the Catholic Church. The Reformers took a firm stand in rejecting the Apocrypha, but after their death the Apocryphal books found entrance once more into some Protestant churches, although they were finally ejected from most of them in the 19th century.

More serious is the view of modernists concerning the Old Testament. They believe neither in the inspiration of the Old Testament books nor in their early origin. This secularizing process, which places the Old Testament on the same level with other ancient literature, is more harmful for the Christian church than the former indifference toward the Apocrypha, since it destroys the faith of the believer in the divine origin of those books of the Bible of which Christ said, "They are they which testify of me" (John 5:39).

Every Christian believer must therefore be convinced of the divine origin of these Old Testament books by means of which the Christian apostles proved the soundness of their faith and doctrines. That these books have survived the several national catastrophes of the Jewish nation in antiquity, and the insidious attacks of the dark forces inside and outside the Christian church, is a strong proof that these writings have enjoyed divine protection.

A question that occurs early to a student of the Bible is the discrepancy between the account of Genesis 1 and 2, which stipulates a creation by divine fiat, and the widely held theory of evolution, which postulates origins for both organic and inorganic systems by non-supernatural means.

The purpose of this article is to survey the prominent issues that are encountered in the development and defense of a creationist model for origins that is consistent with the basic theological commitment of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. (In this context, model means a system of corroborating data into a feasible concept.) References are included that will aid the reader who wishes to investigate any of these issues more fully. Consideration is given to the origin of elementary matter, the basic elementary particles and atoms with which the physical universe is constructed; the complex chemical compounds from which living cells are constructed; living cells themselves; organisms that are composed of vast numbers of specialized living cells; and man, the most complex feature of the natural world. Finally, some observations are made regarding the assignment of age to fossils on the basis of data furnished by radiometric dating techniques.

I. Seventh-day Adventist Position Regarding the Genesis Creation Account

Throughout its history the Seventh-day Adventist Church has held that the first 35 verses of the book of Genesis contain a valid, factual account of literal events that occurred during seven consecutive rotations of Planet Earth--the creation week. This interpretation places within creation week the origin of the parent stock for all organisms supported by the planet and also the origin of the physical circumstances on which the continuing life of this parent stock depends.

Nature of Evidence Regarding Origins.--The uniqueness and singularity of creative acts such as those described in Genesis 1 place their explanation or verification beyond the range of scientific procedures. Knowledge concerning the nature and time of such events is dependent on the testimony of reliable witnesses--on revelation. If it should be proved that complex biochemicals or physical structures associated with living organisms could develop from simpler states as a consequence of the ordinary properties of matter, such proof would not constitute evidence that these features actually evolved in this manner; it would introduce only the evolutionary process as one possibility in addition to the fiat-creation stipulation set forth in the Bible.

The human mind, perhaps any created intelligence, is incapable of understanding the origin of the universe. A godless approach to the problem begins with previously existing inanimate matter that possesses capabilities that naturally result in the development of life and all other features of the contemporary universe. A God-related approach begins with an intelligence capable of designing, constructing, and maintaining all features of the universe. The origin of either the primary matter required by the first model or the intelligence required by the second model is humanly incomprehensible.

The Biblical Creation Model.--The principal postulates of the Biblical creation model that is implicit throughout this commentary may be stated as follows (Neufeld 1974b):

1. The physical substance of the universe and the laws of interaction that characterize this substance were brought into existence by the Creator and are the manifestation of His continued purpose.

2. Within six successive rotations of Planet Earth approximately 6,000 years ago, the Creator organized and/or created the planet to provide an ideal environment for living organisms and placed there the ancestors of all the organisms that have lived on this planet.

3. The initial perfect creation, which reflected the personality of the Creator, whose principal characteristic is love, was subsequently modified as a result of sin, so it became progressively less ideal, with death the fate of all organisms.

4. The originally created organisms were endowed with capability for propagation with modification, which has resulted in a wide range of adaptation and speciation within basic categories.

5. The surface of the planet was radically transformed in a post-creation event, known as the Flood, that buried remains of the previous world and resulted in a post-Flood world that in many situations provided a drastically different environment for living organisms.

Contrasting Theories.--Currently fashionable evolutionary theory postulates that (1) both inorganic and organic matter developed spontaneously through fortuitous random interaction, (2) suitable supporting environments, as well as living forms, developed slowly over several billion years, (3, 4) the present varieties of plants and animals are at the growing edge of a natural development process that generally progresses from simple to complex, from one basic kind of organism to another, and (5) the present environment is the product of normal physical processes operating over hundreds of millions of years.

A large segment of the contemporary Christian world accepts the basic evolutionary scenario by postulating it to be the manner in which God has worked in bringing the universe and the life on earth to its present state. This viewpoint is known as theistic evolution (Key 1959). It avoids tension with the scientific community and supplies the creative power of God to replace the implausibilities in the evolutionary model; but it considers the Biblical specifications concerning creation, the Flood, and the early history of man to be metaphorical rather than factual. Theistic evolution is a feature of religion that is humanistic rather than revelational and God-centered. It must be evaluated on the basis of the evidence supporting the claims for inspiration and authority of Scripture made by Jesus and the Bible writers, and on the compatibility of the presumed evolutionary process with the character and capability of God as presented in the Bible.

The Range of Scientific Evidence Regarding Origins.--The scientific data on which a creation model may be based arise from several areas: (1) the nature and organization of matter, both inorganic and organic; (2) the nature of the fossil record; (3) the variability of organisms comprising the modern biosphere as determined by field observation and laboratory experimentation; (4) the structural features and relationships of the plutonic, volcanic, and sedimentary formations in the earth's crust. The first three of these areas will be reviewed in this article. The fourth will be treated in the article on "Genesis and Geology," p. 70.

Biblical creationism is accepted on the basis of evidence for the integrity of the Biblical testimony, personal experience with the Creator, and knowledge concerning the plausibility of alternative concepts. For a positive witness to the creationism presented in the Bible it is desirable to have an understanding of the plausibility for the origin of life by alternate means. The currently fashionable evolutionary model for origins involves pre-existence of primary matter and energy, chemical evolution, spontaneous generation of life, and biological evolution--formation of complex biochemicals from simple inorganic compounds, organization of these biochemicals into a living cell, and subsequent development of the elementary cell into complex organisms, including man, with each successive step following as a natural consequence of innate properties of matter.

The Origin of Elementary Matter.--Since 1860 the literature of the Seventh-day Adventist Church has presented more than one viewpoint concerning creation of the elementary matter from which the physical structure of living organisms is formed (Smith 1860). Some scholars and church leaders have taken the position that all elementary matter in our planet came into existence at the beginning of creation week. Others have understood the testimony of Scripture to suggest, or at least allow, that the substance of earth and solar system is the result, at least in part, of creative activity before creation week. Published statements indicate that some Adventist scholars have advocated first one and then the other of these viewpoints (Price 1902, 1941, 1946; Clark 1946, 1962, 1977). More recently it has been suggested that Planet Earth may presently contain elementary matter, some of which (1) is the result of creative activity at an earlier time in the history of the universe, (2) some that came into existence during creation week, and (3) some that was created in physically negligible but idealogically significant amount in connection with miracles such as Christ's feeding the multitudes (Brown 1958, 1971). It is an essential feature of each of these viewpoints that all things throughout the universe, both visible and invisible, were created by Christ (John 1:3; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2).

A deist viewpoint that was encountered during the early development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church described God's creation in terms of human concepts and experience. Although this viewpoint placed the work of God on an infinitely greater scale than that of man, it made God's creative activity similar to man's in the utilization of previously existing material and in the formation of a product that would function regularly without continuous attention on the part of its Creator. Ellen G. White repeatedly opposed this viewpoint, stating that God is not indebted to or dependent on pre-existent matter in His creative activity and that the laws of nature are not self-acting but are the continuing expression of God's will and creative power (Neh. 9:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3; White 1884, 1897, 1903, 1904, 1905).

II. The Testimony of Biochemistry

The Origin of Biochemicals.--A common evolutionist model for the origin of life begins with chemical evolution. Chemical evolution requires sequences of spontaneous chemical reactions that convert simple molecules, each containing only a few atoms, into giant compounds of thousands of atoms. These compounds are then organized into simple cells according to the following scenario: (a) the formation of biomonomers such as amino acids and mononucleotides; (b) the condensation of these building-block-type molecules into polymers such as proteins and nucleic acids; (c) self-assembly of biopolymers into supramolecular complexes such as ribosomes and membranes; (d) the organization of these complexes into organelles such as nuclei, endoplasmic reticula, and mitochondria; and (e) the formation of a simple cell by the assembly of these organelles.

The scope of this article does not permit detailed consideration of all of these. The purpose here is to evaluate the mere plausibility of such a scheme in the light of current understanding of the workings of living cells.

Extended scientific observations have established that for a reaction to be spontaneous two processes will take place. First, the reacting substances will lose what is called free energy, reaching a lower energy state as products. Second, with rare exception these products will be more disordered than were the reactants. Reactions that do not meet the above requirements for spontaneity will occur only if forced to do so with the expenditure of energy. Processes that occur spontaneously without intelligent direction and energy input always proceed toward lower free energy, lower complexity, lower information content, and a state of higher probability. This principle is often referred to as the second law of thermodynamics.

Amino acids are considered to be fundamental building blocks of organisms. They are made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sometimes sulphur in exact proportions and in critically exact spatial arrangement. When chemically bound together in long, chainlike fashion and in appropriate sequence they form proteins.

Amino acids do not now occur in nature by themselves, and there is no evidence that they can be formed spontaneously from their basic constituents under present circumstances on earth. (Minute traces of some of the simpler amino acids have been found in a few meteorites [Cronin and Moore 1976].) Proponents of chemical evolution, therefore, are compelled to seek for plausible mechanisms that could yield amino acids under postulated primitive conditions. Up to possibly 18 of the 20 amino acids necessary for organisms may be synthesized by mixing methane (containing carbon and hydrogen), ammonia (containing nitrogen and hydrogen), and water (containing oxygen and hydrogen), in a reducing atmosphere of hydrogen gas, and by highly energizing the mixture in a variety of ways. Electric discharge, various radiations, high temperature, and pressure have all been used as energizing agents in laboratory situations with some success (Lemmon 1970; Lawless and Boynton 1973; Evard and Schrodetzki 1976). The amount of amino acids produced in these experiments has been low, usually less than 1 percent, in comparison to the initial quantity of the carbon compounds present. These procedures all require that somewhat elaborate precautions be taken to remove the amino acids from the reacting system as they are formed so as to prevent their subsequent destruction by the energy source (Miller and Urey 1959).

The highly specialized laboratory conditions necessary for amino-acid synthesis make it difficult to propose a "primitive earth" situation that would provide adequate energy and sufficient preservation of the reaction products. Volcanic heat, lightning discharge, radioactivity and ultraviolet radiation are possible sources of energy; but there is increasing evidence that earth's gaseous envelope has always contained an abundance of oxygen, rather than the hydrogen necessary for a reducing atmosphere in which amino acids can be synthesized (Javor and Snow 1974; Walton 1976). In the presence of oxygen, amino acids and any other biologically relevant molecules would have been quickly destroyed. Furthermore, an atmosphere without oxygen would not have a protective high altitude layer of ozone to stop ultraviolet radiation, which rapidly destroys organic compounds.

There are additional difficulties with the scheme for a synthesis of amino acids that would supposedly lead to living cells. An amino acid may occur in four structural forms. This property is known as stereochemistry. Two of the forms are like a person's two hands, right-hand form and left-hand form, very much alike yet different in the same way the image in a mirror is reversed from the object before the mirror. These two forms are called D and L forms and laboratory syntheses normally yield approximately equal amounts of each. The proteins of living organisms consist almost entirely of the L form of each of the 20 different necessary amino acids. If life randomly evolved and half of the "available" amino acids were D forms, why are D forms not equally represented in living organisms?

In addition to the D and L forms, varieties of amino acids not normally found in proteins are also produced in simulated "primitive earth" experiments, sometimes in great abundance (Lawless and Boynton 1973). The question can be raised Why are not these varieties also involved in protein formation, at least in some organisms?

Similar difficulties exist with schemes for prebiotic syntheses of monosaccharides, fatty acids, and nitrogenous bases that are the building blocks of polysaccharides, lipids, and nucleic acids. None of these can be synthesized under prebiotic conditions in the presence of oxygen. Moreover, monosaccharides would again be produced as equal mixtures of several structural forms, of which only one is actually found in living organisms.

It has been proved conclusively that an intelligent person using rather complex and sophisticated equipment under so-called "primitive earth" conditions, is able to synthesize a few simple compounds; but it does not follow that the reverse must also be true, that is, that simple chemical compounds have the capacity spontaneously to organize into man, given sufficient time.

A model for the spontaneous evolution of life not only must account for the origin of the basic building units such as amino acids and simple sugars, called biomonomers, it must also account for the combining of these building blocks into more complex and highly characteristic molecules called biopolymers. The process of uniting these is called polymerization. For instance, amino acids or mononucleotides are polymerized to form proteins and nucleic acids, respectively. Some of the problems dealing with the spontaneous occurrence of these reactions are discussed by Calvin (1969, pp. 155-157) and Gish (1972, p. 17). First, one needs to consider the polymerization (combination into more complex forms) of the biomonomers (basic units) into large polymers (complex molecules), which involves a dehydration (removal of water) reaction. Second, the arrangement of the biomonomers has to be highly specific; a proper sequence is critical for their biological activity.

The dehydration reaction requires energy; and several schemes have been suggested to provide this energy. In experiments carried out by Fox and his co-workers (Fox 1965) mixtures of dry amino acids were heated up to 175° C. and proteinlike substances called proteinoids were obtained. Proteinoid formation always required high amino-acid concentrations. It cannot be accomplished in the presence of water, for water is a product of the reaction and must be removed in order to carry the polymerization to completion. In the presence of water the polymers tend to hydrolyze and degrade back to the monomers. It is difficult to imagine how such large amounts of amino acids could be concentrated at certain dry localities (volcanoes, e.g.) on the surface of the primitive earth, postulated to be mostly covered with oceans.

The experiments performed by Miller and Urey (1959), described above, assumed the formation of the amino acids in an aqueous media. Attempts have been made to couple amino acids in an aqueous environment by using dehydrating molecules such as cyanamides (Steinman, et al., 1964). While proteins may contain several hundred amino acids in a chain, this method can join only up to four in any appreciable yields.

More serious is the problem of the linear sequence of amino acids in proteins. Useful proteins are not random polymers of 20 kinds of amino acids. There are many chemical functions that are vital to the life of a cell, and each function requires a specific sequence of amino acids in the protein, which enables that process to be followed in the cell. A given protein may act as an enzyme, or biological catalyst, required for the many chemical reactions carried out by each living cell, each reaction usually requiring a different and specific enzyme. It can serve as structural material such as collagen, found in tendons and ligaments. Some proteins are involved in transport, such as hemoglobin, which carries oxygen from the lungs to the inner tissues of the body. A protein may be an antibody that provides a specific protective mechanism against infection. Hormones, the chemical messengers involved in regulating an organism, may also be protein in nature. Some proteins act as storage for the essential amino acids. Others, such as actin, have the ability to contract and are needed for muscular action. All of these diverse functions depend on a highly specific number and order for the 20 kinds of amino acids that form protein structure. An analogous situation exists in writing, where 26 letters are used to provide a specific meaning to words, sentences, paragraphs, and books.

One has only to consider the genetic disorder sickle-cell anemia to appreciate the importance of precision in the sequence of amino acids in proteins. This is a disease that affects the oxygen-carrying protein, hemoglobin, of the red blood cells. Hemoglobin consists of four chains of amino acids. Two identical chains are 141 and two other identical chains are 146 amino acids long. Sickle-cell anemia is caused by the replacement of valine for glutamic acid at position six in each of the two longer chains. While it is true that not all substitutions of amino acids in proteins are as drastic as this one, others are more so. The proper order of amino acids in proteins is always extremely critical to its activity and function within the living organism.

The problem of obtaining the proper amino-acid sequence spontaneously from random supplies is discussed by White et. al. (1968, p. 141). In a sequence containing only 20 different amino acids in which each kind occurs only once, 2 x 10¹⁸ (2 followed by 18 zeros) different sequences can be formed. It has been calculated that for a protein consisting of 288 amino acid units there are 10³⁰⁰ (1 followed by 300 zeros) possible combinations if only 12 kinds of amino acids are used. If only one molecule of each of these combinations existed on earth, then the total mass of these sequences would be 10²⁸⁰ grams; yet the total mass of the earth, inorganic matter and all, is only 10²⁷ grams.

The proteinoids formed under the conditions of Fox's experiments, mentioned above, possess random amino-acid sequences. While it is possible that one of them will have the sequence of a functional protein, the chances of producing by random events on earth even a few of the proteins of a given cell are extremely low. Logic would dictate that one should look for alternatives. Many authors (Eden 1967; Hull 1960; Salisbury 1969, 1971; Schutzenberger 1967) have emphasized the improbability of organizing life by random events.

Another class of large molecular components of living cells is the nucleic acids. Nucleic acids, specifically DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, contain on a molecular level the information that directs the synthesis of all the proteins vital to the operation of the cell. The sequence of the mononucleotides in DNA is nature's master code, which, when translated by a living cell, controls the sequence of the amino acids found in proteins. Errors in this code or in its translation may lead to the formation of nonfunctional proteins. In addition, DNA provides the template for its own replication--the process by which identical DNA molecules are produced for transmission from cell to cell during cell division. This replication, as well as the translation process, must proceed reliably in order for life to be maintained. The DNA molecule is also coded for the various control mechanisms that regulate the sequence and amount of the various biochemical reactions that take place within a cell. It should be apparent that the information contained in a DNA molecule is extremely specific and complex (Neufeld 1974a).

The problem of spontaneous synthesis of nucleic acids is even more formidable than that of proteins, since here it is necessary to have specific bond formation between three main components--purine or pyrimidine bases, pentose sugars, and phosphoric acid. These three components properly arranged will form the mononucleotides, which in turn are the building blocks of the nucleic acids. The difficulty of nucleic-acid formation can be illustrated by pointing out that to this date no serious attempts have been made at producing nucleic acids under postulated prebiotic conditions.

The structure of a living cell is also highly organized. Both at the surface and inside are membranes that allow selective passage of certain compounds and the exclusion of others. Some inner membranes function to bind proteins in the specific three-dimensional arrangement required to carry out many of the reaction sequences involved in the maintenance of life. A good example may be found in the mitochondria--small organelles within the cell sometimes referred to as the powerhouse--where highly specific relationships are required between the enzymes that carry out the transfer of electrons from the substrates of oxygen and simultaneously synthesize energy-rich molecules. Such complex specificity poses further constraints on a model that demands that the organizational level be reached by random processes.

In evaluating the possibility of the spontaneous origin of the basic molecules needed for life, one must conclude that a plausible mechanism has not been discovered or postulated. Experiments assuming prebiotic conditions have not yet been able to produce all of the basic building blocks of biological systems. For most of those that have been produced the yields are extremely low, even under optimal conditions. No satisfactory explanation accounts for the unique stereo-chemistry, or structure, of amino acids, sugar, and other molecules found in biological systems. No model has been developed that can satisfactorily account for the highly specific sequences of amino acids in proteins and of nucleotides in nucleic acids or for the origin of the DNA genetic code.

Even if all of the basic building blocks could be synthesized they would not spontaneously be organized into biologically active subcellular structures. As pointed out by Monod (1971, pp. 95-113), life depends on an extremely high level of organization and specificity. Precise control and regulation mechanisms must be built into the cell for the proper functioning of the organism. Chemical systems do not spontaneously order themselves; rather they tend to randomize. Therefore, a reasonable search for an understanding of the origin of life should consider an alternative to the theory of biochemical evolution.

Origin of Living Cells.--The formidable obstacles to the spontaneous origin of life at the chemical and biochemical level, mentioned above, become even more complex when we consider the possible spontaneous origin of a simple but fully functional cell. This would be the simplest form of independent life that all biologists would accept as unquestionably alive. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, no serious attempts to put together a functional cell from its many known constituents have been made by physiologists, biochemists, or molecular biologists. Some of those who have carefully considered the problem recognize that in the light of present knowledge it is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of success for such efforts (Pollard 1965). One can say that "the available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet" (Green and Goldberger 1967, p. 407).

Origin of Multicellular Organisms.--When we turn to the multicellular organisms, be it plant or animal, we find another universe of complexity and interrelationships between numerous types of highly specialized cells, usually grouped in tissues and organs. Control of development and growth add another level of complexity, as does the regulation of normal function by endocrine, nervous, and other influences. Any candid student of physiology must stand convinced of the multitudinous evidences of design found in every multicellular organism studied to date. Supposed evolutionary relationships based on common physiological features find a much more meaningful explanation in terms of intelligent design rather than chance and competitive advantage. Although reference to the eye is often and appropriately made as an evidence of design, the work of neurophysiologists is revealing that we still only dimly perceive the complexity of the organization of the brain, particularly in human beings, and the intricate design inherent in its numerous functions and control mechanisms (Eccles 1972). When the Christian views the mind and the body that it controls, unfolded in all the intricacy of modern anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry, he must agree with David, who said "I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works" (Ps. 139:14).

The obvious gap between the living and the nonliving led scientists of the Middle Ages, and even earlier times, to the view that some special quality of "vital force" was present in all living things and accounted for the unique characteristics that set them apart from the nonliving. Conservative Christians today still tend to view the statement of Genesis 2:7 ",And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life," as implying that human beings and other living things contain some special entity or property that separates them from the nonliving. On the other hand, the advances of modern cellular and organismic physiology are firmly based on the view that the function of living things can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry, admittedly as a very complex manifestation of these laws in operation.

However, a case can be made for the view that many phenomena of physiology and development cannot be adequately explained on a physiochemical basis. The functioning of the brain and the nature of the mind are examples most often cited (Stent 1968; Polanyi 1968). Lack of success in explaining these phenomena probably indicates the inadequacy of physiochemical science at its present level of development, rather than the existence of an active immaterial component that is independent of molecular structure. The complexity of living organisms is such that a fully adequate explanation of all these functions, particularly at the conscious level, may be beyond the capabilities of created intelligence.

In the view that the laws manifested in natural processes are not manifestations of innate properties of matter, but are the continuing expression of God's will and creative power, living things at all levels are seen as a manifestation of God's capability (White 1904, 1905). Rather than grappling with insoluble problems in attempts to explain the origins of living cells and organisms, the individual who accepts the revelations in Scripture finds that the discoveries of science unfold the operation of laws laid down by God at creation and open exciting insights into God's nature and thought.

III. Evidence From the Fossils

The Nature of Life Represented by the Lowest Fossils.--The lowest sedimentary rocks that contain abundant evidence of complex many-celled organisms are denoted by the term Cambrian. Cambrian rocks are considered by uniformitarian geologists to have been formed during a 100 million-year period beginning approximately 600 million years ago. Six hundred million years is only about one fifth of the total time said to have been involved in the progressive evolution of life from the simplest substance having the characteristics of life to the complex and multitudinous forms of modern organisms.

Cambrian fossils were marine organisms that were not primitive, simple, or poorly developed. That they were complex and well developed, with detail equal to their modern counterparts, is an extremely important point for consideration. They were definitely worms, crustaceans, or brachiopods, fully as complex as the worms, crustaceans, or brachiopods of today's oceans.

Usually only the hard parts of animals preserve as fossils. But even with only the hard parts available for examination it is possible to determine much about an organism. Trilobite fossils are characteristic of the Cambrian. Trilobites were ocean-bottom creatures that resembled sow bugs or pill bugs and were related to crayfish, crabs, and other Crustacea. They had a chitinous exoskeleton that required periodic molting for growth. Molting is a complex and involved process. The body was segmented and had numerous jointed legs and appendages that would have been useless without a complex motivating musculature. Compound eyes and antennae were the outward expression of a complex nervous system. Respiratory bristles indicate that trilobites had a blood-circulatory system for transporting oxygen. Complex mouth parts gathered and prepared specialized food. Considering all factors, this creature cannot be classified as more primitive than its modern counterparts.

Annelid worm fossils are found in the Cambrian rocks. The segmentation of these worms involves the repetition of certain organs in each segment. The worms had a complete digestive system. Bristles, spines, and muscles provided locomotion. The animal was also equipped with a blood-circulatory system. Eyes and other complex sense organs along with the features mentioned above, all add up to a total picture of great complexity similar to modern worms. Thus it can be said that the animals found in the Cambrian (two of which have been described above) are as complex as relatives living today.

Since all the major phyla of the animal kingdom, excepting possibly the chordates, are found in Cambrian strata, and no transitional forms are found in lower strata, the evidence here favors the sudden appearance of marine life in accord with the second postulate of Biblical creation theory, as stated on page 47.

Although the Precambrian levels are usually granitic or crystalline rock that naturally would not be expected to contain fossils, there are sediments below the Cambrian that are suitable for preservation of fossils--extensive limestone beds, for example. These sediments are almost always barren of fossils.

In recent times a large amount of effort has been exerted in search of evidence of life in rocks below the Cambrian. Evidences of fungi and algae have been reported. Laminated but otherwise structureless calcareous objects that have been interpreted as fossil calcareous algae and called stromatolites have been described as "widely distributed" in some Precambrian limestone formations (Dunbar and Waage 1969). Paleontologist have also reported brachiopods, annelid worms, coelenterates, and other many-celled marine animals in Precambrian material from various locations throughout the world. Some of these reports may be valid. Others may be the result of an uncertain distinction between Cambrian and Precambrian rock. Whatever the case may be, the problem of ancestors still remains. The rare finds of fossils from the Precambrian exhibit complexity and organizations comparable to modern counterparts.

The totality of fossil evidence from both the Precambrian and the Cambrian supports the second postulate of creation, which assumes that within a short period of time living organisms were brought into existence fully developed. This situation is not beyond the recognition of paleontologists who do not accept Biblical creationism, some of whom have made considerable effort to explain the lack of evidence for evolutionary development of the organisms that produced the Cambrian fossils. Even Charles Darwin realized that this was a crucial problem. In his Origin of Species, after giving the matter some discussion, he wrote:

"To the question of why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. ... The case at present must remain inexplicable, and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained"

(Darwin 1859, pp. 309, 310).

In Darwin's day the study of paleontology was only in its initial developments, and it could be argued with considerable validity that the apparent absence of life in the Precambrian and the sudden appearance of many complex kinds in the Cambrian were merely owing to insufficient collecting, and that this situation would undoubtedly change as more people did more searching. One hundred years later Norman D. Newell, of Columbia University, made the following observations in a paper prepared for the Darwin centennial celebrations:

"A century of intensive search of fossils in the pre-Cambrian rocks has thrown very little light on this problem. Early theories that those rocks were dominantly nonmarine or that once-contained fossils have been destroyed by heat and pressure have been abandoned because the pre-Cambrian rocks of many districts physically are very similar to younger rocks in all respects except that they rarely contain any records whatsoever of past life"

I. The Bible and Science

The Flood as described in Genesis was a worldwide catastrophe that destroyed a major proportion of life on this planet and must have significantly altered the surface of the earth. Contemporary popular scientific analysis does not include a catastrophe of such proportions. This omission is a significant fulfillment of the apostle Peter's prediction that in the last days there would be willful disregard of creation and the Flood (2 Peter 3:3-6). In place of Biblical creation and the Flood, contemporary scientific thought substitutes evolutionary concepts of biology and geology. Individuals who have a concern for truth are confronted with a question as to which of these conflicting views is correct. Since both the Bible and nature can be sources of information and have the same author, God, a better question would be: What truth do I find when I look both at science and at the Bible? Rightly understood, agreement is expected between the two, and each sheds light on the other (White 1903, p. 128).

A number of references to a major catastrophe somewhat similar to the Genesis flood can be found in the legends from different regions of the world; thus the Bible does not stand unique in this respect. As will be seen later, a significant amount of scientific evidence is also related to an event such as the Flood described in Genesis. Hence a basic premise of this essay is that as one seeks to arrive at the truth about the history of the world, one should investigate as much of the available information as possible, be it primarily scientific, historical, or Biblical. This approach is felt to be superior to more traditional patterns based on isolated areas of inquiry. More information is better than less.

II. Historical Account of Flood Geology

A. General.--Geology as the scientific study of the physical structure, chemical composition, and history of the earth's crust did not emerge in its modern form until the 18th and 19th centuries, yet the writings of philosophers and theologians since antiquity contained speculations about the history of the earth. The Greek natural philosophers led by Thales and Anaximander discussed such geologic phenomena as the presence of fossil marine shells and remains of plants in unexpected places. The Greeks came up with natural explanations reflecting their world view: the sea had once covered large portions of land; cyclic floods had destroyed all life and the mud had brought forth new life; the land and the sea were constantly switching places. Marine transgression was probably the most popular overall theory; disagreements were over extent, frequency, and causes.

In later centuries Church Fathers such as Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Augustine of Hippo reinterpreted geologic mysteries in the light of the Noachian flood. Geologic features usually were viewed as evidence for the Biblical deluge, or at least proofs of an almighty God at work. Natural philosophers made no sharp distinction between science and theology; both nature and the Bible were considered to be a revelation of the power and majesty of God.

With the Renaissance, an interest in the study of science was revived and the discovery of other lands made possible the study of geologic phenomena on a worldwide scale.

But modern geology did not develop until the 18th century, motivated, perhaps, by a need for practical knowledge of geology in the mining districts of northwestern Europe. Abraham G. Werner (1750-1817), a mineralogist in Freiburg, Germany, introduced the Neptunists theory of geology, or geognosy, as he preferred to call it. Neptunists believed that a universal ocean once covered all the earth, including the highest mountains, and held in solution all the minerals found in the rocks. Werner's understanding of minerals led him to believe that stratification had taken place in uniform layers all over the world, that layers of rock were formed as rock material precipitated out of the ocean in five well-defined stages. This has been called the onion-coat theory.

An opposing school of thought arose, named the Vulcanist or Plutonist, that demanded long ages of time. In the oft-quoted words of their best-known advocate, James Hutton (1726-1797), of Edinburgh, "We find no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end." In Theory of the Earth (1795) Hutton developed his belief that all geologic phenomena found on the surface of the earth could be explained by natural causes that were observable even in the present. This concept has since become known as the doctrine of uniformitarianism.

Because uniformitarianism necessitated a vastness of geologic time that contradicted Archbishop Ussher's accepted chronology (4004 B.C. for the creation of the world), and also because Hutton's literary style was confusing, many sought other geological theories. One chief opponent of Vulcanism was Baron Georges L. Cuvier (1769-1832), contributor to the study of comparative anatomy and founder of paleontology. His theory of catastrophism taught that natural catastrophes had at various times destroyed major portions of the earth and that new populations eventually replaced those that were destroyed. Thus cycles of successive catastrophes were followed by successive repopulation.

The Genesis flood was perhaps the final and worst inundation. After Cuvier, William Buckland was the chief architect of the catastrophist theory. He tied in Cuvier's theories with the Genesis flood. Others followed suit. William Smith (1769-1839), a land surveyor and "father of English geology," believed that fossils occurred in a certain order and could be used to identify the strata. Others assumed the succession of life and decided that fossils could fix the age of each stratum.

By the end of the 1820's natural theology and science seemed to have achieved a beautiful harmony by expanding the Genesis account of a literal creation week into long geologic ages, each of which produced a more advanced form of life than the preceding age. The Flood was no longer viewed as a significant geological event. If it had occurred, it was considered to be either only of limited extent or but one of many such catastrophes.

In 1803 John Playfair put Hutton's theories into a more readable form, but the revolutionary theory of uniformitarianism was not accepted until Sir Charles Lyell (1797-1875) revived, synthesized, and popularized it in his Principles of Geology (1830). He effectively argued that uniformitarianism was the principle that allowed explanation of geologic events through natural laws. He convinced most scientists that the earth's present form had come about neither by divine acts of creation 6000 years in the past, nor by the water action of the Genesis flood; rather, its present form resulted from gradual working of natural, observable forces operating under immutable physical laws through vast eons of time. General acceptance of his view paved the way for Darwin's biological evolution.

Thus by the middle of the 19th century uniformitarianism took hold as the foundation principle that influenced the development of geological thought for the next century. The Genesis flood was dismissed by many as the most severe in a series of catastrophes, as a local Mesopotamian event, or simply a myth.

In recent decades, however, uniformitarianism has come more and more into question, and catastrophism, the concept that normal rates of geological processes are interrupted periodically by unusual events, is gaining support even among those who disavow the idea of supernatural intervention in the world. For a more detailed account of some current trends in geological theories, see Section V of this chapter.

B. Seventh-day Adventists and Geology.--During the years following the great disappointment of 1844, the Advent believers were too busy studying prophetic signs of Christ's second coming to be concerned with the debate that was raging among geologists. But their search into the Biblical prophecies soon led them to 2 Peter 3, which discussed the physical way in which the world would end. The first publications reflecting the beliefs of the young Seventh-day Adventist Church carried articles about the composition of the earth's center (core), along with accounts of fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that tended to herald the imminent appearance of Christ. When the doctrine of the seventh-day Sabbath emerged as a major teaching of the church it became important to defend the Genesis record of a literal seven-day creation week.

Without venturing into the actual study of geology, Adventist theologians sought to find evidence supporting the validity of the Genesis record. The long ages postulated by uniformitarian geology clashed with the literal interpretation of Genesis. Attempts were made to see whether the Biblical record had been misinterpreted. While James White and J. N. Andrews maintained that Planet Earth had not come into being until creation week, a group known as "secondary creationists" postulated that it was not unscriptural to believe that the chemicals composing the earth (still God-created) had come into being longer than 6,000 years ago. Debate continued without much consensus, but the secondary creationists apparently remained in the minority.

Early Adventist journals reprinted articles by other Christian groups and scientists that either gave evidence confirming a literal interpretation of the Bible or poked fun at flaws in evolutionary geology. The editors, especially Uriah Smith of the Review and Herald, were very careful to emphasize their opposition to the misuse and abuse of geological facts rather than their objections to the science itself. Much was said about confidence that harmony would develop between science and the Bible as the infant science of geology continued to develop new theories. At the same time cautions were raised against being too quick to accept any new claims of science that would seem to cast doubts upon the veracity of the Genesis record. Of course, true science was expected to harmonize perfectly with the Bible, since both had the same author.

Within the Seventh-day Adventist Church from 1850 to 1900 science was seen as a tool used by those seeking ways of escaping from God as Creator and Lord. Because all truth was based on the unchanging standard of the Bible, the word of infidel scientists was not to be trusted. This was the theological phase of Adventist Flood geology, which can scarcely be separated from creationism. Most of those interested in geology--for example, A. T. Jones--approached a study of the literature from the standpoint of skepticism, expecting and seeking out contradictions, flaws, and errors.

George McCready Price (1870-1963), teacher and writer, began the scientific phase of Adventist Flood geology. After studying the available geological literature, he found that his faith in a literal interpretation of Genesis remained unshaken. He lamented the Protestant trend toward accepting theistic evolution (the idea that God created the world through a long evolutionary process). Price challenged the churches to a new reformation--vindication of God as Creator by returning to the truth of creation.

In 1902 Price published the first of twenty-five books, Outlines of Modern Christianity and Modern Science, challenging the three major evolutionary theories: uniformitarian geology, biological (organic) evolution, and theistic evolution. His later books mainly attacked geology, for he believed it to be the basis for other evolutionary ideas. Arguing against the evolutionary interpretation of the sequence of life forms in the fossil record, Price stated that fossils represent plants and animals of the antediluvian world that perished in the Flood. He affirmed that there was no proof for the uniformitarian assumptions of geology and the evolutionary succession of life forms, which were the sole reasons behind the arbitrary dating of the rocks and fossils.

For nearly a quarter of a century Price dominated the attack against evolutionary geology, influencing other fundamental Christian groups. His impact in the Protestant world caused many Adventists to regard him as practically inspired, and it was difficult to disagree with Price without being regarded as a heretic to the truth of God.

But while Price had attributed practically all the major geologic features of the earth's crust to the Genesis flood, one of his students, H. W. Clark, found it necessary to modify this stance to allow for possible pre-Flood formations. Price believed there was no real order to the fossils, but Clark saw evidence for order in stratified rocks. Clark provided an explanation for this order with his concept of ecological zonation (see Section VI-C). Price had interpreted continental glacial evidences in terms of deluge activity, but Clark presented data showing that both mountain glaciation and continental ice sheets on the plains of the northern hemisphere were valid concepts. Although adjustments in interpretation were made by later SDA scientists, they remained opposed to uniformitarian geology and committed to a literal interpretation of the Genesis flood.

III. Description of the Flood as Given in Revealed Documents

The Biblical description of the Flood is brief and contains little geological information. The writings of Ellen G. White are more informative, but much of what happened during the Flood must be deduced from a study of nature. Because of its scarcity, the small amount of information given by inspired writers is of particular interest. We shall begin by considering a few comments about the antediluvian world, which was the world destroyed by the Flood.

The earth was dramatically modified by the Flood; hence its pre-Flood state must have been quite different from the present. There was no rain (Gen. 2:5), but there was an abundance of moisture (v. 6) with rivers (vs. 10-14) and sea(s) (White 1890, p. 97). There is a strong implication of water concealed in the earth (Gen. 7:11; White 1878, 1901). The hills and mountains were not as high and rugged as at present (White 1947, p. 20), and vegetation and animal life were much superior (White 1864, p. 33; 1890, p. 44; 1903, p. 129).

The following chronology of the Flood can be deduced from Genesis 7 and 8. Seven days after Noah entered the ark, subterranean waters erupted, accompanied by rain that lasted at least 40 days. This period of 40 days appears to be included in the subsequently described period of 150 days (see on Gen. 7:24), during which the waters "prevailed"--a term that can be interpreted as involving either a continuing rise in level (Gen. 7:18) or a static condition in which the highest mountains of the whole earth were covered (v. 19). Genesis 8:2 seems to imply that the water level increased to the end of the 150-day period, since that is when the rain stopped and the "fountains" of the great deep were closed. This was followed by a strong wind, subsidence of the water level, and drying for a period of 225 days. When Noah left the ark 382 days from the time he entered it, at least the higher areas in the immediate vicinity were dry (v. 14), and probably some new vegetation had already developed (v. 11). A number of significant geological adjustments could still have taken place following this period.

It is important to note that "the waters of the flood rose gradually" (White 1864, p. 72; 1890, p. 100; 1901). This gradual process fits well with the sequential patterns of many of the sedimentary deposits of the earth, which should be more thoroughly mixed if the Flood had washed everything together at once, as might be surmised. There was also violent activity, including earthquakes, volcanoes, and jets of water that hurled massive rocks into the air (White 1886; 1890, p. 99).

Much tectonic activity (uplift and subsidence of the earth's surface) must have taken place during the Flood. Some mountains were formed then (White 1864, p. 79; 1885; 1890, p. 108). Other mountains were altered, becoming broken and irregular (White 1890, p. 108). Plains were changed into mountains and mountain ranges into plains (White 1890, p. 108). Some parts of the earth were affected more severely than others (White 1890, p. 108).

A significant statement by Ellen G. White is: "Clay, lime, and shells that God had strewn in the bottoms of the seas, were uplifted, thrown hither and thither ..." (White, 1886). Immense forests were buried and formed the coal and oil we now have (White 1890, p. 108; 1903, p. 129). A vast, turbid sea and soft mud (White 1864, p. 77; 1890, pp. 107, 108) were present as the waters began to subside. The violent wind which helped to dry the earth (Gen. 8:1; White 1890, p. 108) moved the water "with great force, in some instances even carrying away the tops of the mountains" (White 1890, p. 108).

There is no doubt that Ellen G. White and the author of Genesis understood that the Flood covered the whole earth. Genesis 7:19-23; repeatedly emphasizes this concept (Hasel 1975): "All the high mountains under the whole heavens were covered"; "all flesh died that moved upon the earth"; "everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground" (RSV). "The entire surface of the earth was changed at the Flood" (White 1864, pp. 78, 79; 1890, p. 107).

IV. Basic Principles of Geology and Paleontology

In order to understand what changes took place during the Flood, a few basic principles regarding the nature of the earth must first be enunciated.

A. The Earth.--The earth has a diameter of 12,757 km. (7,927 mi.) at the equator and is not a true sphere, being somewhat flattened at the poles while bulging at the equator. The polar diameter is 43 km. (27 mi.) less than the equatorial one. This difference in radii is attributed principally to the earth's axial rotation and suggests a nonrigid nature, a characteristic important to some postulated changes taking place at the Flood. The nature of the inside of the earth is deduced from indirect evidence. In the center is a heavy core (radius of 6,950 km., 4,320 mi.) with a solid center and liquid outer portion. From this core to near the surface is a less-dense mantle, surrounded by an even lighter crust, which averages about 33 km. (20 mi.) in thickness. The crust beneath the continents is much thicker than that beneath the oceans . Catastrophic events such as volcanoes and earthquakes may involve both the mantle and the crust.

At present about 71 percent of the surface of the earth is covered by the oceans, the remaining 29 percent forming the continents. About 3 percent of the ocean surface area covers the continental shelves--relatively shallow regions that geologically are part of the continents.

B. The Crust.--The three basic kinds of rocks--igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic--are differentiated on the basis of the conditions under which they were formed. Igneous rocks form when magma (molten rock within the earth) cools and crystallizes within or on the earth's crust. Volcanics are extrusive igneous rocks that have cooled on the surface of the earth.

Sedimentary rocks usually form from the cementation of transported particles varying in size from clay to boulders and are classified according to the nature of the particles forming them. Thus claystone forms from clay and sandstone from sand, et cetera. Certain sedimentary rocks (for example, some limestones, gypsum, and rock salt) are formed by chemical precipitation from solution. Sedimentary rocks are of special interest because they may contain fossils that are evidence of past life.

Metamorphic rocks form where sufficient heat, pressure, and sometimes chemical action cause significant changes to igneous, sedimentary, and other metamorphic rocks. Marble is a metamorphic rock that consists of modified limestone. In certain cases granite may be formed by metamorphism.

Geologists divide the rocks of a given region into larger units called formations. For example, if the sediments in a certain area include a thick sandstone, a thick unit of shale (possibly containing thin layers of sandstone and limestone), plus a massive, thick limestone, division into three formations would appear reasonable. If the layers are very thin and have a unique common characteristic, all of them might be classified into a single formation. By 1967 more than 17,000 different formations and subdivisions had been proposed formally in the United States alone (cf. Keroher 1970, p. 2; Keroher et al., 1966, p. 3).

C. Sedimentary Processes.--A catastrophe such as a flood causes a large amount of sedimentation, a process that involves erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments, which may form sedimentary rocks. Moving water is the most common transport medium. The Yellow River of China transports an estimated 2 billion tons of sediment to the oceans each year (Holeman 1968). In this river the weight of the transported solids sometimes exceeds the weight of the water itself (Mattes 1951). The transporting ability of waves and ocean currents also can be considerable. Capacity for transport by water increases considerably with the velocity. The maximum load of transported solids is proportional to the third or fourth power of the velocity (Holmes 1965, p. 512), meaning that if the velocity is increased by a factor of 10, the load can be 1,000 to 10,000 times greater.

Wind is another transport medium of considerable carrying capacity. Sand from the Sahara has been carried as far as Spain, France, and Italy. In 1883 ash from the Krakatoa volcanic eruption near Java was spread over the entire world, producing colorful sunsets for several years afterward. Tornadoes, of course, can transport very large loads. Extensive dunes, some of them 180 m. (600 ft.) high, have been formed in the Middle East as a result of the transporting action of wind.

Glaciers erode, transport, and deposit large quantities of sediments. In this case transport is comparatively slow. For instance, in 1820 three guides climbing near the summit of Mont Blanc, France, were lost in a crevasse. Forty-one years later their remains were found about two miles away at the foot of Bossons glacier (Bertin 1961, p. 126). Transport by glaciers leaves diagnostic characteristics such as unsorted (mixed, fine to coarse) sediments and scratches on rocks. These scratches (glacial striations) are produced by rocks scraping each other when moved by the ice.

Sediments are eventually transported to a locality where they settle and form sedimentary rocks. The particles are cemented together by various minerals that are often carried in a dissolved state by water. Sedimentary rocks, especially those deposited by water, usually are found in discrete layers called strata, which result from changes in the supply of sediments during deposition. The layers are laid down in a horizontal or near-horizontal plane. This fact is called the law of original horizontality. Tilted strata usually are a result of disturbances in the crust of the earth after deposition. A second law of deposition, quite self-evident, is the law of superposition, which states that in a pile of undisturbed sediments the youngest is at the top and the oldest at the bottom. Little or much time can be involved in the deposition of a sedimentary sequence.

D. The Process of Fossilization.--Any evidence of past life found in the earth's crust is considered to be a fossil. Fossils may include the more familiar mollusk shells, casts of organisms, or the less common tracks of animals. Alteration during preservation may be minimal, as in the case of some frozen mammoths; but often only hard parts remain, as is common with bones or shells. Permineralized fossils have pore spaces filled with minerals, whereas petrification involves the replacement of organic matter by minerals. Some fossil woods are permineralized; others are petrified. During the process of preservation of many fossils much of the hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen of the original organic matter has escaped, leaving only a carbon film and an imprint.

Fossils are abundant in some localities, rare in most sedimentary deposits, and completely absent in many formations. It is of interest to the study of an event such as the Genesis flood that at present most organisms that die are not preserved. Coral reefs are notable exceptions, because the coral skeletons forming the framework of the reef are preserved as the reef grows. Usually mechanical and chemical disintegration takes place before preservation. Beerbower (1969, p. 39) states: "In general, the more rapidly an organism is buried and the tighter the seal of its sedimentary tomb, the better the chances of preservation." Both creationist and evolutionary paleontologists recognize the importance of rapid burial for preservation of fossils. The former believe this occurred mostly during the Genesis flood, while the latter believe in many smaller catastrophes with long time periods between.

E. The Geologic Column.--The rocks forming the crust of the earth have been organized into a chronological arrangement with the oldest at the bottom and the youngest at the top. This is called the geologic or stratigraphic column. See the General Geologic Column for details. The identifying names for various divisions of the geologic column will be used in subsequent sections, and the reader should consult this figure if he encounters unfamiliar stratigraphic terms.

Both creationists and evolutionists recognize the sequence and use the same terminology for the geologic column. The former usually consider that it represents a relatively short period of time, while the latter assign billions of years to its development.

Fossils are much more common and complex in the Phanerozoic than lower down. Within the Phanerozoic the most complex forms of life such as mammals and flowering plants are not found in the lowest portion. This will be discussed further in Section VI-C. A number of creationists (e.g., Price 1923, Whitcomb and Morris 1966) have denied the sequential arrangement of fossils in the geologic column by pointing out that in some places this arrangement does not hold and that so-called older rocks rest on top of younger ones. They argue that since there are exceptions to the general order of fossils in the geologic column, the theory of evolution is invalidated. Unfortunately, the examples usually given are from geologically disturbed areas such as the Rocky Mountains and the Alps. These disturbed areas do not provide a convincing argument, since the out-of-order sequences can be explained by uplift and sliding of the older rocks over the younger, a scenario supported in some cases by convincing field data. Even if in some areas the fossils apparently are out of order, for whatever reason postulated, one still has to explain why in most places on the earth the fossils generally are in a consistent order. This will be discussed further in Section VI-C.

V. Recent Trends in Geological Thought

The science of geology has been undergoing highly significant revolutions in thought over the past decades. These changes are extremely broad in scope and especially pertinent to a model of a catastrophe such as the Flood described in Genesis.

A. Plate Tectonics.--The basic idea of plate tectonics is quite simple: Continents and the floor of the ocean have been moving over the surface of the earth as governed by patterns of subduction of the earth's surface into the deeper parts or extrusion of material from inside the earth to the surface. The concept is so all-inclusive that it has the characteristic of either being largely accepted or rejected in its entirety. While some speculation regarding the idea had been entertained earlier in this century, it was not until the middle 1960's that it achieved widespread acceptance. Many geologists who did not adopt the new idea were subjected to severe criticism.

Anyone who ponders the shape of the continents is impressed with the apparent conformity of the outline of the east coast of North and South America to the west coast of Europe and Africa. Plate-tectonic theory, and more specifically in this case, continental-drift theory, proposes that during Permian time these continents were together, there was no Atlantic Ocean between, and that they have been drifting apart since then.

In order to understand a little better the process involved, more detail regarding the organization of the surface of the earth must be considered.

Rocks when viewed on a worldwide scale are much less rigid than is normally imagined. The question is largely a matter of scale: For example, a flea crawling over a rubber tire might think the tire to be quite solid, while we think of it as being flexible. The earth appears to behave more like a softer plastic than like a rigid solid. Most people are familiar with the ocean tides, which are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun. The "solid" earth also responds to the pull of the moon and sun, only on a much smaller scale. Earthquakes also suggest a not-so-rigid earth. As one examines a cross section of the surface of the earth, one sees that the crust beneath the continents consists of granitic type of rock, while beneath the oceans the crust consists of a denser basalt (Section IV-B). A thin veneer of sediment covers much of the continents and the oceans. The granitic continents have a density that is less (2.7) than that of the basalt of the ocean (3.0) or the lithosphere below (around 3.3). Hence the granitic continents literally float on top of denser rock below, somewhat the way wood floats on top of water.

Plate tectonics theory divides the surface of the earth into two main layers. The lithosphere on the outside is more rigid and consists of the crust and about 100 km. (62 mi.) of the upper part of the mantle. The more plastic asthenosphere lies beneath and is part of the mantle. The theory proposes that at certain localities, such as the west coast of South America, the lithosphere is being drawn into the mantle. At other places, such as the mid-Atlantic ridge, the asthenosphere is converted into lithosphere. The continents passively float around on top as the ocean floor is produced and absorbed at various linear localities over the earth, such as the two areas noted. Although the continents that were, according to plate-tectonics theory, together during Permian time are assumed to have been separate and of a different configuration and size before then (Hurley and Rand 1969; Palmer 1974), no definite conclusions concerning this possibility should be drawn (Dewey and Spall 1975). Le Pichon et. al. (1973), give a comprehensive account of the concept of plate tectonics.

Evidence in favor of plate tectonics includes: (1) The good fit of some of the continents when put together; (2) the match of distinctive sedimentary deposits between South America and Africa; (3) symmetrical magnetic reversal patterns in the oceanic crust on either side of the ridges, suggesting that basalt is extruded at these ridges and then spreads laterally after picking up the prevailing magnetic polarity; and (4) the concentration of deep-seated earthquake centers up to 700 km. (400 mi.) down in the areas where the lithosphere is presumed to go into the earth, in contrast to shallow earthquakes 20 km. (12 mi.) down in areas such as the mid-Atlantic ridge, where the lithosphere is presumably being formed. A good readable summary of the evidence in favor of plate tectonics is given in Gass et. al. (1972).

Objections to the plate-tectonics concept include: (1) The problem in matching some of the continents--for instance, one has to eliminate Central America in order to make North and South America match up to Europe and Africa; (2) lack of a satisfactory explanatory mechanism for plate motion; (3) a significant body of paleontological and paleoclimatical data that suggest that the continents have never moved. Kahle (1974) has edited a recent volume presenting objections to plate tectonics.

The concept of plate tectonics has been accepted by the vast majority of geologists. The most significant change in geological thinking of this century, this theory has caused and is still causing the revision of many geological concepts. Many issues remain unsettled, but, since the idea is so well accepted, it is expected to permeate geological thought for many years. Only time will tell whether the theory will turn out to be permanently successful or only another transient concept. While the data in favor of the concept are very impressive, caution is warranted. Recent data from the floor of the ocean are "as perplexing as they are revealing" (Kaneps 1977). The plate-tectonic theory has a number of interesting features supportive to the concept of the Genesis flood. As Dickinson (1974) points out, the horizontal motions of the lithosphere must be accompanied by major vertical motions, which would be expected in most models of the Flood (Section VI-B). The breaking apart of the continents represents a scale of activity that would be expected in the Genesis flood. The concept of a less rigid earth required by plate-tectonics theory makes the major changes expected during the Flood all the more plausible.

B. Downgrading of Uniformitarianism.--The concept of uniformitarianism (Section II-A) has been defined in many ways. In general it refers to the principle of interpreting past events in terms of present ones. In its strictest historical definition it implies that present rates of geological processes are sufficient to explain past changes. The doctrine is in contrast to catastrophism, which holds to past catastrophes of a scale larger than observed now. The Flood described in Genesis would be a prime example. Catastrophism has traditionally been rejected by modern geologists who have made uniformitarianism "into a kind of religious dogma" (Hooykaas 1970). This latter reference will give the reader an excellent view of the issues in the controversy.

The past two decades have witnessed a redefinition and downgrading of the uniformitarian concept. Catastrophes are no longer to be completely avoided, and uniformitarianism is being redefined so as to allow a past that is different from the present. The idea of uniformity is being applied to the laws of science and not specifically to geologic processes (Gould 1965); hence it is losing its geological importance. Article titles such as "Uniformitarianism is a Dangerous Doctrine" (Krynine 1956) and "The Present is the Key to the Present" (Valentine 1966) are evidences of this trend. Basic to many of the objections to uniformitarianism are the questions: Why do past rates have to be the same as present ones; can't change its rate of change? Wasn't the past evidently different from the present? Additional discussion will be found in the references by Simpson (1963) and Kitts (1963).

Accompanying the recent downgrading of classical uniformitarianism has been an upsurge of catastrophism. For instance Brenner and Davies (1973) state:

"In general sediment analyses of ancient environments reject the pervasive opinion that sediment formation and dispersal owe their genesis to the operation of normal process. ... We feel that once studies of Holocene [Recent] and ancient shelf sediments yield sufficient criteria for the recognition of storm deposits, then such deposits will be widely recognized in many similar geological settings."

Ager (1973, p. 49) reflects the same thinking: "The hurricane, the flood or the Tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years."

The most significant revolution in sedimentological thinking of this century is the turbidite concept. This concept also reflects the trend towards catastrophism. Turbidites are of special interest to a study of the Flood because they can be huge, they occur under water, and they are rapid. A modern example will illustrate.

On November 18, 1929, an earthquake shook the New England coast and the Maritime Provinces of Canada. This earthquake, known as the Grand Banks Earthquake, caused a slumping of a large mass of sediment in the ocean on the edge of the continental shelf. It also freed other sediments that formed loose mud, which slid down the continental slope into the deeper part of the North Atlantic Ocean. It eventually spread over the abyssal plain at the foot of the slope, parts traveling over 700 km. (430 mi.). One might think that a mass of loose mud flowing in the ocean would quickly mix with the sea water and lose its integrity as a separate unit, but this is not the case. The loose mud has a greater density than pure sea water because it is a combination of water and an abundance of rocks, sand, silt and clay particles. This mud flows beneath the lighter sea water somewhat as water flows on land beneath air. Only a small amount of mixing takes place between the mud and the overlying water. Such an underwater mudflow is called a turbidity current, and the new mud layer deposited as the flow stops is referred to as a turbidite.

Fortunately for science, but unfortunately for commercial telegraphy, 12 transatlantic cables that were near the Grand Banks turbidity flow were broken in this catastrophe, some in two or three places. The first break of each cable was precisely timed by the interruption of the telegraphic transmission and its location determined by resistance and capacitance tests. Those cables that were closest to the epicenter of the earthquake near the top of the continental slope broke almost instantly, probably by the slumping of sediments, while further away an orderly succession could be followed as the turbidity current broke successive cables. Rates of travel were calculated to be sometimes greater than 100 km./hour (60 mi./hour). The last cable, more than 650 km. (400 mi.) out was broken a little over 13 hours after the earthquake (Heezen and Ewing 1952). It has been estimated that the resulting turbidite coming from this mudflow covered more than 100,000 km.² (40,000 mi.²) and had an average thickness of a little less than one meter (2-3 ft.). Its volume is enough to load 20 rows of tankers encircling the earth side-by-side around the equator (Kuenen 1966).

To have such widespread deposits laid down so rapidly may seem quite unusual, yet it appears to be a fairly common phenomenon. In Lake Mead, Arizona, large quantities of sediment accumulate at the eastern end where the Colorado River enters the lake. Occasionally a turbidity type of current transports some of this sediment to the opposite end of the lake, which is over 150 km. (100 mi.) away. In this case the rate of travel appears to be extremely slow, requiring several days to cover the distance. Turbidites have been found in lakes in Switzerland. In 1954 several cables were broken by an earthquake-induced turbidity current that originated on the coast of Algeria and flowed into the Mediterranean. In the floor of the South Atlantic a turbidite sequence with layers of plant material several centimeters thick is found about 1450 km. (900 mi.) from its source, the Amazon River, indicating a turbidity-type transport for a considerable distance (Bader et al., 1970). Heezen and Ewing (1952) suggest turbidite transport for 1,600 km. (1,000 mi.) in the North Atlantic.

Turbidites have certain characteristic features such as normal grading (the gradual change in particle size from coarse to fine as one goes upward through the deposit), grain orientation, and special contact and internal features. Because of this, they can be identified in ancient sediments found in the crust of the earth. From a worldwide catastrophe such as the Flood described in Genesis one would expect there to be a significant number of turbidites, and there is. Their abundance and widespread distribution in sediments, which are found high above sea level and over large areas of continents, further increase the credibility of such a catastrophe. Single turbidites may be 20 m. (66 ft.) thick "deposited by a single `whoosh' of turbid water" (Ager 1973, p. 35), and the volume of the flow producing some of the larger ones is estimated at 100 km.³ (24 mi.³) (Walker 1973).

Since the advent of the turbidite concept 25 years ago, tens of thousands of graded beds piled upon each other, which were previously interpreted as being deposited slowly in shallow water, are now interpreted as the result of rapid turbidity flows (Walker 1973). Even the interturbidite layer, which consists of sediments found "between" some turbidites, is sometimes interpreted as the result of rapid turbidite deposition (Rupke 1969, sepm 1973).

Scientific evidence indicates that certain events in the past history of the earth may have proceeded much more rapidly than was previously believed. This is as would be expected for a catastrophe such as the Flood. But it is not expected that the concept of uniformitarianism will soon be discarded. Though vigorously disputed in recent years (Valentine 1973), it is still considered by many as one of the fundamental tenets of geology. Contemporary trends are causing a redefinition that reduces its geological usefulness, however.

VI. Flood Models

A. Location of the Flood in the Geologic Column.--Efforts to put together the information from geology and Genesis, must take account of the present state of flux in two areas of geological thought, both of which are of particular importance for Flood modeling--plate tectonics and catastrophism. Therefore caution should be exercised in utilizing present viewpoints.

Measurements show that at present sediments are accumulating very slowly, while the total thickness of sediments found in the crust of the earth is immense. It would require an exceedingly long time for these sediments to accumulate at present rates. A score of studies (Eicher 1976, p. 14) has resulted in a number of investigators concluding that sediments have been accumulating for 3 million to 1.5 billion years. The average of these estimates is only about 5 percent of the presently assumed age of the earth, but all the estimates are far in excess of the few thousand years allowed by Biblical chronology. The creationist resolves the apparent conflict by assuming that most of the sediments of the geologic column were deposited during the Flood at a much more rapid rate than could be expected on the basis of present observations. Reconciliation of ordinary rates of sedimentation and Biblical chronology dictate that most of the geologic column be placed in the Flood.

Some creationists and theistic evolutionists have suggested that the Flood might be a Pleistocene or more recent event. One cannot postulate this unless one is willing to assume a very long period of time between the beginning of creation (most of the lower sediments contain some fossils) and the Flood. The description given in Genesis does not suggest this; also there is no place near the top of the geologic column at which one can pinpoint a worldwide flood such that "all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered" (Gen. 7:19). A local flood has been postulated by some; however a local flood likewise does not fit the description given in Genesis, and it seems unreasonable to have a huge ark built to preserve terrestrial animals from a local flood.

The geologic column shows different kinds of organisms at different levels (Section IV-E). Evolutionists feel that this represents an evolutionary sequence; however, expected intermediates are missing, and it does not appear that macroevolution ever took place (see the previous chapter). Creationists attribute the differences in the biota at various levels in the geologic column to the Flood (Section VI-C). If much time is assigned to the geologic column, one has to deal with different kinds of organisms at different times (levels). This entails either evolution or a series of creations at different times--progressive creation (Ramm 1956, p. 226). This latter concept does not agree with Genesis nor with the more direct words of God given in the fourth commandment: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Ex. 20:11). If one believes in a truthful, faithful, and just Creator as described in the Bible, one is loathe to imply that He deceived us when He gave the Ten Commandments. One can postulate some kind of God who would create life in a series of creations or by some process of evolution over long ages and then tell us He did it in seven days, but this seems entirely out of character with the truthful God described in the Bible (Isa. 45:19; Titus 1:2).

B. Models.--Little effort has been put forth to synthesize the new information of geology and revelation into a comprehensive Flood model. Caution is warranted because some of the data is tentative. However, there is also an abundance of more objective data that should be taken into account by anyone trying to put together the information from revelation and science. It is hoped that synthesis will be forthcoming soon. At present only tentative suggestions can be made.

1. Subsidence of Continents Models. This model is basically quite simple. It proposes that before the Flood the continents were underlain by granite, as they are now (Section V-A). The average thickness of the granite bases was less than at present, resulting in lower mountains than we now have. The granite would be more widespread, which would result in smaller seas, some at different levels, as occurs now on the earth (e.g., the Caspian and Great Salt Lake). Some of these seas were located on the granitic base of the continents, while the lowest and most extensive seas were underlain by basalt, as are today's oceans (Figs. 2 and 3). There was a significant amount of water concealed in the earth (Section III). Using the basic plate-tectonics concept of movement of the asthenosphere deeper in the earth, one can accept the concept of a worldwide flood. Initiated by divine intervention, a gradual transfer of this asthenosphere below the continents to below the oceans would cause the continents to sink and the oceans to rise. When the bottoms of the sea reached a level above that of the continents, the marine sediments from these bottoms would be transferred to a lower sinking portion of a continent. This would fit with E. G. White's statement that "Clay, lime, and shells that God had strewn in the bottoms of the seas, were uplifted, thrown hither and thither" (White 1886). The Flood was not a sudden event (Section III), and as the waters slowly rose they gradually destroyed the pre-Flood landscape, thus creating some order in the deposits. Water came from pre-Flood seas, from inside the earth ("fountains of the great deep," Gen. 7:11), and from rain possibly supplied in part by volcanoes. Water vapor is the main constituent of volcanic gases. Since there is evidence of igneous activity and mountain building throughout the geologic column, volcanic activity, intrusion of igneous rocks, and relative uplift of local areas must have occurred throughout the Flood. Turbidity currents would be common.

After the entire earth had been covered with water, reversal of the process described above could have been initiated by divine action. The continents, being lighter, would then rise and the sea would sink, each to its subsequent normal level. This would take place during the last half of the Flood. A great wind would help in drying some of the sediment, even causing the removal of some of the mountaintops (White 1890, p. 108). During this latter half of the Flood, transfers in the asthenosphere and lithosphere would produce the present sea floor and continental pattern, according to the plate-tectonics model (Section V-A), at a more rapid rate. However, the resulting continents would be smaller, with a thicker granitic base to support a heavier load of sediment and a more pronounced topography (White 1947, p. 20). Adjustments in the crust of the earth would have continued long after Noah left the ark, gradually decreasing to present levels. A significant amount of volcanic ash in the atmosphere could have reduced the temperature by occluding some of the radiant energy from the sun (Brooks 1949, p. 208). This reduction could have contributed to the development of extensive glaciation, especially at the poles.

This tentative model should be viewed as a framework for further investigation.

2. Reversal of Continents and Oceans Model. This model proposes that during the Flood those portions of the crust of the earth located at higher elevations were washed into the pre-Flood seas. These seas are postulated to have been smaller than the present ones. As the higher localities were eroded by the rains and waters of the Flood, isostatic adjustments (vertical movements of the crust of the earth in response to changes in load) would raise the original highlands higher, facilitating further erosion, while thicker sediments accumulated in the pre-Flood seas. Eventually the pre-Flood "continents" would be completely eroded while the deeper sediments in the seas were subjected to metamorphism (see Section IV-B). Absorption of the under part of these areas of deposit (seas) into the soft magma inside the earth would make the remaining portions lighter, and isostatic adjustments would cause them to rise and form the present continents. The result would be a reversal of the pre-Flood seas and continents. Extensive volcanic activity would be associated with these events, causing some of the widespread basalt flows now found on and in the sedimentary crust of the earth. Drifting of these new continents could produce the present pattern of continental distribution and ocean floor structure. However, this drifting and the isostatic adjustments would have to occur at much faster rates than presently assumed by most geologists.

Many of the details of the subsidence model (Section VII-B-1) such as volcanism, glaciation, and turbidity currents, can be fitted into the reversal model. The complete destruction of the pre-Flood continents posed by the reversal model does not seem to agree with Ellen G. White's suggestion that some portions of the continents were less severely affected than others--mountains becoming broken and irregular rather than destroyed, plains (not oceans) changed into mountains (White 1890, p. 108).

3. Other Ideas. Late in the 19th century it was proposed that the earth contracted as it cooled, producing folded mountain ranges, the process being similar to the shrinking of a drying apple. This idea gained the status of orthodoxy in geology, but is no longer popular. It has a few interesting possibilities for a Flood model, especially with reference to the origin of folded mountains and the rise of continents owing to thickening of the crust as the earth shrank.

A bolder hypothesis, that of earth expansion, has received additional attention since the advent of plate-tectonics theory. While at present most geologists reject the idea, a continuous thread of support persists in the scientific literature (Carey 1975; Stewart 1976). One does not know what future scientific investigation may reveal about this concept, nor to what degree, if any, expansion may have taken place. The concept does have some features of interest to the creationist and it is a possibility that should not be arbitrarily excluded. It could be associated with the third day of creation week (Gen. 1:9, 10) or with the end of the Flood, causing separation of the continents and forming our present oceans.

These ideas are speculative, but they offer some interesting possibilities. They are not generally accepted; however, it is only a few years ago that the idea of continental drift was considered incorrect.

4. Conclusions. Obviously, not all the models presented above can be correct, but they may be interrelated. There is an element of the reversal model in the subsidence model when one considers what happened to the pre-Flood seas situated on the granitic crust. A moderate amount of earth expansion and contraction could be involved in any of the models. What actually happened may involve parts of each model discussed here, and of others yet unproposed. Truth is seldom as simple as our limited intellects tend to make it.

C. The Fossil Sequence and the Flood.--As one notes the kinds of organisms found in the geologic column, it becomes apparent that what are commonly considered the most complex forms of life do not appear in the lower parts. The general distribution pattern of fossils in the sediments is explained by many creationists on the basis of a natural, ecological sequence being buried by the Flood. It is assumed that before the Flood the distribution of plants and animals varied from place to place as it does now. This is easily noted in mountainous areas where the plants and animals at lower altitudes will often be significantly different from those higher up in the same region.

In considering how the Flood may have caused the sequence found in the fossil record, one has to differentiate between the small local floods that are familiar to us and an unfamiliar worldwide event as described in Genesis. We usually think of a flood washing sediment from a higher area into a lower one and mixing it in a somewhat disorganized pattern. On the scale of a worldwide flood, this pattern would not be so disorganized. A sequence would result as gradually rising flood waters destroyed the various pre-Flood landscapes with their unique organisms. Great waves would be expected during such a catastrophe. Ellen White refers to the ark's being flung from billow to billow (White 1890, p. 100) and transported in varied directions (ibid., p. 99). A 3-m. (10-ft.) wave can produce a pressure of 70 grams/cm.² (30 lbs./in.²). Often turbidity currents (Section V-B) would carry sediments to lower areas, placing one layer on top of another in a somewhat orderly fashion, as is noted in many of the sedimentary sequences of the crust of the earth. The order of the fossils in these sequences would to some degree reflect the order of the eroded landscapes destroyed by the gradually rising waters. This idea, referred to as the "ecological zonation theory," was developed by H. W. Clark. Figure 4, taken from his book (Clark 1946), illustrates a proposed pre-Flood landscape. If this landscape were destroyed by the Flood as described above, one would obtain the sequence we now find in the fossil record. The evidence in the geologic column that suggests to some people a progressive evolutionary sequence could equally well indicate that on the pre-Flood surface of the planet various types of organisms were characteristic of various elevations. This is somewhat similar to the present situation; for instance, we don't find eagles and cows in the bottom of the ocean.

There is sometimes a tendency to oversimplify the ecological zonation model by equating present ecological distribution with the pre-Flood one. This must not be done, because the fossil record does not allow it. For instance, at present our marine organisms are almost exclusively at sea level or lower. When we look at the fossil sequence we find an abundance of land plants, usually different from any now living, in the Carboniferous. Higher up in the Permian we find above these land plants an abundance of marine organisms, often different from those lower down. This arrangement is repeated again in the Mesozoic. A similar arrangement is not found on the present surface of the earth. If one postulates seas before the Flood at different levels (Figs. 3 and 4), one can explain the sequences on the basis of a different pre-Flood ecological distribution. A second alternative is to postulate uplift and/or subsidence of some ecologically unique areas before destruction by the rising waters, thus changing the normal sequence. Still other models can be proposed.

The degree of uniqueness of fossils at different levels in the geologic column and the widespread distribution of some of these fossil types make the ecological zonation model the best general explanation for the fossil sequence in the context of a Flood model. It also explains the presence of index fossils. Other factors that have been used to explain the fossil sequence include gravitational sorting (the more dense organisms sinking deeper during the Flood), locomotion (the more motile organisms escaping to the highest levels during the Flood), and flotation characteristics. There is no doubt that these factors would be significant in a limited way during the Flood, but it is highly doubtful that any one can explain the whole sequence of fossils found. Probably a combination of original ecological distribution, sorting, locomotion, and flotation were involved.

The ecological zonation model proposes a different pre-Flood ecology from the present. It is expected that the Flood would greatly alter the ecology of the earth. Paleontological data indicate a past quite different from the present. For instance, past temperatures can be estimated on the basis of warm- or cool-climate fossil organisms. The warm-climate belt of the earth appears to have been much more widespread in the past (Menzies et al., 1973, p. 350). Brooks (1949, p. 204) estimated that the past temperature of the continental regions now at north latitudes of 40°-90° averaged 7°C (13°F) warmer than at present throughout the Cambrian to the Miocene. Apparently the past is the key to the past!

As indicated in Section VI-A, creationists usually include most of that portion of the geologic column that contains fossils (Phanerozoic) in the Flood. It would be desirable to be able to state where in geologic column the Flood began and ended. However such a simple statement should not be expected for an event so complex as the Flood. In one part of the world the last deposits laid by the Flood may have been of Jurassic type with nothing deposited on top, while in other places it may have been Miocene. The Miocene may represent a maximum for the Flood, since there are significant climatic and fossil changes at this point in the geologic column. The beginning of the Flood should also be difficult to define, since there may have been some fossilization before the Flood. This would certainly be the case if there were any coral reefs then. These structures consist largely of fossils. At the Flood they would have been broken up, transported, and redeposited, forming recycled fossils. The Cambrian may be the beginning of Flood activity in many areas, while elsewhere the beginning may have been higher or lower.

Some rare fossils of worms and jellyfish have been reported in the uppermost Precambrian. These could represent either pre-Flood or Flood deposits. The boundary between the Cambrian and the Precambrian is not well defined (Cowie and Glaessner 1975; Stanley 1976). Precambrian fossils are rare and include a number of dubious or rejected identifications (e.g., Cloud 1973; Knoll and Barghoorn 1975). Stromatolites, structures assumed to have been produced by algae, are abundant in some Precambrian sediments--some of them quite far down in Precambrian sediments (Mason and Von Brunn 1977). Should these turn out to be real evidence of past life, they would represent pre-Flood deposits, or one would have to move the beginning of the Flood, at least in these localities, to a much lower level than is customarily done by most creationists, who often place it in the lower Paleozoic.

D. Evidence for the Genesis Flood.--Since the Flood, as described in Scripture, is a unique event, it is difficult to conceptualize it. Because the same can be said for events that never occurred is no reason for denying the occurrence of the Flood. A sound system of investigation should allow for unique events. While it is not possible to obtain direct evidence for the Flood, a major catastrophe of such dimensions should leave abundant circumstantial evidence that supports its occurrence.

1. Marine Sediment Distribution. A singular feature of the sediment layer covering the earth is that the sediment cover on the continents averages about five times the thickness (1.5 km.) of that found on the floor of the ocean. Some of the sediment originally carried to the ocean by rivers, et cetera, may have been absorbed into the mantle by a process of subduction that draws the lithosphere into the mantle (Section V-A). How much might be drawn in is a matter of conjecture. Of greater significance to the question of a worldwide flood is the fact that about a third of the sediments on the continents contain marine fossils, and thus originated from the sea. This fits in well with the idea of the uplift of marine sediments given by Ellen G. White (Section III). An interesting suggestion is that at present the sediments of the ocean are sparse, because they have accumulated only from the latter stages of, and since, the Flood, the marine sediments of the continents represent what was in the oceans before the Flood. Geologists who do not believe in a worldwide catastrophe such as the Flood usually explain the presence of abundant marine deposits on the continents by assuming that extensive parts of the continent accumulated marine deposits while they were below sea level for long periods of time (e.g., Brooks 1949, p. 206; Sloss and Speed 1974). This idea has not been completely unchallenged (Wise 1972). The idea of lower continents in the past is quite similar to the first model proposed above (Section VI-B-1) in which the continents sank down during the Flood. Regardless of this, the great abundance and widespread distribution of marine deposits on the continents is unexpected, except on the basis of a Genesis-type flood.

2. Widespread Nature of Unique Land Deposits on Continents. The widespread nature of unique sedimentary deposits with land-derived fossils on the continents is evidence of a kind of catastrophic activity on the continents for which there are no contemporary analogs. An outstanding example is the Triassic fossil-wood-bearing Shinarump conglomerate, which is a member of the Chinle Formation found in the Southwestern United States. This conglomerate, which occasionally passes into a coarse sandstone, is usually less than 30 m. (100 ft.) thick, but is spread over nearly 250,000 km.² (100,000 mi.²; Gregory 1950). It suggests that forces much greater than those at present were necessary to spread a coarse continuous deposit such as this over so wide an area. That local sedimentary activities, as claimed by some, should produce such continuity is difficult to imagine. Basal conglomerates of other formations present the same evidence.

The widespread, continuous, and unique nature of many formations also indicates extensive deposition on a scale that is suggestive of a world flood. For example, the varicolored dinosaur-bearing Jurassic Morrison Formation of the Western United States extends from Kansas to Utah and from Canada to New Mexico (Hintze 1973), yet its average thickness is only about 150 m. (500 ft.). These widespread formations, of which an extensive list could be provided, reflect lateral depositional continuity on a scale unknown at present. Many geologists explain these as a composite of local sedimentary features. Again it is extremely difficult to imagine local sedimentary phenomena producing these relatively thin but widespread and continuous formations. One also wonders how local activity could be so uniform over the long periods of time assumed for the deposition of the formations. The data fit better with the idea of a catastrophic flood as described in Genesis.

3. Reduced Provinciality in the Fossil Record. The provinciality (localization of distribution) of organisms is much greater now than in the fossil record. In other words, fossil species appear much more widespread over the surface of the earth than living species. Many paleontologists have referred to this difference (e.g., Sohl 1969; Barghoorn 1953; Valentine and Moores 1972; Valentine 1973). Reduced provinciality is expected in a worldwide flood and in which some lateral transport of organisms should occur. This could also result from more even climatic conditions in the original earth (White 1890, p. 61; 1947, p. 46). In either case the data support the model given by inspiration.

4. Turbidities. The new turbidite concept of a rapid water sedimentation discussed in Section V-B fits in very well with a catastrophe such as the Genesis flood. Only time will tell what proportions of the sediments will eventually be identified as turbidites. Turbidites are often complex, not always graded, and sometimes unidentifiable. Dott (1963) mentions "somewhat less than 50 percent" turbidites for some sediments in the Ventura Basin in California. In a section from Devonian through Eocene in the Northwest United States he estimates 30 percent as graded (turbidites), 15 percent as limestone, 15 percent as volcanic, and 40 percent of uncertain origin.

One can postulate turbidity currents in large lakes and over submerged portions of continents, and then allow for long intervening periods of time. But the increasing number of deposits on the continents that are being identified as turbidites indicate underwater activity on a scale that would be expected in the Flood, and is not representative of present sedimentary patterns on the continents.

5. Paucity of Erosional Features at Unconformities. Unconformities, which represent time gaps in the geological record, and quite commonly reported in many sedimentary sequences. These gaps should show the effects of time if it ever transpired. Erosion during these long time gaps should be evident and sometimes preserved as these features become buried under a new cycle of sedimentation. The almost complete absence at unconformities of major erosional features, such as the numerous canyons we now see on the surface of the earth, suggest little time between cycles of sedimentation, as would be predicted by a Flood model. A few fossil canyons exist (e.g., Cohen 1976), but their almost universal absence in all ancient sediments compared to their present abundance over the surface of the earth supports the concept that deposition of sediments in the past was rapid, with little time for erosion.

The peneplain concept has been used by some geologists in an effort to explain the absence of major erosional features at unconformities. Peneplains are considered to be widespread erosional surfaces of low relief. The unique sequence of events required to produce peneplaination (Thornbury 1969, p. 185-188) has caused the concept to be questioned by many (e.g., Holmes 1965, p. 575; Foster 1971, p. 65). If peneplains are a common feature of the fossil record, there should be modern examples; yet Bloom (1969, p. 98) questions the existence of any modern peneplains.

It seems apparent that the characteristics of the unconformities in the geological record provide support for the relatively continuous deposition required by a Flood model.

VII. Selected Topics Related to Flood Geology

A. Source of Sediments.--There is a significant volume of sedimentary rocks on the surface of the earth. Because quite often fossils are present, much of this is assumed to have been deposited during the Flood (Section VI-A). Some regions of the earth have no sediments, elsewhere sediments reach a depth of about 16 km. (10 mi.). The average thickness is estimated to be about 800 m. (2,600 ft.) (Blatt 1970; Pettijohn 1975). Considering the size of the earth, this is "only a thin surficial layer" (Pettijohn 1975), which on an ordinary 30-cm. (12-in.) globe would be represented by a layer less than one fourth the thickness of an ordinary sheet of paper. The average amount of erosion necessary during the Flood to produce this sediment would approximate the average thickness of sediments less the amount of sediment coming from activity such as: (1) volcanic ejecta, (2) Precambrian sediments that may not be associated with the Flood (see Section VI-C), (3) some of the erosion since the Flood, and (4) sedimentary material that may have surfaced with the fountains of the great deep (White 1890, p. 99). These could reduce the estimated average depth of erosion during the Flood to about one half (400 m. or 1,300 ft.). This figure is not entirely unreasonable considering that during a flood in 1883, Kanab Creek in Utah cut out an 80-m. (260-ft.)-wide section to a depth of 15 m. (50 ft.) in less than eight hours (Gilluly et al., 1968, p. 218; see also Bruhn 1962).

Various kinds of sediments would come from different sources. Clay and lime from the oceans (Section III) would be a source of some shales (from clay) and most of the limestone (from lime). The sandstones, which are often free of fossils, may have come from the fountains of the great deep or fossil-free Precambrian sediment present before the Flood. These sediments would also serve as a source for other Flood deposits. Coal and oil would come from the vegetation that grew before the Flood. "The vast forests buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and since changed to coal, form the extensive coal fields, and yield the supplies of oil that minister to our comfort and convenience today" (White 1903, p. 129; see also 1890, p. 108). The pre-Flood vegetation could easily provide the coal and oil we find in the earth. Of late we are becoming aware that there is not an unlimited supply of this fossil fuel. Estimates run from 5 to 10 X 10¹² metric tons of carbon (e.g., Borchert 1951; Reiners 1973). One fourth the earth covered by a maximum "normal range" (Whittaker 1970, p. 83) temperate forest would yield 10 X 10¹² metric tons of carbon, enough to form all our coal and oil. It is of interest in this context that Ellen G. White describes the pre-Flood vegetation as much superior to the present (White 1864, p. 33; 1890, p. 44; 1903, p. 129). It should be noted that the figures given above do not include the reduced carbon found in shales. Ellen G. White does not appear to be referring to this. The amount of reduced carbon (not the carbonate of limestone, etc.) of shales is about 500 to 1,000 times that found in coal and oil (Rubey 1951; Borchert 1951). Other sources of carbon can be postulated for this, including (1) the antediluvian humus (Pearl 1963), (2) an inorganic origin such as has been postulated for petroleum (Porfir'ev 1974), (3) reduced carbon that may have been part of the original earth, such as occurs in some meteorites. A relationship between the organic matter of meteorites and sediments has been proposed (Degens 1964).

B. Time Factors and Sedimentation.--One of the basic differences between the concept of a catastrophic flood and a process of slow evolution of the earth is the amount of time involved. The standard geologic time scale based mainly on radiometric dating is one of the most commonly used arguments against the idea of a universal flood. It proposes about 600 million years for the Phanerozoic and 4 to 5 billion years for the age of Planet Earth. A number of geologic features of the earth suggest that this time scale is not correct for sediments. For example:

1. It seems reasonable to assume that sedimentation always will be proceeding in a number of places over the earth, and that at least some of these places will be preserved. If one takes the thickest portions of the various sedimentary units of the geologic column, the total maximum thickness obtained is the amazing total of 138,000 m. (452,000 ft.) (Holmes 1965, p. 157). Yet this is far too thin to account for the proposed amount of time for the evolutionary model of the earth (Ager 1973, p. 34; see also Section VI-A and Roth 1975). A flood as described in the Bible would produce much more rapid sedimentation over a much shorter time.

2. Along the same line of reasoning is the rate of denudation of the continents by erosion; according to present rates the continents should have been eradicated more than a score of times during supposed geologic time (Dott and Batten 1976, p. 136; Judson 1968; Gregor 1968). The standard explanation that the mountains have undergone repeated uplift to provide a continuous sedimentary record does not seem to agree with the persistent presence of the geologic column. Again the concept of a single catastrophe can resolve the dilemma.

3. A number of erosional remnants that supposedly have survived hundreds of millions of years of weathering with very little erosion (Twidale 1976) also suggests a shorter time than is generally accepted (Roth 1976).

C. Glaciation and the Flood.--Small climate changes can have profound results on the earth. It takes an average decrease of only a few degrees (1.5°-8°C., 3°-14°F.) to bring about an ice age (Plass 1956).

Evidence of glaciation is found in a number of places in the geologic record of the past. The most important and least questionable evidence for glaciation is found in the Pleistocene, the Permo-Carboniferous, and the Precambrian. The Pleistocene, the most important and least questioned of all, is assumed by many creationists to be a post-Flood glaciation phenomenon (Section VI-B-1). The evidence for Permo-Carboniferous glaciation found in the Southern Hemisphere comes near the middle of the geologic column and of the Flood, and may not really represent glaciation. Crowell (1964) lists seven alternate interpretations for deposits that can appear as glacial (till and tillite). The most questionable of the three glacial deposits considered above, the Precambrian glaciation (1) may not be glaciation or (2) may represent glaciation by lowered temperatures when "darkness was upon the face of the deep" (Gen. 1:2).

D. Fossil Man and the Flood.--Many alleged findings of fossil man or his tracks in pre-Pliocene deposits have been reported; however, to date it does not appear that any unequivocal examples are available (e.g., Neufeld 1975). Many wonder why large pre-Flood men (Gen. 6:4) are so notoriously absent from the fossil record. No scientifically satisfactory answer to this question has yet been found. The reader may find assistance in his own thinking from some of the information given by Ellen G. White (White 1890, pp. 100, 102, 108).

VIII. Conclusions

It is noteworthy that so many features that relate to the past character of the earth's crust do not represent present conditions. Many of these major features are best explained in the context of a Flood model (Section VII-D), but efforts to synthesize the geologic data with the testimony of inspired writers are handicapped by a paucity of firm information. The Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White give only a few details regarding the geologic events of the past. The current revolutions in geological thinking make many of the conclusions deduced from a study of nature regarding the history of the earth only tentative. This essay merely represents the status of our knowledge at present.

As one contemplates the flood of Genesis, which has no contemporary analog, the task of interpretation becomes particularly challenging, but it is a challenge well worth attention. In meeting this challenge creationists should do only the best quality of work.

Traditional geological interpretation and Genesis have been far apart. Careful examination provides a basis for confidence that geologic data are not inconsistent with Genesis. More and more harmony between God's two books, nature and revelation, should emerge from continued investigation of the history of the earth.

references

Ager, D. V. 1973. The nature of the stratigraphical record. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Bader, R. G. et. al. 1970. Initial reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, Vol. IV. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California.

Barghoorn, E. S. 1953. Evidence of climatic change in the geologic record of plant life. In Preston Cloud, ed. 1970. Adventures in Earth History, pp. 732-741. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Beerbower, J. R. 1969. Search for the past, an introduction to paleontology, 2d ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Bertin, L. 1961. Larousse encyclopedia of the earth. Prometheus Press, New York.

Blatt, H. 1970. Determination of mean sediment thickness in the crust: a sedimentologic method. Geological Society of America Bulletin 81:255-262.

Borchert, H. 1951. Zur Geochemie des Kohlenstuffs. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 2:62-75.

Brenner, R. L., and Davies, D. K. 1973. Storm-generated coquinoid sandstone: genesis of high-energy marine sediments from the Upper Jurassic of Wyoming and Montana. Geological Society of America Bulletin 84:1685-1686.

Brooks, C. E. P. 1949. Climate through the ages: a study of the climatic factors and their variations. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Bruhn, A. F. 1962. Southern Utah's land of color. Bryce Canyon Natural History Assn., Bryce Canyon, Utah, and Zion Natural History Assn., Springdale, Utah.

Carey, S. W. 1975. The expanding earth--an essay review. Earth-Science Reviews 11:105-143.

Clark, H. W. 1946. The new diluvialism. Science Publications, Angwin, Calif.

Cloud, P. 1973. Pseudofossils: a plea for caution. Geology 1(3):123-127.

Cowie, J. W., and Glaessner, M. F. 1975. The Precambrian-Cambrian boundary: a symposium. Earth-Science Reviews 11:209-251.

Crowell, J. C. 1964. Climatic significance of sedimentary deposits containing dispersed megaclasts. In A. E. M. Nairn, ed. 1964. Problems in Palaeoclimatology, pp. 86-99. Interscience Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Degens, E. T. 1964. Genetic relationships between the organic matter in meteorites and sediments. Nature 202:1092-1095.

Dewey, J. F., and Bird, J. M. 1970. Mountain belts and the new global tectonics. Journal of Geophysical Research 75:2625-2647.

Dewey, J., and Spall, H. 1975. Pre-Mesozoic plate tectonics: how far back in history can the Wilson Cycle be extended? Geology 3:422-424.

Dickinson, W. R., ed. 1974. Tectonics and sedimentation. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication No. 22.

Dott, R. H., and Batten, R. L. 1976. Evolution of the earth, 2d ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Eicher, D. L. 1976. Geologic time, 2d ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Flori, J., and Rasolofomasoandro, H. 1973. Évolution ou Création? SDT, France.

Gass, I. G., Smith, P. J., and Wilson, R. C. L., eds. 1972. Understanding the earth, 2d ed. Artemis Press, England.

Gillully, J., Waters, A. C., and Woodford, A. O. 1968. Principles of geology, 3d ed. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Gould, S. J. 1965. Is uniformitarianism necessary? American Journal of Science 263:223-228.

Gregor, C. B. 1968. The rate of denudation in post-Algonkian time. Kononklijke Nederlandse Academie van Weterschapper 71:22-30.

Gregory, H. E. 1950. Geology and geography of the Zion Park region, Utah and Arizona, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 220.

Harland, W. B. et. al. 1967. The fossil record. Geological Society of London.

Hasel, G. F. 1975. The Biblical view of the extent of the flood. Origins 2:77-95.

Heezen, B. C., and Ewing, M. 1952. Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the 1929 Grand Banks earthquake. American Journal of Science 250:849-873.

Hintze, L. F. 1973. Geologic history of Utah. Brigham Young University Geology Studies 20, Part 3. Provo, Utah.

Holeman, J. N. 1968. The sediment yield of major rivers of the world. Water Resources Research 4(4):737-747.

Holmes, A. 1965. Principles of physical geology, 2d ed. Ronald Press Co., New York.

Hooykaas, R. 1970. Catastrophism in geology, its scientific character in relation to actualism and uniformitarianism. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam.

Hurley, P. M., and Rand, J. R. 1969. Pre-drift continental nuclei. Science 164:1229-1242.

Judson, S. 1968. Erosion of the land--or what's happening to our continents? American Scientist 56(4):356-374.

Kahle, C. F., ed. 1974. Plate tectonics--assessments and reassessments. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Memoir 23.

Kaneps, A. 1977. Deep-sea drilling project. Geotimes 22(1):18, 19.

Keroher, G. C. 1970. Lexicon of geologic names of the United States for 1961-1967. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1350.

_______ et. al. 1966. Lexicon of geologic names of the United States for 1936-1960. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1200.

Kitts, D. B. 1963. The theory of geology. In C. C. Albritton, ed. 1963. The Fabric of Geology, pp. 49-68. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Knoll, A. H., and Barghoorn, E. S. 1975. Precambrian eukaryotic organisms: a reassessment of the evidence. Science 190:52-54.

Krynine, P. D. 1956. Uniformitarianism is a dangerous doctrine. Journal of Paleontology 30(4):1003-1004.

Kuenen, P. H. 1966. Turbidity currents. In R. W. Fairbridge, ed. 1966. The Encyclopedia of Oceanography, vol. 1, pp. 943-948. Reinhold Publishing Co., New York.

Le Pichon, X., Francheteau, J., and Bonnin, J. 1973. Plate tectonics. Developments in Geotectonics 6. Elsevier Scientific, New York.

Mason, T. R., and Von Brunn, V. 1977. 3-Gyr-old stromatolites from South Africa. Nature 266(5597):47-49.

Matthes, G. H. 1951. Paradoxes of the Mississippi. Scientific American 184(4):18-23.

McAlester, A. L. 1968. The history of life. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

Menzies, R. J., George, R. Y., and Row, G. T. 1973. Abyssal environment and ecology of the world oceans. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Neufeld, B. R. 1975. Dinosaur tracks and giant men. Origins 2:64-76.

Palmer, A. R. 1974. Search for the Cambrian world. American Scientist 62(2):216-224.

Pearl, H. F. 1963. A re-evaluation of time-variations in two geochemical parameters of importance in the accuracy of radiocarbon ages greater than four millennia. M. A. thesis, Pacific Union College, June, 1963, Angwin, Calif.

Pettijohn, F. J. 1975. Sedimentary rocks, 3d ed. Harper & Row, New York.

Plass, G. N. 1956. Carbon dioxide and the climate. American Scientist 44:302-316.

Porfir'ev, V. B. 1974. Inorganic origin of petroleum. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 58:3-33.

Price, G. M. 1923. The new geology. Pacific Press Publishing Association, Mountain View, Calif.

Ramm, B. 1956. The Christian view of science and Scripture. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Reiners, W. A. 1973. A summary of the world carbon cycle and recommendations for critical research. In G. M. Woodwell and E. V. Pecan, eds. 1973. Carbon and the Biosphere, pp. 368-382. United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Roth, A. A. 1975. Old traditions on trial. Origins 2:100-103.

_______. 1976. Geological changes and time. Origins 3:106-108.

Rubey, W. W. 1951. Geologic history of sea water: an attempt to state the problem. Geological society of America Bulletin 62:1111-1148.

Rupke, N. A. 1969. Aspects of bed thickness in some Eocene turbidite sequences, Spanish Pyrenees. Journal of Geology 77:482-484.

sepm. 1973. Turbidites and deep water sedimentation. Pacific Section Short Course, Anaheim, California.

Simpson, G. G. 1963. Historical science. In C. C. Albritton, ed. 1963. The Fabric of Geology, pp. 24-48. Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Sloss, L. L., and Speed, R. C. 1974. Relationships of cratonic and continental-margin tectonic episodes. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Special Publication 22, pp. 98-119.

Sohl, N. F. 1969. North American Cretaceous biotic provinces delineated by gastropods. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, Part L. pp. 1610-1637. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kans.

Stanley, S. M. 1976. Fossil data and the Precambrian-Cambrian evolutionary transition. American Journal of Science 276:56-76.

Stewart, I. C. F. 1976. Mantle plume separation and the expanding earth. Journal of Geophysics 46:505-511.

Twidale, C. R. 1976. On the survival of paleoforms. American Journal of Science 276:77-95.

Valentine, J. W. 1966. The present is the key to the present. Journal of Geological Education 14(2):59-60.

_______. 1973. Phanerozoic taxonomic diversity: a test of alternate models. Science 180:1078-1079.

Valentine, J. W., and Moores, E. M. 1972. Global tectonics and the fossil record. Journal of Geology 80:167-184.

Walker, R. G. 1973. Mopping up the turbidite mess. In R. N. Ginsburg, ed. 1973. Evolving Concepts in Sedimentology, pp. 1-37. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Whitcomb, J. C., and Morris, H. M. 1966. The Genesis flood. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia.

White, Ellen G. 1864. Spiritual gifts, vol. 3. Review and Herald, Washington, D.C.

_______. 1878. Signs of the times, Jan. 3, Mountain View, Calif.

_______. 1885. Review and herald, Feb. 24. Washington, D.C.

_______. 1886. Manuscript, No. 62. Ellen G. White Trustees. Washington, D.C.

_______. 1890. Patriarchs and prophets. Pacific Press Pub. Assn., Mountain View, Calif.

_______. 1901. Signs of the times, April 10. Mountain View, Calif.

_______. 1903. Education. Pacific Press Pub. Assn., Mountain View, Calif.

_______. 1947. Story of redemption. Review and Herald Pub. Assn. Washington, D.C.

Whittaker, R. H. 1970. Communities and ecosystems, Macmillan Co., New York.

Wise, D. U. 1972. Freeboard of continents through time. Geological Society of America Memoir 132:87-100.

illustration credits

General geologic column. Fossil distribution based mainly on McAlester, 1968, and Harland et al., 1967.

Schematic diagram of part of surface of the earth, according to plate-tectonic theory (modified from J. F. Dewey and J. M. Bird, 1970, Journal of Geophysical Research, 75:2625-2647).

A tentative Flood model. Proposed pre-Flood ecology. From Clark (1946). Reprinted by permission.

I. The Birth of Biblical Archeology

When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms (published in 1728) his source material consisted of the Bible and the works of classical Greek and Roman writers. His conclusions drawn from the historical parts of the Bible have stood the test of time, and need only slight corrections even today, but his reconstruction of ancient history built on secular classical information was completely erroneous. According to Newton, Sesac, the Biblical Shishak who despoiled the Temple at Jerusalem in the time of Solomon's son Rehoboam, not only invaded Africa and Spain but crossed the Hellespont and also marched toward India, where he set up victory pillars on the river Ganges. None of all these campaigns except the one recorded in the Bible was undertaken by Shishak, as we know now. Newton had the great king Ramses living in the 9th century b.c. instead of the 13th, and had him followed by the builders of the great pyramids of Gizeh--Cheops, Chephren, and Mycerinus! We know today that these kings of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt lived many centuries earlier, and that their pyramids were already famous monuments of their builders' glory in the time of Moses.

Bible commentators writing in the early 19th century, like Adam Clarke, were in the same predicament as Sir Isaac Newton. Wherever they tried to throw light on Biblical history of the pre-Persian period by ancient records, to place the Bible stories in their historical setting or against their backgrounds, they were on uncertain ground. Consequently, their explanations regarding historical events are usually misleading. The source material available to the student of ancient history in the early 19th century was obscure, vague, distorted, and erroneous, and contained great but unrecognizable blank spaces. Legendary figures were also presented as historical characters, so that it was impossible to reconstruct a true history of the ancient world. Even today, with our much greater knowledge of ancient history, we are still far removed from a correct understanding of all the interwoven happenings of the ancient nations, and are still unable to identify in all cases the figures and events described by the classical authors.

The unreliable nature of ancient source material as preserved by Greek and Roman writers was recognized through the discovery of contemporary evidence. When it was shown that much of the information of the ancient writers had been misunderstood, or was entirely false, a skepticism developed among scholars toward all ancient literature. For example, not only was Homer's Iliad declared to be a legend, but the very existence of the city of Troy was denied until Heinrich Schliemann excavated it and proved its existence.

This skepticism toward ancient writings, well founded in many cases, was then also extended to the writings of the Bible. Many people thought that the Biblical records about this world's ancient history, and the stories about the patriarchs, prophets, judges, and kings, were in most cases just as legendary as those of other ancient peoples which had come down to us through Greek and Latin writings. The most famous historians and theologians of the 19th century were the greatest doubters of the veracity of the stories of the Bible, and were among its most vigorous critics.

This attitude has greatly changed since the turn of the century. Much more respect is now shown toward the Old Testament, its narratives, and its teachings than was shown a few decades ago. The results of explorations in the Near East have done more than anything else to bring this about.

In the flood of light thrown by archeology upon the ancient civilizations the Old Testament stands forth not only as historically reliable but also as unique in scope, power, and lofty ideals in comparison with the best products of the ancient world. One authority on history, who does not himself accept the inspiration of the Bible, remarks on this fact:

"It is possible to claim that, judged as historical material, the Old Testament stands higher today than when its text was protected with the sanctions of religion. ...

"The historian ... should not judge it from the modern standpoint. He should not compare Genesis with Ranke, but with the product of Egypt and Assyria. Judged in the light of its own time the literature of the Jews is unique in scope as in power"

(James T. Shotwell, An Introduction to the History of History, p. 80).

And he adds: "That the outlook [of "the Deuteronomist"] was really exalted--the finest in the Old Testament--any one will admit who reads the fifth to the eleventh chapters of Deuteronomy and then compares them with the rest of the world's literature before the climax of antique civilization" (Ibid., p. 92).

Extensive surface explorations and numerous excavations of ancient buried sites have brought to light evidence that has not only resurrected ancient civilizations before our eyes but also allows us to reconstruct ancient history and place the Bible narratives in their true historical settings.

Keys were found that enabled modern scholars to decipher long-forgotten scripts like the Egyptian and Hittite hieroglyphs, the Sumerian and Babylonian cuneiform writing, or the alphabetic scripts of the ancient inhabitants of Palestine and Syria. Languages dead for thousands of years were resurrected, and their grammars and vocabularies established. The sands of Egypt and the ruins of Western Asia revealed a wealth of literary material that had been hidden and preserved for millenniums. This enables the modern scholar to reconstruct much of the ancient history of those nations as well as their religion and culture. Cities like Lachish, Hazor, Megiddo, and Nineveh--to mention only a few--whose names appear in the Bible or other ancient sources, but whose location was entirely unknown, were rediscovered and excavated. Their ruined temples and palaces were uncovered, their schools, libraries, and tombs were found. They surrendered their long-kept secrets, and contributed to the fast-accumulating increase of knowledge about the ancient world, a world in which the men of the Bible lived and in which its sacred pages were produced. Millions of dollars have been spent to recover the ancient Orient, noble men of learning have given their health and in many cases their lives for this aim, and thousands of bulky volumes have been written to record the findings of the last one and a half centuries.

The providence of God can be seen in this development. How else can it be explained that all this priceless material was hidden from the view of men for so many centuries, when no one would have profited by it, and when it was not needed to establish the still unchallenged reliability of the Scriptures? Why is it that all this material came to light when it was most desperately needed to show the veracity of God's Word and the truth of sacred history? A watchful Eye had preserved it for the day when it would do its part to witness for the truth, and fulfill the prediction of Jesus Christ that when the living witnesses would cease to testify for Him and the truth, the very stones would cry out.

To introduce the history of this marvelous development of archeological endeavors in the various Bible lands, a few quotations from W. F. Albright, perhaps the foremost Orientalist of his day, may be given to show the tremendous profit Biblical studies have gained from archeological research, and the great change that has come over the scholarly world in their evaluation of the stories of the Bible. In 1935 he said:

"Archaeological research in Palestine and neighbouring lands during the past century has completely transformed our knowledge of the historical and literary background of the Bible. It no longer appears as an absolutely isolated monument of the past, as a phenomenon without relation to its environment. It now takes its place in a context which is becoming better known every year. Seen against the background of the ancient Near East, innumerable obscurities become clear, and we begin to comprehend the organic development of Hebrew society and culture. However, the uniqueness of the Bible, both as a masterpiece of literature and as a religious document, has not been lessened, and nothing tending to disturb the religious faith of Jew or Christian has been discovered"

(The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, p. 127).

The same author discusses at some length the discoveries that have disproved the dogmatic and often cynical claims of higher critics--like those of the school of Julius Wellhausen--that the Bible contains many legends, stories of folklore, and a mythology which has also been called "pious fraud." This brings him to the following conclusion:

"Conservative scholars are, we believe, entirely justified in their vigorous denunciation of all efforts to prove the existence of fraudulent invention and deliberate forgery in the Bible. They are equally within their rights in objecting most emphatically to the introduction of a spurious mythology and a thinly veiled paganism into the Bible" (Ibid., p. 176).

Since these words were written, additional discoveries, some of them sensational, have attested the reliability of the Bible narratives and the accuracy of its text in many details. In reviewing this vast amount of new material Albright said:

"Archaeological discovery has been largely responsible for the recent revival of interest in biblical theology, because of the wealth of new material illustrating text and background of the Bible. ... New archaeological material continues to pour in, compelling revision of all past approaches to both Old and New Testament religion. It becomes clearer each day that this rediscovery of the Bible often leads to a new evaluation of biblical faith, which strikingly resembles the orthodoxy of an earlier day. Neither an academic scholasticism nor an irresponsible neo-orthodoxy must be allowed to divert our eyes from the living faith of the Bible"

("The Bible After Twenty Years of Archaeology," Religion in Life, vol. 21, Autumn, 1952, p. 550).

II. The Resurrection of Ancient Egypt

When we speak of Egypt there rises before our eyes a country where one of the oldest civilizations flourished, principally a long, narrow river valley which on the map looks like a serpent, averaging little more than 5 miles in width, but 500 miles long. This land, over which Joseph was once prime minister, and where Moses the lawgiver received his education, is a land of extremes. Ninety-nine per cent of its population live on about 4 per cent of its soil; the rest is desert. "Egypt is the gift of the Nile," said Herodotus. The narrow fertile strip of land has always owed its life to this river, since the almost complete absence of rainfall has forced its population to depend on the yearly inundation of the Nile. The exceptionally dry climate is responsible for the preservation of many buildings and of a tremendous amount of perishable material that in other countries would have disintegrated long ago. Furthermore, no ancient nation possessed greater architects and builders than Egypt, and its fascinating monuments in stone, like the pyramids, obelisks, and temples, have survived the millenniums and are still eloquent witnesses to the remarkable engineering art of the ancient Egyptians.

The birth date of Biblical archeology in general and of Egyptian archeology in particular is the year 1798, when Napoleon on his military campaign to Egypt was accompanied by a large group of scholars, architects, and artists to whom the assignment was given to study and describe the remains of ancient Egypt. These men did a marvelous job and published 24 stately volumes as the result of their studies. These books are still valuable, because many monuments and inscriptions described by these French scholars have since been destroyed.

The greatest discovery, however, was made by the French Army in finding the now famous Rosetta stone in 1799, which became the key for deciphering the mysterious Egyptian hieroglyphic writing. This black basalt slab came with the spoils of war into the hands of the British, and has been since that time one of the most valuable objects in the fabulous collections of the British Museum in London. The trilingual inscription on the stone is repeated in Greek, demotic (cursive late Egyptian), and hieroglyphics (early picture writing). Scholars immediately tried, with the help of the readable Greek portion, to solve the riddle of the other two unknown scripts. The Swedish diplomat Akerblad made a successful beginning at deciphering the demotic portion in 1802, and the English physician Thomas Young was able to publish the correct reading of a few hieroglyphic signs in 1819, after many years of fruitless efforts. However, the complete decipherment was made by Jean Francois Champollion, a brilliant young Frenchman, in 1822.

Although Egyptian texts could be read from that time on, it took the combined efforts of many more scholars, in whose foremost ranks have stood Erman, Sethe, and Gardiner, to put the reconstruction of the ancient Egyptian language on a sound scientific basis. It was almost 70 years after Champollion's pioneering work before the first satisfactory grammar of hieroglyphic Egyptian was published, and more than 100 years before an adequate Egyptian dictionary of 4,200 pages was produced. Since the Egyptian texts was written in a pictorial script with only consonants--no vowels--in hundreds of characters, the reading and interpretation of them is still a difficult task for every Egyptologist. However, a vast amount of secular and religious literature and historical evidence has become available, which has placed the reconstruction of the political and religious history of ancient Egypt on a sound basis.

Hand in hand with this language research went the field work of the archeologist. This was carried out in the first half of the 19th century by recording expeditions which copied temple inscriptions, and described all the visible remains of ancient Egypt. For lack of space, only the most important one of these can be mentioned here, the great Prussian expedition of 1842-45 under Lepsius, which copied and described almost everything visible throughout Egypt. The result appeared then in 12 monumental volumes, which have hardly ever been surpassed in size, each measuring 30 by 24 inches when closed.

During the first half of the 19th century no systematic excavating was done. Only the natives dug up and sold profuse numbers of antiquities to the representatives of the great museums of the European nations, which during that time built up rich and fabulous collections. A change came through the appointment of Mariette to head the young Department of Antiquities of the Egyptian Government, when in search of Coptic manuscripts he had by a lucky stroke found the Serapeum, the temple where the sacred bulls were kept and buried. By perseverance, ruthlessness, and even the use of force he succeeded in stamping out illegal digging, and concentrated the control of all excavations in his own hands and those of his subordinates. During his time the fabulous treasures of ancient Egypt began to flow into the Cairo Museum, which by now has become the greatest collection of ancient Egyptian art in the world.

During Mariette's administration of 31 years a great discovery was made--the secret hiding place that had housed a great number of famous Pharaohs for more than 3,000 years. Their tombs had been robbed in ancient times, and a pious king had collected the mummies of his illustrious predecessors and deposited them in an artificial cave high up in the cliffs of the western desert near the Upper Egyptian capital of Thebes. From this cave came the body of that great war lord Thutmose III, who conquered all Palestine in the early 15th century b.c., and probably was the Pharaoh of the oppression of the Israelites. There was also Ramses II, the hero of the battle of Kadesh against the Hittites, the mummy of Ramses III, who became the savior of Egypt when the Sea peoples threatened to invade it in the 12th century. With them there were many other monarchs of name and fame. For many years the unwrapped and naked bodies of these men, before whom nations had trembled, and who had been worshiped as gods by their contemporaries, were exhibited in the Cairo Museum in showcases under glass, mute but impressive witnesses of the passing of worldly glory and power. They are more recently to be seen only in a special room of the museum.

When Gaston Maspero took over the administration of the department of antiquities in 1881 a new era began. Foreign scholars and institutions were invited to study the ancient remains of Egypt, and to carry out excavations. Since a fair share of the discovered objects was promised them as a reward for their efforts and expenses, a goodly number of scientific institutions, museums, and governments availed themselves of this opportunity. They did a tremendous amount of work to recover the ancient culture and history of Egypt as long as such a generous policy toward archeological work of foreign scholars continued in force.

No survey of Egyptian archeology would be complete without mentioning Sir Flinders Petrie, who began to work in the 1880's as a young man, and who became the father of scientific excavation by initiating careful methods of digging, recording, and preserving every find made. This indefatigable worker carried out excavations in Egypt and neighboring Palestine for almost 60 years, and published, alone or as a joint author, more than 80 books on archeological subjects.

Space does not permit listing the many expeditions that have worked in Egypt since the 1880's. The pyramids, more than 100 in number, have been carefully explored and surveyed, and their adjoining temples excavated. Thousands of royal and private tombs have been cleared, and the wealth of their contents has been published and brought into the art collections of the principal museums of Europe and America. The greatest and most sensational discovery in this respect was the finding of the unrobbed tomb of King Tutankhamen by Carter, in 1922. In his search for the spot, Carter had moved 70,000 tons of sand and rubble over a period of several years. This tomb with its thousands of objects--jewelry, furniture, tools, weapons, vessels, and clothing--and the many sarcophagi enclosing the innermost one of the pure gold, in which the king lay, did more to popularize Egyptology and to draw tourists to that mysterious land of hoary antiquity than all the combined efforts of the previous 100 years.

III. Egyptian Archeology and the Bible

The discoveries of the archeologist in Egypt have been as profitable to the student of the Bible as to the linguist, the historian, the lover of art, or the student of ancient religions. No other country has preserved more wall paintings, reliefs carved in stone or wood, more ancient objects of daily use like furniture, household utensils, musical instruments, tools of artisans and farmers, weapons of hunters and warriors, or more documents written on perishable material. Any Bible dictionary will reveal at a glance that no other land has furnished more illustrative material helpful in understanding the cultures and civilizations of Bible times. Through the color pictures and reliefs of ancient Egypt we know the dress and appearance of the Amorites, Canaanites, Philistines, and Hittites, and their special tools, weapons, and manner of warfare. The objects found in Egypt give us an idea of how the ancients furnished their homes, what kind of musical instruments were in use, and how they were played. In brief, a tremendous amount of light has been thrown on the many details of everyday living in Bible times through the marvelous discoveries made in Egypt during the last century and a half.

The following few examples of important discoveries made in Egypt have greatly helped us to understand better the stories of the Old Testament. From the 20th century b.c. dates the story of Sinuhe, an Egyptian court official who for reasons unknown to us fled of his life to the East, like Moses a few centuries later. After an adventurous journey he found a haven of refuge in Syria and lived there among the Canaanites for many years, as a refugee, until he was pardoned and allowed to return to Egypt. His description of the Canaan of his time, approximately a century before Abraham's migration to that country, is most interesting, and valuable for understanding the conditions the patriarchs met.

There was found in the tomb of an Egyptian nobleman from the time of Abraham a colored wall picture that depicts the arrival of 37 people--men, women, and children--from Palestine. This painting, so well preserved in spite of being almost 4,000 years old that it looks as if it had been painted a few years ago, gives us a good idea of Abraham's visit to Egypt described in Gen. 12.

Of an entirely different nature are several series of magical texts--written curses by which Egyptian kings sought to destroy their domestic and foreign enemies. Egypt was pre-eminently a land of magic in the ancient world, as we know from Moses' experience when he stood before Pharaoh and saw the divine miracles performed by him and Aaron imitated by the magicians of Egypt. Two series of such magical "execration texts" come from the patriarchal period. Their importance lies in the names of about 100 rulers of Canaanite cities. More than half of them can be identified as being Amorite, a fact that agrees well with the statements of the early books of the Bible that Palestine was in the hands of the Amorites in the time of the patriarchs (see Gen. 14:13; 15:16). Jerusalem is mentioned in those texts, and two kings of Jerusalem bearing good Amorite names are cursed among the enemies of Egypt. Some of the Biblical cities mentioned in these texts are Ashkelon, Accho, Aphekah, Lachish, Hazor, Shechem, and many others.

From the Egyptian Empire period, the time probably preceding and following the Exodus, we possess the descriptions of many military campaigns carried out in Palestine, like the famous account of the battle at Megiddo that took place perhaps 30 years before the Exodus. Besides annals, the Egyptian kings have left us lists containing hundreds of names of cities of Palestine and Syria conquered in their campaigns. For a better understanding of the geographical chapters of the book of Joshua these Egyptian contemporary lists are of great value. The last of these lists of conquered Palestinian cities is that carved on the temple walls at Karnak by King Shishak, who spoiled Jerusalem in the fifth year of Solomon's son Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25, 26).

From the 14th century b.c. we possess a complete royal archive--a collection of official documents consisting of hundreds of letters received by the Egyptian kings Amenhotep III and IV from their Palestinian and Syrian vassals. These so-called Amarna Letters, found accidentally in 1887 by a peasant woman, proved to be one of the most sensational discoveries ever made in Egypt. They showed to the amazed world of scholarship that the diplomatic language of that time was Babylonian, and that the Babylonian cuneiform script (to be described later) was also used in correspondence between the Egyptian court and its vassal kings in Palestine and Syria. These letters prove the political weakness of Egypt in the 14th century b.c., during the time when, it is believed, the Israelites under Joshua and the elders took possession of the land of Canaan. Some of these letters come from the king of Jerusalem, Abdu-khepa--a Hittite--who pleads for weapons and soldiers from Egypt to defend his city from the invading Habiru, who have already taken over great parts of the country, and threaten to overrun the whole land. If the Habiru of these letters are the Hebrews, as most likely they are and as many scholars believe, we have in these Amarna Letters the story of the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews as the Canaanites saw it. These documents are most important in helping us to understand better the conditions that existed in Palestine during the time of the conquest as described by Joshua.

Monuments in the form of high stone pillars were frequently erected by the Egyptian kings to commemorate their victories and political success. One of these so-called steles set up by Pharaoh Merneptah, probably in the period of the judges, mentions Israel as an (unsettled) people he had defeated during one of his Palestinian campaigns. Although this encounter of the Egyptian king with the Israelites is not mentioned in the Bible, this inscription is of importance for giving us the first extra-Biblical mention of Israel, and as witness for the existence of the Israelites in Palestine in the 13th century, which for many critical scholars is hard to harmonize with their favored idea of placing the Exodus in the time of that same king. Those who cling to such a late date for the Exodus have even been forced to create the fanciful theory that not all the Israelites had gone down to Egypt under Jacob, and that Merneptah encountered those in Palestine who had remained behind. If the Biblical date is accepted that places the Exodus 480 years before Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), no such difficulties of interpretation are encountered, since Israel, in that case, had been in Canaan some 170 years by the time Merneptah came to the throne.

In this connection the discoveries of the earliest alphabetic inscriptions on the Sinai peninsula must be mentioned. They were found in 1904-5 by Sir Flinders Petrie in his explorations of the ancient Egyptian copper and turquoise mines in two valleys of western Sinai. Subsequent expeditions added to the number of inscriptions, and the combined studies of numerous scholars during the last 35 years have succeeded in deciphering and interpreting them.

The many hieroglyphic inscriptions left by the Egyptians in and near those mines reveal their history of exploitation in all details, and also the fact that Semites from Canaan were usually employed to work in the mines for the Egyptians. One of these Canaanites, while observing the Egyptians in their use of the cumbersome hieroglyphs for writing down records, made one of the greatest inventions of all time in the field of writing. In fact, he invented a system of writing that to the present day has scarcely been improved or simplified, the alphabet of about 25 characters.

The Egyptians and other peoples who possessed systems of writing needed hundreds, and even thousands, of different characters in order to express their ideas in writing. Symbols were used, each of which represented either a syllable (for example, en, ne, in, ni, nen, nan), or a complete idea such as the picture of an eye. Then this unknown Semite on Sinai came upon the idea of isolating singly the consonantal sounds by using one single character for each consonant and not connecting it with a vowel sound. This was a great improvement over all previous systems of writing, because only a small number of characters is needed to put in writing everything the human tongue can express.

It must be attributed to the providence of God that this invention was made in the neighborhood of the region where the first books of the Bible were written by Moses, and just before Moses' time. If the Bible had been written in the complicated systems of either the Egyptian hieroglyphs or the Babylonian cuneiform, which could be mastered only after many years of study, very few people would have had an opportunity to read the Bible for themselves. On the other hand, an alphabetic system of writing with only about 25 characters was so easy to learn that everyone could master it in a short time, and thus could read the Bible for himself. Through this marvelous invention it would not take long for most of the people of Israel to learn to read and write. To this conclusion we must come not only through the archeological evidence that the soil of Palestine has furnished us but also from some statements made in the Bible. The ability to read and write was evidently common in Transjordan in Gideon's time, as can be learned from the story narrated in Judges 8:14 (RSV). For Gideon captured a boy from Succoth who "wrote down for him the officials and elders of Succoth, seventy-seven men."

Scholars are not yet certain when this alphabetic system of writing was devised in the Sinai mining district--in the 16th or 19th century b.c.--although they agree that it was accomplished before Moses' day. The importance of this discovery to the spread of the knowledge of God's Word can be compared only with the invention of printing by movable type prior to the Reformation, in the 15th century of the Christian Era. As this latter invention made it possible to distribute the Bible in an inexpensive form among all nations of the globe, the former made possible the writing of it in a form easily understandable to a man of meager education.

The discovery of the earliest alphabetic inscriptions at Sinai, which contain nothing more important than names and some dedicatory formulas, has done much to banish doubt that Moses could have written the books ascribed to him. Before that time critics claimed that the Hebrew Bible could not have been written in Moses' time, that no writing system for that language existed then.

Besides annals of wars with the Philistines and with Syrian and Canaanite peoples in the time of the judges, the Egyptians have left us ancient records of travel to and through Palestine. One narrates the journey of Wen-Amun, an Egyptian official, sent to the Phoenician port city of Byblos to buy cedarwood for a sacred Nile boat. The weakness of Egypt during that period is vividly illustrated by the hectic experiences the man had in Palestine and Syria, and the disrespectful way in which he was treated by the different rulers with whom he had to deal. The story of Wen-Amun's journey to Byblos and the letter describing the ambassador's trip through Palestine give us excellent illustrations of the Biblical statement that characterizes the period of the judges in the following words: "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

A satirical letter of the same period describes the trip of an Egyptian ambassador through Palestine on his way to a northern country. The letter tells us how the Egyptian official's horse was stolen one night, and about the numerous difficulties he encountered on account of the insecurity that reigned in the land.

A great amount of ancient "wisdom literature" has been preserved by the sands of Egypt. This particular kind of literature flourished in that country more than in any other, and the fame of it is reflected in the Bible when it is said that Solomon's wisdom surpassed even "all the wisdom of Egypt" (1 Kings 4:30). Many modern scholars compare the "wisdom literature" of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes) with that of the Egyptians, and believe that the Old Testament writers borrowed from their Egyptian neighbors. However, there is no actual evidence that this was ever done. In the case of the "Instructions of Amenemope," which contain very close parallels to many passages in the Biblical book of Proverbs, it is even possible that Amenemope could have borrowed from Solomon's literary productions, because the language, vocabulary, word form, and style of writing used in the document containing Amenemope's instructions prove it to be the product of a later age than that of Solomon. Only those who believe with the higher critics that the book of Proverbs was not written by Solomon, but produced by some anonymous writer in much later times, can maintain that Proverbs has borrowed its material from the Egyptian Amenemope.

In 1904 a collection of well-preserved Aramaic papyri was found by natives on the Upper Egyptian Nile island of Elephantine. More of such documents came to light in an excavation during the years of 1906 and 1907 on the same island, and in 1947 others, found in the personal effects of C. E. Wilbour, a collector of Egyptian antiquities, were placed in the Brooklyn Museum. All these papyri, more than 100 in number, originated from a colony of Jewish soldiers who defended the south Egyptian border in the 5th century b.c., about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.

These and similar documents found in other parts of Egypt from the same time inform us about the secular and religious conditions of the Jewish colonies in Egypt, and also about their history. These Aramaic documents, written in a language practically the same as that of the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel, are also very important, for they demonstrate that similar ones in the books of Ezra and Esther are not forgeries (see The Languages, Manuscripts, and Canon of the Old Testament). Furthermore, they are our only extra-Biblical sources for the kind of calendar the Jews employed at that time, and the system according to which they counted the years of the reigns of the Persian kings. A study of this material helps to prove that the events described in Ezra 7 took place in the year 457 B.C., and not in 458, a date accepted by most modern historians and theologians. (For the Jewish calendar, see Jewish Calendar in Egypt; for the date of Ezra, see Dates of Ezra and Nehemiah Established); see also Fall-to-Fall Jewish Reckoning Demonstrated.

We see thus that the soil of Egypt has preserved material that sheds light on different Biblical periods, on the times of the patriarchs, the Exodus, the judges, the kings, and on the age after the Babylonian Exile. Merely a few examples have been given here, each corroborating only some little incident or a single text. But the accumulated evidence from Egypt, taken as a whole, vindicates the records of the Old Testament and attests the accuracy of its history.

In reviewing some of the abundant material archeology has provided the Old Testament scholar, one should not forget that Egypt's soil has preserved equally important material for the student of the New Testament. Innumerable Greek papyri that have helped us to understand better the language of the New Testament books have come to light. Since these discoveries do not fall within the scope of this article, they are not discussed further here.

IV. The Resurrection of Ancient Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia, meaning "the land between the rivers," possessed the oldest civilization in the world. The names of its two rivers, the Euphrates and the Tigris, are mentioned in connection with the description of Paradise (Gen. 2:14), and its plain of Shinar saw the building of the first city and tower (Gen. 11:4), the ancestor of so many Mesopotamian temple towers of later times. Archeology confirms the antiquity of the Mesopotamian culture.

In contrast with Egypt, the wide sweeping land of Mesopotamia has almost no monumental remains above ground. No temples or pyramids, no slender obelisks, no rock-cut tombs containing colorful mural paintings, entice the modern tourist to visit this land of ancient learning and culture. All the ancient cities are completely destroyed, and their palaces and temples have been covered by the debris and sand of many ages. Mighty capitals like Babylon and Nineveh, which were once the greatest cities of antiquity, were so thoroughly destroyed, and practically obliterated, that their very locations were forgotten. Indeed, 200 years ago serious people could raise the question whether these cities, of which the Bible spoke so much and which were mentioned and also described by classical authors, ever existed.

Nineveh may serve to show how these cities had been completely forgotten, even in ancient times. When Xenophon with his 10,000 Greeks passed the ruins of that city in 401 B.C., only about two centuries after its destruction, not a man of the region was able to give him the real name of the ancient city. Instead, he was told that the city had once been called "Mespila" and had been a city of the Medes. Lucian, an Athenian writer of the 2d century of the Christian Era, exclaimed, "Nineveh is so thoroughly destroyed, that no one can say where it stood; no trace has been left of it."

In the early 19th century it was natural for scholars to ask how it was possible that great cities could have disappeared entirely. Cities may be destroyed, they said, but not without leaving their traces. Rome, Athens, Thebes, Jerusalem, and other cities have been destroyed, but their sites were never lost and they were later rebuilt. But where is Nineveh, and where is great Babylon of old? The scholars who raised these and similar questions did not realize that the thorough destruction of these cities had come about as a fulfillment of prophecies made concerning them many centuries ago, prophecies that had predicted their ultimate doom and obliteration when they were still at the height of their glory and power (see, for example, Nahum 3 on Nineveh's doom, and Isa. 13:19-22 on Babylon's destruction).

Such is the condition of the country that has preserved under its debris and sand hundreds of thousands of written documents, untold numbers of sculptures, and the remains of numerous cities with their palaces, temples, schools, archives, and the dwellings of ordinary people. These remains have enabled the historian to reconstruct the long-lost history of famous nations of antiquity, allowed the linguist to resurrect languages and scripts that had been dead for almost 2,000 years, and furnished the Biblical scholar with evidence by which he can defend the truth of the historical narratives of his Bible and prove to a critical world that the old Book is true and reliable.

A word should be said here concerning the cuneiform tablets, on which the Mesopotamian texts are written. It is fortunate that, instead of perishable materials, clay tablets became the commonly used writing material in that land. They have not perished in the damp soil of Mesopotamia, because clay tablets, especially when burned, are practically indestructible. Writing was done by impressing the characters into the soft clay by means of a reed stylus. Since each impression had the form of a wedge, this kind of writing has been given the name cuneiform, or wedge-shaped, writing. The same cuneiform characters were cut in stone in the monumental inscriptions.

The decipherment of the ancient script of the Mesopotamian nations, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Sumerians, and others, is almost a miracle in itself. There was no Rosetta stone with a parallel text in a known script and language as a key, and the basic work of decipherment was done almost singlehandedly by one man. The earliest copies of cuneiform inscriptions had come to Europe in the 18th century from the ruins of Persepolis, one of the old Persian capitals. The first successful work in deciphering these inscriptions was done by the German classical scholar Grotefend, who made some brilliant guesses, and thus was able to read a few words and phrases of inscriptions in Old Persian. However, he did not success in going beyond these rudimentary successes. No real progress was made until some 40 years later, when Rawlinson, a young British officer of the East India Company, began to copy the great rock inscriptions at Behistun, in 1844.

Behistun lies on a mountain pass between Mesopotamia and Persia. There, King Darius I (the Great) had reliefs and long inscriptions carved in the rock, high above the road. Travelers had seen the pictures and texts for many centuries without knowing what they meant. One tradition had the reliefs depict the Biblical Samson and his foes, another interpreted it to be a teacher with his pupils. To Henry Rawlinson, a talented and ambitious young man, the long and almost inaccessible texts presented a challenge. Working from a long ladder placed on a narrow rock ledge projecting from the perpendicular wall, he coolheadedly risked life and limb as he patiently copied these inscriptions. Then he engaged himself in the tedious work of deciphering the writing.

He recognized that the inscriptions consisted of one text in three different scripts and languages, Persian, Susian, and Babylonian, since he saw that the respective cuneiform signs of these scripts were the same as those found in the ruins of Persia, Susa, and Babylonia. Being endowed with a natural gift of readily grasping linguistic problems, and of making right combinations and guesses, he was able in a very short time to decipher the Persian script, the easiest of the three, since it is semialphabetic and has less than fifty characters. The decipherment of the other two scripts, each consisting of many hundreds of characters, was much more difficult, but Rawlinson was aided in his work by a great number of personal and geographical names, which were repeated in their respective languages in each of the three texts.

When Rawlinson published his results, he found help from some other scholars, like Edward Hincks, an Irish clergyman; Fox Talbot, one of the eminent inventors of photography; and Prof. J. Oppert, of Paris, who, accepting his decipherment as basically correct, refined and completed it in many details.

That the mysterious cuneiform script that had baffled generations was really deciphered seemed so incredible to the scholarly world in general that most men of name and fame--among them the great French Semitist, Ernest Renan--thought that Rawlinson and his collaborators had become victims of self-deception. Talbot, therefore, made the suggestion that the Royal Asiatic Society should send copies of a newly found and unknown cuneiform inscription to different cuneiform scholars for independent translations. This experiment was carried out in 1857. When the sealed envelopes of Rawlinson, Talbot, Hincks, and Oppert, containing each a translation of the text which had been sent to them, were broken open before a gathering of the most illustrious scholars of England it was found that the four translations agreed in all essentials, varying only in details as different translations of the same text always do. This experiment proved to all doubters that the decipherment of cuneiform script was a fact.

Much work has been done since that time. The work of Schrader, Delitzsch, and Landsberger and their schools has been especially fruitful. Differences in dialect have been discovered, new forms of scripts have been deciphered, and cuneiform grammars and dictionaries have been written. A multivolume Assyrian dictionary has been in process of production at the University of Chicago, with more than a dozen scholars working constantly for decades on this gigantic project.

Thus have been resurrected the languages and scripts of the ancient Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hurrians, Elamites, Persians, and other smaller nations of Mesopotamia and its neighboring areas. A century of research and painstaking work has given us all the necessary tools for reading and understanding the legal, religious, historical, and literary works of those ancient nations, for reconstructing their history and religion, and has furnished valuable background material for Biblical studies and for defending many Old Testament narratives against the attacks of critics.

However, we must leave the linguist and review the work of the archeologist, who since the mid-19th century has provided us with the mass of material which the cuneiform scholar reads, translates, and interprets.

Travelers had occasionally picked up inscribed stones, bricks, or other antiquities from the ruin mounds of Mesopotamia, but the honor of excavating, as the first modern archeologist, one of Mesopotamia's ancient sites belongs to the French archeologist Paul Émile Botta. He began his excavations at Kouyunjik without knowing that this was the site of ancient Nineveh. This site, which lies near modern Mosul, across the Tigris, did not furnish the expected rewards, and Botta shifted his activities to Khorsabad, where he uncovered the palace of the Assyrian king Sargon.

Three years later Botta was joined in the field by Austen Henry Layard, who excavated Nimrud, the Biblical Calah. Layard, who, like Botta, found numerous stone reliefs, tremendous human-headed bulls, lions, and other sculptures, ivories, and other objects of value, knew how to popularize archeology. His versatile pen produced books like Nineveh and Its Remains, which became best sellers in their day, running through several editions and being translated into various modern languages. When Layard's artifacts reached London, where they became the nucleus of that famous collection of Assyrian antiquities which makes the British Museum one of the best of its kind, much enthusiasm was aroused for the archeology of Mesopotamia. Several more successful expeditions were sent out, and Layard and his successor, Hormuzd Rassam, excavated in a number of places, making one important discovery after another. The most sensational find consisted of the two great libraries of Nineveh, with more than 10,000 numbered clay tablets that had formed the libraries of King Ashurbanipal and the temple of Nabu.

One of the tablets found at that time caused a tremendous sensation 20 years later, in 1872, when the young Assyriologist George Smith saw that one of them contained the old Babylonian story of the Flood. Interest in Biblical archeology thus received one of its greatest boosts during the 19th century. The passage that caught his eye first and enabled him to identify the story is given in here in his own translation, which is now somewhat out of date:

"On the seventh day in the course of it

I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went and searched and

a resting place it did not find, and it returned.

I sent forth a swallow, and it left. The swallow went and searched and

a resting place it did not find, and it returned.

I sent forth a raven, and it left.

The raven went, and the corpses on the waters it saw, and

it did eat, it swam, and wandered away, and did not return."

The news of this discovery ran like wildfire through the Christian world, and caused great enthusiasm and excitement. The Daily Telegraph, one of the great London newspapers, immediately offered to send Smith out on a new expedition to find the remaining part of the Flood tablet. Smith was fortunate enough to discover exactly what he was searching for, a "luck" that only few archeologists have been favored to share with him. After the first expedition a second and then a third one followed, but unfortunately for the young science of Assyriology, George Smith died on his third trip to Mesopotamia.

After an interruption in the excavation activities, in 1889 Americans entered the field. The University of Pennsylvania began to excavate the city of Nippur. This city was at one time a great cultural and economic center of the early Sumerians and Babylonians. Excavators had the good fortune to discover there a great number of tablets containing texts of the ancient Sumerians, who preceded the Semites in Mesopotamia and were the real inventors of the earliest known form of writing. Also, an extensive collection of tablets was found, which came from a great business house of the time of the Persian kings Artaxerxes I and Darius II. Since many Jews had business relations with this firm, its "files" of business documents shed valuable light on postexilic Jewry in Babylonia.

Then came the Germans, who excavated, from 1899-1917, the great metropolis of ancient Babylon, the famous capital of Nebuchadnezzar and from 1903-13 the old Assyrian city of Assur. In these two sites a scientific method of excavation was developed which became the model of all later field work, and was followed after the first world war by all archeological expeditions.

However, the greatest increase in knowledge about the civilization and history of the ancient Mesopotamian nations has been gained through archeological work carried out between the two world wars. Space permits only brief discussion of the most important excavations at Ur, Erech, Nuzi, and Mari, although much valuable work was done at other sites--at Telloh by the French, at Kish by the British, at Khorsabad and two sites in the Diyala region by the Americans, besides smaller excavations at other places.

Ur of the Chaldees, the city where Abraham grew up as a youth (Gen. 11:31), became the center of activities of a joint British-American expedition, which worked there under the direction of Sir Leonard Woolley from 1922 to 1934. The great ziggurat, or temple tower, of Ur was cleared and thoroughly investigated. This edifice is still the best-preserved monumental building of Mesopotamia standing above ground. Temples, palaces, and living quarters of the population of Ur were uncovered. It was found that the Ur of Abraham's time possessed a surprisingly high degree of civilization, and that its schools must have turned out first-class scholars.

The most sensational discovery made in Ur consisted in the finding of fabulously rich royal tombs of the early dynastic period. The objects found in gold, silver, and semiprecious stones almost equaled those that had come from the tomb of the Egyptian king Tutankhamen. Kings and queens had been buried with all their attendants, bodyguards, singers, their chariots and animals, their furniture and jewelry. Also, there came to light some of the most beautiful musical instruments, metalwork of superb craftsmanship, and inlaid work of high quality. These finds contradict eloquently those people who think that early man was primitive, and that it took him a long time to develop artistic and aesthetic capabilities.

It should be mentioned, however, that Woolley's so-called Flood level, which he took to be proof of the Deluge, cannot be accepted as evidence for the Flood described in Genesis. This flood level was nothing more than the remains of a destructive local flood caused by the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in very ancient times. The local character of this flood is clearly proved by the fact that Woolley could not find this flood level in the neighboring site of el-Obeid, which lies on higher ground than Ur and was not affected by the catastrophe which destroyed Ur. Those who use the Ur excavations as proof for the Biblical Flood do not believe in the universal character of that event, but interpret it as a local affair affecting Mesopotamia only. Hence, we should refrain from using Woolley's discoveries as proof of the Deluge.

Another site excavated between the two world wars which has contributed much to a better understanding of the earliest history of Mesopotamia is the city of Uruk, the Biblical Erech (Gen. 10:10). Numerous tablets from this place had been dug up illegally by natives before excavations started, and had found their way to various museums in Europe and America. They had given the scholarly world a foretaste of the material that could be expected to come to light through a scientific exploration of this large site.

The Germans excavated the city from 1928 to 1939. They were especially successful in clarifying many architectural problems of the early Mesopotamian period, and had the good fortune to find a great number of cuneiform texts on clay tablets coming from the earliest literate period. These texts show clearly the stages in the development of the invention of the script. From a pure pictorial writing it went through semipictorial or semi-ideographic script to a syllabic form of writing in which many characters represented, not an object or an idea, but a sound.

Although this system of writing was less advanced than the alphabetic script, it was a great improvement over the simple pictorial method of writing. It has even one advantage over the early alphabetic systems of writing that had no characters to express vowels, since the syllabic script expressed both consonants and vowels. A word written, for example, by three cuneiform signs that can be translated as har-ra-nu, meaning "road," allows us to approximate the ancient pronunciation harranu. But for a word like d-r-k, "road"; written in old Hebrew script without vowels, only the later traditional pronunciation of the Jewish scholars of the early Middle Ages gives us that word as derek. And we are by no means sure of its pronunciation in Old Testament times.

Of great importance to the student of the Bible and the ancient Orient is the excavation by the Americans (1925-31) of Nuzi, near the present oil city of Kirkuk. Here many texts came to light which, though written in a barbaric Babylonian, shed a great deal of light on the conditions that existed during the patriarchal age, in the first half of the second millennium b.c. With the exception of the famous law code of Hammurabi, found in the ruins of Biblical Shushan in 1901-2, Nuzi has given us more material that sheds light on the patriarchal age than any other city. A few of these illuminating Nuzi texts will be mentioned in the next section. Nuzi has also helped the historian resurrect the ancient Hurrians, whom we know in the Bible as the Horites. Their language, history, and culture have thus once more come to light.

As the last of the many important sites uncovered recently in Mesopotamia, the city of Mari must be mentioned. The site of this city, once a famous metropolis of the Amorites, was completely unknown. Archeologists had long searched in vain for the remains of this city, so frequently mentioned in ancient texts. W. F. Albright finally suggested Tell el-Hariri on the Middle Euphrates as its possible site, and was proved correct by a French expedition under M. Parrot which began excavating the place. A great palace of the time of Hammurabi (18th century b.c.) was uncovered, and an archive of many thousands of tablets was discovered. These documents came from a time when the city of Mari was in the hands of the Amorites, who used the Babylonian script and language for their correspondence and documents. The Mari texts, published intermittently in a number of volumes, have revolutionized our knowledge of the history of the Near East during the patriarchal age, and have required a later dating than was formerly supposed for Mesopotamian history preceding 1500 B.C.

An idea of the great number of documents excavated in Mesopotamia may be gathered from the fact that Layard and Rassam brought to the British Museum some 25,000 clay tablets from Nineveh, that De Sarzec's workers found 40,000 tablets in Telloh in 1894, and that some 10,000 were discovered by the University of Pennsylvania expedition at Nippur. Many thousands of tablets also came to light in other excavations, carried out either by scientific organizations or haphazardly by natives. The known documents, which are spread over various museums of the Near East, Europe, and America, already number hundreds of thousands, and it is estimated that so far only about 10 per cent of the documents preserved in the soil of Mesopotamia have been discovered. The great majority of these tablets consist of uninteresting business documents, bills, invoices, notes, deeds, receipts, etc. But many of them contain extremely important historical, religious, or literary facts that provide us a vast amount of information with which to reconstruct the ancient history of the nations that used this script. The following section gives a survey of this wealth of material, in so far as it is of importance to the student of the Bible.

V. Mesopotamian Archeology and the Bible

One of the first fruits of the deciphering of cuneiform inscriptions by Rawlinson and his colaborers vindicated the Bible at a time when the higher critical schools of Europe apparently stood unchallenged. This was the discovery of the name of King Sargon of Assyria, a king then known only from the Bible (Isa. 20:1). Since none of the classical authors ever mentioned him, his very existence was referred to the realm of legend by some of the higher critics, though others thought that Sargon was only another name of Shalmaneser. Today Sargon, who claimed to have conquered Samaria and led its population into captivity, is a well-known figure of Assyrian history.

The discovery of the Babylonian story of the Flood by George Smith in 1872 and its impact on the religious world of that time has already been mentioned. However, the story itself should be described here in some detail because the Babylonian tradition of the Deluge resembles the Biblical record more closely than any other Flood story ever discovered.

The Babylonian Flood story is part of a great epic, in which the hero Gilgamesh is described as going in search of eternal life. During his quest for the "herb of life" he visited the nether world. There he met Utnapishtim, the Babylonian hero of the Flood, who told him the story of the Deluge and of his deliverance from it, and how he had been given a place among the gods.

Utnapishtim had been king of Shuruppak on the Euphrates when the gods decided to destroy all people as a punishment for their sins. Utnapishtim was advised to break down his house and build a ship, whose measurements were given to him, and to take all kinds of living creatures with him into it. He was, however, commanded to deceive his fellow men by telling them that the god Marduk had cursed him, and that he could live no longer in Marduk's territory, but must sail away from it. This point in the Babylonian story presents one of the greatest differences in comparison with the Biblical record. Instead of preaching to his fellow men during a period of many years, like Noah, the hero of the Babylonian tradition was used by the gods to deceive the antediluvians and thus make them easy victims of the coming destruction.

After Utnapishtim had built the ship and loaded it with provisions, animals, and his family, he handed its navigation over to the skipper Puzur-Amurri. Immediately the Flood began. The storm and flood were so tremendous that the gods themselves were alarmed by the catastrophe that they had brought on the world. "The gods were frightened by the deluge, and shrinking back, they ascended to the heaven of Anu. The gods cowered like dogs, crouched against the outer wall."

The great storm lasted for six days and six nights, and blotted out all living beings, who "returned to clay." When Utnapishtim saw the immense destruction he knelt down and wept. After another day an island came into view, and the ship touched the peak of Mt. Nisir. Utnapishtim waited a week, and sent a dove out on the seventh day. The dove returned to him, since there was no resting place for it. Then he sent a swallow out with the same results. The third bird, a raven, did not return; then Utnapishtim, recognizing that the earth had dried up, left the ark and offered a sacrifice. The gods smelled the savor of the sacrifice with delight. Later they rewarded him with immortality and placed him among the gods.

The story shows remarkable similarities with the Bible records (as found in Genesis and some New Testament passages) in general points and even in details. The following similarities can be listed: (1) The hero of the Flood, Noah in the Bible, and Utnapishtim in the Babylonian story, received a divine communication concerning the threatened Flood. (2) The Deluge was a divine judgment because of sins committed. (3) The favored hero had to build a ship and forsake his possessions in order to save his life. (4) He received an order to bring animals and his family into the ship. (5) Measurements of the ship were given as well as instructions for building it. (6) The hero obeyed and received a message for his fellow citizens, although the content of the messages is very different. (7) A command was given to enter the ship and mention is made of one door. (8) A terrifying storm and rain caused the Deluge. (9) All human beings not in the ship were destroyed. (10) The ship touched a mountain after the waters had receded. (11) Birds were sent out to get evidence concerning the drying up of the earth. (12) After the disembarkation a sacrifice was offered. (13) The sacrifice was accepted favorably by the deity.

Differences between the Bible and the Babylonian narrative are also in evidence. The following chief differences are noticeable: (1) The Bible record speaks of one God of righteousness, whereas the Babylonian story mentions many gods quarreling among themselves. (2) In the Bible Noah is called "a preacher of righteousness" hence it can be assumed that he warned the people of the approaching deluge and thus gave them an opportunity to be saved; in the Babylonian account the gods had the people "deceived" in order to destroy them. (3) The covenant between God and Noah, which forms an important part of the Biblical story, is missing in the Babylonian tradition, and (4) many minor differences exist in details. For instance, the measurements of the ark are different, as well as the sequence of the birds sent out, the name of the landing place, the time elements given, and other features of the two stories.

The similarities between the two stories are nevertheless close enough to warrant the conclusion that there exists some relationship between them. Three main theories have been advanced to account for this obvious relationship: (1) Many modern scholars have claimed that the Jews took over the Babylonian story during the Exile, and adapted it to their own way of thinking, a theory wholly unacceptable to those who believe that Moses wrote the book of Genesis under divine inspiration about a thousand years before the Exile. (2) A few conservative scholars have suggested as a second alternative that the Babylonians might have taken over the story from the Hebrews. However, since the most ancient extant copies of the Gilgamesh epic antedate the Mosaic period by several centuries, this theory cannot be correct. (3) The third view, undoubtedly the correct solution of the problem, holds that both stories went back ultimately to the same source. The story of a universal Flood with the deliverance of one family lived on for many generations. When the Babylonians put it into writing the story had suffered corruption through its oral transmission and the polytheistic influence of Babylonian paganism. The Biblical story, on the other hand, was written down under inspiration, and shows therefore the pure and elevated spirit of a monotheistic author.

These facts account for most of the similarities and differences observed in the two stories. Inasmuch as the earliest history after the Flood was enacted near or in Mesopotamia, its inhabitants had a better knowledge of the Flood and preserved it in a comparatively purer form than the nations living in faraway countries. Another element was the fact that it was put into writing earlier in Mesopotamia than anywhere else. However, it is not superior but much inferior to the Bible story, as is evident to any one who reads both stories and compares them. The moral force of the Biblical story is almost completely missing in the Babylonian tradition. The Bible gives us history; the Babylonians changed a historical event into a legend.

In the winter of 1901-2 a French expedition working in the ruins of Biblical Shushan, where the Jewish girl Esther became queen of the Persian Empire (Esther 2:5-8 etc.), discovered an eighth-foot pillar of black diorite broken in three pieces. The whole monument was covered with 39 columns of inscriptions containing a total of 3,624 lines of laws. They had been collected and publicly displayed on this stone pillar by Hammurabi, a great Amorite king of the Babylonian Empire during the 18th century b.c., the time of the patriarchs. The discovery of this ancient collection of civil laws caused a great sensation in the theological world. The judicial system found in the Pentateuch had been assailed, since it was thought that in the time of Moses such a highly developed system could not have existed. But the law code of Hammurabi revealed that Mesopotamia possessed similar codes even before the time of Moses, laws which ultimately go back to the divine Lawgiver, although they had degenerated in the hand of pagan idolaters, as a careful comparison between the Biblical and Mesopotamian systems shows.

The law code of Hammurabi revealed furthermore that the way of life reflected in the patriarchal stories of the Bible agrees in many details with the conditions existing in the ancient Near East during the period of the patriarchs. It seems strange to us today that Sarah gave her slave girl to Abraham in order to obtain through a servant the offspring that God seemed to deny her by natural means (Gen. 16:1-3). But what she did was in complete agreement with common practices existing in her native country, where such a procedure was entirely legal, and the rights and duties of a maidservant elevated to the rank of concubine, and of the children borne by her were regulated by law (see Code of Hammurabi, secs. 144, 145, 170, 171). That Sarah acted within her legal rights when she punished Hagar for becoming overbearing when she saw that she would bear a child to her master (Gen. 16:4-6) is also proved by the provisions of section 146 of that famous law code of Hammurabi. Many more examples could be quoted to show how this exceptionally important discovery has shed light on the patriarchal period and has shown that the Biblical stories are trustworthy. This law code was the first great witness resurrected from the soil of Mesopotamia that revealed that the patriarchs had not been legendary figures but men of flesh and blood, and that the milieu in which they had lived--the had lived--the setting as given in the Biblical description--agreed completely with the now known facts.

When the Assyriologist Alfred Jeremias, a higher critic himself, studied the legal provisions of the Code of Hammurabi and compared them with the customs reflected in the patriarchal stories of the Bible, he came to the following remarkable conclusion:

"We have shown how the milieu [the setting] of the stories of the Patriarchs agrees in every detail with the circumstances of Ancient-Oriental civilisation of the period in question, as borne witness to by the monuments. ... Well-hausen worked out from the opinion that the stories of the Patriarchs are historically impossible. It is now proved that they are possible. If Abraham lived at all, it could only have been in surroundings and under conditions such as the Bible describes. Historical research must be content with this. And Wellhausen may be reminded of his own words (Komposition des Hexateuch 346): `If it (the Israelite tradition) were only possible, it would be folly to prefer any other possibility'" (The Old Testament in the Light of the Ancient East [New York, 1911], vol. 2, p. 45).

Much more evidence in the same sphere came to light during the above-mentioned excavations of Nuzi. One document declares that a man sold his future inheritance for three sheep to help him over a time of need. Who is not immediately reminded of Esau's selling his birthright for a dish of red pottage (Gen. 25:33)? Other Nuzi texts present close parallels to Jacob's experiences in Haran, and his relationship with Laban, his father-in-law; they also show that every daughter, like Leah and Rachel, received a handmaid as part of her dowry from her father when she was given in marriage (ch. 29:24, 29). The Nuzi texts have in this way furnished much material that helps us to understand the somewhat strange customs of that time, and to see clearly that the patriarchal stories are based on facts, and not on foggy tradition or legends.

W. F. Albright, in referring to this and other related archeological and textual material that has shed so much light on the patriarchal period, made the following significant statement:

"Eminent names among scholars can be cited for regarding every item of Gen. 11-50 as reflecting late invention, or at least retrojection of events and conditions under the Monarchy into the remote past, about which nothing was thought to have been really known to the writers of later days.

"The archaeological discoveries of the past geeration have changed all this. Aside from a few die-hards among older scholars, there is scarcely a single Biblical historian who has not been impressed by the rapid accumulation of data supporting the substantial historicity of patriarchal tradition" ("The Biblical Period" in The Jews; Their History, Culture, and Religion, ed., by Louis Finkelstein [New York, 1949], p. 3).

Another period that has richly gained in clarity by the discoveries made in Mesopotamia is the time of the kings of Judah and Israel. The first king of Israel mentioned in an Assyrian inscription is Ahab, a contemporary of the prophet Elijah. He is described by Shalmaneser III as having fought against the Assyrian king in the battle at Qarqar with 2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers, more than any of the other kings with whom Ahab was allied at that time. Jehu, another king of Israel, is later described by the same Assyrian king as having paid tribute. Other Israelite kings mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions are Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea. Under the last-mentioned king Samaria was conquered and its population taken captive. This event also is described in some detail by an Assyrian king in his annals and monumental inscriptions.

Kings of Judah who appear in Assyrian inscriptions are Joash, Azariah, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. Sennacherib of Assyria has left us his own account of his siege of Jerusalem in 701 B.C. While boasting that he had shut up the king of Judah (Hezekiah) in his capital city like a bird in a cage, he dared not claim the capture of Jerusalem or the king. Later, invading Judah again, his army suffered a humiliating catastrophe (mentioned three times in the Old Testament (2 Kings 19:35; 2 Chron. 32:21; Isa. 37:36). Sennacherib praised himself for his military achievements, but he would naturally pass over in silence the loss of his army in Palestine.

The Babylonian captivity of the young king Jehoiachin is attested by a number of apparently uninteresting receipts from Babylon, the capital city of Nebuchadnezzar's empire. These tablets simply state that the king and his sons received their rations of oil from the palace storehouses. Many other texts throw light on the events of the period during which the Jews were in captivity, and after the restoration.

During the last world war there was found in the Berlin Museum a tablet that on examination proved to mention Mordecai, a high dignitary of Xerxes' court in Susa, the Biblical Shushan. It became evident that the book of Esther contains a story that is not fictitious but deals with historical facts and persons.

Even uninteresting private business documents throw light on in the Biblical stories. From Nippur has come a collection of the accounting records of a great business concern, that of Murashu Sons, showing that the firm had dealt widely with Jews. Among them appear many who had come to honor and wealth under the rule of the Persian kings, illustrating clearly the correctness of the Biblical record that gives the same picture concerning the wealthy and honored position of many Jews after the Exile.

The afore-mentioned examples of discoveries shedding light on the Bible are only fragments of the mass of material from Mesopotamia that make the Bible live again. Almost every Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian ruler mentioned in the Bible has been rediscovered in contemporary documents, so that we are well informed concerning their history. We have thus inscriptions of kings like Shalmaneser and Tilgath-pileser, Nebuchadnezzar and the long-lost Belshazzar, Cyrus and Darius the Great, Xerxes, and many others. Even officials whose names are given in the Bible, such as Nebuzar-adan (2 Kings 25:8) or Nergal-sharezer (Jer. 39:3), are met in the official documents of their time.

VI. The Resurrection of Ancient Palestine

Palestine long remained untouched. Not before the last third of the 19th century was the spade set in the ruined hills of Palestine. Why did archeologists wait more than a lifetime after Egypt and Mesopotamia began to give up their ancient treasures? Why did they hesitate to dig in the country of the patriarchs and prophets, the homeland of David, Solomon, and Christ? Should Palestine not have been considered the most fertile field for the Biblical archeologist? Could it not be expected to furnish valuable material by which the Bible stories would be corroborated, and the written Word of God confirmed?

The reasons for the reluctance of early archeologists to dig in Palestine are easy to find. Palestine had never been the center of a great and wealthy empire, and had possessed neither monumental buildings--with the exception of the thoroughly destroyed Temple at Jerusalem--nor magnificent cities like Thebes, Memphis, Nineveh, Babylon, Susa, Athens, or Rome. With the exception of a short time under the reign of Solomon, the country had been poor, and had usually been divided among different peoples. It had seen more wars and destructions of its cities than any other country of its size, and its humid climate allowed little hope that any perishable material could have survived for millenniums the destructive forces of nature.

Another cause of the comparatively great archeological poverty of Palestine was the Jewish religion. In the surrounding countries kings erected monuments of many kinds to perpetuate their name and fame. Such monuments could not be expected in the land of the Israelites, who were forbidden by law to make images and erect monuments (Ex. 20:4; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5, margin; 16:22), and were admonished to destroy such objects wherever they would be found. Although it can be assumed that many disloyal rulers of Israel built such monuments to their honor, it is equally likely that other kings, such as Josiah, and Hezekiah, or the governor Nehemiah, destroyed all monuments that their predecessors had erected. At least this would account for the fact that the only commemorative stone so far found with an old Hebrew inscription, is the Moabite Mesha stone, erected by a heathen king.

Because of these reasons it is understandable that the excavators had small hopes of making spectacular discoveries in Palestine, and the scores of excavations carried out in this land have completely confirmed these fears of the archeologists. Palestine has not produced treasures like those from the tombs of Tutankhamen or the kings of Ur, nor has it rewarded the efforts of the excavators with inscriptions comparable in number to those that Egypt or Mesopotamia has provided. However, even Palestine can provide sensational discoveries. That has finally been shown by the recent finding of 2,000-year-old Biblical and other manuscripts, as well as inscribed copper plates, in caves of the Judean desert. If these really phenomenal findings are only a sample of what the soil and caves of Palestine may still preserve for us, great things can be expected.

For many centuries the interest of Christians had entered on the sacred places of tradition, which found their most monumental expressions in the Christian churches like the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. But no trace of any scientific interest in the ancient sites can be found among the crusaders or Christian pilgrims who traveled to and through Palestine for many centuries. A scientific exploration of the country was not carried out until Edward Robinson, an American professor, traveled through Palestine in 1838 and identified numerous places with those known from the Old and New Testaments, laying a sound and solid foundation for the great topographical survey that was carried out under the auspices of the Palestine Exploration Fund by Conder and Kitchener.

A few important discoveries were made before the actual beginning of excavations. The famous Mesha stone was found in the land of Moab by the German missionary Klein in 1868. However, before it came into the hands of scholars, the suspicious Arabs broke the monument into many pieces by heating it on a fire and then pouring cold water over the hot stone. Fortunately an imperfect copy had been made before this. Afterward the French scholar Clermont-Ganneau was able to salvage many of the pieces and reconstruct the basalt slab, which is now in the Louvre in Paris. This monument contains a victory text of the Moabite king Mesha in 34 lines of the old pre-exilic Hebrew script, still the longest known inscription of its kind.

Another important chance find was made in 1880, when some Arab boys discovered a Hebrew inscription on the wall of a 1,750-foot tunnel that Hezekiah's men had bored through the rock in the 8th century b.c. in order to bring the water of the Siloah (Siloam) spring into the city. This inscription, describing the construction procedures, had been carved in the wall by the tunnel diggers. It has since been cut out, and is now in a museum in Istanbul.

The Palestine Exploration Fund in starting scientific excavations naturally began its work in Jerusalem, the holy city of three religions. However, it was soon realized that there is no more thankless job than excavating in Jerusalem for archeological material. That city has in the past been so thoroughly and repeatedly destroyed and rebuilt that there are very few objects of value left in its debris. Also its ancient architectural remains, wherever they are uncovered, are so disturbed by later building activities that it is difficult for the archeologist to arrive at sound conclusions in their interpretation. Nevertheless, the archeologist has been able by patiently collecting every bit of evidence to clear up many of the problems connected with the history of this city, and approximately to establish to establish the location of its ancient walls, although few objects have been found in Jerusalem that merit a place in a museum.

In 1890 Flinders Petrie excavated Tell el-Hesi in southwestern Judea, thinking that the site was that of ancient Lanchish. Although the place has not been definitely identified, there is good reason to believe that it is the site of ancient Eglon. As in so many other Palestinian sites the results were disappointing, and after a season's work Petrie went back to Egypt, where excavations were so much more rewarding. His work on Tell el-Hesi was nevertheless extremely important, because he developed a system by which an archeologist is able to date levels of ancient ruins even if no inscriptions are available. Every site contains a great amount of broken pottery, since all Orientals, ancient and modern, use pottery for a multiplicity of purposes. Pottery breaks easily, and broken pieces of pottery are usually discarded. These practically indestructible fragments can be very instructive to the trained archeologist, for the shape of pottery vessels changed frequently, as well as the texture, the manufacturing techniques, and artistic designs. Petrie saw that the pieces of broken pottery differed in each level, and by carefully registering and comparing each piece with others, made a beginning in the development of the science of pottery chronology. This method has been so much refined since Petrie's ingenious start, in 1890, that it has become a reliable tool in the hands of the archeologist for dating ancient remains.

It may be helpful to explain in this connection some terms used in discussing Palestinian archeology, like tell and "level" of occupation. A tell is a mound that can easily be recognized by its form as an artificial elevation in the Near Eastern landscape. It contains the ruins of an ancient city covered by the sand and rubbish of centuries. The ancients usually built their cities on some natural elevation, and the successive ruins as well as accumulated refuse added to its height. Whenever a dilapidated house needed rebuilding it was torn down, and the sun-dried brick of the walls merely packed down and leveled off. Then the new house was built on the foundations of the old. When a city was destroyed by one of the frequently occurring wars, the same thing was done with regard to the whole city. The ruins were leveled off so that the whole area rose for several feet and the new city was built on top of the packed-down ruins of the former city. A city grew in height therefore with each rebuilding, sometimes a considerable increase in height, in view of the numerous destructions and rebuildings some cities experienced.

The excavator can recognize each period of the city's history by the separate levels, or strata, which he uncovers, and which all differ from the preceding or succeeding ones. Such a tell can be compared to a cake consisting of several layers. The topmost layer is the last one, the lowest the earliest of occupation. The archeologist will therefore find first the last level of occupation, which may consist of ruins of an Arab village. After removing them he may come to the remains of an earlier city that flourished in Byzantine times, then to one of the still earlier Roman period, etc. Only after carefully removing all the later levels in which the archeologist may not be interested, but which he has to study and record as any earlier ones for the sake of science, does he reach the levels of Old Testament times. In Megiddo, for example, altogether 20 different levels were found going back to a very early period of Palestine's history, and the mound of the ancient city of Beth-shan was found to contain 18 levels, which had a total thickness of 71.5 feet.

Space does not allow a discussion of the various expeditions in Palestine before the first world war, and only a few of the most important excavations will be mentioned here. It was a time of experimentation, when archeologists learned by trial and error. Most of the conclusions reached during those excavations when Palestinian archeology was in its infancy have had to be revised since that time. However, important discoveries were made in several places, as, for example, in the ruins of Gezer, the city that Solomon received as a dowry from his Egyptian father-in-law; also in the city of Taanach, where the archives of the local Canaanite ruler were found, consisting of a number of cuneiform tablets. The work at Megiddo produced much valuable information, and especially that at Samaria, which was excavated very carefully and methodically by Reisner and Fisher, who brought to the task their rich experience as Egyptian archeologists. Their work was rewarded with some 60 inscribed potsherds, or pottery fragments. Because papyrus from Egypt was too expensive, pieces of broken pottery, always plentiful, were used as writing material for short notes, memos, receipts, and the like. These 60 potsherds, from the government files, were records of taxes received in oil and wine in the time of the Israelite kings.

When Palestine was made a British mandate after the first world war, the time seemed to be opportune for greater work. The American, British, and French schools of archeology became very active, but also a number of other institutions worked on a large scale, as, for instance, the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. The last-mentioned institution started a long series of important and successful Palestinian "digs" by excavating Beth-shan impressive mound in the upper Jordan valley. In this city, which had been an Egyptian stronghold and garrison before and after the Exodus, a number of Egyptian monuments were discovered, as well as Egyptian and Canaanite temple ruins.

Megiddo, the strong Canaanite fortress in the plain of Esdraelon, was excavated anew by the University of Chicago. Among other valuable material there was found the fragment of a victory monument that Pharaoh Shishak had erected in that city after his successful Palestinian campaign in the fifth year of King Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:25, 26). Important discoveries were the residences of the commander of the local garrison and the district governor, and extensive stables formerly assigned to Solomon, but now dated later, probably to Ahab's time. Megiddo was a well-planned garrison city for the royal chariotry, with space for about 500 horses. This reminds us of 1 Kings 9:15-19, where Megiddo is mentioned among the cities that Solomon built--some of which were built for his horsemen and chariots. From deeper, that is, Canaanite, levels the excavators brought to light a hoard of artistically carved ivory plaques, also the gold and silver treasure of Canaanite prince, which, however, cannot compare with the treasures that the Egyptian archeologists are accustomed to find.

An important excavation was carried on for four seasons by Albright and Kyle at Tell Beit Mirsim, probably the ancient Kirjath-sepher. The site did not yield many important museum pieces, but because of its well-preserved sequence of strata, or successive levels, and because of its being excavated under the direction of the best Palestinian archeologist, this became the model of Palestinian excavations.

Many other sites were excavated during the years between the two world wars, of which the following can merely be mentioned, together with the most important discoveries made on each site. Beth-zur furnished proof that in the early postexilic period Greek silver coins had been in use. It thereby contradicted a late date assigned by the higher critics to the book of Ezra, because that book presupposes the use of such coins even before the time of Darius I, when silver coins were thought to have been introduced for the first time (see Ezra 2:69). Beth-shemesh brought to light some very early alphabetic texts, which have added weight to the cumulative evidence that writing was fairly widely practiced in the second millennium b.c. King Saul's small castle was excavated at Gibeah; also the city of Shiloh, where the tabernacle had been during the period of the judges. Other sites contributing to the increase of our knowledge of the history of the Canaanites and Israelites were Bethel, et-Tell (identified, probably erroneously, with Ai), Tell en-Nasbeh (which is perhaps Mizpah), and Shechem. Further, in southwestern Palestine important material was found which throws light on the culture of the Philistines, Israel's traditional enemies. Among the sites of special interest to the student of the Bible is Jericho, which for many years ranked very high in general interest. In 1930 John Garstang reopened earlier excavations there made by Sellin and Watzinger (1907-09) and found, on a level that he dated to Joshua's time, a burned city with fallen walls on whose top houses had stood (cf. Joshua 2:15)--a unique feature. But his date for the fall of these walls (c. 1400 B.C.) has been shifted several centuries earlier by the findings of an expedition of the 1950's directed by Dr. Kathleen M. Kenyon. This expedition did, however, uncover a portion of a later house wall and floor, with an oven and a small jug, which appeared to be "part of the kitchen of a Canaanite woman, who may have dropped the juglet beside the oven and fled at the sound of the trumpets of Joshua's men" (Kathleen M. Kenyon, Digging Up Jericho, p. 263).

Apparently all of the city of that period (and parts of even earlier levels) were eroded away. This is not surprising. The crumbling mud-brick structures were not preserved by being built upon by later inhabitants, because the city was unoccupied for centuries after Joshua's time (Joshua 6:21). Hence they would be completely washed away by the heavy winter rains. However, the one house, and pottery finds in the tombs outside the city, indicate that Jericho was inhabited in the 14th century.

Tell el-Kheleifeh, the city or a suburb of Ezion-geber, on the Gulf of Aqaba, was excavated by Nelson Glueck from 1937 to 1940. This place is mentioned in the Bible as one of the places the Israelites passed during their desert wanderings (Deut. 2:8), and as Solomon's main port of departure for his Ophir expeditions (1 Kings 9:26-28). Glueck, who had previously found Solomon's rich copper mines in Edom, was greatly surprised when the ruins of Ezion-geber showed that it had been a great commercial center of Solomon's time, with a fortified building in a large enclosure. The building, at first thought to be a smelter, is now identified as a storehouse or a granary. From this place, apparently, sailed the "ships of Tarshish," or "refinery fleet" (see Gen. 10:4). The proverbial wealth of Solomon (1 Kings 7:46, 47; 10:21, 27) can be understood better since this ruined commercial center has been excavated.

Another important excavation was carried out by a joint British-American expedition at Samaria. The archeologists had the great satisfaction of discovering many fragments of beautifully carved ivory plaques originating from Ahab's ivory palace (1 Kings 22:39). They allow us for the first time to evaluate the artistic achievements of Israel in a period not far removed from Solomon's Temple building. Thus we can get some idea of the kind of decorations that beautified Solomon's Temple and palaces.

Lachish, one of the fortress cities of southern Palestine, has been an archeologist's mine. Albright suggested identifying Tell ed-Duweir with this long-lost city, an identification that was completely verified by subsequent excavations, which began in 1932. The ruins of this city provided not only some of the earliest specimens of alphabetic Hebrew writing but also the 21 now-famous Lachish Letters of the time of Jeremiah, containing messages sent by an army captain to his commanding officer at Lachish. Some of these letters, coming from the very last days of Judah's existence, before Jerusalem fell to Nebuchadnezzar's forces, give us a glimpse of the conditions of those tragic days, and confirm the book of Jeremiah in many places.

Finally, brief mention must be made of the caves of the dry Judean desert that have preserved for us a number of Old Testament leather scrolls, and other manuscripts of the pre- and post-Christian Era. In the first sensational discovery of these documents in 1947 we have thus suddenly obtained texts that are a thousand years older than the oldest Hebrew texts before known. Since these discoveries fall in the purview of another article, "The Languages, Manuscripts, and Canon of the Old Testament," in this volume, the mere mention of this most sensational find must suffice here.

Since about 1950 the excavation of Biblical cities has accelerated sharply. Numerous archeological campaigns at Hazor, Shechem, Gibeon, Ashdod, Beer-sheba, Arad, and Caesarea have produced remarkable results. In Jerusalem large-scale excavations have uncovered parts of the wall of the Jebusite city taken by David, a fragment of the western wall of the time of the Hebrew kings--giving us the first indication of the size of the Old Testament city--and major structures of Christ's day destroyed by Titus in his conquest of the city in a.d. 70. East of the Jordan and the Dead Sea may be mentioned the excavation of several Edomite sites, as well as Bab edh-Dhra, which may be in the area of "the cities of the plain ... in which Lot dwelt" (Gen. 19:29). Several seasons of excavation at Heshbon, the capital city of King Sihon of the Amorites, have uncovered remains from the 12th century b.c. to the 14th century a.d., including what may be one of the "pools in Heshbon" mentioned in the Song of Songs (ch. 7:4).

VII. Palestinian Archeology and the Bible

The student of the Bible has profited immensely from the results of Palestinian archeology. The ruins of Canaanite and Hebrew cities and villages have preserved remains of city walls, palaces, public buildings, and private houses, allowing us to see the different levels of architectural attainment reached in the various periods of Palestine's checkered history. We can study the systems of fortifications, the sanitary conditions in homes and towns, and find out how the people lived and worked, and how they were buried. Thousands of objects found in Palestine--weapons and tools; vessels of clay, metal, or stone; furniture; and jewelry--all interpret for us the daily life of the ancient Hebrews, Philistines, and Canaanites, and add to our knowledge of Bible times.

The archeological findings made in Palestine have also shown that the art of writing was widespread, not only in the later periods of Israel's history but already in the time of the patriarchs and judges. In the earlier periods most writing was done on cuneiform tablets, as the hundreds of Amarna Letters show. Most of these were written in Palestine in the 14th century b.c. and sent to Egypt, where they were found in the royal archives. Many tablets found in Palestine-in Gezer, Tell el-Hesi, Taanach, Shechem, and Samaria--belong to the same category of texts as the Amarna Letters, and confirm the fact that the knowledge of writing was widespread. However, numerous texts are found that are written in an early form of alphabetic script, very similar to that invented in the copper mines of Sinai. This shows that the people of Palestine began to experiment with this simple script, so much more convenient than the complicated cuneiform system, and to develop it until it could freely be used for every writing purpose. Such texts, written in an early semipictorial alphabetic script, have come to light at Lachish, Tel el-Hesi, Beth-shemesh, Shemesh, Megiddo, Gezer, and Tell el-`Ajjûl. These writings eliminate the argument used so much by higher critics of former days that the Bible, written in alphabetic Hebrew, could not have been produced before the time of the divided kingdom or the Exile, because they believed that the earlier Hebrews knew no alphabetic writing. No informed scholar uses this argument anymore.

Palestine's ruins have also provided much material that throws light on the religious practices of the ancient Canaanites. Temples have been uncovered in several places, of which those at Megiddo, Beth-shan, and Lachish are the most important. In Gezer an elaborate high place was found, with an oracle cave under it. The row of sacred pillars, objects of worship which the Israelites were commanded to destroy, the altars, and all the other necessary paraphernalia of Canaanite places of worship are highly instructive. So are also private altars, offering censers, remains of sacrifices, and evidence of snake worship, child sacrifices, and other abominable practices.

The numerous inscribed pottery fragments from the royal storehouse of Samaria, already mentioned in the preceding section, play also an important role in the confirmation of Holy Scripture. The many personal names contained in these unpretentious tax records reveal the mixture of Baal worship with the true religion of Israel. Among them we find such well-known names as Abibaal, Baalzamar, Baalazaker, Baalmeoni, Meribaal, and Baala, to give a few examples of names that were connected with Baal. Names containing abbreviations of the divine name Jehovah were Jedaiah, Jehoiada, Shemariah, and others.

These personal names are an indication of the religious conditions prevailing in Ahab's time, when Elijah fought so vigorously against the worship of Baal. But they also show the truth of the divine statement made to Elijah that many had not bowed their knees to Baal (1 Kings 19:18) at a time when Elijah was thinking that he was the only one left of the true worshipers of God. These Samaria pottery fragments, however, show us that there were still just as many parents who gave their children names connected with Jehovah as there were parents who gave their children Baal names.

On the other hand, the 21 letters found at Lachish come from the time after the reform of King Josiah of Judah. They contain many personal names of men who lived in the last few months of Judah's existence, and like the Samaria tax records, shed light on the religious conditions prevailing at the time when these names were given, since the meanings of most Hebrew personal names reflect the religious feelings of their givers. The great majority of these names are connected with the name of Jehovah, as illustrated in the last part of Jeremiah's name. They show clearly the influence of Josiah's reform, when idolatry was stamped out and all pagan gods were removed from the country. Not one of the men mentioned in the Lachish Letters bears a name connected with Baal or another foreign deity. Only the names of Judah's true God, Elohim and Jehovah, are found in these documents.

The Holy Land has thus through such archeological material made an important contribution for the establishment of the reliability of the Bible. In ancient times Palestine was the land in which most of the history described in the Old Testament was enacted, and it is now furnishing the proofs by which the mouths of infidels, critics, and doubters can be silenced.

VIII. The Resurrection of Ancient Syria

Since the meaning of the geographical term Syria has been subjected to changes in ancient and modern times, it is necessary to define the geographical limits of Syria as used in this chapter. The term is employed here for the country that lies between the northern border of Palestine and the great bend of the Euphrates, and whose western boundary is formed by the Mediterranean Sea, and the eastern boundary by the Arabian Desert. This includes Lebanon, with its two great chains of mountains known as the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon. Beautiful Mt. Hermon belongs to the latter range. The two main rivers of Syria, the Orontes and the Litani, flow in opposite directions between the two mountain ranges until they break through to the coast, one in the north, and the other in the south of Syria. In ancient times the large cities of this country lay either in the narrow strip of coastland and were mostly ports, like Sidon, Tyre, Byblos, and Ugarit, or on the two main rivers in the interior, like Kadesh, Hamath, Riblah, or Qatna. Some of the most famous Syrian cities, like Damascus, Aleppo, and Palmyra, were oases in the desert.

Syria has been much less archeological activity than other Near Eastern countries, although excavations, wherever they have been carried out, have been exceptionally rewarding, much more fruitful, in fact, than in Palestine. Aside from some minor explorations in the 19th century, most of the important excavations were made between the two world wars. Only the most important ones can be mentioned here.

Excavations were carried out with great success in Byblos by Montet from 1922 to 1926, and then by Dunand until 1939. Byblos was the main export city of the precious cedarwood from Lebanon in ancient times. Since the Greeks procured Egyptian papyrus scrolls, the chief writing material of antiquity, through the Phoenician merchants from Byblos, they called these scrolls after the city where they obtained them--a name from which our modern word Bible the designation for the Book of books, is derived.

A number of royal tombs with very rich contents were found in Byblos, which with other objects of art discovered during the excavations have added to our knowledge of Phoenician art and craftsmanship. These finds from Byblos help us to appreciate the splendor and beauty of Solomon's Temple, since its chief interior decorator was Phoenician, although half Hebrew by birth (see 1 Kings 7:13, 14).

Furthermore, many Phoenician inscriptions came to light in Byblos. In the late second millennium b.c., they were written in a script generally called Phoenician, which, however, was in fact the pre-exilic Hebrew. They enable us to trace the development of Hebrew writing from the earliest alphabetic inscriptions found on Sinai, through those discovered in Palestine, to the later Phoenician and Hebrew inscriptions, leading us in an unbroken sequence up to the time of the Exile.

The old harbor, installations of ancient Tyre, a city about which the Bible has so much to say, were investigated by divers. In Qatna on the Orontes, Hyksos fortifications were uncovered, and in a small temple was found a collection of texts that cleared up some linguistic puzzles of the Hebrew Bible. Important discoveries were also made at Tripolis, Beirut, Sidon, and other places.

However, the most sensational results were achieved by the excavations at Ras Shamra, the ancient Ugarit, by Claude F.-A. Schaeffer since 1929. This north Canaanite port city was destroyed in the 13th century b.c. and never rebuilt, so that its ruins retained much important material, and have proved to be an almost inexhaustible mine of valuable information. Wherever the spade has been put into the mound of Ras Shamra important discoveries have been made. Temples of Baal and Dagon were uncovered, a palace of the local king, and inscriptions of Egyptian officials. Many texts in the Mesopotamian cuneiform script have been found, among which there are letters addressed to and received from Syrian, Mesopotamian, and Hittite kings.

The most important find has been a great number of clay tablets containing hundreds of texts written in a hitherto unknown cuneiform script. When the first texts were found and published by Charles Virolleaud in 1929, Professors Bauer of Germany and Dhorme of France succeeded in deciphering this script in an unbelievably short time. Since then many more texts have come to light in the same writing, two of them even in Palestine. The present-day student can study Ugaritic, as the language and script of Ugaritic is called, with all linguistic aids provided, such as grammars, a dictionary, concordance, well-published texts, and translations.

The great importance of these texts lies in the fact that they are written in a Canaanite dialect of the middle of the second millennium b.c., closely related to ancient Hebrew. Since most of these texts are of a mythological nature, dealing with stories about the Canaanite gods and religion, they are highly instructive. They answer many questions that the student of the Bible asks about the ancient Canaanites, questions not clearly answered in the Bible.

We learn what the Canaanites believed about Baal, Anath, El, Dagon and many others of their gods--about the shocking immorality and bloodthirstiness thought to exist among those deities, which show unmistakably the gulf existing between the simple and elevating religion of Israel and the degraded and corrupting one of the Canaanites. From these pagan beliefs, revealed through the documents of Ras Shamra and from other evidences of their serpent worship, human sacrifices, and the practice of ritual immorality, we see the depth of depravity to which the Canaanite religion and morals had descended, and why it was necessary for God to decree the destruction of these people, in order to prevent a corruption of the morals and religion of the Israelites, through whom He designed to give to the world the purest religious concepts.

IX. The Resurrection of Ancient Anatolia

Anatolia, or Asia Minor, did not play such a great role in providing material that sheds light on the Bible, but the archeological work carried out there must nevertheless be briefly mentioned.

There was a time when nothing was known of the Hittites except what the Bible said about them. Critics could boldly proclaim, without fear of being proved incorrect, that the Hittites simply had not existed, and that the Biblical "kings of the Hittites" belong in the realm of fable and legend.

All this has changed since 1879, when A. H. Sayce and W. Wright pointed out that strange hieroglyphic inscriptions found in northern Syria and Anatolia were monuments of the long-lost Hittites. Many scholars have tried to decipher these inscriptions, which since that time have come to light in increasing numbers. They were produced by the Hittites, as we know now, from 1600 to 700 B.C., but for a long time they seemed unwilling to give up their long-kept secrets. Finally in 1947 Bossert found bilingual inscriptions, written in Phoenician and hieroglyphic Hittite, at the Cilician site of Karatepe. Since that time the deciphering of that mysterious script and language has been making rapid progress. It is with keen anticipation that historians and Biblical scholars are looking forward to the time when they can read the Hittite hieroglyphic inscriptions as readily as those of other ancient nations that have done so much to increase our knowledge of the world of antiquity.

From 1906 to 1912 the Hittite capital Hattushash, now Bogazkoy, was excavated by Hugo Winckler. He was so fortunate as to find the royal archives written in cuneiform Hittite, a script that was used by the Hittites in addition to the hieroglyphic system of writing. The cuneiform Hittite was quickly deciphered by the Czech scholar Hrozny in 1915, and a number of scholars have since then given us translations of the documents found at Bogazkoy. These texts have placed our knowledge concerning the Hittite nation on a solid basis. The Encyclopaedia Britannica devoted to the Hittites eight lines of one column in its edition of 1860; its edition of 1947 has given over ten full pages of two columns each to an article dealing with Hittite history, culture, and religion.

Several cities of the Hittite states of northern Syria with whom Solomom traded (1 Kings 10:29) have been excavated. Among them Zenjirli and Carchemish, excavated respectively by the Germans (1888-1902) and the British (1911-14 and 1920), are the most important. Aramaic and Hittite inscriptions, many sculptures, etc., came to light, enabling us to reconstruct the history of those states and better understand Biblical statements dealing with them.

X. The Resurrection of Ancient Persia

Ancient Persia is of interest to the Bible reader because of its connections with the postexilic history of Judah, when Persia, then the foremost world power, was responsible for the restoration of the Jewish state in Palestine.

Susa, the old Elamite capital, is mentioned in the Bible under the name Shushan, where Queen Esther's influence in the palace saved her people from attempted annihilation. The excavations of Susa were begun in 1885 by the Dieulafoys, and have been continued intermittently to the present time under the direction of other archeologists. It was in the ruins of the palace of Susa that the important Code of Hammurabi was found (described and discussed in sec. 5 of this article, also in Additional Note at close of Ex. 21). Another important result from the excavations of Susa is the fact that the layout of its palace shows such a perfect agreement with the description given of it in the book of Esther that noted scholars have been led to admit that only someone well acquainted with the palace, its divisions, and its court ceremonial could have written that book.

From 1931 to the beginning of the second world war excavations for the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago were carried on at the old Achaemenian capital of Persepolis, first under the direction of Ernst Herzfeld, later under Erich Schmidt. A great number of reliefs depicting scenes of peace and war from the time of Darius the Great, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, all names with which each Bible reader is familiar, were uncovered. Thousands of administrative texts written in Elamite cuneiform on clay tablets give an insight into the highly efficient organization of the Persian Empire, under which men like Zerubbabel, Mordecai, Ezra, and Nehemiah worked.

Important discoveries were also made elsewhere in ancient Persia, but not enough to fill our gaps concerning the history of that important country. There is still a great work to be done in that country before its history will be as well known as that of some other nations of antiquity.

XI. The Resurrection of Ancient Arabia

Arabia, considered by many scholars the cradle of civilizations, has been more or less a closed country to the explorer, because of the fanatical exclusiveness of its Moslem population. The exploration of its ancient remains is not less important than of other Near Eastern countries, because of the many connections the Arabian peoples have had with the surrounding countries.

The first expedition sent to Arabia in 1762 ended in catastrophe, but its only survivor, Carsten Niebuhr, brought back the copies of many inscriptions of the pre-Mohammedan periods. The script of these inscriptions, then called Hymiarite, was deciphered in 1841 by Gesenius and Rödiger, and since that time our knowledge concerning the history and culture of ancient Arabia has been greatly enriched. Joseph Halévy brought back some 600 more inscriptions, and Edward Glaser succeeded (1882-94) in adding another thousand. By further additions the number of known pre-Islamic Arabian inscriptions has grown to more than 5,000. Although the extant texts do not go back farther than the 8th century b.c., they are of great importance to the student of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, since they contain many Biblical words, and illuminate religious concepts expressed in the Bible.

The first excavation on Arabian soil was carried out in 1928, with meager results, but in 1950 large-scale excavations began in the south Arabian site of Qatabân under the direction of Wendell Phillips, with W. F. Albright as archeologist. In 1951 Wendell Phillips, with a staff of able scholars, began excavations at Marîb in Yemen, generally believed to be the capital of the Queen of Sheba, famed for her visit to King Solomon. Marîb had been a forbidden city for a long time, and before 1951 had been visited by a smaller number of Westerners than Mecca. Knowing that Marîb contained impressive ruins of ancient buildings, the scholarly world had hoped for a long time to examine this site scientifically. Great therefore was the joy when permission was granted to open excavations in the capital of the Queen of Sheba, where important archeological discoveries could be expected. Unfortunately, the hostility of the local officials necessitated hasty withdrawal in February, 1952, but the short campaign was nevertheless fruitful. It recovered copies of many inscriptions, and has given us good reconstructions and pictures of the ancient temple of the moon god. The preliminary reports of this excavation have whetted the taste of every student of ancient history, and it is only to be hoped that the interrupted work may be taken up again in the near future.

Bibliography

The books listed here are worth consulting for the factual information, which is in most cases reliable, but reservations have to be made in regard to the interpretations of archeological evidence in relation to the Bible, since most of the authors are more or less modernistically influenced. Older books dealing with the field of Biblical archeology are usually much out of date, and very unreliable, since new material has clarified many points that were formerly misunderstood.

Albright, William Foxwell. Archeology and the Religion of Israel (5th ed.). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956. A book especially helpful on the religious concepts and practices of the nations surrounding Israel in comparison with those of Israel.

_______. From the Stone Age to Christianity (2d ed.). Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1957. A highly interesting and authoritative general survey of archeological discoveries, and their bearing on the ancient history in general and that of Israel in particular.

_______. The Archeology of Palestine (rev. ed.). Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1960. An illustrated work that brings together the results of seventy-five years of archeological exploration in Palestine.

The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965. Essays in honor of William Foxwell Albright, written by specialists, discussing various phases of literature, history, archeology, and culture of the Hebrews and other peoples of the Old Testament world.

The Biblical Archeologist. Published by the American Schools of Oriental Research, 126 Inman St., Cambridge, Mass. 02139, 1938--. $5.00 per year. This little quarterly contains reliable, up-to-date material that has a bearing on the Bible. It is the most widely read archeological periodical of its kind.

The Biblical Archaeologist Reader. 3 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961-970. These volumes present the most important articles from the thirty years of The Biblical Archaeologist. (Only vol. 3 remained in print in 1974.)

Cross, Frank M. Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies (rev. ed.). Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1958. A reliable survey of the Dead Sea scroll discoveries during the first decade of research.

De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. A study of the social, civil, military, and religious institutions of the Israelites compared with those of their neighbors, intended as a help to the understanding of the Bible narratives.

Edwards, I. E. The Pyramids of Egypt. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961. An admirable survey of the Egyptian pyramids and their structural development.

Everyday Life in Bible Times. Washington: National Geographic Society, 1968. A collection of articles (with many pictures in color, some based on ancient finds) written by experts, on Egypt, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and other areas. More than 500,000 copies were sold in six years.

Finegan, Jack. Light From the Ancient Past (2d ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969, 2 vols. A reliable historical sketch of the ancient world as illuminated by archeological discoveries.

Hilprecht, Herman V., ed. Explorations in Bible Lands During the 19th Century. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman and Company, 1903. 809 pp. A good survey of archeological work done during the nineteenth century by experts in the different fields of Oriental studies.

Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures (2d ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. A collection of pictures of ancient monuments and other archeological finds furnishing pictorial evidence for life in the ancient Near East.

_______ ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3d ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. A collection of most of the ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyro-Babylonian, Hittite, and Syro-Palestinian texts that have any relation to the Old Testament. The translations are made by America's foremost scholars in each field. (This and the preceding book are also combined, in abridged form, in one volume as The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures.)

The Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (rev. ed.). Edited by G. Ernest Wright and Floyd V. Filson, with an introductory article by W. F. Albright. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956. 130 pp. 33 maps in full color and 88 illustrations. The best Biblical atlas on the market with a good descriptive text introducing the reader to the lands of the Bible, and the archeological discoveries shedding light on Bible history.

Wright, G. Ernest. Biblical Archaeology (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Westminister Press, 1963. A readable, authoritative and up-to-date survey of the whole field of Biblical archeology, Old Testament and New Testament, discussing the various discoveries that throw light on the Bible in the chronological order of the Biblical narratives.

I. Western Asia Before the 15th Century B.C.

The Antediluvian Period.--The memory of the ancient nations concerning the time before the Flood was vague and unreliable, although the existence of an antediluvian history was well known. The Babylonian king lists, for example, make a clear differentiation between the kings who lived before and those who lived after the Flood. These texts claim also that kingship originally descended from heaven, and that all rulers of the antediluvian period had had exceptionally long reigns totaling many thousands of years. Otherwise these records containing only the names of kings and their supposed regnal years have preserved no definite historical facts.

The Early Dynastic Period.--Coming to the period after the Flood, we notice once more a great vagueness in the Babylonian tradition. The Babylonian records usually begin the history of the postdiluvian period with dynasties at Kish, Uruk (Biblical Erech), Ur, and other cities, one dynasty following the other in unbroken sequence for thousands of years. This tradition was based on the earliest written records. However, the later Babylonian annalists were naturally ignorant of the period that had elapsed before writing became known. The modern archeologist has found the remains of that earlier period, which he names after the sites where certain types of objects were discovered for the first time. He speaks therefore of the Halaf Period or the Ubaid Period, since archeological materials of a certain preliterate period were first found at Tell Halaf in northern Mesopotamia, others at Tell el-Ubaid in the south.

History in the real sense begins only with the appearance of historical documents. For the earliest times the already mentioned lists of dynasties compiled by later Babylonian scribes are available, giving numerous names of rulers who were supposed to have reigned over Mesopotamia for thousands of years. When the science of Assyriology was in its infancy, scholars put a great deal of trust in these lists and readily dated the earliest historical periods of Mesopotamian culture in the seventh millennium b.c. Today we know that the later scribes who compiled these lists used old archives without understanding them. Since they lived in a time--during the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kingdoms--when one ruler reigned over the whole country of Mesopotamia, they thought that the same conditions had prevailed in the earliest periods. Possessing the records of early dynasties that had reigned in different cities, they thought that each of these had reigned over the whole country, and therefore they put one dynasty after another. However, we know now by means of good contemporary documents, that many of these kings were only local rulers, and that several dynasties existed side by side at the same time. This increased knowledge has resulted in some drastic shortening of the chronology of the early Mesopotamian history since the 1930's. For example, King Enshakushanna, who was dated by Prof. H. V. Hilprecht about 6500 B.C. in 1903, is now dated by scholars in the 25th century b.c.

Because they have had to reduce markedly these early dates scholars are now putting the beginning of civilization in Mesopotamia in the 35th century b.c., and the earliest written records in the third millennium. Since all these dates have been in a continuous flux for many years, and agreement has not been reached among scholars as to their accuracy, all dates that lie in the period under discussion must be used with caution, and are liable to further modification. The significant fact is the great reduction of dates that brings them rather steadily nearer to the dates that can be derived from the Bible record.

The Sumerian Civilization.--The earliest civilization of which anything is known from extra-Biblical records is that of the Sumerians. They lived in the lowland of the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, to the Persian Gulf, which in ancient times reached much farther inland than today. Cities like Kish, Uruk (the Biblical Erech), Ur, and Eridu were founded and populated by Sumerians. The ethnic relationship between the Sumerians and other known peoples is still a mystery, since their language has no affinities with any other known language on earth. However, the Sumerians were a highly civilized nation, with a flourishing political organization. The king considered himself a representative of the gods, and was their high priest. All lands and property belonged to the temple, for which the husbandman produced his grain, the craftsman his articles of daily use, and from which both of them received their sustenance in the form of rations.

One of the most important inventions of the early Sumerians was the development of a system of writing, the earliest known script. Needing to keep records of deliveries and rations, they developed a device to keep accounts. Using clay tablets as writing material, they at first drew pictorial signs in the soft clay by utilizing the rebus principle. The pictures quickly became conventional signs pressed into the clay with a stylus, because the process of drawing signs in wet clay proved to be unsatisfactory. Since these signs consist of many small horizontal, perpendicular, and diagonal wedge-shaped indentations, this script has received the name cuneiform, or wedge-shaped, script. Many different peoples, like the Semitic Babylonians and the Aryan Hurrians and Hittites, adopted this system of cuneiform writing with only slight modifications. Some, like the Canaanite scribes of Ugarit and the later Persians, used the idea of writing with cuneiform signs, but developed an alphabetic script of their own with only a limited number of characters. The Canaanites had less than 30, the Persians less than 50 signs, whereas the Sumerian syllabic cuneiform script consisted of several hundred characters.

In the field of craftsmanship, architecture, and art the ancient Sumerians reached a high level. The temple ruins at Uruk, Eridu, and Ur have shown in a remarkable way, and the sensational discovery of the royal tombs at Ur has testified to a highly developed craftsmanship in the production of jewelry, musical instruments, and furniture, a skill that wa hardly ever surpassed anywhere in ancient times.

The Dynasty of Akkad.--After the Sumerians had reigned over Mesopotamia for an unknown length of time the first Semitic empire was founded by Sargon of Akkad, who is dated by historians in the 24th century b.c. The Semites seem to have levied north of the Sumerian city states, since texts have been found in Mari and elsewhere that attest the existence of Semitic city organizations during the time of the early Sumerian dynasties. However, they did not play a great role before the time of Sargon. He was the first was lord of history, and many legends were told later time about his birth, military campaigns, and other achievements.

Sargon defeated the strongest of the Sumerian kings, Lugal-zage-si of Uruk, and then conquered other Sumerian towns, like Ur, extending his rule over the whole Mesopotamian valley from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, or as he expressed it from "the lower to the upper sea." He claims to have cut cedars in the western mountains, probably Lebanon, and a military campaign into Anatolia is also later recorded of this great Semitic ruler.

His rule, however, did not remain unchallenged, and he, as well as his sons, had to quench several revolts of Sumerian cities. His grandson Narram-Sin was still able to hold the empire together. Its extent under him can be seen from the fact that one of his monuments has been found in the upper Tigris region, and one of his palaces, an impressive fortress, has been discovered as far west as Tell Brak on the upper Chabur, a tributary of the upper Euphrates. However, he had to fight against the Elamites and the Guti, mountainous barbarians who penetrated the fertile land from Zagros Mountains and tried to get a foothold in Mesopotamia.

The Guti.--Under the successors of Naram-Sin the Guti became stronger, and finally succeeded in making an end of the kingdom of Akkad, after the Semites had reigned over Western Asia for more than 150 years. The 124 years of traditional Guti rule over Mesopotamia are a dark period. Very little is known of that time. in order literature this period was always considered to have been a time of distress, and the Guti were described as raw barbarians. However, their rule seems to have been only nominal. This can be seen from the fact that several cities were ruled by independent Sumerian rulers, of whom one at least, the prince of Ur, dared to call himself king, Lagash is another city, which under its powerful prince Gudea seems to be retained a semi-independent position. Many statutes and inscriptions of Gudea have been found in the ruins of his city, in which he records that he had procured timber and stone from northern Syria and diorite from southeastern Arabia, and that he had conducted military campaigns against Elam and Persia.

The Sumerian Restoration.--The Guti were finally expelled from the country of Utukhegal of Erech, who was celebrated afterward as the liberator of the country from foreign rule, and became king over the country. Utukhegal was succeeded by one of his governors, Ur-Nammu of the city of Ur, founder of the powerful so-called Third Dynasty of Ur, which reigned over Mesopotamia for about one century around 2000 B.C. Plentiful documents from this period give us a clear picture of the history and culture of the time. It was toward the end of this period that Abraham was born and reared in the city of Ur, the center of a rich political and intellectual life. In Ur's schools, reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography were taught, and Ur's ordinary dwellings were better constructed, archeologists tell us, than the average modest house in modern Iraq. The city possessed even such seemingly modern conveniences as a sewer system, and the public buildings and monuments were so well planned and built that they are bettor preserved today than many buildings of later periods. The temple tower of Ur is still the best-preserved ancient building of all Mesopotamia.

After five kings of Ur had ruled over Mesopotamia for a little more than 100 years, the Semitic king Ishbi-Ira of Mari conquered the leading Sumerian city of Isin and founded the dynasty of Isin, while the Elamites at the same time conquered Larsa, another Sumerian city, and founded a dynasty there. The country was divided between these two ruling ruling houses, and was ruled by them for more than 200 years. Although records of many of these kings of the dynasties of Isin and Larsa exists, very little is known about the political history of that period, in which the patriarchs Abraham and Isaac lived. The most important political event of that period was the appearance of the Amorites, who, after emerging from the Arabian Desert, took possession of northern Mesopotamia, and for a time occupied the throne of Larsa.

The Amorite or First Dynasty of Babylon.--When the Amorites had consolidated their hold on Mesopotamia, and occupied great parts of the country, they made Babylon their capital, and founded the First Dynasty of Babylon. Best known of all its rulers is the powerful Hammurabi, the sixth king of that dynasty, whose reign is dated by Alright and Cornelius from 1728 to 1686 B.C., dates which are now widely accepted by scholars. Hammurabi is best known because of his law code (see sec. 5 of the article on archeology, also the Additional Note at the close of Ex. 21), which shows many similarities with the civil code of the Israelites, and because of fact that he was formerly identified with the Biblical king Amraphel of Gen. 14, an identification that for various reasons cannot be correct.

Hammurabi was able to conquer all southern Mesopotamia after having defeated Rim-Sin of Larsa, the last king of that dynasty. He then turned to the north, took the great city of Mari, and disposed of its ruler. It is even possible that he extended his rule over Assyria, which had become powerful in the northeastern part of Mesopotamia during the previous two centuries. Hammurabi's empire finally approximated in size that of Sargon, some 600 years earlier.

Hammurabi's age saw a great number of literary productions. In fact, it became known as the classical age of literature among the later Babylonians. The great epics and myths of the Sumerians were put in writing at that time. To these great literary productions belongs the epic of creation. "Enuma elish," the Gilgamesh epic containing the Sumero-Babylonian story of the Flood, (see sec. 5 of the article on archeology in this volume), and Adapia epic, in which some scholars have thought to discover reminiscences of the story of the fall of man, the Etana myth, and many other myths dealing with adventures of national heroes and gods.

Hammurabi's time saw the greatest extension of Amorite power. These people, having entered the fertile lands of Western Asia in the beginning of the second millennium, by infiltration and conquest had become masters not only of Mesopotamia but also of Syria and Palestine, where they formed the ruling class for centuries, as we know for Biblical and extra-Biblical sources. They were the people with whom Abraham had to deal in Palestine (Gen. 14:13), and whom Moses defeated when he led the children of Israel into the Land of Promise (Deut. 3:8; 4:47).

None of Hammurabi's successors equaled him in talent and political qualities. Although the dynasty lasted for more than a hundred years after Hammurabi's death, the kingdom of Babylon became a weak power, and had to tolerate the infiltration of other mountain peoples known as Kassites, who finally took possession of the country. However, not the Kassites but the Hittites made an end to the First Dynasty of Babylon. About 1550 B.C., they raided the country and sacked Babylon. This new nation, which had recently entered the political horizon of the ancient Near Eastern world, draws our attention for a moment to Asia Minor, where a new empire was being built.

Early Anatolia.--The earliest written records from Asia Minor, or Anatolia, come from Assyrian merchants who had founded colonies where they carried on a prosperous trade with the native Anatolian population. Most of these documents, which already amount to several thousands, are known under the name Cappadocian Tablets. They come from Kültepe, ancient Kanish, the main colony of these Assyrian merchants in the 19th century b.c. These merchants imported tin and an expensive cloth from Assyria, and traded these articles for silver and copper, in which Anatolia was rich. We know very little of the native population of Anatolia of that time, although the Assyrian texts mentioned some kings, like Anitta, who apparently was a powerful ruler. It is interesting to find him in possession of an iron throne during a time when, according to many scholars, iron was still unknown.

The Hittites.--Around 1600 B.C. the historical Hittites appeared in Anatolia, and founded a kingdom with their capital at Khattushash, the present village of Bagozky, near Ankara, the modern capital of Turkey. Since they adopted the Babylonian cuneiform writing as their script, and have left us many texts, we are able to reconstruct their history and culture. When they came into the country, they took over many of the religious practices of the native Anatolian peoples, and others from the Hurrians, Babylonians, and others.

They also preserved in writing the religious texts of their Anatolian precursors, and gave them interlinear Hittite translations. Since the Hittites called the language of these unknown people of earlier Anatolia "Hattili" while calling their own language "Neshumli," scholars have given the name proto-Hittites to the precursors of the Hittites. The proto-Hittites were most probably the people with whom Abraham dealt in Hebron (Gen. 25:9), and are repeatedly mentioned in the earliest records of the Bible (Gen. 26:34; Ex. 3:8, 17; etc.).

In the second afl of the 16th century b.c. the Hittites, under their king Murshilish I, made a raid into Babylonia and sacked the capital city, at the same time bringing to an end of First Dynasty of Babylon. However, they refrained from taking possession of Babylonia for themselves, and returned to Anatolia, where they built a strong kingdom that lasted until about 1200 B.C. At that time it was destroyed in turn by the Sea peoples (see article on Historical Background in Volume II of this commentary), who moved through Anatolia in search of new homes. However, these later events fall outside our period and will not be discussed here.

The Hurrians and Mitanni.--Hurrian people are mentioned in many secular text from the beginning of the second millennium b.c. Speaking an Indo-European language, they are known to the Bible reader under the name of Horites, or Horims (Gen. 14:6; 36:20, 21; Deut. 2:12, 22). Having come from the north, they settled in northern Mesopotamia, and founded the kingdom of Mitanni, lying between the great bend of the Euphrates and its tributaries the Balikh and Khabur rivers. When the Egyptian kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty in the 16th and 15th centuries b.c. built up their Asiatic empire by conquering Palestine and Syria, they fought several wars against the kingdom of Mitanni. However, toward the end of the 15th century b.c. the two nations came to a political agreement, and lived on good terms with each other. By that time the Hittites had become dangerously strong, and were considered the potential enemies of the Egyptians. The Hittites were finally able to defeat the kingdom of Mitanni and absorb it as part of the Hittite Empire.

The Kassites in Mesopotamia.--After the raiding Hittites had sacked Babylon in the 16th century b.c. and departed, the Kassites grasped the opportunity to make themselves masters of the country. These Kassites, who had probably come from the Zagros Mountains and settled in Babylonia some time before, began a rule over Lower Mesopotamia that lasted of the next several centuries. Once more we come to a dark period of Mesopotamian history concerning which very little information is available. However, most of the names of the Kassite kings are known, and some letters are extant which the Kassite kings Kadashman-Kharbe I and Burna-buriash II wrote to Amenhotep III and IV (Akhnaton) of Egypt. These provide extremely links between the chronology of Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The Kassites seem to have introduced a sort of feudal system, and divided the country into great estates that in some instances contained small townships and villages. However, the obligations of the great landlords toward the king are not clear. Only the great city of Nippur seems to have enjoyed a semi-independent status, with a local ruler who owned nominal subservience to the Kassite overlord.

Conditions in Western Asia in the Probable Time of the Exodus.--In the 15th century b.c., probably the time of the Exodus, the Kassites ruled over the native Semitic populations of Lower Mesopotamia as feudal lords, with no aspirations of extending their rule to any of the surrounding countries. the Indo-European Hurrians, or Horites, ruled over the Aramaic-speaking populations of Upper Mesopotamia. To the west of the Mitanni kingdom was the expanding Hittite empire, which at that time made strong inroads into northern Syria, territory that was claimed partly by Egypt and partly by the Mitanni kings.

The native populations of Syria and Palestine consisted of Aramaeans in the north, Canaanites in the south, and Phoenicians in the coastal region, with Amorites as local rulers over most of the country. After the military campaigns of Thutmose III, great parts of Syria and Palestine belonged to Egypt. They were tributary to the Pharaoh, who had garrison troops in some cities and high commissioners in a few centers like Yarimuta in Syria and Gaza in Palestine.

Cuneiform writing was known everywhere and extensively used in all countries of Western Asia. This accounts for our comparatively extensive knowledge of the history of that time. Even in Palestine, ruled during the 16th and 15th centuries b.c. by Egypt, cuneiform writing was widely used. This script was employed not only in the correspondence of Asiatic rulers with one another but also in their correspondence with the Egyptian court, as we know from the Amarna Letters. Egyptian scribes therefore had to learn this system of writing for their dealings with the king's Asiatic friends and subjects. At the same time experiments were made in Palestine with a new alphabetic system of writing, invented by some Palestinian miners at Sinai. This simple system of writing became in time, through later modifications by the Greeks, perhaps the most perfect script ever to be invented.

Cultural life reached a high level in most parts of Western Asia during the patriarchal age. The cities possessed strong fortification systems and well-built palaces and temples. Craftsmanship and art were highly developed, and the system of warfare had been perfected to a level on which it remained for many centuries afterward. The greatest improvement had been made about two centuries before the time of Moses, when some peoples known under the name of Hyksos, who had probably come from beyond the Caucasus of Mountains, had introduced the horse and chariot. This was the beginning of mechanical warfare, and the starting point for the development of armies on wheels.

The religious concepts of all Western Asiatic nations were somewhat similar. All these peoples were polytheists, and worshiped idols as visible representations of their gods. Their places of worship were either temple buildings or sacred places in the open air, called in the Bible "high places." Religious rites were connected with sacrifices of animals and other offerings. In some cases human beings were offered. The gods were usually personified forces of nature. Among most peoples the major roles were played by sun- and moon-gods, but the principal deities of other peoples were storm-gods or other divinities of nature. The gods of fertility--Baal among the Canaanites, Tammuz in Mesopotamia--were most widely worshiped, and numerous local deities, like local patron saints, received much honor.

All pagan nations of antiquity believed in the immortal state of the soul, whose welfare was regarded as depending on the care of the body and the rites performed for the deceased. Therefore much care was taken in disposing of the dead. In order that the departed might have everything he needed to enjoy the pleasures of life, food and drink, furniture, tools, weapons, and jewelry were usually placed in graves for use in the afterlife.

II. Egypt Before the 15th Century B.C.

The history of the earliest period in Egypt is, like that of Western Asia, shrouded in mystery and legends. Scholars have thought to find reminiscences of some prehistoric events in old Egyptian myths, like that which describes the fight between the gods Osiris and Set for the throne of Egypt. But it is far from certain that these myths have any historical background. Prehistorians, on the other hand, have excavated some villages and cemeteries that they date in the predynastic period, but the exact dating of these supposedly early remains is just as difficult as the early dating in Mesopotamia, and has not yet been achieved.

However, there is clear evidence that the Egyptian culture owed its impulses to Mesopotamia. The earliest monumental buildings were built of brick, as in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, with the same architectural features known as walls with paneled recesses. In both countries similar artistic designs were used on seals and for the decorations of vessels or other objects. Also, the idea of writing seems to have reached Egypt from the Sumerians, although the Egyptians developed a different, entirely independent script. Among other cultural achievements that Egypt probably received from Mesopotamia are to be listed metallurgy, the potter's wheel, and the cylinder seal.

The Chronology of Ancient Egypt.--The early Egyptian chronology has, like that of Western Asia, experienced some drastic reductions since the turn of the century. At that time scholars dated the beginning of the dynastic period in the sixth or fifth millennium b.c., and the great American Egyptologist James H. Breasted wrote emphatically that the calendar was introduced to Egypt in 4241 B.C., "the earliest fixed date in the history of the world as known to us" (A History of Egypt, p. 14). Discoveries made since that time have shown that the conclusions which resulted in this date and other early dates were wrong; thus scholars have been forced to reduce the Egyptian chronology so much that the beginning of the dynastic period is now placed between 3100 and 2800 B.C. Even yet scholars have reached no unanimity in the chronology of Egypt.

The dates given hereafter are the lowest, that is latest, accepted by Egyptologists at the present time. It is recognized by them that those of the period lying before 2200 B.C. may be off by 50 to 100 years, and that those from 2200 to 2000 B.C. may be off by 25 to 50 years. It is only in the Twelfth Dynasty, dating from 1991 to 1778 B.C., that we are certain of the correctness of our dates, since they are based on astronomical texts. For the period after 1778 B.C. there is again no certainty for 200 years, and for the dates of the Eighteenth Dynasty, from about 1580 B.C., we still have to allow a margin of error of a few years.

These remarks are made in order to caution the reader against readily accepting any of the many conflicting dates for the early periods of Egyptian history that he will find in books. Most of these books are already outmoded, and those recently produced contain dates that may still have to be reduced as soon as further evidence becomes available. Hence dates for the third millennium, which are hereafter given, are those currently accepted by Egyptologists, but they are not necessarily correct. However, the historian needs dates for reconstructing history, for he cannot give a picture of the course of events by ignoring chronology entirely, even if he is aware of its uncertainties.

The Protodynastic Period--First and Second Dynasties.--Little is known of this period, during which the whole country seems to have been united under one crown for the first time. Traditionally this achievement is attributed to King Menes, first ruler of the First Dynasty. Previous to this unification--by whomsoever it was accomplished--Egypt had consisted of two countries. This is reflected in the titulary of the king, in the Egyptian name of the country, in the dual organization of the government retained throughout its history, and many other evidences.

The system of writing used at the beginning of the First Dynasty seems to be without any recognizable antecedents. There is no evidence that Egypt went through stages of development, as did the Sumerians in Mesopotamia. Hence the conclusion is reached that the Egyptians adopted fully developed principles of writing through contact with another people. Since there is evidence that the Sumerians were the only people who possessed a script before the Egyptians did, the possibility is great that the idea of writing was passed on to the Egyptians by the Sumerians. The first inscriptions of the First and Second Dynasties are short, and in abbreviated form. This is the reason that they are difficult to read. However, the system of writing was already fully developed, and remained essentially the same for many centuries.

The hieroglyphic Egyptian script is pure picture writing. A sign may stand for the object depicted, or according to the rebus principle for something that is similar in sound, although entirely different in meaning. An English example may be used to make this principle clear: The picture of a lyre, a stringed instrument, can be used in a rebus for a liar, a person who tells an untruth. In the same sense the Egyptians used the picture of a house, called per, to depict a house, but used the same sign in another context for the word to walk, since walking was also called per in the Egyptian language. Such a system of writing needed many hundreds of signs to express every concrete and abstract thought. Thus the Egyptian system of writing was hard to learn. The individual signs were later abbreviated in cursive writing, which is called hieratic, and even more so in the later demotic script, but remained essentially complicated until the Greek alphabetic script replaced the old system in the Christian period.

Royal tombs of the kings of the first two dynasties have been found in the sacred city of Abydos. However, tombs of some of the same kings have also been unearthed at Saqqara, the necropolis of the Lower Egyptian capital Memphis. It is therefore not certain which of these structures must be considered as tombs and which only as cenotaphs. The early tombs were built of brick and timber, but toward the end of the Second Dynasty the first tomb chambers were built of stone.

Through the Palermo Stone, containing fragmentary annals of that period, we learn that, from the Second Dynasty, a fiscal census was taken every second year, that the annual rising of the Nile was carefully watched and regularly recorded for future reference, that shipbuilding played an important role in Egypt's economy, and that the copper industry had reached so great a proficiency that King Khasekhemui had a copper statute of himself made in life size.

The Old Kingdom--Third to Sixth Dynasty.--The pyramid age began with the Third Dynasty. The development of monumental stone buildings was incredibly fast. Within 50 years of the first known use of stone for the lining of a tomb chamber, King Zoser built the step pyramid at Saqqara completely of stone, 200 feet high. He surrounded it with numerous stone buildings and an enclosure wall, the whole complex being 1,800 feet long and 415 feet wide. During the next 75 years work in stone had been so well mastered that King Khufu (Cheops) was able to erect the greatest stone monument ever built, the Great Pyramid at Gizeh. This was 480 feet high, and consisted of 6,250,000 tons of stone, with each block averaging 21/2 tons. His son Chephren and grandson Mycerinus built adjoining pyramids that were only slightly smaller and are still standing in all their majesty.

The kings built tombs--the pyramids are royal tombs and nothing else--that were intended to last for eternity and to ensure the preservation of the king's body for all time. These early monarchs succeeded in building monuments that have withstood the destructive forces of nature and man for thousands of years, but they were not able to guarantee the protection of their bodies and the treasures that they took with them into the grave. Not one of the pyramid builders' bodies has escaped the hand of robbers, and their treasures shared the fate of their owners.

The national resources of Egypt were expended in this way for centuries, to provide burial places for the deified kings. While a king lived all the male population of Egypt was subject to summons, during the seasons when no field work was done, for work in the quarries, for the transport of the blocks of stone, and for the actual building operations. When such a monument was finished and the king had finally died, there was no relief for the poor populace, since the royal successor would start the whole process over again, and build another pyramid. This went on for centuries; consequently Egypt's economy became exhausted, with the result that the pyramids became smaller with every generation, and the fermenting unrest finally caused a revolution that ended this squandering of the national resources.

The Old Kingdom reached a high cultural level. This is especially seen in its architectural monuments. The technical and scientific achievements of the pyramid builders remain extremely remarkable. It is marvelous that they were able to handle such enormous amounts of stone without a knowledge of the wheel--which came to Egypt only several centuries later--and without either pulley or crane. They were capable of doing a first-class job by sheer man power with the help of ropes, sledges, levers, and sloping ramps.

The precision that was reached is almost fantastic, and can hardly be improved on by modern builders. The Great Pyramid may once more serve as an example to illustrate this precision. That monument was erected on an originally uneven plateau, which had been leveled off so accurately that the deviation from the true plane from the northwestern to the southeastern corner amounts to only .004 per cent. The same precision existed in regard to the squareness of the pyramid, showing an error of only .09 per cent between its northern and southern sides, and of only .003 per cent between its eastern and western sides.

Although the Egyptians had a complicated system of mathematics, their mathematical texts show that they were able to compute correctly the volume of a truncated pyramid or of a cylinder. In the Old Kingdom their medical science reached a level of efficiency that was little improved for thousands of years. It became so famous in the ancient world that even the Greeks made an Egyptian physician of hoary antiquity their god of medicine. Also in art and literature the pattern was set for the succeeding periods of Egyptian history, and very little change in all these fields occurred throughout the ancient history of Egypt. This high cultural level of the Old Kingdom civilization was recognized by later generations, which labeled that time as Egypt's classical period.

The Egyptian form of government during the Old Kingdom period was autocratic, with the king as an absolute monarch. He was considered to be "the good god" of Egypt. Nubia was partly subjugated and its gold mines exploited; expeditions were sent to Sinai for copper and turquoise, or to Byblos for cedarwood. Also some military campaigns into Palestine were undertaken, but no serious attempt was made to build up a foreign empire.

This Old Kingdom, looked back to as the glorious period of Egyptian history, came to an end in the 22d century b.c., and was followed by a time of chaos and anarchy. The deciding factors in its fall were an increasing poverty of the population, since all the wealth of the nation was used for royal buildings; a continuous increase of the power of local governors; and the fact that a weak king, Pepi II, had reigned too long (90 years).

The First Intermediate Period--Seventh to Eleventh Dynasty.--The following century and a half saw chaotic conditions (c. 2150-2000 B.C.), with a number of local rulers attempting to become supreme kings over the country. The princes of Coptos, Heracleopolis, Siut, and Thebes called themselves kings, fought with one another and tried to gain supremacy over the whole country. Asiatics, probably the Amorites who appeared in the whole Near East about this time, invaded the Delta and ruled over part of the northern country from Athribis, their capital.

The extant texts of that period give us a picture of the existing social conditions. All barriers seem to have broken down. Rich people had become poor, the tombs of the illustrious dead were broken into and robbed of their contents, and many people committed suicide as a way of escape from the misery of life. For the first time in Egyptian history, texts tell of men becoming skeptics. However, it was also a time of re-evaluation of spiritual things, and many wise and morally elevated sayings come from the literature of the First Intermediate Period, which Breasted called "the Age of Character." Many people seem to have searched for new values. When all material values had proved to be insecure, search was made for imperishable good, and hence much is spoken of the value of truth, righteousness, and order in the literature of this period.

The Middle Kingdom--Eleventh and Twelfth Dynasties.--After a long struggle, princes of Thebes, classified as Eleventh Dynasty kings, defeated all their rivals, and became supreme rulers over Egypt in the second half of the 21st century b.c. Once more expeditions were sent to Sinai for copper and turquoise, and monumental buildings were erected for the royal lord, "the good god." However, some kind of revolution ended this dynasty, and after an interregnum of a few years the last vizier of the previous king became monarch over Egypt as the founder of the powerful Twelfth Dynasty.

For 200 years the rulers of this dynasty, who moved the capital from Thebes to Lisht in Middle Egypt, ruled the land with strong but responsible hands. They considered themselves to be shepherds of the people, accepting their job as a hard responsibility and not as a privilege. They stabilized the economy of the country, resumed foreign trade and mining expeditions to Sinai and Nubia, and fortified the borders against the recurring intrusions of Asiatics and Nubians. They took care of the training of the future kings by appointing the crown prince as coregent with the father, as soon as a king felt that the son was old enough to assume the responsibilities of rulership.

If the Exodus is to be dated in the Eighteenth Dynasty, Abraham must have visited Egypt in the Twelfth Dynasty, during a Palestinian famine, and become acquainted with a Pharaoh who treated him with consideration and respect (see Gen. 12:16, 20). In one of the tombs of an Egyptian nobleman, Knemhotep by name, the arrival of 37 Palestinian men and women is depicted in color. This excellently executed and well-preserved mural painting gives us a vivid picture of the Asiatics of that time. It shows their multicolored garments, which were different from the Egyptian white dress, their weapons, shoes, a lyre, and other interesting objects and features. In looking at this picture one can visualize Abraham's family arriving in Egypt like those 37 people whose pictures an artist's brush has so vividly preserved for us.

The Middle Kingdom had lively and for the most part peaceful connections with Palestine and Syria. Only one military campaign against the Palestinian city of Shechem is recorded during that period, although the lack of records may not provide an accurate picture of the actual events. Egypt seems to have considered her Asiatic neighbors somewhat as dependent nations, for representatives of the crown were located in the larger cities of Palestine and Syria. They may have actually controlled much of the economic life of Syria and Palestine, and certainly promoted friendly relations between the local rulers and the powerful king of Egypt.

The Phoenician port city of Byblos was almost an Egyptian metropolis during that period. The native princes, who had good Amorite names, imitated Egyptian titles, court ceremonial, and language. They received precious Egyptian gifts from the Pharaohs for cedarwood, and had themselves buried like Egyptian kings on a less lavish scale.

The Second Intermediate Period--Thirteenth to Seventeenth Dynasty.--The vigorous life of the Middle Kingdom came to a sudden end, but the reasons for its end are not clear. The next dynasty was weak, and had to share its power with local rulers. Toward the end of the 18th century b.c. there took place an intrusion of foreigners, known under the name of Hyksos. In the Egyptian king lists these foreign rulers form the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. The Jewish historian Josephus explains Hyksos to mean "shepherd kings," but we know that this name is a corruption of the Egyptian term heqa khasut, meaning "ruler of foreign countries." Their ethnic relationship is still somewhat uncertain, but their names, like Jaqub-hur or Anat-hur, indicate that many of the Hyksos kings were Semites, although some may have been Hurrians.

It is still uncertain whether the Hyksos invaded Egypt and became masters of the country through military actions, or by a peaceful infiltration. Since they brought with them the horse and chariot, which had been unknown to the Egyptians up to that time, it seems likely that the Hyksos, with their superior military equipment, conquered Egypt. They made the city of Avaris in the eastern Delta their capital.

Some of these Hyksos kings, like Khian, seem to have reigned over the whole country, since their monuments have been found all over Egypt, and even in Nubia. Other Hyksos rulers may have been satisfied with a nominal rule only while local native rulers held the power in their districts. We know, for example, that during the whole period of Hyksos rule the Egyptian princes of Thebes claimed royal prerogatives, and appear in Egyptian lists as the Thirteenth and Seventeenth Dynasties, without any interruption. Another native dynasty, the so-called Fourteenth, with its seat in Xoïs, claimed authority in the western Delta.

Our records concerning this most interesting time are unfortunately very few and fragmentary. The Hyksos as foreign rulers were naturally hated by the Egyptians. After their expulsion all their monuments and records were systematically destroyed, and their memory was obliterated. Hence we have only a few contemporary monuments that have escaped the rage of the Egyptian zealots, together with some vilifying references to them by later writers, and the distorted legends of a much later time, like those that Josephus has preserved for us.

These are the reasons why great parts of the Second Intermediate Period belong to the darkest times of ancient Egyptian history, a fact deplored by historians and Biblical scholars, since it is regarded as virtually certain that Joseph held office as vizier of Egypt under one of the Hyksos kings. There is almost universal agreement among scholars concerning this point. Whatever date they accept for the Exodus, they agree that the Joseph narrative fits best into the Hyksos period. The Biblical chronology also would agree with such a view. We find not only the archeological evidence showing that the horse and chariot appeared in Egypt during that period, but also the first mention of them in the Bible in connection with the Joseph narrative (Gen. 41:43; 46:29; 47:17). The fact that during the Hyksos period a great social change took place in which all private property (with the exception of temple property) was transferred into the hands of the king, can also best be explained by the events recorded in Gen. 47:18-26.

The end of the Hyksos period came in the beginning of the 16th century b.c. Our records concerning their expulsion are once more very meager. A legendary story of some later time tells of a quarrel of Apophis, one of the last Hyksos kings, with Sekenenre, the prince of Thebes. This story would be of little interest were it not that the mummy of Sekenenre, still preserved, shows that this prince died of terrible head wounds, probably suffered in battle. It is therefore assumed that Sekenenre started the war of liberation, with fatal results for himself. His son Kamose continued the war with some success, as we know from two contemporary records, but the real liberator of Egypt from the foreign yoke was Kamose's brother Ahmose, who carried the war right to the gates of Avaris, the Hyksos' capital. When Avaris was finally taken, the Hyksos withdrew to Palestine and made the city of Sharuhen (Joshua 19:6) their stronghold. This city was also taken after a three-year campaign, or after three annual campaigns (the record is ambiguous). Then the Hyksos were driven to the north, where they disappear, although it is possible that the wars of Thutmose III a hundred years later were still fought against the remnants of the Hyksos.

The New Kingdom--Eighteenth to Twentieth Dynasty.--Since the historical period of this article terminates at the end of the 15th century b.c., only the history of Egypt under the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty kings, of the 16th and 15th centuries b.c., will be reviewed here. A discussion of the last kings of this dynasty, of the Amarna period, will be found in Volume II.

There is no break between the Seventeenth Dynasty liberators and the powerful Eighteenth Dynasty, but since pre-Christian times the Eighteenth Dynasty has been counted from Ahmose, brother of Kamose, traditionally counted the last king of the Seventeenth. The first four kings of the new dynasty, Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I and II, reigning altogether about 65 years (about 1570-1504 B.C.), were kept busy consolidating their kingdom and organizing the country into a political and economic unit. Only Thutmose I had time to carry out military campaigns of any consequence. He reconquered Nubia, which had become independent during the Hyksos period, and also made a campaign to Palestine and Syria. He penetrated as far as the river Euphrates, which is described in Egyptian texts as "that inverted water which goes downstream in going upstream," because the Euphrates flows in a direction almost opposite from that of the Nile.

Some early Eighteenth Dynasty king, perhaps Amenhotep I or Thutmose I, was probably the "new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph" (Ex. 1:8), the Pharaoh who in the spirit of nationalism viewed the Semitic Israelites within his borders with suspicion and hatred, and started the oppression that finally resulted in the Exodus.

After the short reign of Thutmose II, fourth ruler of the Eighteenth Dynasty, Hatshepsut, his widow, who was the daughter of Thutmose I, came to the throne and ruled Egypt with a strong but peaceful hand for a little more than 20 years (1504-1482 B.C.). She was forced by a temple revolt to accept as coregent her nephew Thutmose III, a minor priest in the Amen temple, but she succeeded in keeping him in the background for a long time. The years of her reign were peaceful and prosperous. She sent trading expeditions to Punt, which was probably Somaliland, and exploited the mines of Sinai and Nubia for copper, turquoise, and gold. She built at Deir el-Bahri in western Thebes the grandiose mortuary temple that is still considered the most beautiful of all Egyptian temples, and she erected a number of the highest obelisks that ever pointed skyward in the land of the Nile.

Bible chronology and the historical circumstances seem to agree that Hatshepsut may have been the foster mother of Moses. She may have intended to make her adopted son her successor, since she bitterly hated her nephew Thutmose III, as the records clearly show. However, she may have realized very soon that such a plan would have little chance of success against the determined opposition of the powerful priesthood of Egypt. Whatever may have been her plans, the priests took care that Thutmose III, one of their protégés, was placed on the throne, although their only accomplishment was that he was tolerated as a coregent as long as Hatshepsut lived.

Hatshepsut's end, after a reign of more than 20 years, is wrapped in mystery. Whether it came by a natural death or by violence is a matter of speculation. Her body has not yet been found, and may have been destroyed, as were her monuments and inscriptions. The new king did everything possible to eradicate the memory of his hated aunt and former coregent as soon as he came to the throne.

Thutmose III, reigning for about 33 years (1482-50 B.C.), became the greatest monarch of the New Kingdom. In a military campaign to Palestine and Syria during his first regnal year he defeated, in the famous battle of Megiddo, a coalition under the leadership of the prince of Kadesh. This was the first battle of antiquity of which a detailed record survives. Thutmose subdued all Palestine and Syria; he made the cedar forests of Lebanon crown properties; he placed garrisons in the principal cities of Western Asia; he appeared in person almost every year in his foreign domains to demonstrate his power and to discourage any aspirations toward independence or rebellion. The wealth of Asia poured into Egypt in the form of tribute, which was used for huge building projects such as temples, palaces, and fortifications.

Amenhotep II (1450-1425 B.C.), the son of Thutmose III, who was probably the Pharaoh of the Exodus, was a great sportsman who excelled in archery, hunting, and water sport, but he was also a merciless and cruel ruler. Several military campaigns are recorded of him, necessitated by revolts in different parts of the empire. All attempts of the subjugated nations to regain independence were quenched with ruthlessness and terror. Amenhotep was succeeded on the throne by one of his younger sons. Thutmose IV (1425-1412 B.C.). There is evidence that the new king had originally not been appointed as his father's successor, but had unexpectedly received this honor. This unexpected elevation to the office of crown prince would be explained adequately if his elder brother, the heir apparent, had been killed in the tenth plague (Ex. 12:29).

Conditions in the Egyptian Empire at the Probable Time of the Exodus.--Egypt was at its political height under the Eighteenth Dynasty kings in the 15th century b.c. It was united under one strong monarch, and enjoyed the national prestige that the nation had won through the expulsion of the Hyksos and the building of an empire extending deep into Africa as well as into Asia. The Eighteenth Dynasty kings being descendants of the liberators of Egypt from a foreign yoke, they were revered and cherished more than any kings had been before. This accounted also for the stability of the dynasty, which lasted for about 250 years.

Nubia was a valuable part of the empire, since it possessed rich gold mines, producing so much gold that the wealth of the Pharaoh in regard to this precious metal became legendary. The kings of Babylonia, Mitanni, and Assyria begged for gold in almost every letter in words like this: "Let my brother send gold in very great quantity without measure ... for gold is as plentiful as dust in my brother's land." Nubia, being administered by a viceroy called the "King's son of Kush," furnished also cattle, hides, ivory, and semiprecious stones; hence it was an important possession.

Palestine and Syria had become part of the Egyptian Empire in the time of Thutmose III. In these countries the native princes were allowed to keep their thrones, but Egyptian garrisons were placed throughout the country in strategically located cities. High commissioners, as the representatives of the crown, kept a watchful eye on the movements and behavior of the different local princes. They also received and transmitted the annual tribute, which produced a continuous flow of the wealth of Asia into Egypt, as cedarwood, olive oil, wine, cattle.

The copper mines of Sinai were intensively exploited, and trade relations were kept up with Cyprus, Crete, and some of the Ionian islands. With the kings of Babylonia, Assyria, and Mitanni the Egyptian Pharaoh had good relations, these kings calling one another "brother."

Egypt's supremacy in Syria and Palestine was unchallenged, and the people of the Nile country had never felt more secure and powerful than during this period. The inflow of riches from foreign countries made it unnecessary to lay heavy burdens on the Egyptian citizens, and for the first time in the history of Egypt a standing army was organized, largely from foreigners, replacing the people's army that had served the king from time immemorial during the seasons when no field work required their attention. When the native citizens were freed from their traditional service, in the army or in public works, their places had to be filled by slaves who were supplied through the military campaigns in foreign countries. The need for foreign slave labor was also one of the motives for oppressing the Hebrews, who lived in the eastern Delta, and for stubbornly refusing to allow their departure.

The cultural life of Egypt had reached a high level. The various temples built during that time show a refined artistic and architectural taste. Craftsmanship was highly developed, and beautiful objects of art were produced during the Eighteenth Dynasty, as the rich contents of King Tutankhamen's tomb show. Astronomical, mathematical, and medical texts reveal that the sciences flourished; thus Egypt could justly claim that it was not only the most powerful nation of its time but also the most civilized country.

Such were the conditions in the country where the Hebrews lived during the time of their oppression, and the cultural achievements with which they became acquainted during their stay in Egypt.

Bibliography

Ancient history is based on the findings of archeology discussed in the previous chapter. Hence the literature referred to at the end of that chapter has a definite bearing on the history of antiquity. Many books on ancient history dealing with the period discussed in this article are out of date because during recent decades our historical knowledge has made many advances. This is especially true since older works are based on a too-high chronology, which has been changed rather radically to much later dates for the early period. It is with these reservations in mind that the following books on ancient history are listed.

The Cambridge Ancient History (3d ed.). Edited by I. E. S. Edwards and others. Vol. I, Part 1: Prolegomena and Prehistory; Part 2: Early History of the Middle East. Vol. II, Part 1: History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region, c. 1800-1380 B.C. Cambridge: University Press, 1970-1973. The complete 12-volume work, with each chapter written by a specialist, is the most exhaustive ancient history available.

Gardiner, Alan H. The Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford: University Press, 1966. A non-technical survey covering the period from the Old Kingdom to the time of Alexander the Great.

Gurney, O. R. The Hittites (rev. ed.). Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961. An up-to-date treatment of the history, art, achievements, and social organization of the Hittites.

Steindorff, George, and Seele, Keith, C. When Egypt Ruled the East (rev. ed.). University of Chicago Press, 1957. An authoritative and up-to-date history of the Empire period of Egypt.

Wilson, John A. The Burden of Egypt. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951. 332 pp. A good, well-written cultural history of Egypt to the end of the Empire period.

I. Sources of Information

The reconstruction of the modes of daily life in the ancient world requires a piecing together of evidence from many different sources. In Egypt painted tomb pictures or reliefs vividly depict the habits of people of all walks of life, their dresses, tools, furniture, houses, and also the different occupations of life. In Mesopotamia the source material is of a more limited nature. Pictures on cylinder seals, statutes, and reliefs provide some of the information needed for a description of the habits and customs of that country. Other evidence comes from legal, religious, and business documents. Of great value also are the objects preserved in the ruined sites of the Near East, as household vessels, tools, weapons, toilet articles, jewelry, and other objects of daily use.

The following description is based on this manifold source material. It should be remembered, however, that the evidence for some periods and areas is richer than for others, and some gaps in our knowledge still remain. When we speak of the habits and customs of the people in the patriarchal age, we mean the time from about 2000 to 1500 B.C. Habits were not always the same, during these 500 years, nor were they the same in every area. However, the ancient world did not experience such drastic changes as the modern world has been as a result of the remarkable inventions and discoveries of the last two centuries.

Although small changes in cultures are noticeable in the different ages of antiquity, life was essentially the same during many ages. If a man of the 15th century a.d. should rise from his grave today, he would hardly recognize the world in which he once lived. He would notice radical changes in every detail of life, in the systems of transportation, communications, the mode of writing, printing, household appliances, living conditions, dress, medical care, and social conditions. In the ancient Orient this was not so. A man of the 20th century b.c. suddenly placed in the world of the 15th century b.c. would certainly see some strange things he had not known, such as the horse and chariot, and a few weapons and tools, but he would be able to adapt himself to the new situation within a few hours. In fact, he would not feel too much out of place in some parts of the ancient East even today. For this reason the description of the daily life of the people living in the patriarchal age as presented in this article applies rather uniformly to the whole period under discussion. Since, however, the two main cultures of antiquity, the Egyptian and the Mesopotamian, differ markedly from each other, they have to be treated separately.

Palestine and Syria have not furnished much source material for the subject under discussion, because of the almost complete absence of pictorial evidence. The description of the daily life in these countries during the patriarchal age depends therefore largely on archeological evidence, and analogies from Egypt and Mesopotamia, which have fortunately provided pictures and descriptions of the Palestinians.

II. In Egypt

The following description of the daily life of the Egyptian peasant, craftsman, and nobleman reflects conditions of the time of Moses in the Empire period, which were not much different from the conditions, customs, and habits found in the time of Abraham in the Middle Kingdom.

The Peasant.--The great majority of Egyptians were peasants. They either possessed a tiny piece of land from whose produce high taxes, usually 20 per cent, had to be paid, or served a rich landlord, a temple, or the king, by tilling the soil, and being fed by the one for whom service was performed. It is this great mass of ancient Egyptians of whom we have hardly any records. They were an inarticulate group. They had no scribes to tell their story of joy and woe to later generations in literary writings, no means to build tombs whose wall pictures would tell their life story. What we know about the great majority of Egyptians comes from the remarks and pictures of the higher-class people who mention their less-privileged compatriots or depict their life only as much as it had any relationship to themselves.

The life of the ordinary man of ancient Egypt was very simple. He lived in a small hut, built of mud bricks, with a flat roof consisting of layers of clay put over some beams of acacia wood and matting. One opening served as a door, some smaller ones as windows. Reed matting that could be rolled up guaranteed a certain degree of privacy in the house. These houses did not have much furniture. However, most people had a bed, consisting of a wooden frame on four legs. Strips of leather stretched crosswise over the frame served as a mattress, and a headrest made of wood or baked clay, as cushion. Some houses had low chairs and small tables, perhaps a wooden box in which some valuables could be kept, and a spare piece of cloth as a garment.

Most of the remaining inventory of an ordinary peasant's home consisted of pottery, cooking pots, jars serving as containers for water, grain, legumes, or other foodstuff. The family possessed also a wooden comb with long teeth, two millstones for making flour, and some simple tools for the work in the field, like a wooden plow, a few bronze sickles to harvest the grain, and a knife made of the same metal. Then there were nets to catch birds in the marshes, and a simple loom on which the womenfolk did the weaving.

A white loincloth for himself--the standard dress of all Egyptians from the king to the peasant--and long, white dresses for his wife and daughters were all that the average poor Egyptian needed by way of garments.

The peasant's life was a continual struggle to keep alive. When the inundation of the Nile began in late July, the dams surrounding each field had to be kept under repair. Perpetual vigilance was necessary to make sure that every field got enough of the precious, muddy water saturated with fertility-laden soil from the Abyssinian highland. Then the fields were sown; and as soon as the Nile level fell, water was pumped by means of the water sweep to irrigate the fields with the minimum necessary for successful growth. This work had to be done until the harvest season, which was finished by March.

As soon as the harvest was brought in, the peasant usually had to leave his family to serve his king for several months until a new sowing time would require his return. He would become a soldier in the army and take part in a campaign, or would be employed in public works, perhaps in the quarries to produce the stone blocks needed for temples, palaces, or government buildings, or would be engaged in transporting the building material to the site where it was needed. From the end of March to August practically the whole male population of Egypt was engaged in the king's service. If the poor peasant was on a foreign campaign and could not return in time to take care of his fields, his wife and children had to work doubly hard to fill the place of the missing husband and father.

However, the average Egyptian seems to have been satisfied with his lot, as can be deduced from the fact that there were hardly ever any revolts against the existing social order. As long as he was able to fill his stomach with bread made of emmer (wheat), have his favored dishes made of barley, lentils, onions, and garlic, occasionally some meat, and his thin beer, he was content.

The daily routine was frequently broken by festivities connected with the religion of the Egyptians. On such occasions processions of priests with their shrines and gods could be watched, and also cheap amusements, like wrestling--a much favored sport among the Egyptians--or acrobatics, usually performed by girls.

The Professional.--The life of the professional craftsman was different, whether he was a carpenter, stonemason, draftsman, painter, sculptor, or scribe. He lived in the city, worked either for the king, wealthy government officials, or a temple, had a better house than the peasant, better furniture, and a greater variety of food, since his pay allowed him some luxuries. However, even these people have not left us many records about their own life, since they were working for others, and with few exceptions did not have the means to build tombs in which their life story would be depicted and their memory perpetuated. They were happy if they could afford to set up a stele on which their life story was briefly recounted.

The Aristocracy.--Aside from the royal family, the most privileged people in ancient Egypt were the government officials and the priests. Most of them were wealthy and possessed beautiful estates with palatial homes. An aristocrat's house, usually surrounded by a high wall, consisted of bedrooms, a living room, a bathroom, and an outside kitchen detached from the house, with quarters for the servants and a storage house. Within the walls was a well-kept garden in which was a pool, surrounded by symmetrically planted trees, and flower beds. The noble Egyptians were lovers of beauty, symmetry, and nature.

The bed of the nobleman differed little from that of the poor man, but was made of better wood, had legs carved in the shape of lions' paws, and was perhaps inlaid with bone or ivory. It was usually only four feet long, since the Egyptians slept with their legs drawn up, and thus felt no need of full-sized beds. Their headrests were carved out of wood or made of stone. Soft cushions were unknown to the Egyptians, perhaps also to the people of ancient Palestine. Hence it was probably no hardship for Jacob to use a stone as a headrest during the night he spent near Bethel on his way to Haran. The beds stood inside a kind of tent structure, over which thin curtains were placed to keep the mosquitoes out. A low chair, some boxes containing the family's possessions in linen, and a dressing table with the lady's cosmetics, eye paint, rouge, a bronze razor, a metal mirror, and a casket for jewels--these constituted the rest of the bedroom furnishings.

The bathroom and toilet had a screen wall from behind which a servant could pour water over the person standing in the bathroom on a hollowed-out floor slab that had a drainage into a basin set at a lower level, usually outside the house.

The living room did not possess much furniture. A few carved wooden chairs with low backs and one or two tables were probably all that the living room contained. The people sat at the table to eat. They also played games resembling chess, while sitting at the table.

The clothing of the noble Egyptian was also very simple. Usually he wore only a loincloth, made of the fine Egyptian linen famous for its quality throughout the ancient world. It was immaculately clean, and the front part was starched. In fact, it was washed, starched, and smoothed by the washing servant every day. The wealthy Egyptian also had a long, tuniclike garb with short sleeves, and a certain number of white dresses for official functions. He wore sandals, and usually carried a staff as the sign of his authority. On official occasions he wore a wig. Most of the noblewomen wore dresses made of one piece of very thin material that inadequately concealed their bodily features, of which the Egyptian women seem to have been proud. The fabric was so fine that a lady's dress could be drawn through a finger ring.

The days of the Egyptian noble were spent in performing his official duties, either in the temple, if he was a high-ranking priest, or in his office, if he was a judge, mayor of the city, or head of a district (nomarch). However, these duties left him enough time to inspect his farms, the different workshops where his servants were engaged in brewing beer, making wine, baking bread, butchering oxen, and performing other menial tasks. Since the building of the rich man's tomb went on for many years, he frequently inspected the progress of the workmen who did the excavating, the cutting of reliefs, the drawing and painting of inscriptions, and the many other details connected with the building of a tomb.

During the Old Kingdom, in the third millennium b.c., most noble Egyptians built their tombs near the pyramids of their kings. Such tombs consisted of a tomb chamber dug into the ground and an elaborate structure above ground which served as the tomb chapel. Some had one room, some many rooms. The reliefs covering the walls tell of the everyday life of the owner, which, he hoped, would be perpetuated in a magical way after his death through the efficacy of these wall pictures. For us the pictures are of great importance, since they illustrate his life from the cradle to the grave, and are a main source of knowledge regarding Egyptian culture.

From the Middle Kingdom onward (2000 B.C. and on) most tombs were hewn out of the rock cliffs of the western desert. They usually consisted of tunnels and chambers of many shapes and designs. The entrance was in a porch hewn out of the living rock, with columns supporting the roof. A narrow hall led into one or more chapels and from there on to the place behind which the actual tomb chamber, containing the embalmed body of the tomb owner, was situated. He lay in his coffin made of thick wooden boards, richly painted. All the walls of the tomb chamber, the chapels, and halls had on them either paintings or sculptured reliefs, which were also painted.

Every owner of such a tomb made provision during his life for the proper continuation of the mortuary cult after his passing. He endowed his tomb with fields and servants who were to bring the produce to the mortuary priests. These priests had to perform the prescribed daily rites and bring the necessary offerings in food, drink, and incense, so that the deceased would enjoy life in the hereafter as he had wished to do while he was still alive. In orderly and prosperous times the mortuary cult for some tombs was continued without interruption for centuries, but in other periods the care of tombs and the performance of mortuary duties were neglected very soon after the tomb owner's death.

The wealthy Egyptian also had a small fleet of Nile boats which he needed for traveling. Egypt had no roads. The Nile was the artery of communication. When the official had to make a trip to visit the court, or to visit the area over which he ruled, he had a boat with cabins, in which he found many of the comforts of his home. Other boats followed him with supplies and servants. One contained a kitchen, where his meals were prepared, and another a bakery, from which he obtained his daily dainties.

For his recreation the noble Egyptian engaged in fishing and hunting, as the many pictures in the tombs indicate. Fishing was done by means of spears from a flatboat, and the hunting of birds by means of throw sticks or clapnets in the marshes.

Social gatherings were not infrequently held in the homes of the rich. Friends were invited to view wrestling performances between men and the acrobatics of women. An orchestra consisting of 22-stringed harps, 6-stringed lyres, 3-stringed lutes, double reed pipes, and tambourines provided gay music to which thinly clad girls danced. All guests, servants, and performers wore on their heads a cone of perfume, which melted and filled the garments of all present, as well as the air, with a heavy perfume. Bouquets of fresh flowers were seen everywhere, and a host of servants provided the guests not only with all the dainties that Egypt produced but also with great quantities of beer and wine. At the end of these parties the guests had to be assisted, or even carried, to their homes.

Slaves.--Slavery did not play such a great role in ancient Egypt as in some other countries. However, slaves were found in all households of rich and noble Egyptians. The foreign wars brought to Egypt many prisoners who became slaves. Generally speaking, many of them fared well in Egypt and as household servants had an easier life than they had known as free citizens in their home countries. In fact, many of them lived an easier life than the Egyptian peasant, some of them coming to wealth and honor. The Twenty-second Dynasty kings of the 10th century, for example, were the descendants of Libyan slaves who had advanced first to full-fledged citizens, then to local rulers and army commanders, and finally to the occupancy of the throne.

Religion.--It is possible here to deal only in a cursory manner with the religious beliefs of the Egyptians. The Egyptians were polytheists, believing in the existence of a host of gods who were supposed to have various functions. The sun-god Ra, later Amen-Ra, stood at the head of the gods. His secretary, Thoth, recorded human actions. The other gods had their duties divided between them, one being the patron of the Nile, another of the land, one was the god of the dead, another was the patron of women with child. The ruling god of Egypt, however, was a human being, the Pharaoh, called "the good god, Horus." He was considered to be the bodily son of Ra, reigning over Egypt as the visible representative of the family of invisible gods. All gods were thought to possess very human traits, and were able to hate and love, to injure and kill, and in turn to be wounded and killed. Many of the gods were pictured as having the features of animals, and the animals to which the gods were likened were therefore held sacred in places where these gods had temples. The cat, for example, represented the goddess Bastet, Amen was represented by a ram, Hathor by a cow, and Heket by a frog.

The religious duties of the Egyptians consisted in helping to build and preserve temples, in supporting their numerous personnel, and in sharing the expenses of the daily offerings, the sacred feasts and processions. All activities of life were regulated by hopes and fears connected with the life in "the west," the hereafter. It was thought that any good deed done for the well-being of a deceased person would not only benefit the recipient of the gift but later also the one who had performed the pious mortuary duty.

That the ancient Egyptian was aware of his moral obligations toward his fellow man and his gods is evident. This is evident from the negative confessions contained in the Book of the Dead, a magical document which was placed in the coffin of the deceased and which was regarded as a passport to the other world. The Egyptian believed that after death he would have to appear before 42 judges, who could investigate whether he was ready to enter the world of the blessed dead. This readiness was determined by the manner of his earthly life. He was supposed to be prepared to give correct answers to the 42 investigators, for he carried with him the answers, written on papyrus. To the first judge, he would say, "I have committed no sin," to the second, "I have not robbed," to the third, "I have not deceived," etc. In the course of this thorough investigation he would deny that he had killed, stolen, used false scales or weights, been quarrelsome, committed any immoral acts, or done anything against a temple or a god, in other words, that he had been blameless.

That the Egyptian's life was not in harmony with his ethical and moral knowledge is known from the complaints of the poor, and occasional documentary references to all kinds of injustice that was done, everywhere. However, the Egyptian thought that the Book of the Dead, with its magical formulas, provided a remedy for his sins and guaranteed an admittance to the better world. It was also thought that the mortuary cult, with its offerings and its care of the body, had a magical effect on the well-being of the deceased.

The Egyptian did not believe in the resurrection of the body. He believed, however, that the care of the body in this world, the bringing of offerings, and the performance of certain rites would be beneficial for the deceased in the other world. Precautions were taken to guarantee the well-being of the deceased in case the living neglected their duties in this matter. Imitation offerings were carved in the tomb walls, and all desires of the deceased were recorded in inscriptions. It was thought that these reliefs, pictures, and texts would be sufficiently reliable substitutes for any missing mortuary rites, in case of need.

Life in the other world was believed to be a continuation of the life on earth, with this difference, that all unpleasant experiences of the former life, like sicknesses, disappointments, or misfortunes, would not be repeated. For this reason the pleasant phases of the daily life of the tomb owner and his family were described in all details by means of paintings or reliefs, but never any sicknesses or other unfavorable circumstances that might have crossed his life's pathway were portrayed. We know, for example, from surgical papyri, and through the evidence from the mummies, that the ancient Egyptian surgeons successfully performed all kinds of operations, but none is ever depicted in a tomb or temple, with the exception of circumcision, which apparently was considered to be a religious performance, as among the Israelites.

III. In Mesopotamia

The foregoing description of the Egyptian daily life reflected primarily the conditions, habits, and customs of the 15th and 16th centuries b.c., from which period a wealth of illustrative and documentary material is available. For a description of the daily life of the Mesopotamian citizen, the 18th century, the time of Hammurabi, is chosen. Hammurabi's law code allows us to obtain a clearer picture of the social conditions existing at that time, than at any other period in the patriarchal age. Also, for this period a greater amount of source material is available in the form of letters and economic texts, than for the time of Moses, when Mesopotamia was ruled by comparatively weak Babylonian, Assyrian, and Mitannian rulers.

Three Classes.--The population of Mesopotamia during the patriarchal age consisted of three classes: (1) the western Semitic, or Amorite, nobility, to which also belonged the royal house, (2) the free citizens of the Semitic and Sumerian populations that had lived in the country from the time preceding the Amorite conquest, and (3) the slaves, mostly foreigners. The first class was politically and financially, the second numerically, the strongest. However, the number of slaves may at no time have been much less than that of the free citizens of the country, since Mesopotamia had always a very great number of slaves. In Egypt the only ones who had slaves were the rich, and some veterans, to whom prisoners of war were given as a reward for bravery; but in Mesopotamia, where a slave's price was only about 40 shekels (about $12) almost every citizen had one or more slaves for his field work, the performance of household duties, and unskilled and skilled labor.

The preservation of the ancient Mesopotamia codes of law enables us to understand rather well the social position of the different classes of society. The fact that the severity of the penalty for injuring or wounding certain citizens depended on their social status shows clearly the difference in value attached to different members of society.

Slaves had naturally less rights than the two classes of citizens, although the law gave them certain rights. They were, for example, allowed to accumulate some property, which in time might be large enough to provide the price of their release. They had the right to marry a free citizen, and the children born of such a union became free citizens. The continual wars of conquest of the Babylonian kings provided a constant stream of foreign slaves, who usually came to the country as prisoners of war. The whole economy of the country was based on the cheap labor performed by slaves; consequently the free population of the country enjoyed a comparatively high standard of living.

Agriculture.--Most of the land belonged to the crown, the temples, or to rich merchants. These owners rented it out to tenants, who had to pay one third to one half of the crop as rent for the fields, although the owner had to advance the seed corn. Every tenant was forced by law to cultivate the land under his care, or to compensate the owner for the loss of his share in the crop. Almost all field work was actually done by slaves, though all tenants were free citizens.

The main agricultural products of Mesopotamia were barley, wheat, and dates. The fields producing wheat and barley were worked with primitive plows. These wooden plows, similar to ones still in use today in some parts of the Near East, are depicted on ancient reliefs and seals. They were drawn by oxen, and had a funnel attached to them through which the seed was channeled into the furrows at the same time that the field was plowed.

The date palm growing luxuriantly in the alluvial soil of Lower Mesopotamia was one of the chief sources of the country's wealth. Its fruits provided one of the Babylonians' principal articles of diet, its sap yielded palm sugar, its fibrous bark was suitable for weaving ropes, its trunk furnished light but tough building material, and last but not least, its sap could also be converted into a highly cherished beverage. The planting of date orchards was therefore encouraged by the state. Empty pieces of land were given out for this purpose, and the citizen could obtain such a field without paying the yearly rent. He would plant and tend it for four years, but in the fifth year of his tenancy the original owner of the land would receive half of the garden as payment.

Since the rainfall of Mesopotamia is deficient for the agricultural needs of the land, irrigation canals crossing the country in all directions were constructed. They were automatically fed with the waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris during the period of high water in the spring. However, as soon as the level of the rivers subsided, there began the toilsome task of raising the water from the lower river to the level of the higher-lying canals. This was done by means of water sweeps, worked by hand, through primitive irrigation machines operated by oxen, or by light water wheels. All three methods of bringing precious irrigation water to the fields are employed in Iraq even today. Since the river water contained much silt, which sank to the bottom of the canals, raising in this way their beds, the canals had to be repeatedly dug out. This silt was thrown out on both sides of the canal banks, which in due time became so high that it was difficult to put the silt on them. Then new canals had to be dug. For this reason one sees today remains of old canal banks running parallel to those of later times. It was the duty of local governors to take care that the canals were kept in good repair. These officials had the right to requisition people from villages or fields that lay in close proximity to portions of the canal that needed repair or cleaning. In return for this work the villagers had the right to fish in those sections of the canals that were under their charge. Fishing in strange waters was prohibited. Fishing by line and net was a regular industry; hence the preservation of rights in local waters was jealously guarded.

Although river traffic was not the exclusive means of transportation, as in Egypt, it was nevertheless a very important branch of the economy of the land. For short distances a round vessel, called a gufa today, was used. It was made of wickerwork coated with bitumen. Larger boats were rafts made of animal hides blown up with air. They have also continued to be used, and such a float is now called a kelek. Also the use of log rafts and of real barges is attested in ancient records. The wages of boat builders as well as of boatsmen were regulated by law.

Commerce.--The Semitic population of Mesopotamia were always engaged in commercial enterprises with their neighboring countries, Elam in the east, Asia Minor and Syria in the west, Palestine and Egypt in the southwest. This international commerce led to a considerable growth in the size of the cities. Caravans connected the different parts of the known world, and brought to Mesopotamia the products of other lands. The beast of burden was almost exclusively the donkey, since there were few horses, and only a small number of domesticated camels before the middle of the second millennium b.c.

The merchants in the cities had settled agents in foreign countries, and traveling agents who journeyed with the caravans between Mesopotamia and other lands. Profits were equally distributed between the merchants and the agents. All agreements were made in written form, and duly witnessed and sealed. Mesopotamia exported textiles, dates, cylinder seals, lapis lazuli, but imported copper from Asia Minor, silver from Cyprus, fine pottery from Syria, as well as olive oil and cedarwood.

Town Life and the Home.--Towns and cities were planned in a scientific way throughout the patriarchal age. Streets were not entirely straight, but all thoroughfares ran through, and city blocks were of fairly regular sizes. All private houses were soundly built of sun-dried bricks, but rested on foundations of baked bricks. All houses were required by law to be kept in good repair. Builders were held responsible for the quality of construction. If a house collapsed and injured or killed someone, the contractor was punished. In some parts of the country houses were only one story high; in other parts most houses were two-story buildings. The Mesopotamian houses in general had an open courtyard in the middle surrounded by different rooms. Two-storied buildings had the bedrooms on the second floor, which could be reached by means of a stairway. This stairway led also to the roof, which was used for sleeping purposes during the hot season. Some of the larger cities like Ur and Babylon had regular sewage systems, of clay pipes, to which private houses were connected.

The furniture of the ancient Mesopotamians is not so well known as that of Egypt, since the damp climate has not preserved any actual specimens. Only royal palace furniture is depicted on the reliefs, usually only a throne or a couch. Pictures on cylinder seals which occasionally depict some furniture are too schematic, so that one cannot recognize any details. Hence, the reconstruction of the interior of an average Mesopotamian house is still impossible. However, it can be said that the people of the Euphrates and Tigris valley did not recline at the tables as was customary among the Greeks and Romans, but sat on chairs, as was also the custom in Egypt.

The Mesopotamian dresses covered much more of the body than the garments of the Egyptians. Most of the dresses were made of wool, but in the Assyrian region linen was also fabricated. Most people wore long garments that neatly fitted the body, and a robelike outer dress. The latter usually had embroidered fringes with the colors red and blue dominating. Sandals were made of straw or leather, and the headdress was usually a woolen cap.

Family life, along with everything else, was regulated by law. This applied to marriage, divorce, adoption of children, inheritance, and the rights of widows. It is a remarkable fact that the ancient Babylonian law gave to women considerable rights, and a certain degree of independence.

In Babylonia and Assyria the majority of government officials were drawn from the Semitic nobility. Governors of provinces and districts, mayors of cities, judges, tax collectors, soothsayers, and physicians belonged to this favored class of people. Although certain privileges were allowed to these people by law, they had to act, rule, and work within the confines of the law. Every citizen had to serve his king as a soldier at certain times, and was bound to make provision for his family in such emergencies.

Religion and Belief in the Afterlife.--The religion of the Babylonian people was polytheistic. Marduk as the creator god was the titular head of all the gods, and received the greatest honors in the official cult. However, many other gods, like Sin, the moon-god, and Ishtar, the goddess of love and fertility, possessed many temples and cult places. Every man had his favored god, and presented his prayers mostly to that god, although he might include some others in a general way, in order not to offend any by neglecting them. The following Babylonian prayer may serve as an example:

"O my God, who art angry, accept my prayer, O my goddess, who art angry, receive my supplication. Receive my supplication and let thy spirit be at rest. O my goddess, look with pity on me and accept my supplication. Let my sins be forgiven, let my transgressions be blotted out. Let the ban be torn away, let the bonds be loosened. Let the seven winds carry away my sighs. I will send away my wickedness, let the bird bear it to the heavens. Let the fish carry off my misery, let the river sweep it away. Let the beast of the field take it from me. Let the flowing waters of the river wash me clean."

Among the ancient Babylonians there was a real consciousness of sin. They sensed the consequences of sin and its attached guilt much more than the Egyptians, who gave themselves the air of being innocent. This can be seen from the written prayers, such as the one quoted above, in which the deity is asked for mercy and forgiveness, and also from questions which were asked concerning the causes of misfortunes they saw falling upon men. Questions like the following were asked:

"Has he estranged the father from his son or the son from his father? Has he estranged the mother from her daughter or the daughter from her mother? ... Has he refused to set a captive free? Has he shut out a prisoner from the light? Has he committed a sin against a god or against a goddess? Has he done violence to one older than himself? Has he said yes for no or for yes? Has he used false scales? Has he accepted a wrong account? Has he set up a false landmark? Has he broken into his neighbor's house? Has he come near his neighbor's wife? Has he shed his neighbor's blood?"

These examples reveal clearly that the nature of sin and its evil consequences were not unknown to the ancients, and that Paul was right in asserting that gentiles "shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom. 2:15).

As was true of most ancient nations, the people of the Mesopotamian valley believed in a form of life after death. They held that the power of death extended over mankind, plant and animal life, and the gods. However, they thought that death was the result of man's natural constitution, a law divinely ordained at the time of man's creation, even as they thought that sin was part of man's original nature. They believed that man was created from a mixture of clay from the earth, made of Tiamat, and the blood of Kingu. Since both Tiamat and Kingu had been evil gods before they were killed, it was only natural that man was evil from the beginning, since he was made of two substances coming from evil gods. In this way man threw indirectly upon the gods the blame for his sinful nature.

It was also believed that in death the spirit was transferred from one mode of life or existence to another, but the well-being of the spirit of the dead depended on the care that the body received on earth. As death could be hastened and life shortened through sins, death could be postponed and life lengthened through pious acts, and the exact fulfillment of one's duties toward the gods. However, there was no escape from death for anyone or by any means. The dwelling place of the departed was considered to be in the interior of the earth. But about the conditions of the afterlife there existed much vagueness and confused thinking. Although the Babylonian stories include references to the resurrection of some ancient heroes, who again died after a short time, the ancient Babylonian had no belief in a future resurrection of the body.

IV. In Palestine

It is difficult to describe the daily life of the people of Canaan during the patriarchal age, since we know so little about them. Hardly any written records of Palestine come from that period, and the few that have been found are very short. Hence, we are able to describe, with any degree of accuracy, only a few phases of Palestinian life before the 15th century.

The Population.--The population of Palestine in the first half of the second millennium consisted of people who lived in small towns and little villages, and of nomads who lived on the fringes of the fertile country, and moved from place to place in search of pastures. Most towns were protected by well--built walls, and seldom had more than one gate. With the exception of some of the ports like Byblos and Ugarit in Syria, and Gaza in Palestine, the cities rarely covered more than 15 acres.

The ruling class throughout Palestine during the patriarchal age consisted of Amorites, whose mode of life was probably not different from that of the dwellers in Mesopotamia. They naturally lived in the cities, had control of the county, and may have owned much of the agricultural lands. Their houses did not differ greatly from those in Mesopotamia, which have already been described. However, the excavations have shown that most Palestinian houses were of smaller size than those of the Euphrates and Tigris valley. The professionals and peasants of Palestine belonged to the various tribes of the Canaanites.

For an understanding of the appearance, war implements, and clothing of these people a colored wall picture in the tomb of an Egyptian noble at Beni Hasan is instructive. It describes the arrival of 37 Palestinians, of whom 15 are actually depicted. These fair-skinned men and women, in marked contrast with the dark Egyptians shown in the same picture, are led by their chief. He bears the good Amorite name Abi-shar, meaning "My father is king," and the title "Ruler of a foreign country." He and two of the other men who accompany him are shown wearing colorful garments that cover their bodies from the shoulder to the knees, but leave their arms and one shoulder free. The colors red and blue dominate in the woolen clothes of all men and women shown, but the chief's dress has the most elaborate pattern of all. Three of the other men are wearing only loincloths with a simple red pattern on a white background. Two men have long white garments. The four women shown in the picture wear colored dresses of a design similar to that of the costume of the men. However, their dresses are longer, reaching below their knees. The women's garments also show intricate patterns of blue and red figures woven into the cloth. A little boy wears a red loincloth only.

The men wear sandals, with the exception of the chief and one other man. These were probably made of leather, although this cannot be determined from the picture. The women and the little boy wear some kind of closed shoes or moccasins. Why the chief is shown barefooted while his entourage, with one exception, wear shoes or sandals is not clear. All the men have dark hair, cut at their necks. They are also shown with pointed beards, but their upper lips seem to have been shaven. The women are shown with long, loosely worn hair, although a ring or band worn on top of the head prevented the hair from falling into their faces.

Some of the men, and also the boy, carry long spears; two men have large bows, and on their backs carry quivers with arrows. Several men have heavy throw sticks, and one carries a large ax. Two men carry skin water bottles on their backs; one plays on an eight-stringed lyre of a rectangular design. The donkeys used for transportation carry some of the family's children, and also some objects thought to be smiths' bellows. If they were actually carrying bellows, this would suggest that these Palestinians were perhaps professional workers in metal, although the accompanying inscription states that they were bringing to Egypt stibium, a desired cosmetic.

It can be seen from this description that the tomb picture of Beni Hasan gives us an excellent idea of the appearance of the Palestinian people, and we shall not be much amiss in picturing Abraham, who lived in the time when this picture was made, as being like the "ruler of a foreign country, Abi-shar," and Abraham's family and entourage as being like that of Abi-shar.

Agriculture and Cattle Breeding.--The majority of Palestine's population consisted of peasants. Whether they were the owners of their land or only tenants is not known. The main products of their country were barley, wheat, grapes, figs, and olives.

Agriculture in Palestine depended, not on inundation or irrigation water as in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but on the rain. The rain falling from October to April was therefore of decisive importance. The "early" rain comes in October and November, softening the ground sufficiently to allow plowing and sowing. The heavy rainfall of December and January soaks deeply into the ground and causes the crop to grow. The light showers of the "latter rain" in the springtime are necessary for a ripening of the grain. The volume of rain, and therefore also the fertility, depended on geography and topography. The western slopes of the mountains were fertile, but the eastern slopes were desertlike.

Wine was made in rock-hewn wine presses where the grapes were trodden by the feet of the vinedressers (see Amos 9:13). A channel led from the presses to a trough where the grape juice, tirosh, was collected. This was brought to fermentation by the addition of yeast, shemer. The finished fermented wine, chemer, was stored in large jars or amphorae.

Olive oil was also made in open-air presses hewn from the rock. In these presses, cuplike in shape, the olives were crushed by means of stones, and the oil was led through a channel to a collecting trough. This was used in the preparation of food (cf. Lev. 2), as medicine (cf. Isa. 1:6, margin), for anointing the body (Micah 6:15), and as fuel for lamps (Ex. 27:20). The olive oil was one of the main export products of Palestine and Syria, because the olive tree was foreign to the great civilized lands of Egypt and Mesopotamia, where great quantities of oil were needed.

The wealth of Canaan consisted not only in agricultural products but also in cattle, especially goats and sheep. From these came wool for weaving clothes, hides for skin bottles, sandals, and tents, milk for making butter and cheese, and meat for food and for sacrificial purposes. Cattle were apparently also exported, since references to Palestinian cattle appear in Egyptian inscriptions. However, it is possible that cattle reached Egypt as spoil of war or as tribute.

Technical Accomplishments.--Palestine was tributary to Egypt during the greatest part of the patriarchal age. The annual tribute drained the land of its wealth and prevented the emergence of a high standard of living. Palestinian culture was therefore on a lower level than that of Mesopotamia or Egypt. This is seen in the inferior quality of its technical products. To mention two examples, excavations have shown that jewelry was of inferior workmanship and public buildings were never built as solidly as in Egypt or Mesopotamia. Even for the building of temples, palaces, or city walls, blocks of stone were only roughly dressed, and spaces between them filled with mortar and small stones. What is said of jewelry and building stones is also true of other objects of daily use. However, our knowledge is very fragmentary, since few such objects have survived, with the exception of a wealth of pottery.

Religion.--What we know of the Canaanite religion comes mostly from the age of the conquest and will be described in the second volume of this commentary. Probably the earlier religion did not differ much from the later brand. However, it may have been somewhat less immoral, as can be concluded from the Lord's statement to Abraham: "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (Gen. 15:16).

The remains of some simple two-room temples of the patriarchal age have been excavated in Canaanite cities, and also certain "high places," which were open-air sites dedicated to the worship of the gods. Altars, libation troughs, and standing pillars being either sun monuments or fertility-promoting phalli erecti. marked these Canaanite sanctuaries. The Canaanites had a pantheon of many gods. El was the father of the gods, Asherah his wife; of their children, Baal, the god of storms and fertility, gained the greatest fame, and his ferocious sister Anath as the goddess of war was also popular. Besides those mentioned, a host of other gods was worshiped. Religious duties consisted in the offering of bloody animal sacrifices on stone altars and the pouring out of wine before sacred emblems.

House idols, the so-called teraphim, seem to have enjoyed great popularity, because great numbers of these crudely shaped idols have been found in every excavation. Apparently every household must have owned them and believed in their profitableness. Included generally was a nude goddess, whose sex features were accentuated, since they were probably believed to promote natural fertility and prevent sterility.

Nothing is known of the moral concepts of the Canaanites of the patriarchal age, nor of their judicial practices, but it seems reasonable to believe that they were acquainted with the laws of Mesopotamia and perhaps followed them. This can be inferred from the fact that the Babylonian script and language were used in international correspondence in Palestine, and also from the fact that the ruling class in Mesopotamia as well as in Palestine were Amorites.

These were the people among whom Abraham journeyed, and built altars to the true God.

The study of ancient systems of weights, measures, and money values presents a confused picture to the student of the ancient world. As long as classical authors, Josephus, and other late writers were the only available sources of information on the subject, conversion of ancient values into their modern equivalents could only be tentative. More recently, archeological expeditions to the Near East have brought to light actual weights of metal and stone, in some cases with their names inscribed on them, pieces of money, and texts describing measures and money used. Hence we are in a much better position now than even a few years ago to understand ancient references to various commodities. There remain, however, gaps in our knowledge, as the following survey will show.

I. Weights

The talent. Equivalent to the Heb. kikkar or the Ugaritic kkr, meaning a "disk." This name came from the fact that it was traded in the form of metal disks with holes in the center. The talents are thus depicted on Egyptian and Mesopotamian monuments. The Babylonian talent consisted of 3,600 shekels, whereas the Hebrew talent contained 3,000 shekels (see Ex. 38:25-27). The existence of this lighter talent has recently been attested from non-Biblical sources by a text from the north Syrian city of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in which certain commodities are listed, which total 6,600 shekels. Since the total is given as "two talents, 600 shekels," it is evident that a Syrian talent equaled 3,000 shekels (Syria, vol. 15 [1934], pp. 137-141).

The mina. From maneh, usually translated "pound" in the KJV (1 Kings 10:17; Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:71, 72). It is rendered "maneh" in Eze. 45:12, but here the Hebrew text is obscure. Among the Hebrews the mina was equivalent to 50 shekels, though no text can be cited in support of this assertion except in the LXX version of Eze. 45:12, followed in the RSV. In Babylonia the mina consisted of 60 shekels. Mina weights made of metal in the shape of lying bulls have been found in Ugarit weighing 469 grams (Syria, vol. 18 [1937], pp. 147-151). The Ugaritic mina was heavier than the Egyptian mina of 437 grams but lighter than the minas of Babylonia that weigh between 491 and 502 grams. The basis for the values for the values used in this commentary is a mina of approximately 570 grams, derived from an 8-mina weight of 4,565 grams found at Tell Beit Mirsim, in Palestine (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vol. 21/22 [1943], pp. 76-78).

The shekel. From the Heb. sheqel, related to the Akkadian shiqlu. Fortunately 16 inscribed shekel weights were found at Jerusalem in 1963 by Kathleen Kenyon. The new to moderately worn specimens vary from 10.88 to 11.59 grams. (See Palestine Exploration Quarterly, vol. 97 [1965], pp. 129-132.) The mina of 469 grams at Ugarit shows that the shekel there weighed about 9.38 grams. The 8-mina weight at Tell Beit Mirsim gives us a shekel of 11.4 grams, which is not far from an average, taking into consideration the Jerusalem weights mentioned above and various other Palestinian shekel weights ranging from 10.2 to 12 grams.

The nes#eph. This is a Palestinian weight that, surprisingly, is not mentioned in the Bible. Several inscribed specimens of it have been found, weighing from 8.8 to 9.9 grams. The meaning of nes\eph is not known. Whether it is a light shekel or is based on an entirely different system is also unknown.

The pim. From the Heb. pym, a weight equivalent to 2/3 of a shekel. Pym appears in 1 Sam. 13:21, rendered "file" in the KJV but in the RSV as "pim," a price the Philistines charged the Israelites for sharpening tools. Inscribed pims have been found in Palestinian excavations weighing from 7.26 to 7.60 grams. One specimen from Jerusalem weighing 8.39 grams (Palestine Exploration Quarterly, vol. 97 [1965], p. 129) is possibly unfinished, hence overweight. An 11.4-gram shekel gives a pim of 7.6 grams.

The bekah. From the Heb. beqaÔ (Gen. 24:22; Ex. 38:26), a half shekel. Inscribed weights found in Palestinian excavations range from 5.8 (O. R. Sellers, The Citadel of Beth-zur [1933], p. 60) to 6.1 grams. A shekel of 11.4 grams would mean a bekah of 5.7 grams.

The gerah. Literally the "bean," or "grain." This was the smallest Hebrew weight, the 20th part of a shekel (Ex. 30:13; Eze. 45:12).

It may be useful to give a list of the different actual weights as they have come to light at Ugarit, where more weights have been found than at any other Palestinian or Syrian site (Syria, vol. 18 [1937], pp. 147-151).

1/4 shekel(s) 2.5 grams = 38.58 grains

1/3 " 3.5 " = 54.01 "

1 " 9.5 " = 146.60 "

2 " 18.7 " = 288.57 " (very common in Ugarit)

10 " 91.5 " = 3.22 ounces

20 " 190.0 " = 6.70 "

50 " 469.0 " = 1.03 pounds

The average equivalents used in this commentary are as follows:

Table of Weights

Gerah (1/20 shekel) 0.57 grams 0.020 ounces

Bekah (1/2 shekel) 5.70 grams 0.201 ounces

Pim (2/3 shekel) 7.60 grams 0.268 ounces

Shekel 11.40 grams 0.402 ounces

Mina (50 shekels) 570.0 grams 1.26 pounds

Talent (3,000 shekels) 34.2 kilograms 75.38 pounds

II. Linear Measures

Archeology in Palestine has not brought to light any examples establishing the exact lengths of the linear measures used in the Old Testament. The Babylonian cubit, recorded on a statue of King Gudea of Lagash, was 19.6 inches (verified also by records on clay tablets). The Egyptian royal cubit was about 20.6 inches (52.32 cm.), but the common cubit about 17.7 inches (44.96 cm.). The Hebrews probably used the latter in building the tabernacle (Ex. 25:10), since they had but recently used Egyptian linear measures in construction work, and since their own cubit in Hezekiah's day was approximately the same. Hezekiah's cubit has been computed as about 17.5 inches (44.45 cm.) from the length of his Siloam tunnel (approximately 1,749 feet), which was, says the inscription on its wall, 1,200 cubits. The other Old Testament linear units, the span, handbreadth, and finger (see Ex. 25:25; 28:16; Jer. 52:21), are based on the cubit (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 77 [1958], pp. 205-214). Linear values used in this commentary as follows:

Table of Linear Measures

Finger (Heb. 'esba`) (1/24 cubit) 18.5 mm 0.73 inches

Handbreadth (Heb. t\ephach) (1/6 cubit) 74.1 mm 2.92 inches

Span (Heb. Zereth) (½ cubit) 222.3 mm 8.75 inches

Cubit (Heb. 'ammah) 444.5 mm 17.50 inches

If the expression "first measure" of 2 Chron. 3:3 ("old standard," RSV) is combined with the statements of Eze. 40:5; 43:13 that a long cubit had the length of "a[n old] cubit and an hand breadth," measures 1/6 longer than those in the preceding table are to be understood. A long cubit would thus be 20.42 inches (0.518 meter) in length. These longer measurements may have to be applied in the conversion of measures found in later books like Ezekiel. Ezekiel's "reed" had a length of six long cubits (Eze. 40:5), or 12 feet.

The "cubit," gomed, of Judges 3:16 is of an unknown le

III. Measures of Area

The only measure of area mentioned in the Bible is the "acre," s\emed (1 Sam. 14:14; Isa. 5:10). It is a piece of land that could be plowed with one yoke of oxen in one day. However, 1 Kings 18:32 also deals with the size of an area equivalent to that on which two measures of seed was ordinarily sown. This became the usual measure of fields in the time of the Talmud (ÔErubin 23b) where it is defined as equal to 5,000 Hebrew square cubits, that is, approximately 10,634 square feet (988 square meters).

IV. Measures of Volume

Until very recently the greatest of uncertainty lay in the field of dry and liquid measures. Though the relationship of each to the others was known through Biblical statements or reliable Jewish tradition, their conversion into modern equivalents was most difficult. This was due to discrepancies between the rabbinical sources and Josephus as to their values, and to the fact that not one inscribed ancient measure was available to serve as guide, from either Palestine or Syria. This accounts for the fact that in almost every Bible dictionary or commentary different equivalents are given for these measures.

This situation has fortunately changed, and we are able now to base our figures on some inscribed bath measures recently discovered. A fragment of a jar was found at Lachish bearing on the shoulder the inscription "Royal Bath." Another jar with a volume of 45.33 liters containing the stamp impression, "For the king, Hebron," was reconstructed from several fragments. Although the fragment with the "Royal Bath" inscription was from a jar with a similar neck and shoulder, it was much smaller than the stamped jar. Nevertheless C. H. Inge thought that the reconstructed stamped jar held a pre-exilic bath and suggested equating it with 10 gallons, which would have been considerably larger than the measure given by Josephus or other writers dealing with this subject (Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 1941, pp. 106-109).

More light on this subject was shed by fragments of a large amphora found at Tell Beit Mirsim, with the inscription "Bath" on one of them. W. F. Albright points out that the "Royal Bath" fragment from Lachish and the "Bath" amphora from Tell Beit Mirsim are of the same size, and when reconstructed equal about 22 liters, whereas the stamped larger jar from Lachish had the size of two baths. With this agrees a group of stone measures now in the Notre Dame Museum in Jerusalem, with a volume of 21.25 liters (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vol. 21/22 [1943], pp. 58, 59). This bath of about 22 liters, which approximates the volume given by the Jewish rabbis, can therefore be accepted as a reasonable basis of computation until more accurate evidence becomes available.

Homer. The chomer is a dry measure of 10 baths (Eze. 45:14).

Cor, the kor is both a dry (1 Kings 4:22; 5:11, margin) and a liquid (Eze. 45:14) measure of the same volume as the homer (Eze. 45:14).

Lethech. The lethek was a dry measure half a homer in volume (Hosea 3:2, margin).

Ephah. The ephah was a dry measure for grain (Judges 6:19; etc.) equal to the bath in volume, and measured 1/10 of a homer (Eze. 45:11). The bath was a measure for liquids (1 Kings 7:26; Eze. 45:14; etc.).

Se'ah. Usually translated "measure" (Gen. 18:6; 1 Sam. 25:18; etc.). It is 1/3 of a bath according to rabbinical tradition, a dry measure for flour or grain.

Hin. This héÆn was a liquid measure for wine and oil (Ex. 29:40; 30:24; etc.), equal to 1/6 of a bath according to Jewish tradition.

Omer. The Ôomer was a dry measure 1/10 the size of an ephah (Ex. 16:36).

Tenth deal, the isŒsŒaron, was also the tenth part of an ephah (Num. 28:9; cf. v. 5 and Ex. 29:40), and like it, a dry measure.

Cab. The qab, mentioned only in 2 Kings 6:25, seems to have been a dry measure. It was used in Egypt, and is also mentioned in Jewish documents of the 5th century from Egypt, and frequently in later Jewish literature as being equal to 4 logs.

Log. This is the smallest liquid measure (Lev. 14:10, 12; etc.), which Hellenistic Jewish writers give as 1/72 of a bath.

The following list gives the various Old Testament measures of volume. The modern equivalents used in this commentary for converting Old Testament dry and liquid measures are based on the 22-liter bath previously mentioned under the "Ephah."

Measures of Capacity (Dry)

Cab (1/18 ephah) 1.22 liters 1.11 qt.

Omer or issaron (1/10 ephah) 2.20 liters 2.00 qt.

Seah (measure) (1/3 ephah) 7.33 liters 6.66 qt.

Ephah (1/10 homer) 22 liters 2.50 pecks

Lethech (½ homer) 110 liters 3.12 bu.

Homer or Cor (10 ephahs) 220 liters 6.24

Measure of Capacity (Liquid)

Log (1/72 bath) 0.31 liters 0.33 qt.

Hin (1/6 bath) 3.67 liters 3.88 qt.

Bath (1/10 homer) 22.00 liters 5.81 gals.

Cor (10 baths) 220.00 liters

V. Monetary Values

There is no certainty whatever as to the weights of the various silver and gold monetary units mentioned in the Bible prior to the time of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. The Tell Beit Mirsim shekel, computed from an 8-mina weight found there, is 11.4 grams. Weights found at Ugarit, in Syria, give a shekel of 9.5 grams. Shekel weights found in Egypt and Babylonia vary from 8.8 to 9.8 grams. Modern equivalent weights and values given herein are based on the average shekel of 11.4 grams, with the full understanding that this value, arbitrarily chosen, is only approximate.

In ancient times much business was transacted by means of the barter system. Solomon paid Hiram of Tyre in produce (1 Kings 5:11), and King Mesha's tribute consisted of sheep and goats (2 Kings 3:4). However, metal was used as a medium of exchange from very early times. Abraham paid 400 shekels of silver for the land he bought near Hebron (Gen. 23:16), but David paid 600 shekels of gold for the Jebusite threshing floor on Mt. Moriah (1 Chron. 21:25).

In Semitic languages "to pay" and "to weigh," Heb. shaqal, Babylonian shaqalu, are the same word, as are "silver" and "money," Heb. keseph, Babylonian kaspu. It is evident from this that silver was the standard metal for monetary exchange, and that it was paid by weight. Only after the introduction of minted money in the form of coins in the 7th century b.c. did the state fix the value of monetary pieces, and guarantee their value by its stamp.

The Amarna Letters written in Palestine during the 14th century b.c. show that the Canaanites used the Babylonian monetary system in the time of the Hebrew conquest, even in their dealings with the Egyptians. This is amazing, since the country had been part of the Egyptian Empire for almost a century by that time. Inasmuch as the Old Testament names for money values, shekel and mina, are of Babylonian origin (shiqlu and manu), it is generally assumed that the Hebrews also used the Babylonian monetary system and not that of Egypt. The latter was not used outside of Egypt.

That the Babylonian system was in use in postexilic Palestine, after coinage came in, is indicated by Josephus, who speaks of the gold mina as equal to 21/2 Roman pounds, and of 4 Attic drachmas (4 Roman denarii) as equal to one Hebrew silver coined shekel (Antiquities xiv.7.1; iii.8.2). Since the Roman denarius in Josephus' lifetime went from about 3.88 to about 3.24 grams, 4 denarii would have varied from about 15.52 to 12.96. His estimate, though inexact, would not be far off, for the weight of all extant Hebrew silver shekel coins from the time before the destruction of Jerusalem was 14.12 to 14.25 grams. This was a little less than the Babylonian heavy shekel if the light shekel was 8.37 grams (Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. 64 [1944], p. 73).

Until positive evidence to the contrary becomes available it will be right to evaluate Old Testament monetary statements by using their known Babylonian equivalents. The difficulty is that the Babylonians reckoned in light and heavy shekels, minas, and talents, but the Old Testament writers do not indicate whether they used the light or heavy monetary values. As a result, uncertainty remains as to which should be understood in any given case. The difference between the two systems was 100 per cent. If certain money values are given in the heavy weight, it should be remembered that the value in the light weight should be only half as much. The values in the table below represent the light weight.

It may be useful to point out the ratio of the various metal values in Babylonia during Old Testament times. In the patriarchal age the ratio of gold to silver was about 1 to 4. But the value of gold increased so that during the first millennium b.c. the ratio was usually 1 to 131/3, with minor fluctuations. The ratio of silver to copper was usually 1 to 60.

Babylonian Standard Light Weights

Unit Grams Oz. Troy

Shekel 8.37 0.27

Mina (60 shekels) 502.2 16.15

Talent (3,600 shekels) 30.132 kg 968.76

Simply to convert ancient money into modern monetary values is deceptive. A true picture of ancient money values can be formed only by a comparison made in terms of the buying power of ancient money. For the Old Testament no examples are available, but for Babylonia we have, for example, these:

Article Value in silver shekels

1 sheep or goat 2

1 ox 15-20

1 donkey 30

16 quarts of wheat 1

32 quarts of barley 1

6 pounds of wool 1

50-100 baked bricks 1

1 male slave 40-50

Coined money appeared first in Asia Minor in the 7th century b.c. Lydia is traditionally considered as the country where coined money originated. When Asia Minor became a Persian possession, the Persians adopted coined money and introduced it into all parts of their empire, which a few years after the conquest of Lydia comprised the whole Near East. Gold coins were minted only by the king, silver coins by the provinces also. Darius I introduced the standard gold coin, which was named after him the dareikos, and was worth about $5. Ezra 8:27 mentions the dareikos, or "dram," and the writer of Chronicles (6th or 5th century) converted Davidic money into the dareikos for the benefit of his readers (1 Chron. 29:7).

In Ezra 2:69 and Neh. 7:70-72 money values are expressed in terms of Greek drachmas, or "drams." The Hebrew makes a clear distinction between Greek and Persian monetary units. In Ezra 2:69 and Neh. 7:70-72 the word darkemon, "drachma," is used, and in Ezra 8:27 and 1 Chron. 29:7 the word adarkon, meaning dareikos, is employed. Until a few years ago critical scholars denied the possibility that Greek drachmas could have been used in Palestine during the early Persian period, and considered the texts mentioning the drachmas as proving the late origin of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. However, the excavations of Beth-zur in Palestine have brought to light Attic drachmas of the early 5th century, showing that these Greek coins were then used in Palestine. The Attic gold drachmas were of about the same value as the Persian dareikos.

From the 4th century b.c. the Jews were allowed to mint their own coins. These imitated Attic coins, as specimens that have recently come

The titles of God as given in the Inspired Scriptures reveal His character and attributes as God. The nature of His dealings with men is made plainer by a consideration of the meaning of the various names by which He has chosen to reveal Himself. The Hebrew word for name, shem, may often be translated "person." The same is true in the New Testament. "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Mark 11:9) certainly refers to Jesus Christ as the personal representative of Jehovah. "Having been blessed," eulogemenos, here means "having been, and still being, blessed." Again, "Many believed in his name" (John 2:23). That is, they accepted in faith the revelation of His Person and the work He set before them. They believed on, or accepted, His Person. Thus in the New Testament the name of Christ signifies what He is. "His name was spread abroad" (Mark 6:14) means that news about Him and His work was spread abroad.

In the Hebrew Bible such texts as Ex. 3:14, 15; 6:3; 34:14; Jer. 10:16; 33:16; etc., are examples of how the divine name embodies character. Shem, "name," originally signified "sign" or "token." The name is the sign, or token, of him who bears it. It describes the person, it is characteristic of him. In the Greek, onoma, "name," is from the same root as the word for "mind" and the verb "to know." Similarly, the Sanskrit naman, "name," is from the verb gna, "to know"; hence the name is equivalent to a "sign," or "token," by which something is known.

These facts are particularly true of the names of the Persons of the Godhead. They denote character and attributes of the divine Persons; they are a revelation of the divine Persons. Therefore God's titles are an expression or revelation of God in His personal relation to men through the plan of salvation.

A general title for "God," which occurs more than 2,500 times, is Elohim. This word is plural in form, though most generally found with a singular verb when it refers to God. Some scholars associate this term with the Arabic verb "to fear," "to revere," in that sense portraying God as the supreme being to whom reverence is due. The root of this word implies "strength," "power," "ability." It is used first of God as Creator (Gen. 1:1). The work of creation is an amazing exhibition of God's power and majesty, of divine omnipotence in action. The creatorship of God tends to arouse in man awe, reverence, and a sense of utter dependence. The name Elohim represents the God who has revealed Himself by His mighty acts in creation.

The noun Elohim is used almost exclusively in the plural form in speaking of God. Some have seen in this fact the doctrine of the Trinity. It was Elohim who said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (see on Gen. 1:26). The use here of the plural certainly suggests the fullness and manifold potentialities of the divine attributes. At the same time, the consistent use of the singular form of the verb emphasizes the unity of the Godhead and stands as a rebuke to polytheism.

The designation Elohim is occasionally used of men who occupied the important position of speaking for God. For example, God told Moses that he was to be to his brother Aaron "instead of God [Elohim]" (Ex. 4:16). God gave His message to Moses, who gave it to Aaron, and he in turn passed it on to Pharaoh. This is further stated in Ex. 7:1, where God says to Moses: "See, I have made thee a god [Elohim] to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." These responsible men were the representatives of the only true Elohim, of Him who created all things by His mighty power, and who is therefore worthy of all reverence, godly fear, and worship on the part of created men. Elohim is also used of "judges" (Ex. 21:6; 22:8, 9) in their capacity as representatives of God.

The simple, and presumably earlier, form El is used more than 200 times in reference to the one true God. Moses, David, and Isaiah are particularly fond of this appellation. Sometimes it is used with "the," as "the God of Beth-el" (Gen. 31:13; cf. 35:1, 3), and "the God of thy father" (Gen. 46:3). Here again emphasis is upon the One who is the All-powerful, the Omnipotent One, the only true God. Other elementary forms, such as Elah and Eloah, are found in a number of texts, each variation of the main root expressing the same idea of power and might.

The form El is often used in various compound forms as titles of God. An example of this is El-Shaddai. This title suggests the abundant graciousness of God, the temporal and spiritual bounties with which God enriches His people. Others hold that Shaddai is from a root meaning "to be violent," "to despoil," "to devastate." Applied to God, it would mean "to display power." This is expressed by the translation "Almighty" (KJV, RSV, Moffatt, Smith-Goodspeed). This name thus sets forth God as either the Mighty One or the Bountiful One.

The first occurrence of Shaddai is found in the first verse of the story of God appearing to Abraham (Gen. 17:1, 2, 4, 6) and saying: "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou perfect: and I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly ... and thou shalt be a father of a multitude of nations ... and I will make thee exceedingly fruitful." This name is found again in Gen. 28:3, where Isaac says that El-Shaddai will bless Jacob, make him fruitful and multiply him. A similar promise of El-Shaddai is found in Gen. 35:11, and 43:14; 49:25, Such passages suggest the meaning of bountifulness exercised by God: El, the God of power and authority, and Shaddai, the God of inexhaustible riches, which He is able to bestow.

The divine title most common in the Old Testament (some 5,500 times) is the sacred word YHWH (sometimes also transliterated jhvh), often called the Tetragrammaton, literally, "four letters," in reference to the four consonants composing it. (In ancient Hebrew, only the consonants of a word were written.) YHWH is generally translated "Lord" in the KJV and distinguished from other words translated "Lord" by the use of small capitals, as here. The Jews considered the title YHWH so sacred that they would not pronounce it even when reading the Scriptures, lest they unintentionally profane the name of the Lord (see Lev. 24:16). Instead, they read Adonai (see explanation on p. 35). Consequently the true pronunciation of YHWH, now thought to have been Yahweh, was lost.

A few centuries after Christ, certain Jewish scholars called Masoretes added vowels to the written Hebrew in an endeavor to preserve a knowledge of the spoken language. At that time they added the vowel sounds of Adonai to the consonants YHWH. This made the word read, literally, Yehowah, transliterated into English as "Jehovah." Not knowing what the original vowel sounds of YHWH were, they thus purposed to call attention to the fact that the word should be read Adonai. Coming to the word Yahweh, however, an informed reader of Hebrew would read Adonai. Not knowing these facts when they began making use of the Hebrew Scriptures, Christians either transliterated it as the Masoretes actually wrote it, "Jehovah" (Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa. 26:4; etc.), or, more often, rendered the word as "Lord."

There have been great differences among scholars in respect to the origin, pronunciation, and meaning of the word YHWH. Probably YHWH is a form of the Hebrew verb "to be," hence means "the One who is," or "the self-existent One." Some point out that the verb form can be causative, and therefore can mean "the One who causes to be" or that, interpreted by the phrase Ehyeh 'asher 'ehyeh (Ex. 3:14), it means "He who is, or will be," hence "the Eternal One." Thus the title rendered Lord (KJV and RSV) or Jehovah (ASV) implies the attributes of self-existence and timelessness. Yahweh is the living God, the Source of Life, as contrasted with the gods of the heathen that have no existence apart from the imagination of their worshipers (see 1 Kings 18:20-39; Isa. 41:23-29; 44:6-20; Jer. 10:10, 14; 1 Cor. 8:4). This name was revealed to Moses on Mt. Horeb (Ex. 3:14). It is the holy name of the covenant-keeping God, who has provided salvation for His children. As with other divine titles, it represents in the Hebrew the divine character in His personal relation to His people.

A deep feeling of reverence and awe at the holy character of the names of God, and a gentle eagerness to show respect, also influenced the scribes to copy the titles faithfully. They would pause a moment before presuming to write the sacred characters. And the name above all others that was looked upon as the name, the personal name of God, was Yahweh.

An expression very common in the Old Testament is "the word of the Lord [Yahweh]." It is found in Gen. 15:1, a chapter in which the name Elohim does not occur. It is the covenant name. It is the name by which God commonly communicated with men (see Gen. 18:1, 2; 28:13-17; Ex. 33:9-11; 34:6, 7).

The name Yahweh is also used in compounds to disclose more fully the redeeming and keeping power of God in relation to His people. Such is Yahweh-yir'eh, literally, "Yahweh will see" (Gen. 22:14), meaning "God will provide" (v. 8). (Our word "provide" means to "foresee.") The test of Abraham's faith consisted not so much in whether his God would appear, as whether He would provide. It contains the promise that Yahweh would provide the sacrifice necessary for atonement. This compound name is at the very foundation of the plan of salvation.

In Eze. 48:35 (KJV) is the expression: "The Lord is there." Literally, the Hebrew reads: Yahweh shammah. This suggests the presence of God among His people. This is almost a title, as is the expression used later by Hagar, El ra'i, literally, "God sees me" (Gen. 16:13). Similar to this are the Hebrew descriptive phrases: Yahweh roÔi, "Yahweh my shepherd" (Ps. 23:1); Yahweh rop'eka, "Yahweh your physician" (Ex. 15:26); Yahweh s\ideqenuÆ "Yahweh our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6); Yahweh shalom, "Yahweh-peace" (Judges 6:24). All of these titles help to express God's part in the plan of salvation.

Other names suggest the believer's warfare: Yahweh nisséÆ (KJV, Jehovah nissi), "Yahweh my banner," from the verb nasas, "to move to and fro" (Ex. 17:15). The title Yahweh s\eba'oth (first appearing in 1 Sam. 1:3), "Yahweh of hosts," sets Him forth as the Commander in Chief of all created beings, as the One who will lead His creation to final victory (see Rom. 9:29; James 5:4). This title is sometimes Elohim-s\aba'oth (Ps. 80:7, 14, 19; Amos 5:27).

The title "Lord of hosts" is perhaps the most sublime of God's titles. It is suggestive of His full control and overlordship of the entire universe. A beautiful example, in its suggestiveness, is Ps. 24:9, 10, which reads literally: "Throw open the gates, and raise up your leaves, O doors of the ages, and shall enter in the King of glory. Who is this King of glory? Jehovah of hosts, He is the King of glory" (cf. 2 Sam. 7:26; Ps. 46:7; 48:8; Zech. 2:9).

The Hebrew word adon is found some 300 times in the Old Testament. It is usually translated "lord," or "master." It is used of a proprietor of property, the master of a household, a governor of a province. It is also translated "sir" (Gen. 43:20), and "owner" (1 Kings 16:24), but most frequently by the words "lord" and "master." It is a title of rank, honor, and authority (see Gen. 18:12; 24:12, 42; Ex. 21:4; Num. 11:28; 1 Sam. 1:15; etc.). But when it is applied to God the word takes the form Adonai. The first instances are Gen. 15:2, 8; 18:3. It sets forth His lordship, His right to obedience. It is sometimes coupled with Yahweh, and the two terms translated Lord God (Ex. 23:17; 34:23), as also with a form of Elohim, Lord God (Ps. 35:23; 38:15). For the various forms used for these combinations in the KJV, see the tabulation in the article on "The Languages, Manuscripts, and Canon of the Old Testament," in this volume. The title Adonai is further found in such expressions as "Lord of the whole earth" (Joshua 3:11, 13; Ps. 97:5; Zech. 4:14; 6:5; Micah 4:13).

Two other titles express the idea "Most High," "Exalted." One is Elyon, from the verb "to rise up." Examples are found in Gen. 14:18-20, 22; Num. 24:16; 2 Sam. 22:14; Ps. 7:17; 9:2; 18:13; 21:7; 46:4; 47:2; etc., with the final text in Lam. 3:38. The title "thou most High" and similar phrases in the KJV (Ps. 56:2; 71:19; 92:8; 93:4; Micah 6:6) are from another Hebrew word, marom, from a separate root, "to rise up," "to be exalted."

The name baal, also meaning "lord," "owner," "ruler," is common in the Old Testament, where it is generally a title of disrepute, being the name given to local heathen gods. It is often used in compounds such as Jerubbaal, Esh-baal, and Merib-baal. But it is also applied to Jehovah, translated "husband" (Isa. 54:5; cf. Joel 1:8, "husband"). Therefore the feminine form is found suggesting the church, the bride of God (see Isa. 62:4, "Beulah").

There are other titles such as El-s\ur, which is variously translated as "mighty One" of Israel (Isa. 30:29; etc.), and "Rock" (2 Sam. 23:3; etc.); but perhaps these can scarcely be thought of as proper names.

Part I: The Elements of Chronology

I. Introduction

The harmony of the time statements in the Scripture strengthens our confidence in the accuracy of the inspired Word, but chronology is not essential to salvation. That is evidently why God did not see fit to fill in all the details of chronology. There are some points left open for personal opinion as to the exact dating, and different writers among us have at various times used differing dates. This is not to say that historical dates do not help us sometimes in our search for deeper spiritual truth, or that those few connected with exact prophetic periods are unimportant; but prophetic landmarks are well established, and other historical dates are rarely questions of theological importance.

To dogmatize on chronology or to attempt to fix every date once for all would be not only presumptuous but impossible. This article, and the similar ones in succeeding volumes, will endeavor to provide a general outline and to explain certain basic principles. Many supposed difficulties have been cleared up by increasing knowledge of ancient chronology. Although we cannot expect all authorities to agree in their interpretation of the incomplete facts of ancient times, we can confidently expect future research to strengthen the Bible record. Wherever this record can be adequately tested, it stands revealed as trustworthy history. Its time statements are not haphazard or fanciful, but harmonious and reasonable.

II. Time Measured by Heavenly Bodies

When God set this globe spinning on its axis and sent it on its yearly course around the sun, accompanied by its smaller attendant, the moon, He decreed that these heavenly bodies should govern the earth's day and night, and, further, that they should be "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Gen. 1:14). Thus time is measured for the earth by these motions. The ancients watched the skies for signs and seasons, for the time of day, and for the beginning of the month. Today the astronomers in the great observatories train their telescopes on the stars to regulate the time signals that set our clocks.

The Day Measured by the Earth's Rotation.--As this planet turns on its own axis, floodlighted by the sun, half the globe is in the light and the other half in the shadow. That is, there is day on one side and night on the other. For "God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night" (Gen. 1:5). As we, on any given spot on this spinning globe, are carried eastward, out of the sunlight and into the shadow, we say that the sun is setting in the west. Then, following our all-night swing around the dark portion, we come again to the light. We see the sun once more at the dividing line that we call sunrise. As our local spot approaches the point directly opposite the sun, that fiery orb appears to rise higher in our sky until it is on our meridian at noon. Then it appears to decline as we move farther around the sunlit side, and we complete one circuit as we again reach the sunset line--the edge of the shadow. The ancients needed no clocks to tell them when they passed the boundary line between day and night--sunrise began the day and sunset ushered in the night.

"Are there not twelve hours in the day?" asked Jesus (John 11:9). And so it was, for in His time an hour meant one twelfth of the interval--varying with the seasons--between sunrise and sunset. But "day" has another meaning also. A period marked off by five days, or any number of days, cannot disregard the intervening nights. Therefore a day in the calendar is measured by one complete rotation of the earth on its axis, including a day and a night. For the Hebrews the starting point was sunset. Each full day ran evening-morning, dark-light, night-day (Lev. 23:32; 22:6, 7; Mark 1:21, 32). Also certain other ancient peoples, like the Babylonians, began their day at sunset, although the Egyptians counted from sunrise. Our modern midnight-to-midnight reckoning came from the Romans.

The Month Governed by the Moon.--Just as one complete rotation of the globe on its axis, from sunset on to sunset again, marks off one day on this earth, so the time required for the moon to go once around the earth--that is, to pass through its visible phases, as from crescent to full moon and to crescent again--constituted the original month. The ancient lunar month did not begin at the astronomical new moon, when that body stands between the earth and the sun--with its unlighted side toward us, and hence invisible--but one or more days later, with the appearance of the new crescent. Now, however, most of the world uses artificial calendar months that disregard the moon.

The Year Measured by the Sun.--As our spinning earth, circled continuously by the moon, traverses its vast course around the sun, it makes the circuit of the four seasonal landmarks--the summer and winter solstices and the spring and autumnal equinoxes--to complete what we call a year. These points do not mark off the year as visibly as the moon does the lunar month, yet even relatively primitive peoples can recognize them by repeated observation of the shadows cast by the sun at rising, setting, and noon throughout the year. At the summer and winter solstices occur the days of longest and shortest sunlight, when the sun is seen farthest north and farthest south in the sky; at the spring and fall equinoxes, when day and night over the whole globe are equal, the sun rises directly in the east and sets directly in the west. And despite the difficulty in determining the precise length of the year, the veriest savage can tell its passage by the cycle of the seasons, marked by unmistakable signs.

The Week Not Marked by Nature.--Only the week, measured by divine command, has no natural landmark. The three independent celestial motions--the daily rotation of our globe on its axis, the monthly circuit of the earth by the moon, and the yearly revolution of earth and moon about the sun--mark off our time, but there is no astronomical cycle connected with the seven-day week. Yet the Sabbath, given in the beginning by the God of nature, definitely marked off by the manna, even before the law at Sinai, is identified in the New Testament (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 16:4, 5, 22-26; 20:8-11; Luke 23:54 to 24:1); since then we can count the weeks back into the past with certainty from known dates.

III. Calendars Reconcile the Three Motions

The three natural motions that measure our time are incommensurable, that is, do not "come out even." While the earth is making one revolution around the sun, the moon revolves around the earth 12 times and about a third of a circuit over, and the earth turns on its own axis 365 times plus a little less than a fourth of a turn. Therefore calendars have had to be devised in order to count years by a whole number of days or lunar months.

Lunar Calendar Based on the Moon.--A lunar calendar year of 12 moon months is 10 or 11 days shorter than the true solar year, which governs the seasons. Hence in an uncorrected lunar calendar, like that of the Moslems to this day, a summer month moves gradually earlier until it comes in the spring, and so on. But the Babylonians, Assyrians, Jews, Greeks, and early Romans kept their lunar years in step with the seasons by adding to the year periodically. The Jews, like the Babylonians, inserted an extra lunar month 7 times in each 19 years (see article on the Jewish calendar in Vol. II).

Solar Calendar Measures Sun's Year.--Our modern world today uses a solar calendar, that is, one based on the sun's year and disregarding the moon entirely. We do not need to add extra months, since our ordinary 365-day year is only about a fourth of a day shorter than the true period of the earth's journey around the sun, but we correct it every four years (with certain exceptions) by adding one day to February. Our New Year's Day now comes about ten days after the winter solstice; but if we should drop the leap-year system, the New Year would move one day earlier every four years. Eventually the alignment of the months with the seasons would be noticeably different from what it is now.

This was what happened to the ancient Egyptian year, from which our modern year was derived. This Egyptian calendar year of exactly 365 days was divided into twelve 30-day months plus 5 extra days at the end. The leap-year correction was never made until the country was conquered by the Romans less than half a century before Christ. This was soon after Julius Caesar had adapted the Roman months to the 365-day year, which he introduced from Egypt, with the addition of a day every four years. Our present calendar is essentially Caesar's "Julian" calendar, months and all, with a further slight adjustment.

Space has been given here to the explanation of the Julian calendar because modern historians date all past events (up to the a.d. 1582 revision) in Julian years. The b.c. system of dating will be discussed on pp. 177, 178.

The Starting Points of Years.--A year is a circle; the end of one is the beginning of the next, and there is nothing in nature to indicate any one starting point. Sometimes the year is thought of as opening with the beginning of the agricultural cycle of sowing and reaping, which itself varies in different parts of the world. But a calendar year must have a definite point of departure. Four landmarks of the solar year have been mentioned--the solstices and equinoxes. Ancient calendar years were often begun at or near one of these easily observable points. Our own year begins on January 1, near the winter solstice, because that was approximately where Julius Caesar placed the Roman New Year's Day in his calendar, which we have inherited.

Other ancient calendars began the year in the spring or in the fall. In Palestine it was natural to think of the year as beginning in the fall, when the early rains brought new life to the country after the dry season, without rain for several months, and when winter wheat and barley were sown; the harvests came in the spring and summer, ending with grape gathering in the autumn. The Hebrews had two year reckonings. One (instituted at the Exodus) was begun in the spring, for numbering the months and reckoning the beginning of the series of sacred festivals; the other, the old civil year, started with the seventh month, in the fall (see article on the Jewish calendar in Vol. II). These were lunar years, reckoned from the new moon, not from the equinox.

IV. Dating Ancient Events by Years

Ancient Year Systems.--Various methods of counting a series of years were in use in ancient times. In an earlier period a year was designated by the name of a principal event, or sometimes by the name of an annual official. In Assyria this was an honorary official, called a limmu; in Athens and in the Roman world the names were those of genuine annual magistrates--in Athens an archon and in Rome the two consuls. In the Near East, calendar years were numbered in series during each king's reign, and thus called regnal years. In the Bible (though not in the first five books) we find regnal-year dates, such as "in the seventh year of Artaxerxes" (see articles on chronology in Vols. II and III).

If men had begun at creation and counted year 1, year 2, and on continuously, and if the Bible records had been dated by such a system, it would be a simple matter to know exactly how long ago any event happened. But no such information exists. Not until relatively late in ancient times, long after the period covered in this volume, did anyone use an era for dating, that is, a continuous series of years numbered consecutively from one starting point. For example, the Seleucid Era (see chronology article in Vol. III) was a continuation of the reign of Seleucus I, one of the successors of Alexander the Great. The year 1 of this era began, according to the Macedonian calendar, in the fall of the year that we now call 312 B.C. The Seleucid Era was used in Syria and Mesopotamia for many centuries. The Greeks long employed a series of four-year periods called Olympiads, marked off by the quadrennial Olympic games, and the Romans used a system of numbering years consecutively from the supposed founding of Rome. Both these series, unlike the Seleucid Era, were devised centuries after the quite uncertain traditional dates of the events from which they were supposed to be reckoned. They were not used in everyday dating formulas--only for referring to historical events.

Our System of B.C. Dating.--Today the greater part of the world uses, or is familiar with, the dating of the Christian Era, by which all years are numbered from approximately the time of the birth of Christ. The present volume of this commentary is being prepared in the year known as a.d. (for anno Domini) 1953. This means "in the year of (our) Lord 1953," that is, the 1,953d year from the birth of Christ. To be more exact, it is the 1,953d from the point assigned to the nativity by Dionysius Exiguus, the 6th-century originator of this method of reckoning. The fact that the traditional starting point is now known to have been several years away from the actual date of Christ's birth does not affect the usefulness of this scale of years for dating purposes.

When it became the custom to date events by the number of years from the supposed time of the birth of Christ, it became convenient to date earlier events as so many years "before Christ" (abbreviated b.c.). Thus for historical purposes the Julian calendar years, in which dates had been reckoned in the Roman world since Julius Caesar's day, were extended backward, as if they had existed in all past time. When we say, for example, that the first year of Ptolemy's "Era of Nabonassar" began February 26, 747 B.C., we mean that it began on the day that would have been called February 26 if the Julian calendar had been in use at that time, and in the 747th year before the year that was later to be numbered the first of the Christian Era.

It is to be remembered that historians and chronologists have given the year preceding a.d. 1 the designation of 1 B.C., and the year preceding that 2 B.C., and so on. Just as years b.c. run "backward," that is, 1900 B.C. is followed by 1899, 1898, 1897, etc., so do the centuries--the 16th century b.c. runs from 1600 through 1599 and down through 1501; the 5th century b.c. runs from 500 through 401 B.C.

The B.C. Dating of Old Testament Events.--It is possible to date Old Testament events in the b.c. scale only where there is a time statement that can be equated with a known historical date. Astronomical calculation can be used to fix a date for which we have ancient eclipse records or observations of the heavenly bodies, and sometimes a date that is given in two calendars (see chronology articles in Vols. II and III). Thus we have synchronisms between the years of the last kings of Judah and certain years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Since the years of Nebuchadnezzar are known from astronomical data found by archeologists in Babylonia, also from observations recorded in Ptolemy's astronomical work known as the Almagest, and from his canon of the kings, the years of these kings of Judah can be aligned with the b.c. dating. Also we have an indirect contact with the Assyrian limmu lists by means of a reference to Ahab in the Battle of Qarqar (mentioned, however, only in non-Biblical documents). But for the early Biblical dates we are dependent on tracing back the line of Bible time-statements from these later more certain dates, and there is room for difference of opinion in this process. Specific information is scarce, and systems of reckoning vary; hence our knowledge of ancient chronology has accumulated gradually and is still far from complete.

A.M. Dating From Creation.--Genesis furnishes no era dating, but older chronologists counted years from Creation as anno mundi ("in the year of the world," abbreviated a.m.) 1, 2, etc., based on the patriarchal genealogies. These genealogies, if complete and if correctly interpreted, would give exact intervals from Adam to Abraham. But an a.m. scale requires a fixed starting point. Each writer's b.c. date for a.m. 1 (1) varies with his choice of the Masoretic or the LXX figures (nearly 1,500 years' difference), and (2) his interpretation of these and all other OT chronological data. For this reason an a.m. date has no basis other than the writer's theory.

Marginal Dates in Printed Bibles.--a.m. dates taken from Archbishop James Ussher's Annals (published 1650-58) were the first to appear in the margin of the KJV. The KJV carried no dates originally, and was not the first Bible to present those of Ussher, which had been printed in the margin of a French Catholic Latin Bible in 1662. Ussher's dates (a.m. only) appeared in an Oxford Bible in 1679, with the figures revised in spots by Bishop William Lloyd; his a.m. and b.c. dates were incorporated (probably by Lloyd also) into a London edition of 1701. Thenceforth these dates, generally credited to Ussher but partly revised, and inserted without any official authorization, continued to be printed until they were almost viewed as a part of the Bible by generations of readers.

In the latter part of the 19th century many Bibles included new chronological tables based on later knowledge, while retaining the old "Ussher" dates in the margin or omitting them entirely. In the 1950's a modernized set of marginal dates came out in a new KJV edition. Similar ones appeared as late as 1974 in a Collins edition of the KJV (although most Bibles by then had no marginal dates): Events before David are dated only by centuries, and later dates differ from Ussher's, though not consistently. In Ezra 7 there appears a curious shift; Ezra's journey to Jerusalem is dated 428 B.C., long after Nehemiah's arrival. This is based on a theory that, contradicting the Bible account, puts that event in the 37th, not the 7th, year of Artaxerxes.

part ii: chronology in the bible record

In view of all the differing ancient systems of chronology and of the numerous theories of later interpreters of the Bible, it becomes necessary to consider the methods to be used in assigning b.c. dates to the Old Testament events, particularly down through the Exodus to the end of the 40 years' wandering. This dating hinges on two points: (1) the text in which the source information is found, and (2) the problem of the meaning of the time statements in that text.

I. Time Statements in Genesis

The Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint Texts.--The original text of our Old Testament, except a few chapters, was written in Hebrew. The translations in use today are made almost entirely from the Masoretic text, which has been handed down by the Jews through the centuries, copied from one manuscript to another with scrupulous care (see pp. 24-26). In Genesis the years of the patriarchs in the Hebrew text differ from those in the Samaritan Pentateuch, a variant form of the Hebrew text preserved by the half-Jewish, half-pagan Samaritans. Different from both of these are the figures in the Septuagint, a Greek translation begun in the 3d century b.c. in Alexandria (see p. 39). It gives higher figures for several patriarchs, inserts a second Cainan after Arphaxad, and shows other differences.

The totals from creation to the Flood are: Hebrew, 1,656 years; Samaritan, 1,307; Septuagint, 2,242 (or 2,262; manuscripts vary); from the Flood to Abraham: Hebrew, 352 years; Samaritan, 942; Septuagint, 1,232 (or 1,132).

Since the oldest known Masoretic manuscripts of the Pentateuch are late copies, more than 1,000 years away from the originals, some scholars have thought that the figures' for the patriarchs had become changed since the time when the Septuagint translation was made. But the age of a manuscript is not the sole deciding factor. The later of any two copies may preserve the wording of a text much nearer to the unknown original than a much older manuscript copied carelessly or from an old but already corrupted text. Thus the work of the "lower" or textual critic involves determining, from various kinds of evidence, which form of the text has most likely been changed from the original.

For the ages of the patriarchs the Samaritan text is less trustworthy than the Hebrew, because we find in other places revisions of the wording to agree with their views. And the Septuagint translators, who elsewhere (as in Daniel) injected their own ideas, are thus more likely than the meticulous Hebrew copyists to present a revised form of the genealogy.

Reasons for Preferring the Hebrew Lists.--Some Septuagint manuscripts, having Methuselah 167 at his son's birth, thus make him survive the Flood 14 years; other manuscripts, making him 187, avoid this difficulty. Also there are other reasons why the translators of the Septuagint version were more likely to have changed the figures than the later Masoretes, who handed down the Hebrew text to us. The Greek-speaking Jews who translated the Septuagint in Alexandria wished to win for it the respect of the learned Greek world. It is known that they were much less strict about preserving the letter of the original than were the Palestinian Jews. Their version was made for Greek-speaking readers. If they wished to make the chronology of the earliest ages compare favorably with the beliefs of the current Alexandrian philosophy and seem more reasonable to the Greek mind, they would naturally lengthen the periods as much as possible, and smooth down the sudden drop, after the Flood, in the life span and the interval from father to son; and that is exactly what their figures do, repeatedly running 100 years higher (see tables, pp. 248, 289).

Some scholars have contended that the Septuagint was translated from the correct text, but that the Masoretes, working this side of the time of Christ, made or perpetuated changes to discredit the Septuagint because it was the version largely used by the Christians. But if this were so, why would the Jews alter such minor points as the ages of the patriarchs and leave unchanged the 70 weeks and other prophecies used by Christians to prove the Messiahship of Jesus? If the Masoretes copied their texts so conscientiously as to retain, word for word, so many evidences against themselves, their text should be preferred to that of the Alexandrian translators, who took liberties with the text to advance their own ideas. This question cannot be settled with certainty. Though the Dead Sea scrolls sometimes support a variant Septuagint wording, they have also confirmed the trustworthiness of the Masoretic Hebrew text, on which have been based the most noteworthy and widely accepted translations, both Catholic and Protestant. This commentary will follow that time-honored practice and base the discussion of the patriarchs on the Hebrew text.

II. Some Principles of Bible Chronology

In converting the time statements of the Bible into chronological computation, we must consider certain general principles of the Hebrew language and mode of reckoning that apply to the Pentateuch and to other scriptures as well. It should be kept in mind that the meaning of a sentence is not necessarily what the words mean to us now, even after they are translated, but what the ancient writer meant when he used those words. In the Bible, "son" may mean a grandson (Gen. 31:55, cf. v. 43); "brother" may mean a nephew or an uncle (Gen. 14:12, 16; 29:10-12). Even so simple a statement as the fact that Noah was 600 years old at the time of the Flood can be, and generally is, misunderstood.

The Method of Expressing Age.--Noah was "six hundred years old"--literally, "a son of 600 years"--when the Flood came (Gen. 7:6). What this phrase means is made clear in the same chapter by the first complete dating formula given in the Bible: "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (v. 11). Therefore "a son of 600 years" does not mean that Noah was 600 years old as we understand it, but that he was in his 600th year, still unexpired. In our modern reckoning we say that a child is so many months old in his first year. He reaches his first birthday at the end of his first years, and he is not considered one year old until that first birthday. But when he reaches that day his second year begins. So he will one day be 21 years old, after he has completed his 21st year; he will be 21 all through his 22d year until upon its completion he is said to reach the age of 22. We would count Noah 600 years of age only at the end of his 600th year, but the Hebrews counted him "a son of 600 years" in his 600th year (see on Gen. 5:32).

Consecutive Ages of the Patriarchs.--Just as Noah was "600 years old" in his 600th year, so Adam must have been 130 years old in his 130th year when Seth was born (Gen. 5:3), and not what we call 130 years old. On this principle Seth was born in the 130th year of the world (anno mundi or a.m. 130); thus the sum of the ages of the patriarchs at the birth of each oldest son will furnish a continuous series of years from the creation only.

We have no way of knowing just how the patriarchs themselves counted their ages at the time. Presumably the years were not reckoned by birthdays, but by beginning each year of age at the beginning of the calendar year, for Noah's 601st year seems to begin at the 1st day of the 1st month (Gen. 8:13). It has been the immemorial custom in the Far East to consider a child a year old in his first calendar year, and to count him two years old on the next New Year's Day, even a few days after his birth. Either the patriarchs began the first year after the next New Year's Day (see note 4), or else the numbers were adjusted later, when the list was made up, in order to avoid the overlap.

Inclusive Reckoning.--But apparently the common usage in counting intervals of time was the inclusive reckoning, that is, counting the incomplete days, years, etc., at the beginning and end of a period as if they were whole units. The classic example is, of course, the three-day period of Christ in the tomb, from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning (see "the third day," "in three days," and "after three days" all used as equivalent expressions for the same period by the same writer: Matt. 17:23; 27:40, 63). The clearest Old Testament example is in 2 Kings 18:9, 10, where "at the end of three years" is what we would reckon as a two-year interval (see the article on chronology in Vol. II of this commentary), but the usage occurs also in the books of Moses. Joseph put his brothers "into ward three days," but not three full days, for on "the third day" he bound Simeon and sent the others home (Gen. 42:17-19); and "the second year after" the Exodus (Num. 9:1) really means the year immediately following it, the first year being the year in which the period began (see pp. 186, 187).

It is clear from source documents that not only the Jews but also other ancient peoples used inclusive reckoning, by counting the beginning and end of a period. We find the Greeks calling the 4-year Olympiad between Olympic Games a pentaeteris, or "5-year period," and the Romans referring to the winter solstice (then December 25) as "the eighth day before" January 1--the 8th counting both the 25th and the 1st. Even in later times we find the looser reckoning in common speech, although in mathematical computation the time elapsed would be calculated exactly.

Parts and Wholes.--The Bible writers sometimes use another characteristically Oriental type of expression--they name the whole period for the part, meaning actually the latter part of a period that has already begun. For example, at Kadesh the Israelites were condemned to wander 40 years in the wilderness (Num. 14:33), that is, the remainder of that period, counted from the departure from Egypt. Actually this was already in the 2d year and only 38 years were left from Kadesh to the final stage of the journey (Deut. 2:14; see the tabulation on p. 187). The 430-year sojourning of "the children of Israel" (Ex. 12:40)--including the time from Abraham (see p. 184), long before there were any Israelites--can be explained as an example of such reckoning. Also explained below are two cases of three sons listed for one birth year; yet they were not triplets, and neither first-named son was the eldest.

The Oriental, generally less concerned with exact time than the Westerner, is more likely to use approximate time statements and round numbers, and the reader of the Bible needs to keep this in mind. But the Old Testament is far more specific in its time statements than any other ancient literary document.

III. The Line of the Patriarchs

The Patriarchs From Adam to the Flood.--The list of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 begins with Adam, then continues with Seth, born in Adam's 130th year (or a.m. 130, according to those who construct an a.m. scale of years), followed by Enos, born 105 years later, Cainan, 90 years after that, and so on to Noah. For the age of Noah at the birth of Shem we must look elsewhere, for Genesis 5:32 says only that "Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." This might be taken to indicate that the sons were triplets, or at least that Shem was the firstborn; but a comparison of Genesis 7:6 and 11:10 shows that Shem was not the eldest, born when his father was 500; instead, he was 100 years old two years after the Flood (which came when Noah was 600), and hence was born when Noah was 502 years old. Apparently Shem was named first because of his importance, which depended not on his age but on the fact that through him the genealogy was carried on, and possibly because through his line were descended the Israelites.

The b.c. dating of this patriarchal period is not possible to determine. The first links between Biblical and b.c. dating come in the time of the kings of Israel and Judah (see p. 196).

The Chronology of the Flood.--The Deluge lasted one year and ten days, from the 17th of the 2d month in Noah's 600th year to the 27th of the 2d month in Noah's 601st year (see on Gen. 8:14).

Since it is not known what sort of calendar Noah used to calculate his month dates, opinions differ as to what kind of year this was. The 150 days of the rising and prevailing waters, ending on the 17th of the 7th month, constitute exactly 5 months. Therefore each month had 30 days. Since this could not happen if the months were regulated by the moon, which alternates 29 and 30 days, some would conclude that the Genesis account is based on a solar calendar of 30-day months, like that of the Egyptians. In that case the duration of the Flood was either 370 days or, if 5 extra days were reckoned at the end of the year, as in Egypt, it was 375 days. Others, however, think that a lunar year was intended, and that the ten days beyond one full year would indicate the difference between a lunar year of 354 or 355 days and a solar year of 365 days.

The Septuagint apparently means to imply that the original total represented a lunar year plus ten days, for it changes the duration to exactly one calendar year by translating the ending date as the 17th of the 2d month, the same day as the beginning, instead of the 27th. This looks like replacing one lunar year and ten days with one solar year, as more understandable in Egypt. There is insufficient basis, however, for conjecturing an antediluvian calendar from these dates, or for speculating on whether the "second month" was numbered from the spring or fall. Such considerations as the rainy season or the planting season in Bible lands are hardly relevant, since later conditions cannot be compared to the climatic conditions preceding or immediately following the Deluge. The month reckoning would probably be that Moses rather than that of Noah himself, and the spring-beginning year as a new reckoning introduced at the Exodus may or may not have been used by Moses in writing Genesis.

The Patriarchs From the Flood to the Exodus.--The patriarchs after the Flood are listed in Genesis 11. Arphaxad was born two years after the Flood, when Shem was 100 years old, Salah was born 35 years later, and Eber 30 years after that; and so the list goes on to Terah and Abram. However, Abram was not born when Terah was 70; this is a case similar to that of Shem, for Abram, though named first, was not the oldest son. When he was born his father was not 70, but 130 years old; for Abram was 75 when God called him to go to Canaan and made a covenant with him after Terah had died at the age of 205 (Gen. 11:32; 12:1-4). Although the list of the patriarchs with their ages ends with Abram (ch. 11:26), we are told that Isaac was born 100 years after his father (ch. 21:5), and Jacob 60 years after that (ch. 25:26).

The Genesis data on the patriarchs' ages extend to Jacob's entry into Egypt (ch. 47:9) at the age of 130. From this it can be computed that he was 91 when Joseph was born (see on ch. 27:1), but Joseph's birth year offers no help in carrying the line farther; here the age data stop.

The interval from Jacob's migration to the Exodus must be derived from the 430 years of Ex. 12:40, 41 (to be explained in the next section). Even with that, only if one can assume that no generation is left out in the lists of the patriarchs (see p. 186) is any continuous count possible from creation to the Exodus.

The Four Hundred and the Four Hundred Thirty Years.--Abraham's "seed" would be "a stranger in a land that is not their's," would serve a foreign nation, and be afflicted; and the period was to last 400 years (Gen. 15:13). That the whole duration of the sojourning, servitude, and affliction was encompassed in the 400 years is not clear in the English, but it is indicated by the inverted parallelism of the Hebrew sentence (see on Gen. 15:13). Isaac, the appointed seed of Abraham whose descendants would see the complete fulfillment of this prophecy, was a sojourner, and began early in life to be "afflicted" by his rival, Ishmael (Gen. 21:8-12; see on Gen. 15:13 for the 400 years). Ending also at the Exodus is a period of 430 years covering the "sojourning" (Ex. 12:40), not merely the phases of servitude and affliction. This is explained by a New Testament reference to the 430 years between the covenant with Abraham and the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai, soon after the Exodus (see on Ex. 12:40 and Gal. 3:17).

Both these periods can be harmonized (see the diagram on page 186) if the 430 years are counted from the call of Abraham, when he was 75 years old, and if the 400 years are reckoned from 30 years later, that is about the time when Isaac, as a small child, began to be persecuted by Ishmael after he was confirmed as the "seed" (Gen. 21:8-12). The Hebrew people called themselves both the "seed of Abraham" and the "children of Israel," and Paul evidently interpreted the second phrase, used in Ex. 12:40, as meaning the first.

Two Hundred Fifteen Years in Egypt.--Popular and scholarly misunderstanding of these periods covering the sojourning and affliction of the descendants of Abraham has caused chronological confusion as to the time spent by Israel in Egypt. The interval between the call of Abram, at age 75, and the Exodus was 430 years, of which 215 had passed when Jacob went into Egypt (25 years to Isaac's birth in Abraham's century year, plus 60, Isaac's age at Jacob's birth, plus 130, Jacob's age at his migration, a total of 215 years). Therefore the remainder of the 430 years, the Egyptian sojourn, was 215 years. If this seems a rather short time in Egypt, it should be considered that Moses was the grandson (also great-grandson) of Levi (Num. 26:57-59), who entered Egypt as an adult. This fact would not fit into an interval of 400 years, but would be quite possible for 215 years, according to Levi's life span (see on Ex. 6:16, 20).

Was it 430 full years from Abraham's call to the Exodus, or 429 full years--430 inclusive, by the reckoning most commonly used in Bible times? The latter would seem more likely if it were not for the specific wording of the text: "At the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day" (Ex. 12:41). This would seem to indicate 430 elapsed years, ending on the day of the Exodus. Thus the reckoning is considered exact rather than inclusive.

A.M. Dating Not Conclusive.--Because the 430-year interval between Abraham's years and the Exodus appears to attach the latter to the patriarchal genealogies, some have concluded that a continuous a.m. reckoning from creation can be linked with the b.c. dating. An a.m. Exodus date based on the patriarchs is entirely inconclusive. It must be remembered that these genealogies do not necessarily represent a complete year scale. Reasons have been given for preferring the ages of the patriarchs as given in the Hebrew text rather than in the Septuagint version. However, in using either reckoning we cannot exclude the possibility that some generations may not have been included. We remember that Luke lists the second Cainan (Luke 3:36). The correctness of the ages of the individuals does not imply the completeness of the list, for no total is given.

The Bible does not claim to be a complete record of all past history, and Bible genealogies do not always include every link in the chain; the Hebrew often uses the word "son" to mean grandson or descendant. This is evident in Ezra's genealogy, which omits several links (Ezra 7:1-5; cf. 1 Chron. 6:7-9; Ezra 3:2); Matthew lists 14 generations from David to Christ, thus leaving out 4, for what reason he does not tell us (Matt. 1:8, 11; cf. 1 Chron. 3:10-12, 15, 16). The fact that sometimes one Bible writer omits what another includes does not invalidate the authority of either, but it should warn us against dogmatism on the date of creation, the Flood, or the Exodus, or on any chronology based on genealogical tables alone. Exact chronology is better reserved for the later centuries, where the Bible gives many exact time statements and synchronisms that enable us to locate the b.c. dating of key events with certainty. If we accept Luke's second Cainan as indicating a link not mentioned in the Genesis list, we must lengthen the period from creation to the Exodus by at least one life span--how much more we cannot know since Luke gives no data for Cainan, and one omission implies the possibility of others. It is not necessary to suppose that gaps of that kind would be either extensive or important, but we should refrain from dogmatizing on the exact number of years between the creation and the Exodus, and from setting up any creation date based thereon. (The date of creation cannot be derived from the Biblical data.)

With caution, then, as to attempting any a.m. dating, we may proceed to the Biblical reckoning of the years of the wilderness wandering before taking up the theories by which various b.c. dates are assigned to the Exodus.

The Reckoning of the Years From the Exodus.--We find evidence of what approaches a reckoning by an era during the time of the 40 years' wandering. Shortly before the children of Israel left Egypt, the Lord instructed Moses that "this month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you" (Ex. 12:2), and then proceeded with directions for holding the Passover on the 14th. The Israelites left Egypt immediately after the Passover, on the 15th (Num. 33:3) of the spring month then called Abib (Ex. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1), but later named Nisan (Esther 3:7), and still so called by the Jews.

Other dates are mentioned in this year, which was evidently counted as the first of the series, for the next year is called the second. The list of dated events shows this in tabulation:

Note that the "second year," on the first day of which the tabernacle was erected, had already begun before the first anniversary of the Exodus, for the Israelites did not leave Egypt until the 15th of the 1st month, after half the month was past. This day of the erection of the sanctuary was the 1st of the divinely appointed 1st month, for it is the month of the Passover. It is evidently the first Abib since the departure from Egypt (see on Ex. 40:2 and Num. 9:1, 2), for no one would argue for a stay of nearly two years at Sinai (see on Num. 10:11; cf. PP 301, 302). So "the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt" (Num. 9:1) meant the year immediately following the one in which the Exodus took place (actually beginning 111/2 months after the date of departure, but the second year counted inclusively). It has been pointed out (see p. 182) that in the commonly used inclusive reckoning, expressions translated "after" often mean "within." Indeed, the preposition used in this phrase "after they were come out"--literally "for them to come out," or "of their coming out"--is elsewhere rendered "within" a given time, as in Ezra 10:8.

The years as reckoned from the Exodus, then, were spring-beginning years, and the first of the series was the one in which the Hebrews left Egypt. If this series of years from the Exodus had been continued as an era for dating subsequent events, it would have greatly simplified the problem of Old Testament chronology. Unfortunately it was not so used, although the record of the sequence must have been kept, for we seem to find one more reference to it, in connection with the date of Solomon's Templ

IV. The B.C. Date of the Exodus

The Problems in Dating the Exodus.--It has been made clear why any a.m. dating, reckoned forward from creation and based on the assumption that the genealogies are complete, is only conjectural. We are in a better position to reckon backward to the patriarchs from later and better known periods, though not with complete certainty. The 430-year span from the Exodus back to Abraham locates that patriarch in the b.c. scale with the same degree of certainty as can be assigned to the year of the Exodus, depending on which of several methods one uses to arrive at a b.c. date for that event. From the Exodus the forty years of wandering are numbered continuously, as in an era (see p. 177); then in the conquest of Canaan and the time of the judges there are various periods, some of which obviously overlap. If the information were complete and precise down through the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, to the time when the line of Bible dating joins the fixed dates of ancient history, the b.c. date of the Exodus and many other events would be unquestioned.

But even among those who accept the Bible data as correct, there are differences of opinion as to the period of the judges, for example, and the rather complicated interrelations of the reigns of the two kingdoms. This commentary, incorporating what seems a reasonably workable chronology built on Bible time statements, does not set forth a dogmatic statement of the case. The last word has not been said on this subject, because future discoveries may add to our exact knowledge of those ancient times. But if any dates at all are to be included for the reader's convenience, one system must be followed consistently.

The b.c. date of the Exodus presented in this volume has been chosen out of many advocated by different scholars because it seems, at present, to be the best explanation of the Bible data in relation to the available information, and it harmonizes with the chronology adopted for Volume II, covering the period of Israel and Judah. In order to evaluate this Exodus dating, a brief outline of the historical background of Egypt must be sketched here introductory to a survey of the principal theories of the Exodus, with a summary of the difficulties of each and the reasons why the 15th-century date is chosen.

The Historical Background in Egypt.--The Middle Kingdom in Egypt began during the Eleventh Dynasty. The first 150 years of the Twelfth Dynasty, which began in 1991 B.C., were the peak years, the classical period of Egyptian culture. At its end Egyptian power declined. The Thirteenth Dynasty was restricted largely to southern Egypt, and the contemporary Fourteenth Dynasty in the north was weak. After a period of preliminary infiltration, the country was overrun in the latter half of the 18th century by the Hyksos, whose rulers, the "Shepherd Kings"--a title more properly translated as "rulers of foreign countries"--formed the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Dynasties. These conquerors, predominantly Semites from the eastern Mediterranean lands, probably included also non-Semitic Hurrians. Little is known of the Hyksos from the few records they left. They were not barbarous, for they probably introduced the horse and chariot, which the Egyptians afterward used to advantage in building their Asiatic empire. The Hyksos became Egyptianized, adopting Egyptian titles. They ruled as Pharaohs from a capital, called Avaris, in the Delta.

During the first half of the 16th century the first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty drove the hated Hyksos--at least the ruling class--into Palestine. Egypt, again powerful, extended her sway over Palestine and Syria to the Euphrates. Great wealth went into vast building operations. A notable ruler of this dynasty was Queen Hatshepsut, who was associated on the throne with her husband Thutmose II (c. 1508-1504 B.C.), and her nephew Thutmose III. She was herself the real ruler from about 1500 until she finally disappeared from history about 1482, probably disposed of by her co-ruler, Thutmose III, whom she had kept so long in the background. After her death her name was obliterated from many of her monuments and inscriptions. Thutmose III (c. 1482-1450) expanded the empire of Egypt to an extent never exceeded. The empire prospered through the reigns of Amenhotep II (c. 1450-1425), and Thutmose IV (c. 1425-1412) and well into the reign of Amenhotep III (c. 1412-1375). But in the latter's declining years the expanding Hittite empire menace Egypt's northern holdings in Asia, the Habiru or the sa-gaz plagued parts of Syria and Palestine, and many of the Egyptian-held cities fought among themselves.

Then came Amenhotep IV (c. 1387-1366), a visionary, unfit or unwilling to wield the strong scepter that was needed to stave off decline. Taking the name Ikhnaton, he turned all his energies to religious reform; abandoning Thebes for a new capital dedicated to Aton (Aten), the sun disk, he suppressed all other cults. Meanwhile his Asiatic empire melted away. He ignored the frantic appeals for help from his loyal vassals in Palestine and Syria who were struggling against treachery and defection in the face of the menace of the sa-gaz or the Habiru. Many of these letters were unearthed among the royal archives in the ruins of Ikhnaton's capital (archeologists refer to them as the Amarna Letters, from Tell el ½Amarna, the modern place name of the ruins).

After Ikhnaton, whose religious reform died soon after him, the dynasty ended with several minor Pharaohs. One of these was the boy-king Tutankhamen, who has achieved latter-day fame through the mere accident that his last resting place--probably modest in comparison with those of the great rulers--escaped the depredations of tomb robbers.

Early in the Nineteenth Dynasty, under Seti I (1318-1299), Egypt began to regain a measure of control in Palestine. The long and energetic reign of Ramses II (1299-1232) left a great impression on his age. From the fifth year of his son Merneptah we have an inscription on a commemorative pillar, or stele, indicating that the Israelites were then already in Palestine--the first mention of the name Israel outside the Bible, and the only one so far found in Egyptian records.

The Various Theories of the Exodus.--The numerous Exodus theories differ in the placement of the narrative in relation to the Egyptian dynasties as well as in respect to the reckoning of the 400 and the 430 years (whether including the time from Abraham or only the sojourn in Egypt). Aside from theories held by few or now no longer considered seriously in scholarly circles, there are three principal classes of these interpretations of the Exodus. These date the event respectively in:

(1) the 15th century b.c., under the Eighteenth Dynasty;

(2) the 13th century, during the Nineteenth Dynasty;

(3) two migrations, under the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties.

There are plausible arguments both for and against all these datings. The last, however, which puts Joshua two centuries before Moses, does such violence to the Biblical record that it is out of the question for anyone who is seeking to build a chronology consistent with the Biblical data as we have them.

Outmoded and Minority Views.--The wide range of Exodus dating is illustrated by several theories placing it as early as the 17th century and as late as the 12th. One theory dated the Exodus in 1612, during the Hyksos rule in Egypt. This was based on a long reckoning of the period of the judges, assuming that the alternating judgeships and intervals of oppression were successive, totaling nearly 600 years; it fitted that into the 480-year period between the Exodus and Solomon by counting only the judgeships, not the interludes. Since Solomon cannot be shifted far, the longer the preceding period of the judges the earlier the Exodus must be dated. Another early-Exodus theory had the Hebrews leaving Egypt as part of, or along with, the defeated Hyksos in the 16th century (reminiscent of Josephus' identification of the Hebrews as the Hyksos). This required not 40 but 200 years of desert wandering in order to equate the Hebrews with the Habiru. It cannot be made to harmonize with either the Bible or the historical background, neither can the dating at the other extreme, a theory of a late 12th-century Exodus, in the Twentieth Dynasty.

These three types of Exodus datings will suffice as examples of the range of variation; they need not be examined since they receive little or no notice today. The three principal theories will be discussed next.

The Nineteenth-Dynasty Exodus.--The "traditional" theory, long commonly accepted, was that Israel was oppressed by Rameses II and left in his reign or that of his son Merneptah. This theory is still held by many writers, both in its original form and as the second phase of a double Exodus. The choice of Rameses as the Pharaoh of the oppression is based on the names of the cities of Pithom and Rameses, built by Hebrew slaves; on Rameses' capital being at Tanis, near Goshen; on the destruction of many Palestinian cities dated by archeologists in the 13th century; on a 430-year stay in Egypt; and on various elements of the archeological theories concerning that time, such as the late arrival of the Philistines, the absence of earlier pottery in certain regions, and conclusions drawn from certain Egyptian military campaigns. The unanswerable objection to this dating--if the Bible chronology is not to be ignored--is Merneptah's stele of the fifth year of his reign, referring to the Israelites as a people along with Palestinian places conquered. The Israelites could hardly have been already in Palestine in the fifth year of the Pharaoh of the Exodus even if they had migrated directly to Canaan. A desert wandering of 40 years (even if the vague meaning of "many years" is allowed) puts it completely out of the picture, to say nothing of other objections to the theory, such as the genealogical impossibility of 400 years from Joseph to Moses.

The Theory of a Double Exodus.--A Nineteenth-Dynasty Exodus, along with a 15th-century invasion of Canaan, is held today by many scholars who reconstruct the Biblical story completely, or rather separate it into two waves of migration. There are various views as to which tribes went into Egypt and when they left; as to which tribes never left Canaan or who may have remained in Egypt; or by what routes and in what order they invaded Canaan. The mere impossibility of harmonizing such an Exodus with the 40 years or the 480 years is a minor objection indeed compared with the placing of Joshua 2 centuries before Moses, and compared with the uninhibited reinterpretation of the Bible account in regard to the patriarchs, the tribes, the geography, and the religion of the Hebrews.

This is not to belittle the scholarship that has been employed in this attempt to reconcile the Habiru invasion and other evidence pointing to a 15th century Exodus with the building of store cities for Ramses II and the late sacking of certain Palestinian towns. But the complexities of the various double-Exodus theories need not be discussed here, for a conservative commentary is written to throw light on the Bible account, not to revamp the story by conjecture to fit the selected historical setting.

The Eighteenth Dynasty Exodus Adopted in This Commentary.--There remains the theory that places the Exodus in the mid-fifteenth century (1445 B.C. or thereabouts). It has been adopted in this commentary chiefly because of the intervals between this and later Biblical dates. It can be explained in terms of the Bible narrative and the historical and archeological setting.

The date is based on a statement synchronizing the 480th year from the Exodus with the 4th year of Solomon, in which the foundation of the Temple was laid in the month of Zif (1 Kings 6:1). This year was, according to the chronology accepted for this commentary, 967/66 B.C., that is, the Jewish regnal year beginning in the fall of 967 and ending in the fall of 966 (see articles on the Jewish calendar and on chronology in Vol. II of this commentary). Thus the laying of the foundation in the month of Zif (approximately our May) would have occurred in the spring of 966 B.C. Then Zif in the 1st year, in which the Israelites left Egypt, was 479 years earlier than 966, which is 1445 B.C. This can be computed easily by the equation:If Zif in the 480th yr. = 966 B.C.,then, going back 479 yrs. (479)Zif in the 1st yr. = 1445 B.C.

And Zif in the 1st year, beginning the 2d month, is the month immediately following Abib (or Nisan), in which the Israelites left Egypt. So the Exodus, derived thus from the dating of Solomon's 4th year as 967/66 B.C., would have occurred in the spring of 1445 B.C. if the 480th year is meant as an era date, and not as a round number.

This 15th-century theory of the Exodus can be harmonized with the 400 and 430 years as reckoned from Abraham. A 1445 Exodus would put Abraham's migration to Canaan in 1875 B.C., and his journey into Egypt soon after, at the very period from which we have an ancient record of a Semitic sheik traveling in Egypt with his family and a large retinue as traders (see p. 159 on a painting of this scene).

Joseph and Jacob, then, would be in Egypt 215 years before the Exodus, in the time of the Hyksos. The high honors bestowed upon Joseph have been regarded as most likely under a regime in which the Asiatic element predominated. Other details also fit into the picture. The statement that "Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian," bought Joseph (Gen. 39:1) indicates a non-Egyptian dynasty; else why should it be noted particularly that the Pharaoh's captain of the guard was "an Egyptian"? Furthermore, the mention of horses and chariots (Gen. 41:43; 46:29) is regarded as harmonizing better with the Hyksos period than an earlier one, for it is generally accepted that there is no record of horses in Egypt before that time. Yet they were not imported rarities in Joseph's day, for the Egyptians sold their livestock, including horses, to the Pharaoh in exchange for food during the famine (Gen. 47:17). For other points see on ch. 39:1.

The story of Moses and the Exodus can be fitted into the historical setting of the reigns of Thutmose I through Amenhotep II. Thutmose I and Thutmose III carried on building operations by means of Asiatic slave labor. Hatshepsut as Moses' foster mother, Thutmose III as the king from whom Moses fled to Midian, and Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus seem to fit the possibilities of the Bible story. We have even the fact that the successor of Amenhotep II was an unforeseen heir to the throne--a circumstance that would be expected if the eldest son had died in the tenth plague. For a sketch of the harmony between the Bible story and the lives of these rulers, see the Introduction to Exodus and the comments on the chapters of the Bible narrative.

If the 40 years' wandering ended and the invasion of Canaan began about 1400, the inroads of the Hebrews were contemporary with the Amarna Letters. Although controversy has raged over the historical connection between the names, it is not unlikely that the Hebrews were a part of the Habiru mentioned in this correspondence as a menace to Syria and Palestine, for it was in this weak period of Amenhotep III and of Ikhnaton's indifference in regard to the affairs of the great Egyptian Empire that control of Palestine was slipping out of the hands of the Pharaohs.

Objections to This Dating Considered.--There are also objections against this 15th-century theory. It is pointed out that the date does not fit the total of the periods mentioned in the book of Judges, or the 450 years of Acts 13:19, 20 (KJV), for it is keyed to the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.

It is true that if all the year totals in Judges are considered successive periods, the sum is far beyond 480 years, but there is nothing in the book to rule out the conclusion that some of the judgeships were quite possibly contemporary, in different parts of the country. Since the theories of earlier or later Exodus dating must either squeeze the judges period into an impossibly small compass, or reconcile the 480 years with approximately 600 years by eliminating certain portions from the whole period, as has been explained, it seems reasonable to accept as literal the definite statement that Solomon began the building of the Temple in the 480th year from the Exodus, especially since the date thus arrived at can be harmonized with the other data.

A 1445 Exodus admittedly makes it difficult to account for the 300 years mentioned by Jephthah (see Judges 11:26), but it can be done by assuming a rapid disintegration after Jephthah, with short contemporary judgeships (see Vol. II, pp. 125, 128, 129).

As for the 450 years of Acts 13:20, there is a disagreement as to the original text of the statement, and there are differing translations of it in various versions. One reading makes the 450 years the period of the judges; the other, from different manuscripts, makes it the period preceding the judges. The second reading, regarded as better by modern scholars, is certainly more ambiguous. A literal 450-year interval between Joshua and Samuel cannot be fitted into the chronological scheme that puts the Exodus in the 15th century, for it is obviously incompatible with an interval of 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon. Those who take the long chronology (with the 480 years exclusive of the periods between the judgeships) use the 450 years similarly as the sum of only the actual administrations of the successive judges. On the other hand, those who hold the view of overlapping judges, with a much shorter total duration, can employ the 450 years, according to the other reading, as the period from the time of the seed--the beginning of the 400 years reckoned from the time when Isaac was 5 years of age. They account for the extra 50 years by the 40 years of wandering plus a hypothetical 10 years more before the judges (see the article on chronology in Vol. II of this commentary). Both theories have difficulties and elements of personal opinion. Therefore it has been considered that the best course is to leave this ambiguous and controversial period out of the discussion as not positive enough to be used either for or against the theory of the 15th-century Exodus.

The Eighteenth Dynasty capital was at Thebes, several hundred miles from the land of Goshen. Yet the Hebrews were living near the royal palace, according to the story of the birth of Moses and to the account of the communication between Moses, the Israelites, and Pharaoh during the extended period of the plagues (possibly as much as a year). However, there was nothing to prevent the use of a second royal residence in or near the Delta at certain times, although there is no evidence for such a capital in the period assigned to Moses.

The 13th-century advocates point out the Nineteenth Dynasty names of the cities of Pithom and Rameses. However, the proponents of an earlier Exodus regard them as later forms substituted by scribes for the earlier names of the same cities (for example, Rameses had previously been called Zoan, Avaris, and Tanis). We might similarly speak of New York as having been founded by the Dutch, deeming it unnecessary to use the old name, New Amsterdam. Indeed, those who take the name "Raamses" (Ex. 1:11) as evidence of the Exodus under Ramses II must also explain away "the land of Rameses" in Joseph's day (see on Gen. 47:11) by a similar method. Then, if the name of the land need not be derived from the Pharaoh's name, neither does the name of the city.

Some argue that the story of Joseph and his family's migration to Egypt does not portray a Hyksos ruler favoring fellow-Asiatics, but rather an Egyptian rewarding a Semitic benefactor for services rendered, showing consideration to Egyptian prejudices by segregating the Hebrew shepherds in Goshen. The 15th-century advocates reply, in favor of the Hyksos dating of Joseph, that a later Egyptian Pharaoh would be too strongly anti-Semitic to bestow such high favors, and that the motive for the segregation may well have been less to spare Egyptian sensibilities than to protect the Hebrew shepherds from the ill will of their Egyptian neighbors. Similarly, Joseph's treatment of his brethren, although cited as an objection, illustrates the Egyptianized customs of Joseph himself, paralleling what might be expected from an Egyptianized Asiatic king.

It may seem illogical to portray the nationalistic Egyptians as expelling the hated Asiatic Hyksos, yet leaving in Goshen a community of Semites who had been favorites of the foreign regime. A possible explanation would be that the Hyksos who were expelled were the oppressive ruling class, and that many of their common people may have been left behind, regarded as harmless and possibly as a source of forced labor. We know too little to dogmatize on the subject.

The absence of Biblical allusions to Egyptian overlordship or military activities in Palestine has been considered out of harmony with the Israelite occupation of the land in the 15th century and onward. Actually the Israelites remained mostly nomadic hill dwellers until long after this period. They failed to drive out the town dwellers, and settled down outside many of the fortified cities, the centers of Egyptian control; and in the hills they would hardly have been touched by Egypt's coastal campaigns. Some of Israel's neighboring enemies mentioned in the Bible were possibly acting as vassals for Egypt.

The presence of late pottery in the cemetery of Jericho has been explained as belonging to later sporadic settlements while the city lay in ruins.

Another argument of 13th-century advocates against an earlier entry of Israel is the view (based on pottery bits found only on the surface, and not universally accepted) that Edom and Moab were not then settled nations. If the Edomites and Moabites were nomads in the 13th century, the absence of pottery from that period was to be expected.

It is not to be contended that all the Exodus problems can be solved at the present time, but the hindrances to arriving at a reasonable theory are not insuperable. The evidences examined seem to leave a 15th-century Exodus as a usable hypothesis for the purposes of this commentary--within the possibilities of the Bible narrative, also of Patriarchs and Prophets, and reasonably workable for the present in the framework of historical and archeological findings.

V. Earlier Chronologies Pivot on Exodus Date

Date of Creation Not Known.--Those who attempt to trace Bible chronology from the creation to the Exodus by the patriarchal lists, the Genesis narratives, and the 430 years extending from the call of Abraham to the Exodus (see p. 184) must assume that the patriarchal lists are complete. If the second Cainan (Luke 3:36) is added to the Hebrew list, if the possibility of gaps in the generations is allowed, or if the Septuagint enumeration is used, the patriarchal period must be longer than according to the Hebrew text (and the creation consequently earlier). Any b.c. dating of the patriarchs, by whichever method computed, would depend on the b.c. date of the Exodus.

The Exodus has been placed, in the present volume, on the basis of two premises, both to be discussed in Volume II: (1) the 480-year era from the Exodus to and including the 4th year of Solomon (1 Kings 6:1), and (2) the location of Solomon's 4th year by computation of the reigns of the Hebrew kings down to the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The result, as has been explained, is an Exodus date of 1445 B.C.

However, this volume assigns no dates to the period before Abraham. Since final conclusions cannot be reached, even by consistent computation from the Bible data, because of the possible undetermined variations (see page 186), this commentary does not attempt a complete chronology. Uncertainty is better than mere conjecture or the blind acceptance of a theoretical scheme such as Ussher's (see p. 179). Ussher arbitrarily placed creation, and began his a.m. 1, on the evening before October 23 (the Sunday nearest the autumnal equinox) in 4,004 B.C., that is, 4,000 years before Christ's birth, which he dated at 4 B.C. This was in harmony with the old 6,000-year theory that puts 4,000 years before Christ and 2,000 years after Christ.

This "6,000-year theory" should be defined to avoid confusion: It is not to be equated with the phrase "6,000 years" that has been used by many religious writers as a rough estimate of the time elapsed since Adam. It is, rather, a prophetic theory: namely, the view that the six days of creation week followed by the Sabbath, taken together with the statement that with God one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day (2 Peter 3:8), constitute a prediction that will world will last 6,000 years, with the seventh thousand as the millennial Sabbath of rest. There is no 6,000-year prophetic period in the Bible. It originated in ancient mythology (Persian and Etruscan, for example) and in a Jewish analogy to the days of creation. It was Christianized by the Church Fathers and it persisted long after Ussher.

To say that the six days of creation week give no clue to the duration of this world is not to deny their reality or to allow interpreting them as long ages. Acceptance of a literal creation does not require assigning it to an exact year. The date of creation is not known, for the chronological data in the Bible are not continuous or complete. Nor can it be computed from astronomical cycles. See p. 179; see on Genesis 1:1; cf. PP 51, 3SG 92.

It is true that astronomical cycles enable us to date certain ancient events (including some in the Bible) if those events can be connected with contemporary astronomical records, especially of eclipses.

The first direct, contemporary links between Biblical years and the b.c. scale occur near the end of the kingdom of Judah, about 600 B.C., in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, whose regnal years are astronomically fixed. Some cite an earlier date, 853 B.C., as the death year of Ahab of Israel, but the astronomical fix is not in that year; the synchronism depends on dead reckoning from an eclipse that occurred nearly a century later. In any case, from the kings of Israel and Judah back to creation the path crosses too many areas where differences of opinion exist.

Approximate Early Dates Sufficient.--Since we have a definite chronology for the later Old Testament times, especially from the time of the great prophetic periods, we should be satisfied with approximate dates for the earlier ages, where their is no fixed chronology that will pinpoint Biblical events. Estimates around the time of the Exodus and on are probably not far wrong. Even the various datings of the Exodus are not more than two centuries off in either direction from the dating adopted for this volume. Earlier than that a leeway of much more would be little enough. We may watch with interest the changes in historical chronology for the more ancient periods, yet there seems little chance so far of harmonizing the early dynasties of Egypt and Babylonia, for example, with the Bible chronology--if we take the Flood into consideration.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, even though Scripture does not profess to record all history. It is heartening to see how, wherever valid tests can be brought to bear, the Scripture record stands vindicated as accurate history. Chronology, the framework of history, is given to us in the Old Testament in a form that must be translated into our mode of reckoning before we can learn its meaning; the brevity and also sometimes the obscurity of the statements regarding it prevent us from claiming to have complete knowledge, but it is certain enough in the later period--especially by the time of Daniel and Ezra--to assure us that apparent difficulties are due to our lack of understanding.

Research based on archeology has solved many problems of chronology. We may hopefully anticipate the solution of most of the remaining problems as research continues.

INTRODUCTION

1. Title. The Jews designate the book of Genesis according to its word in the Hebrew text, bereshith, "in the beginning." The Jewish Talmud, however, calls it the "Book of Creation of the World." The name Genesis, meaning "origin" or "source," has been adopted by English translations from the LXX, where this term was first used to indicate the contents of the book. Its subtitle, "The First Book of Moses," was not a part of the original Hebrew text, but was added centuries later.

2. Authorship. Jews and Christians alike have considered Moses, the great lawgiver and leader of the Hebrews at the time of the Exodus, the author of the book of Genesis. This conviction was challenged by pagan opponents a few times in the early Christian period but was never seriously doubted by any Christian or Jew up to about middle of the 18th century. Beginning more than two centuries ago, traditional beliefs and opinions in every field of human thinking were questioned. Men were led to make discoveries in unknown realms and to create inventions which changed much of this world's way of life. However, the same spirit of inquiry led men of a critical nature to question the authenticity of the Scriptures as the basis of the Christian belief.

The book of Genesis was the first book subjected to a critical examination in this modern age, and that examination started the era of higher criticism of the Bible. In 1753, a French court physician, Jean Astruc, published a book, Conjectures, in which he contended that the different names of the Godhead occurring in Genesis show that the book is a collection of various source materials. Astruc retained Moses as the collector of these sources and compiler of the book, but his followers soon disposed of Moses as the editor of Genesis. Critical-minded theologians have worked for more than two centuries to separate the supposed sources of Genesis and assign them to different authors, or at least to periods in which they were supposedly composed, gathered, changed, edited, and finally put together in one book. Adhering to these critical views, the scholars agreed on one great principle; namely, that the book consists of many documents of different value, authorship, and time of origin. However, they differ widely in their opinions concerning which parts are to be attributed to a certain period and which to another. The great variance in views of the different critical schools shows how unsound the foundation of their hypotheses is. The fallacy of many critical arguments has been revealed by the archeological discoveries of the last hundred years. Critics have had to change their theories and statements continually. Nevertheless many of them retain their rejection of a Mosaic authorship of Genesis for various reasons, of which a few will be enumerated here.

a. The use of three different names of God, with one name apparently preferred in a certain section and a different name in another, allegedly shows that more than one author is responsible for the composition of the book. Hence, some critical scholars have held that those sections where the name Yahweh (Heb. YHWH or jhwh), "Jehovah," is frequently used were written by an author they call the Jahvist, abbreviated J; sections using principally the name Elohim, "God," by a man they designate as the Elohist, abbreviated E. Other ancient authors who supposedly worked on Genesis were a priestly writer (P), an editor or redactor (R), and others.

b. The many repetitions of stories contained in the book show, according to critical scholars, that parallel sources were used and crudely blended together into one narrative by a later editor, who was unable to hide the fact that he had used material of various origins.

c. Conditions reflected in the stories of Genesis allegedly do not fit into the periods described, but into much later times.

d. Place names of a much later period are given to localities when their earlier names had been different.

e. The traditions about the Creation, the Flood, and the patriarchs as they existed in ancient Babylon are so similar to the Biblical record of them that most modern theologians assert the Hebrew writers borrowed these stories from the Babylonians during the Exile and edited them in a monotheistic style to make them inoffensive to their Hebrew readers.

The conservative Christian cannot agree with these views for the following reasons:

a. He sees that the sacred names for God, Lord, and Jehovah are used more or less indiscriminately throughout the Hebrew Bible and do not indicate different authors, as the critics maintain. The LXX and the most ancient Hebrew Bible manuscripts, including the recently discovered Isaiah scroll, show that the name "God" found in a certain passage in one copy is given in another manuscript as "Lord" or "Jehovah," and vice versa.

b. Repetitions frequently found in narratives are no sure indication of different sources for a given literary work. The defenders of the unity of the Mosaic books have shown by many non-Biblical examples that similar repetitions are found in various ancient literary works of one and the same author, and also in modern works.

c. An increased knowledge of ancient history and conditions has revealed that the author of Genesis was well informed about the times he describes, and that the account of the patriarchs fits exactly into the setting of their time.

d. Place names have been modernized in certain cases by copyists to enable their readers to follow the narrative.

e. The fact that the Babylonians had traditions to some extent similar to the Hebrew records is no proof that one nation borrowed from the other, but finds its explanation in a common origin for both records. The inspired book of Genesis conveys divinely imparted information in an elevated and pure form, whereas the Babylonian records narrate the same events in a debased pagan setting.

It is not the purpose of this introduction to refute the many claims of the higher critics made in support of their theories. It is more important to note the evidence for Mosaic authorship.

The author of Exodus must have been the author of Genesis, because the second book of the Pentateuch is a continuation of the first, and evidently manifests the same spirit and intention. Inasmuch as the authorship of the book of Exodus is clearly attested by Christ Himself, who called it the "Book of Moses," (Mark 12:26), the preceding volume, Genesis, must also have been written by Moses. The use of Egyptian words and expressions and the minute acquaintance with Egyptian life and manners displayed in the history of Joseph harmonize with the education and experience of Moses. Although the evidence in favor of a Mosaic origin of Genesis is less explicit and direct than that for the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, the linguistic peculiarities common to all five books of Moses mark it as work of one author, and the testimony of the New Testament indicates that he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The testimony of Jesus Christ, who quoted from several texts in the book of Genesis, is a clear indication that He considered the book as part of Holy Scripture. In quoting Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 Jesus used the introductory formula, "Have ye not read" (Matt. 19:4, 5), indicating that these quotations contained truth that was still binding and valid. The context of the narrative (Mark 10:2-9) relating Jesus' dispute with the Pharisees about the divine sanction of divorce makes it clear that He attributed to Moses the quotations taken from Genesis. When His antagonists asked Him whether they had a right to divorce their wives, Jesus parried with the question, "What did Moses command you?" In their reply the Pharisees referred to a provision made by Moses, found in Deut. 24:1-4, a passage from the fifth book of the Pentateuch. To this Christ replied that Moses had given them this precept because of the hardness of their heart, but that the earlier provisions had been different, and supported His statement by two other quotations from Moses (Gen. 1:27; 2:24).

On several other occasions Christ alluded to events described only in the book of Genesis, revealing that he considered it an accurate historical record (see Luke 17:26-29; John 8:37; etc.).

The numerous quotations from Genesis that are found in the writings of the apostles show clearly that they were convinced that Moses wrote the book and that it was inspired (see Rom. 4:17; Gal. 3:8; 4:30; Heb. 4:4; James 2:23).

In view of this evidence the Christian may confidently believe that Moses was the author of the book of Genesis. Ellen G. White says of Moses' sojourn in Midian: "Here, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote the book of Genesis" (PP 251).

3. Historical Setting. The book of Genesis was written about 1,500 years before Christ (GC v), while the Hebrews were in bondage in Egypt. It contains a sketch of this world's history covering many centuries. The early chapters of Genesis cannot be placed in a historical setting, as we ordinarily think of history. We have no history of the antediluvian world, except that written by Moses. We have no archeological records, only the mute and often obscure testimony of the fossils.

After the Flood the case is different. The archeologist's spade has brought to light many records of the people, their customs, and forms of government during the period covered in the later chapters of Genesis. The times of Abraham, for example, can now be known fairly well; and the history of Egypt during the period of Israel's bondage can be reconstructed rather accurately. During this era, from Abraham to the Exodus, high civilizations flourished, particularly in the Mesopotamian valley and along the banks of the Nile. To the north the Hittites were growing in power. In Palestine dwelt warlike peoples under the leadership of petty kings. Gross customs reflected the dark paganism of all these peoples.

Strong racial ties connected the patriarchs of Genesis with the Semitic tribes of Lower and Upper Mesopotamia. The role of the patriarchs in some of the great events of that early time, such as the battle of the kings in the vale of Siddim (ch. 14), the destruction of the cities of the plain (chs. 18, 19), and the preservation of the Egyptian population during an extraordinary famine (ch. 41) are described in detail. The men of Genesis are met as shepherds and warriors, as city dwellers and nomads, as statesmen and fugitives. The stories about their experiences bring the readers of the book in contact with some of the great nations of hoary antiquity as well as with some of the less prominent peoples with whom the Hebrews had contact from time to time.

The great civilizations that had risen in Egypt as well as in Mesopotamia are not described in Genesis, but their existence is strongly felt in the experiences of the patriarchs. The people of God did not live in splendid isolation in a political or social vacuum. They were part of a society of nations, and their civilization and culture did not differ markedly from those of the surrounding peoples, except as their religion created a difference. Being the most important remnants of the true worshipers of Jehovah, they were therefore the men who formed the center of the inspired author's world. This obvious observation leads naturally to the question: What was Moses' main purpose in writing the book?

4. Theme. Every attentive student of Genesis is aware of the main theme of the book, first, the narration of God's dealings with the faithful few who loved and served Him, and, second, the depth of depravity into which those who had left God and His precepts fell. The book of Genesis is the first permanently recorded divine revelation accorded men.

The book also has doctrinal importance. It records the creation of this world and all its living creatures, the entrance of sin, and God's promise of salvation. It teaches that man is a free moral agent, the possessor of a free will, and that the transgression of the law of God is the source of all human woe. It gives instruction concerning the observance of the holy Sabbath as a day of rest and worship, the sanctity of marriage and the establishment of the home, the reward for obedience, and the punishment for sin.

The book is written in an interesting style and appeals to the imagination of the young. Its elevated moral themes are food for the mature, and its teachings are instructive for all. This is the book of Genesis, whose study no Christian can afford to neglect and whose shining heroes every child of God may imitate.

5. Outline.

I. From the Creation of the World to Abraham, 1:1 to 11:26.

A. The creation of heaven and earth, 1:1 to 2:25.

1. The six days of creation, 1:1-31.

2. The institution of the Sabbath, 2:1-3.

3. Details of man's creation and of the Garden in Eden, 2:4-25.

B. The history of the Fall and its immediate results, 3:1 to 5:32.

1. The temptation and Fall, 3:1-8.

2. The expulsion from the garden, 3:9-24.

3. Cain and Abel, 4:1-15.

4. The Cainites, 4:16-24.

5. The generations from Adam to Noah, 4:25 to 5:32.

C. The Deluge, 6:1 to 9:17.

1. The degeneracy of the antediluvians, 6:1-13.

2. The building of the ark, 6:14-22.

3. The narrative of the Flood, 7:1 to 8:14.

5. The Noachic covenant, 8:15 to 9:17.

D. From Noah to Abraham, 9:18 to 11:26.

1. The destinies of Noah's sons, 9:18-29.

2. The table of nations, 10:1-32.

3. The confusion of tongues at Babel, 11:1-9.

4. The generations from Shem to Abraham, 11:10-26.

II. The Patriarchs Abraham and Isaac, 11:27 to 26:35.

A. Abram, 11:27 to 16:16.

1. Call and journey to Canaan, 11:27 to 12:9.

2. Egyptian experience, 12:10-20.

3. Separation from Lot, 13:1-18.

4. Rescue a Lot, meeting with Melchizedek, 14:1-24.

5. Covenant with God, 15:1-21.

6. Marriage with Hagar, birth of Ishmael, 16:1-16.

B. Abraham, 17:1 to 25:18.

1. Renewal of covenant, Abram becomes Abraham, circumcision introduced, 17:1-27.

2. Abraham and the angels, destruction of Sodon and its neighboring cities, 18:1 to 19:38.

3. Experiences at Gerar, birth of Isaac, expulsion of Ishmael, 20:1 to 21:34.

4. Abraham's supreme test, 22:1-24.

5. Sarah's death and burial, 23:1-20.

6. Isaac's marriage to Rebekah, 24:1-67.

7. Abraham's descendants, 25:1-18.

C. Isaac, 25:19 to 26:35.

1. Isaac's sons, 25:19-34.

2. Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar, 26:1-35.

III. The Patriarch Jacob, 27:1 to 36:43.

A. Jacob, the supplanter, 27:1 to 31:55.

1. Jacob receives a blessing by deception, 27:1-46.

2. Jacob's flight and the vision at Bethel, 28:1-22.

3. Jacob works for his wives and rears a family, 29:1 to 30:43.

4. Jacob's flight from Laban, 31:1-55.

B. Israel, a prince with God, 32:1 to 36:43.

1. Jacob returns to Canaan, the Peniel experience, 32:1 to 33:20.

2. Disgrace at Shechem, domestic troubles, 34:1 to 35:29.

3. Esau's descendants, 36:1-43.

IV. Joseph, a Savior, 37:1 to 50:26.

A. Joseph and his brethren, 37:1-36.

B. Judah's fall, 38:1-30.

C. Joseph's stand for principle, 39:1 to 40:23.

D. Joseph becomes the savior of Egypt, 41:1-57.

E. Joseph and his brethren, 42:1 to 45:28.

F. Jacob goes to Egypt, 46:1 to 47:31.

G. Jacob's blessings, 48:1 to 49:33.

H. The death of Jacob and of Joseph, 50:1-26.

Genesis Chapter 1

1 The creation of heaven and earth, 3 of the light, 6 of the firmament, 9 of the earth separated from the waters, 11 and made fruitful, 14 of the sun, moon, and stars, 20 of fish and fowl, 24 of beasts and cattle, 26 of man in the image of God. 29 Also the appointment of food.

1. In the beginning. These words remind us of the fact that everything human has a beginning. He alone who sits enthroned the sovereign Lord of time, is without beginning or end. The opening words of Scripture thus draw a striking contrast between all that is human, temporal, and finite, and that which is divine, eternal, and infinite. Reminding us of our human limitations, these words point us to Him who is ever the same, and whose years have no end (Heb. 1:10-12; Ps. 90:2, 10). Our finite minds cannot think of "the beginning" without thinking of God, for He "is the beginning" (Col. 1:18; cf. John 1:1-3). Wisdom, and all other good things, have their beginning with Him (Ps. 111:10; James 1:17). And if we are ever again to resemble our Maker, our lives and all our plans must have a new beginning in Him (Gen. 1:26, 27; cf. John 3:5; 1 John 3:1-3). It is our privilege to enjoy the confident assurance that "he which hath begun a good work" in us "will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). He is "the author and finisher of our faith" (Heb. 12:2). Let us never forget the sublime fact implicit in these words--"in the beginning God."

This first verse of Holy Writ brings into sharp focus one of the age-old controversies between Bible believing Christians on the one hand and skeptics, atheists, and various shades of materialists on the other. The latter, who seek in different ways and in different degrees to explain the universe without God, contend that matter/energy is eternal. If this be true, and if matter has the power to evolve, first into the simplest forms of life and then into the more complex, until man is reached, God is indeed unnecessary.

Genesis 1:1 affirms that God is before all else and that He is the one and only cause of all else. This verse is the foundation of all right thinking in regard to the material world. Here is set forth the impressive truth that "in the formation of our world, God was not indebted to pre-existing matter" (8T 258).

Pantheism, the ancient heresy that robs God of personality by diffusing Him throughout all the universe, and thus makes Him synonymous with the totality of creation, is also exposed and refuted by Gen. 1:1. There is no basis for the doctrine of pantheism when one believes that God lived serene and supreme before there was a creation and thus stands above and apart from that which He has created.

No declaration could be more appropriate as an introduction to Holy Writ. At the outset the reader is introduced to an Omnipotent Being, possessed of personality, will, and purpose, who, existing before all else and thus dependent on nought else, exercised His divine will and "created the heaven and the earth."

No discussion of secondary questions regarding the mystery of a divine creation, either as to time or method, should be allowed to blur the fact that the real dividing line between a true and a false belief on the subject of God and the origin of our earth is acceptance or rejection of the truth set forth in this verse.

Right here a word of caution should be said. For long centuries theologians have speculated on the word "beginning," hoping to discover more of God's mysterious ways than infinite wisdom has seen fit to reveal. See, for example, the discussion of the false ruin and restoration theory of creation in the Additional Note at the close of this chapter. But all speculation is idle. We know nothing of the method of creation beyond the terse Mosaic declaration, "God said," "and it was so," which is the mysterious and majestic overtone of the creation anthem. To set down as the basis of our reasoning that God must have done thus and so in creating the world, else nature's laws would have been violated, is to darken counsel with words and to give aid and comfort to the skeptic, who has ever insisted that the whole Mosaic record is incredible because it allegedly violates the laws of nature. Why should we attempt to be wise above that which is written?

Very particularly, nothing is gained by speculating as to when the matter constituting our planet was brought into existence. On the time aspect of the creation of our earth and all upon it, Genesis makes two statements: (1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (v. 1). (2) "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made" (ch. 2:2). Related scriptures add nothing to what is set forth in these two texts regarding the time involved in creation. To the question: When did God create "the heaven and the earth"? we can only answer, "In the beginning." And to the question: When did God complete His work? we can only answer, "On the seventh day God ended his work" (ch. 2:2), "for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Ex. 20:11).

These remarks regarding the creation account are made, not in an attempt to close the discussion, but as a confession that we are unprepared to speak with certainty beyond what is clearly revealed. The very fact that so much rests upon the creation record--even the whole edifice of Scripture--prompts the devout and prudent Bible student to conform his declarations to the explicit words of Holy Writ. Indeed, when the broad fields of speculation tempt him to roam afar in uncharted areas of time and space, he cannot do better than to meet the temptation with the simple rejoinder, "It is written." There is always safety within the protecting bounds of Scriptural quotation marks.

God created. The verb "to create" is from the Heb., bara' which in the form here used describes an activity of God, never of men. God creates "the wind" (Amos 4:13), "a clean heart" (Ps. 51:10), and "new heavens and a new earth" (Isa. 65:17). The Hebrew words that we translate "to make," Ôasah, "to form," yas\ar, and others, frequently (but not exclusively) used in connection with human activity, imply pre-existing matter. All three words are employed in describing the creation of man. The very first words of the Bible point to the fact that the creation bears the imprint of God's own activity. The opening page of Holy Writ makes the reader acquainted with a God to whom all things animate and inanimate owe their very existence (see Heb. 11:3). The "earth" here mentioned is manifestly not the dry land, which was not separated from the waters till the third day, but our whole planet.

2. Without form, and void. More exactly, "waste and void," tohu wabohu. This signifies a state of wasteness and emptiness, but without implying that the earth was once perfect and then was made waste or desolate.

When the words tohu wabohu appear together in other passages, such as Isa. 34:11; Jer. 4:23, they seem to be borrowed from this text, but tohu alone is frequently employed as synonymous with nonexistence, or nothingness (Isa. 40:17, 23; 49:4). Job 26:7 demonstrates the correct meaning of this word. The second half of this passage states that God "hangeth the earth upon nothing," and the first half has the parallel "he stretcheth out the north over tuho [the emptiness]." This text in Job shows clearly the meaning of tuho in Gen. 1:2, in which this and the synonymous word bohu indicate that the earth was shapeless and lifeless. Its elements were all mingled together, completely unorganized and inanimate.

Darkness was upon the face of the deep. The "deep," from a root "to roar," "to rage," is frequently applied to the raging waters, the roaring waves, or the flood, and hence the depths of the sea (Ps. 42:7; Ex. 15:5; Deut. 8:7; Job 28:14; 38:16). "Deep" is an old word, and is here used like a proper name. The Babylonians, who retained some vague memory of the true creation story for many centuries, actually personified this word, tehom, and applied it in their mythology to a deity, Tiamat, out of whose corpse they believed the earth was created. The Biblical record shows that originally there was no light on earth and that the surface matter was in a fluid state, because "the face of the deep" stands parallel to "the face of the waters" in this verse.

The Spirit of God moved. "Spirit," ruach. In harmony with Scriptural usage, the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead. From this place onward, throughout the whole Scripture, the Spirit of God has the role of the divine agent of God in all creative acts, whether of the earth, of nature, of the church, of the new life, or of the new man. See on v. 26 for a comment on Christ's relationship to creation.

The word here rendered "moved" is merachepheth, which cannot rightly be translated "brooded," although it has this meaning in Syriac, a post-Biblical Aramaic dialect. The word occurs but twice elsewhere in the OT. It appears in Jer. 23:9, where it has the meaning "to tremble," "to shake," whereas in Deut. 32:11 it is used to describe the fluttering of an eagle over its young. The eagle does not brood over the living young but hovers watchfully and protectingly over them.

The work of God's Spirit must have some connection with the activity that was presently to be initiated, an activity bringing order out of chaos. The Spirit of God was already present, ready to act as soon as the order should be given. The Holy Spirit has always been doing this very work. This divine Agent has ever been present to assist in the work of creation and redemption, to reprove and strengthen wayward souls, to comfort the sorrowing, and to present the believer's prayers in an acceptable form to God.

3. And God said. The record of each of the six creation days opens with this announcement. "He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast" (Ps. 33:9), declares the psalmist, and the apostle says that we understand through faith "that the worlds were framed by the word of God" (Heb. 11:3). The phrase "God said" has offended some as making God too much like a human being. But how could the inspired writer have conveyed to finite minds the act of creation carried out by the infinite God except by using terms that mortal man can understand? The fact that the utterances of God are repeatedly connected with activities performed by God (vs. 7, 16, 21, 27) indicates convincingly that a revelation of God's creative power is being expressed in human language.

Let there be light. Without light there could be no life; and as the Creator began the work of bringing order from chaos and of introducing various forms of plant and animal life upon the earth, it was essential that there be light. Light is a visible form of energy, which by its action on plants transforms inorganic elements and compounds into food for both man and beast and controls many other natural processes necessary to life.

Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence. As physical light is essential to physical life, so divine light is necessary if rational beings are to have moral and spiritual life. "God is light" (1 John 1:5); and to those in whose hearts the work of recreating the divine likeness is going on apace, He comes again today bidding the shadows of sin, uncertainty, and discouragement flee, saying, "Let there be light."

4. God saw. This expression, repeated six times (vs. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), conveys in human language an activity of God--the evaluation of each single act of creation as meeting completely the plan and will of its Maker. As we, by beholding and examining the products of our efforts, are prepared to declare that they meet our plans and purpose, so God declares, after every creative act, that His products agree completely with His plan.

God divided the light from the darkness. At the outset only darkness existed on this formless earth. A change took place with the entrance of light. Now darkness and light exist side by side, but separate from each other.

5. Called the light Day. Names are given to the light and the darkness. The giving of a name was always an important act in antiquity. Names had their meaning and were carefully chosen. God later commissioned Adam to give names to the animals. He sometimes changed His servants' names to make them agree with their life experience or character. He instructed the earthly parents of His Son concerning the name they should give to the Saviour. During the creation week we find God giving names even to the lifeless products of His creative power.

The evening and the morning were the first day. Literally "evening was, morning was, day one." Thus the cryptic description of the first momentous day of God's creation week closes. Many and diversified explanations of this statement have been given. It indicates clearly the duration of each of the seven parts of the creation week, and is repeated five more times in this chapter (vs. 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Some have thought creative act lasted one night, from the evening to the morning; and others, that every day began with the morning, although the Inspired Record states plainly that the evening preceded the morning.

Many scholars have taken this expression to mean a long, indefinite period of time, believing that some of the divine activities of the following days, as for instance the creation of the plants and animals, could not have been accomplished within a literal day. They think they find a justification for this interpretation in the words of Peter, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years" (2 Peter 3:8). That this text cannot be used to ascertain the length of the creation days is obvious when one reads the rest of the verse, "and a thousand years as one day." The context of Peter's words makes it clear that he wishes to stress the timelessness of God. The Creator can do in a day the work of a thousand years, and a period of a thousand years, a long time for those waiting for God's judgments to be fulfilled, may be considered by Him as only one day. Psalms 90:4 conveys the same thought.

The literal statement "evening was [with the following hours of the night], and morning was [with the succeeding hours of the day], day one" is clearly a description of an astronomical day, that is, a day of 24 hours' duration. It is the equivalent of the later Hebrew compound "evening-morning" of Dan. 8:14, which the KJV has translated "days," here meaning prophetic days, and of Paul's Greek word, nuchthemeron, translated "a night and a day" (2 Cor. 11:25). Thus the Hebrews, who were never in doubt about the meaning of this expression, began the day with sunset and ended it with the following sunset (Lev. 23:32; Deut. 16:6). Furthermore, the language of the fourth commandment leaves no shadow of doubt that the evening and morning of the creation record are the component sections of an earthly day. This commandment, referring in unmistakable words to the week of creation, declares, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Ex. 20:11).

The tenacity with which so many commentators cling to the idea that the days of creation were long periods of time, even thousands of years, largely finds its explanation in the fact that they attempt to make the inspired creation record agree with the theory of evolution. Geologists and biologists have taught men to believe that this earth's early history covers millions of years, in which the geological formations were slowly taking shape and living species were evolving. Throughout its sacred pages the Bible contradicts this evolution theory. The belief in a divine and instantaneous creation as the result of words spoken by God stands in complete opposition to the theory held by the majority of scientists and many theologians today that the world and all upon it came into being through a slow process of evolution lasting for untold ages.

Another reason why many commentators declare that the days of creation were long periods of time is that they reject the seventh-day Sabbath. A famous commentary thus expresses this thought: "The duration of the seventh day of necessity determines the length of the other six. ... God's sabbatic rest is understood by the best interpreters of Scripture to have continued from creation's close until the present hour; so that consistency demands the previous six days to be considered as not of short, but of indefinite, duration" (Pulpit). This kind of reasoning moves in a circle. Because the seventh-day Sabbath, so clearly defined in Holy Scripture as a weekly recurring day of rest, is rejected as such, the seventh day of the creation week is declared to have lasted to the present time. On the basis of this un-Scriptural explanation the duration of all other creation days is also expanded. Sound Scriptural interpretation has no sympathy with this kind of reasoning, but insists on giving a literal meaning to the text, following the example of the divine Expounder of the Word, who parried every attack of the adversary by declaring, "It is written" (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

The Scriptures speak clearly and plainly of seven days of creation (Ex. 20:11) and not of periods of undefined duration. We are therefore bound to declare emphatically that the first day of creation, indicated by the expression in Hebrew, "evening was, morning was, day one," was a 24-hour day.

6. A firmament. Or, "an expanse." The work of the second creation day consisted in the formation of the firmament. The great mass of primeval "waters" was divided into two separate bodies. The "waters which were above the firmament" (v. 7) are generally considered by commentators to be water vapor. The climatic conditions of the originally perfect earth were different from those existing today.

Explorations carried out in the far north have proved that luxurious tropical forests once covered those land areas that are now buried under eternal ice and snow. It is generally conceded that pleasant climatic conditions prevailed during this earth's early history. Unknown were the extremes of cold and heat that can make life unpleasant in most regions of the world and virtually impossible in some.

8. God called the firmament Heaven. The product of the creative power of God on the second day of the creation week received a name, even as the light of the first day had received one. In the Hebrew as well as in the modern translation the word "heaven" is the name given both to the abode of God and to the firmament. In this verse "heaven" refers to the atmospheric heavens that appear to the human eye as a canopy, or dome, vaulting our earth, and generally called sky.

No life is possible without air. Plants need it as well as living creatures. Without the atmosphere our earth would be lifeless like the moon, tremendously hot in that part which is exposed to the sun and extremely cold in other sections. Not one sprout of plant life would be found anywhere, and no creature could exist for any length of time. Are we grateful for this God-given atmosphere?

9. Let the waters. The third creative act, performed during the first part of the third day, was a separation of the water from the dry land. The inspired pen of the psalmist describes this event in the following picturesque and poetical terms: "The waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them. Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass" (Ps. 104:6-9, RSV). The gathering of the waters into one place implies no more than that they were, from this day forward, to be collected into "one place," and restrained within bounds in a place by themselves, so as to admit the exposure of the earth's soil. It must have been a grand spectacle to any heavenly observer to see hills rise up out of the water that had so completely covered the face of the earth. Where there had been water only as far as the eye could see, great land areas suddenly rose up and gave to this earth an entirely new appearance.

10. God saw that it was good. God's eye rested, now, with pleasure and satisfaction on the finished product of the third day of creation. "It was good." That primeval dry land would scarcely have seemed good to us. It was a world of verdureless valleys and hills and plains, upheaved from beneath the waters. Nowhere was there even a blade of grass or a clinging lichen. Yet is seemed good to its Maker, who could see it in relation to the uses for which He had made it, and as a fit preparatory step to the new wonders He was going to introduce.

11. Let the earth bring forth. After the separation of dry land from the water, another divine order was given on that third day: vegetation was summoned into existence. Some have considered the first of the three terms employed in the divine command a general term for plants, including the second and the third. However, it is preferable to take them as distinct classes.

Grass. Heb., desheÔ, "to be green," "to grow green." "to sprout." This word designates green sprouts and tender herbs--the various kinds of plants that supply food for the animals. "Grass" is probably used here as a synonym of the word "herb," ÔesŒeb, when the latter appears without the qualifying expression "yielding seed" (see v. 30; Ps. 23:2).

The herb yielding seed. "Herb," ÔesŒeb, is the more mature herbage, in which the seed is the most striking characteristic, providing one of the two kinds of food designated by God to be consumed by human beings. (v. 29).

The fruit tree. Three characteristics of fruit-bearing trees are here noted: (1) the bearing of fruit, (2) the enclosing of seed within the fruit, and (3) the bearing of this fruit "upon" or above the earth. These trees were to provide man with another source of food (v. 29).

12. The earth brought forth. The vegetation of the third day sprang from the soil. This does not mean that the power to produce life-containing plants was in the soil. The idea of spontaneous generation is as alien to Scripture as it is to science.

After his kind. This expression occurs ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, and altogether 30 times in the books of Moses, especially in Gen. 1, 6, and 7; in Lev. 11; and in Deut. 14. Reference is to kinds of animals and plants, not to their reproductive behavior. It is, however, a fact of nature that living things do reproduce offspring that resemble their parents. Variations within certain limits are possible, but those limits fall far short of creating distinctly new kinds of plants and animals. See Gen. 6:20; 7:14; Lev. 11:14-16, 29; Deut. 14:13-15.

13. See on v. 5.

14. Let there be lights. "Lights," me'oroth, is not the same as "light," or, of vs. 3 and 4; it means sources of light, light holders, luminaries. The expression that they are set in the firmament, or expanse of heaven, is chosen because it is there that the earthly inhabitant sees them.

To divide the day from the night. To regulate and continue from that time forward the difference between light and darkness, a difference that had existed ever since God decreed light on the first day.

For signs. These celestial bodies marked special acts of God's favor or displeasure as in Joshua's (Joshua 10:12, 13), and Hezekiah's times (2 Kings 20:11), and on the crucifixion day (Matt. 27:45). "Falling stars" served as one of the signs of Christ's second coming (Matt. 24:29).

Some have mistakenly thought that the celestial bodies were designed also to determine the individual destinies of men. Astrologers have appealed to v. 14 to justify their practice. However, the Bible so vigorously opposes any form of divination and fortunetelling that the thought has to be emphatically rejected that God appointed the sun, moon, and stars to serve astrologers as guides in predicting human affairs and destinies. Jeremiah warns the Hebrews not to be afraid of the signs of heaven, before which the heathen tremble in vain terror (Jer. 10:2); and Isaiah speaks with taunting irony against the astrologers, stargazers, and foretellers, on whose counsel it is folly and wickedness to rely (Isa. 47:13, 14). Although the superstition of reading the destiny of man in the stars never took root among the ancient Israelites, they did not have enough moral strength to resist in general the example of star worship of their pagan neighbors (Jer. 19:13; Eze. 8:16; Zeph. 1:5).

For seasons. Yearly returning festival periods and other definite times were to be regulated by the movement of the celestial bodies (Ps. 104:19; Zech. 8:19). These bodies have, moreover, a definite periodic influence upon agriculture, navigation, and other human occupations, as well as upon the course of animal and vegetable life, as for instance the breeding time of animals and the migration of birds (Jer. 8:7).

For days, and years. The days and years are fixed by the movement of the earth in relation to the sun, which in conjunction with that of the moon has provided men of all ages with the basis for calendars--lunar, solar, or a combination of both.

15. For lights. Not to introduce light for the first time to this world, for God decreed light on the first day, but to serve as a permanent arrangement for the distribution of light for this world.

16. He made the stars also. The words, "he made," have been supplied. As to the origin of the stars two principal views have been set forth: (1) The stars were brought into existence during creation week, along with the sun and moon. (2) The "stars," though created earlier, are here mentioned, in passing, by Moses, inasmuch as he is discussing the luminaries of the heavens. The first view necessitates the conclusion that prior to creation week the vast universe was an empty void. This conclusion seems unwarranted.

However, on this as on many other cryptic declarations of Scripture regarding God's mysterious acts, we should be slow to dogmatize. We should not forget that the primary truth Moses sought to present in regard to the origin of the sun, moon, and stars is that all are the result of God's creative power. Here is a further refutation of the ancient but ever-recurring heresy of the eternity of matter.

18. It was good. Unlike our present earth, which has changed much as the result of the introduction of sin, the celestial bodies have not suffered from the results of man's transgression, and reflect their Creator's power. It is a universally known fact that the laws of the universe are faithfully obeyed by all celestial bodies. Astronomers and navigators are sure that no deviations from established rules occur in the astronomical world. They know that these heavenly bodies will not disappoint them, that they can be trusted because of their continual obedience to the laws laid down for them.

20. Let the waters. We have here the populating of the water and the air by the creation of marine and winged creatures. The original may be translated, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly living creature that moveth," rendering more clearly in English the Hebrew phrase that means literally, "Let the waters swarm with swarms." The verb here translated "to swarm" is also used with the meaning "to multiply abundantly." The term applies not only to fishes but to all water animals, from the greatest to the least, and also to reptiles.

Creature that hath life. The original of this phrase, nephesh chayyah, makes a clear distinction between the animals and the vegetation created two days earlier. It is true that plants have life as do animals and possess certain functions that resemble those of animals, but the fact remains that a marked difference exists between the plant and animal worlds. The animals are in possession of organs that allow them to make decisions, to move about in search of food, and to feel pain, joy, or sorrow, to a greater or less degree.

Hence they can be called creatures, a word that cannot be applied to plants. This must be the meaning of the much-discussed Hebrew word nephesh, translated rightly "creature" in this verse, a term which attributes to the animal a higher form of life than to the plant, which is not a nephesh. The early translators correctly understood that the term cannot mean "soul" in this passage, and rendered it in a way that correctly conveys the thought of the inspired author.

Fowl that may fly. The waters were to produce the water animals but not the birds, as the KJV appears to indicate. Chapter 2:19 states that "every fowl of the air" was formed by God "out of the ground." The correct rendering of the Hebrew text of ch. 1:20, "and let fowl fly above the earth," disposes of this seeming difficulty. The word "fowl," literally "winged beings," should rather read "birds." Both domestic and wild birds are included.

21. God created great whales. For the second time the word "created," bara', is used in this chapter to indicate the introduction of something entirely new, the creation of living creatures. In carrying out His word, God created the great sea animals, tanninim. The translation "whales" is too limited in scope. The word has different meanings, like "serpent" (Ex. 7:9, 10, 12) and "dragon" (Isa. 51:9; Eze. 29:3), but must mean "sea monster" in this passage and in Ps. 148:7.

Moveth. The verb "to move," ramasŒ, is especially descriptive of creeping animals (Gen. 9:2), either on land (Gen. 7:14) or in the water (Ps. 69:34), though here it clearly signifies aquatic creatures.

After their kind. As in the case of the plants created on the third day, the statement is made that the fish as well as the birds were created "after their kind," explicitly indicating that the distinct kinds of animals we see were established at creation and not through a process of development as evolutionists maintain (see on v. 12).

Why birds and fish were created on the same day is not to be explained by any supposed similarity between the air and the water as Luther, Calvin, and others thought. Again, it is not stated that only a single pair was created of each kind; on the contrary, the words, "Let the waters swarm with living creatures," seem to indicate that the animals were created, not only in a rich variety of kinds, but in large numbers of individuals. The fact that but one human being was created at first, by no means warrants the conclusion that the animals were created singly also.

God saw that it was good. The earth must have appeared most pleasing to the Creator when He beheld it at the end of this fifth day. Not only verdant hills, sparkling streams, and blue lakes, but living creatures, moving, swimming, and flying, gave to this world for the first time the quality of life it had not possessed before. Here were creatures that could even sing the praises of their Creator, who revealed some measure of understanding, by finding the right kind of food (Matt. 6:26), by building nests as shelters (Matt. 8:20), and by knowing their times of migration (Jer. 8:7).

The mighty works of God performed on the previous days were truly wonderful, but nature received an ornament on the fifth day. Without the vegetation created on the third day the world would present an extremely uninviting appearance. Much more would it be devoid of attraction and cheerfulness if the myriads of living beings with which it is populated were absent. Every one of these small or large creatures should teach us a lesson concerning the marvelous handiwork of the great God, to whom, as the author and preserver of all life, we owe adoration. These creatures should give us a wholesome respect for life, which we cannot impart but should carefully protect and not destroy.

22. God blessed them. The fifth day's work not only was pronounced to be good by the Creator but received a blessing, which was given neither to the inanimate products of God's creation nor to the plants. This benediction, which focuses on their propagation and increase, "be fruitful, and multiply," became a standard formula of blessing (chs. 35:11; 48:4).

24. The living creature. Like the third day, the sixth is distinguished by a double creative act, the production of the land animals and the creation of man. After the sea and air were filled with living creatures, nephesh chayyah (see v. 20), the word of God went forth to the earth, to produce living beings after their kind. These are divided into three classes:

Cattle. From behemah, derived from the root baham, "to be dumb," meaning "dumb animal." The word generally denotes the larger domesticated quadrupeds (see Gen. 47:18; Ex. 13:12; etc.), but occasionally the larger land animals as a whole (Prov. 30:30; Eccl. 3:19; etc.).

Creeping thing. From remesŒ, which denotes the smaller animals that move either without feet, or with feet that are scarcely perceptible, such as worms, insects, and reptiles. Here the land remesŒ are meant, the remesŒ of the sea having been created on the previous day.

Beast of the earth. From chayetho 'eres\. This old and unusual Hebrew term denotes the freely roving wild animals.

25. The beast of the earth. The order of creation of living creatures here given differs from that of v. 24, the last group of the previous verse being the first one here enumerated. This is a well-known arrangement in Hebrew speech called "inverted parallelism" (see Gen. 10:1, 2, 6, 21; Prov. 14:16, 17).

After his kind. The statement refers to all three classes of living creatures, each of which has its distinct kinds. These inspired words refute the evolution theory, which declares that higher forms of life developed from lower ones and which suggests that it may yet be possible to produce living matter out of inanimate earth. Although scientific study confirms the Biblical declaration that all animate organisms are made out of the earth, containing nothing else in elements than what the earth possesses, scientists have never been able to produce from lifeless matter one single cell that was able to live and reproduce its kind.

God saw that it was good. With the usual word of approbation the short record of the creation of all land animals closes, and the author hastens to the account of the creation of man, in which the work of creation culminates.

26. Let us make man. The Sacred Record proclaims at the very outset the preeminence of man above all the other creatures of the earth. The plural "us" was regarded by the early church theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the three persons of the Godhead. The word "us" requires the presence of at least two persons counseling together. The statements that man was to be made in "our" image and was made in "God's" image leads to the conclusion that those counseling must both be persons of the same Godhead. This truth, implied in the OT, in various passages such as the one discussed here, and Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Dan. 7:9, 10, 13, 14; etc., is fully and clearly revealed in the NT, where we are told in unmistakable terms that Christ, the second person of the Godhead, called God by the Father Himself (Heb. 1:8), was associated with His Father in the work of creation. Texts like John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17; Heb. 1:2 teach us not only that God the Father created all things through His Son but also that all life is preserved by Christ.

Even though it is true that this full light of truth did not shine upon these OT texts previous to the revelations contained in the NT, and that distinct understanding of the different persons of the Godhead was not so readily discernible from the OT passages alone, the initial evidence of the existence of Christ at the time of the creation as colaborer with His Father is present on the first page of the Bible. These texts offer no difficulties for those who believe in the inspiration of the OT as well as the NT, in view of the fact that one part explains the other and that both fit harmoniously together, like the stones of a beautiful mosaic. Not only do vs. 26 and 27 contain hints of the activity of Christ as the second person of the Godhead in this creation work, but v. 2 mentions the Holy Spirit as collaborating in the same work. We are therefore justified in declaring that the first evidence for the sublime mystery of the Godhead is found on the first page of the Bible, a mystery that is placed in clearer light as the pen of inspiration of the different authors of the Bible books was moved to reveal this truth more fully.

The word "man" is adam in Hebrew, the very word God employed in naming the father of the human race (ch. 5:2). The meaning of this word has been variously explained. It is descriptive of either his color, from adam, "to be red"; or his appearance, from an Arabic root which signifies "to shine," thus making Adam "the brilliant one"; or his nature as God's image, from dam, "likeness"; or, and most probably, his origin, "the ground," from adamah, "the one of the soil."

In our image. "Man was to bear God's image, both in outward resemblance and in character" (PP 45). That image was most evident in terms of his spiritual nature. He became a "living soul," or rather living being, endowed with a free will, a self-conscious personality.

This nature reflected the divine holiness of its Maker until sin shattered the divine likeness. It is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the "express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).

And let them have dominion. The relationship of man to the rest of the creation was to be one of rulership. The use of the plural "them" shows that God planned from the very beginning to create more than one individual. By transferring to Adam ruling power over "all the earth," God planned to make man His representative, or viceroy, over this planet. That the beast of the field is not mentioned has been taken by some commentators as an indication that the animals that are now wild were not subjected to Adam. This opinion is untenable. The plants are also missing in the enumeration of created works subjected to Adam, although no one will deny that man has had the right to rule over the vegetation to the present day and that the plants must have been included in the phrase "all the earth." This phrase, in fact, covers everything on this earth not mentioned by name, including "the beasts of the field" (Ps. 8:6-8). However, God limited man's supremacy to this earth, not transferring to Adam rulership over the celestial bodies.

27. So God created man. The account of the accomplishment of the divine purpose is expressed in a form of Hebrew poetry, common in all poetic books of the Hebrew Bible, in which the thought expressed in the first part of a stanza is repeated with slight variations in words but not in meaning in the second or even in the third part of the stanza, as in our verse:

"So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God created he him;

male and female created he them."

Moses, who has given us other samples of his poetic ability (see Ex. 15; Deut. 32, 33; Ps. 90), was the first of all the inspired writers who told of God's wondrous works in words of poetry. When he had reached the point in his record that told of the creation of man, the crown of God's work on this earth, he left the ordinary narrative style and employed poetry.

In his own image. Noteworthy is the use of the singular, "his." The plural of v. 26 reveals that the Deity possesses plurality in unity, whereas v. 27 emphasizes that the plurality of God does not negate God's unity.

Male and female. A new element is introduced in the information given about the creation of man by mentioning differences in sex. The two words "male" and "female" are translations of Hebrew adjectives that indicate the sex of the two individuals. The blessing of fertility pronounced over the animals (v. 22) implies that they must have been created likewise with sexual differences, but this fact is not mentioned. Probably a special reason existed for mentioning it in connection with the creation of man. That reason may spring from the fact that only in man does the duality of sex find its expression in the institution of holy wedlock. This verse prepares us for the revelation concerning God's plan for the creation of the family that is presented in ch. 2.

28. And God blessed them. The blessings of God conferred upon the living creatures the day before were repeated at the end of the sixth day with special additions appropriate to man. God blessed "them" not "him," indicating that the creation of Eve must have occurred before the sixth day had passed by and that the blessings and responsibilities conferred on them were to be jointly shared by both in equal manner.

God said unto them. A difference exists between the introductions to the blessings of vs. 22 and 28 that is worth noticing. The blessing for the animals was pronounced regarding them, "God blessed them, saying," whereas the blessing for the human race was expressed "unto them." As intelligent beings they were able to listen to God and to receive communications. This verse contains the first revelation of God to man.

Be fruitful. The Creator's benediction had respect, in the first instance, to the propagation and perpetuation of the species, a blessing that has never been rescinded by God and that is the source of hundreds of millions of human beings who now fill all continents of this world. The divine commission has been understood by various commentators to indicate that the reproduction of human beings should not continue endlessly, but was to cease when the earth was filled with human beings and their animal subjects.

The word translated "replenish" does not support the false doctrine that at some remote time in the past this world was depopulated, and that Gen. 1 is the record of its restoration. "Replenish the earth" may be accurately translated, "Fill the earth" (RSV). See note at end of chapter.

Subdue it. This revelation also contains instruction concerning man's duty and destiny, to rule over the earthly creation works, a commission expressed almost in the same words as those of the divine council recorded in v. 26. The only difference is the additional phrase, "subdue it," granting man the right to utilize for his necessities the vast resources of the earth, by agricultural and mining operations, by geographical research, scientific discovery, and mechanical invention.

29. Every herb. Provision for the sustenance of the newly appointed monarch and his subjects is next made. We learn from the divine record that man was to eat of the products of both field and tree, in other words of grain, nuts, and fruit; the animals, to eat of "every green herb," vegetables, or green plants, and grass.

The wording of this regulation reveals that it was not the will of God that man should slaughter animals for food, or that animals should prey upon one another; consequently, the violent and often painful destruction of life by man and animals is a result of the entry of sin into the world. It was not till after the Flood that God gave man permission to eat of the flesh of animals (see ch. 9:3). Even ancient pagan legends speak of a golden age of innocence, when man abstained from killing animals (Ovid Met. I. 103-106). That no animal of any kind ate flesh at the first may be inferred from the prophetic announcements in Isa. 11:6-9; 65:25, of the new earth state, where the cessation of sin and the complete transformation of the world into the kingdom of God are accompanied by the cessation of slaughter of any of God's creatures.

The clear teaching of Scripture that death entered the world through sin shows clearly that God originally intended that neither man nor animals should take life in order to provide themselves with food.

All arguments based on the premise that it is necessary to kill animals to check their excessive increase are of doubtful value. It is futile to speculate on what would have happened to this world if animals and human beings had multiplied unchecked in perpetuity. God certainly had made His plans to meet changing conditions as they would arise. These plans have not been revealed to us, because sin entered the world before the need arose to check an excessive reproduction (see v. 28).

31. Behold, it was very good. The creation of man and his installation as ruler on the earth brought the creation of all earthly things to a close. According to the record God had frequently reviewed His work and pronounced it good (vs. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25). The survey undertaken at the end of the sixth day embraced all works completed during the previous days, "and, behold, it was very good." Everything was perfect in its kind; every creature met the goal appointed by the Creator, and was equipped to accomplish the purpose for which it was created. The application of the term "good" to everything God had made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis "very" at the close of creation, with man as its crown and glory, indicate that nothing imperfect had come forth from God's hand. This expression of admiration entirely excludes the possibility that any imperfection in the creation was responsible for the weakness demonstrated by Adam and Eve during the hour of temptation.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON CHAPTER 1

The opening verse of Gen. 1 has been the subject of much discussion in theological circles throughout the Christian Era. Some have held that the verse refers to a creation of this physical world and all life upon it at a moment of time long before the seven days of creation week.

This view is known as the ruin and restoration theory. It has been held for centuries by speculative theologians who have read into the Hebrew expression tohu wabohu, "without form, and void" (v. 2), the idea that a time interval--one of great duration, in fact--separates v. 1 from v. 2. Tohu wabohu has been made to read, "the earth was caused to be without form and void." Upon this reading of the text they rest the view that the world was created perfect at some moment in the remote past (v. 1), but that an appalling cataclysm obliterated every trace of life upon it and reduced its surface to a state that might be described as "without form, and void." Many who hold to this view believe that there were repeated creations, each followed by a worldwide cataclysm. Finally, after untold aeons, God proceeded once more to bring order out of the chaos and to fill the earth with life, as recorded in vs. 2-31.

More than a century ago various Protestant divines took strong hold of this view, thinking they found in it a means of harmonizing the Mosaic account of creation with the idea then being advanced by certain scientific men, that the earth had passed through long ages of geological change. This view is popular among certain Fundamentalists. According to the view, the stratified layers of rock that compose much of the earth's surface were deposited during the course of the supposed cataclysms, and the fossils buried in them are presumed to be the remains of life that existed on this earth prior to that time.

Others find in the theory an argument to support the idea that when God did His creative work recorded in vs. 2-31, He was indebted to pre-existing matter. Thus they would limit His power by minimizing, if not denying, the fact that He brought matter into existence, and "that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb. 11:3). Various aspects of the theory have been reflected in a number of modern Bible translations.

The "restitution" view must be rejected in its entirety because: (1) The Hebrew words tohu wabohu do not carry the idea of being laid waste, but describe rather an unorganized and lifeless state of matter. The interpretation given to these words is therefore wholly unwarranted. (2) The Scriptures plainly teach that God's work of creation was "finished from the foundation of the world" (Heb. 4:3). (3) The view implies the blasphemous doctrine that God's previous attempts at creation, very particularly of man, were imperfect and unsuccessful, because of the operation of forces over which He had only limited control. (4) Followed through to its logical conclusion, the view really denies the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures as a whole, by limiting the Creator to the use of pre-existing matter in the work of creation week and subjecting Him to the laws of nature. (5) The idea of successive creations and catastrophes prior to the events of creation week has in its support not one shred of valid evidence, either from science or from the Inspired Word. It is unadulterated speculation. (6) Incidentally, it might be added that the origin and development of this view are tainted with the pagan philosophical speculations of various heretical sects and tinctured with the rationalistic concepts of naturalism and evolution.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-31PP 44-51, 111-116; SR 20-23

1 Ed 134; ML 107; 8T 258

2 CT 530; Ed 134; GC 658

2, 3 COL 415; PK 717

3 GC 211; ML 138

5 Ed 129

11, 12 COL 80; Ed 109; PP 44; TM 243

26 AH 25; CH 19; CS 17; EW 145; MM 221; SR 20; Te 41

26, 27 CH 108; PP 44; Te 11

27 CD 45; CT 11, 32, 61, 67, 434, 438; Ed 15, 17, 20, 130; GC 467; MH 163, 415; ML 126; PK 186; PP 45, 595; Te 91, 276; 2T 347; 3T 50, 139, 568; 4T 91, 247, 327, 416, 438, 456, 522; 5T 311; 6T 127; 8T 263, 327

28 AH 26; PK 682; PP 50

29 CD 81, 92, 310, 322, 373, 380, 395, 396, 401; CH 115, 450; MH 296; ML 132; MM 8, 267, 277; Te 160; 3T 50, 63

31 DA 281; Ed 215; FE 326, 513; MB 99; PP 47; 4T 562; 6T 349; 7T 87

Genesis Chapter 2

1 The first sabbath. 4 The manner of the creation. 8 The planting of the garden of Eden, 10 and the river thereof. 17 The tree of knowledge only forbidden. 19, 20 The naming of the creatures. 21 The making of woman, and institution of marriage.

1. Were finished. The first three verses of the second chapter, and half of v. 4, are actually an unbroken continuation of the creation narrative of the first chapter. Verse 1, in solemn retrospect, links the work of the preceding six days with the Sabbath rest that followed. When God "ended his work" He left no unfinished business (see Heb. 4:3). The word "host," s\aba', here denotes all created things.

2. On the seventh day. Various attempts have been made to solve the seeming difficulty between v. 1 and v. 2, the one stating that God's work was finished on the sixth day, and the other on the seventh day. The LXX, Samaritan, and Syriac versions have chosen the easiest way to solve the problem, by substituting for the word "seventh" of the Hebrew text, where it is first used, the word "sixth." Some commentators agree with this change, thinking that the word "seventh" of the Hebrew text is a copyist's error. In doing so, however, they transgress one of their own basic rules of textual criticism, that the more difficult of two possible readings is usually the original one. "Ended," yekal. Some scholars, beginning with Calvin, have translated yekal as "had finished," which is grammatically possible. Another interpretation considers the creation work finished only after the institution of the Sabbath day. The completion consisted negatively in the cessation of the work of creation, and positively in the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day. The cessation itself formed part of the completion of the work.

He rested. The verb "rested," shabath, means literally "to cease" from labor or activity (see Gen. 8:22; Job 32:1; etc.). As a human artificer completes his work when he has brought it up to his ideal, and thus ceases to work upon it, so in an infinitely higher sense God completed the creation of the world by ceasing to produce anything new, and then "rested." God did not rest because He needed it (see Isa. 40:28). Therefore God's rest was the result of neither exhaustion nor fatigue, but a cessation from previous occupation.

Because the expected phrase "evening was, morning was, the seventh day," does not appear in the Sacred Book, some Bible expositors have claimed that the period of resting did not continue for only 24 hours, like each of the preceding six days, but began at the close of the sixth creation day and is still going on. But this verse refutes such a view. This is not the only text of Scripture that impresses the unbiased reader with the fact that the resting of God took place only during the seventh day, for the Decalogue itself states plainly that God, having worked six days, rested on the seventh day of creation week (Ex. 20:11).

The six creation days, according to the words of the text, were earthly days of ordinary duration. In the absence of any clear light to the contrary, we must understand the seventh in the same way; and that all the more, because in every passage in which it is mentioned as the foundation of the earthly Sabbath, it is regarded as an ordinary day (Ex. 20:11; 31:17).

3. God blessed the seventh day. An explanation of the meaning and importance of this day of rest is added. Here the Sacred Record closely relates the weekly Sabbath to God's work of creation and His resting on the seventh day, just as the fourth commandment does. The blessing on the seventh day implied that it was thereby declared to be a special object of divine favor and a day that would bring blessing to His creatures.

And sanctified it. The act of sanctification consisted in a declaration that the day was holy, or set apart for holy purposes. As afterward Mt. Sinai was sanctified (Ex. 19:23), or, for the time being, invested with sacredness as the residence of God, and Aaron and his sons were sanctified, or consecrated, to the priestly office (Ex. 29:44), and the year of jubilee was sanctified, or devoted, to the purpose of religion (Lev. 25:10), so here the seventh day was sanctified, and as such proclaimed to be a holy day. This act of blessing the seventh day and declaring it holy was done in the interest of the human race, for whose benefit the Sabbath day was instituted. The weekly seventh-day Sabbath has frequently been considered an institution of the Jewish dispensation, but the Inspired Record declares that it was instituted more than two millenniums before the first Israelite (a descendant of Jacob-Israel) was born. We have, furthermore, the word of Jesus declaring, "The sabbath was made for man" (Mark 2:27), which indicates clearly that this institution was not ordained for the Jews only but for all mankind as well.

Because that in it he had rested. God could have had no higher reason for enjoining upon man rest on the seventh day than that by so resting man might enjoy the opportunity of reflecting upon the love and goodness of his Creator, and so become like Him. As God worked through six days and rested on the seventh, so man should toil through six days and rest on the seventh. This weekly Sabbath is a divine institution given to man by God, the Creator, and its observance is required by God, the Lawgiver. For man, therefore, to withhold any part or all of this holy time is to be guilty of disobedience against God and robbery of God as the original proprietor of man's powers and of his time. As an institution of God's appointing, the Sabbath deserves our honor and esteem. Neglect to render this, God counts a sin.

The Sabbath calls for abstention from common bodily labor and for the devotion of mind and heart to holy things. The Israelites were admonished to use it for holy convocations (Lev. 23:3). The Gospels attest that it was so used by Christ and the apostles (Luke 4:16; Acts 17:2; 18:4; etc.), and that it should continue to be observed by Christians after the completion of Christ's earthly ministry (Matt. 24:20).

The fact that the Sabbath will still be celebrated in the new earth as a day of worship (Isa. 66:23) is a clear indication that God never intended to have its observance transferred to another day. The weekly Sabbath day is the memorial of creation, reminding man each week of God's creative power and of how much he owes to a merciful Creator and Provider. A rejection of the Sabbath is a rejection of the Creator, and opens wide the door for all manner of false theories. "It is a constant witness to His existence and a reminder of His greatness, His wisdom, and His love. Had the Sabbath always been sacredly observed, there could never have been an atheist or an idolater" (PP 336).

4. These are the generations. The word "generations," toledoth, is usually used in reference to a man's family history, that is, to the birth of his sons (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; 11:10; etc.). Here occurs the only instance where this word is used of other than human relationships, that is, of "the heavens and of the earth," a phrase that is reminiscent of chs. 1:1 and 2:1. One commentator suggests that "generations" refers properly to "the history or account of their production." The Jewish Encyclopedia says with reference to this word: "The process of creation of heavens and earth is viewed in ch. 2:4 as a genealogical history" (art. "Generation"). "Each day was called a generation, because that in it God generated, or produced, some new portion of His work" (PP 112).

When they were created. Thus closes the creation narrative that began with Gen. 1:1, These words have been interpreted in various ways. They are a translation from behibare'am, which should not be translated "after they were created," as has sometimes been done. Meaning literally, "in their creation," the whole clause, "these are the generations," etc., is best rendered, "This is the history of the origin of the heavens and the earth as they were created."

In the day. These words introduce the account of Gen. 2. Many commentators are inclined to consider chs. 2:4 to 3:24 as a second and different creation record originating from another pen at a later time than that of chs. 1:1 to 2:4. Regarding this untenable theory see the Introduction to Genesis. A study of the contents makes it clear that ch. 2 can in no sense be considered another version of the creation narrative of the preceding chapter. Its purpose is to place Adam and Eve at home in the Garden of Eden, and this it does by providing additional information, most of which does not properly belong with the creation story as such. It is descriptive of the Eden home after it had been created. Without this information, not only would our account of this earth in its Edenic state be sadly incomplete, but the events of Gen. 3--the Fall of man--would hardly be intelligible. This chapter (Gen. 2) includes further details on the creation of man, a description of his Eden home, the test of his allegiance to God, or moral right to his home, the test of his intelligence, or mental qualifications for ruling over the created works of God, and circumstances surrounding the establishment of the first home.

5. Every plant. Verses 4-6 anticipate the creation of man in v. 7 by describing briefly the appearance of the surface of the earth, particularly with respect to vegetation, just prior to the time when he was brought into being upon the sixth day of creation week. Here was Paradise, perfect except for the presence of someone "to till the ground." All nature, vibrant as it were with expectancy, awaits the appearance of its king, just as the members of a symphony orchestra, instruments all in tune, await the coming of their conductor.

6. A mist. The Hebrew word translated "mist," ed, is of somewhat doubtful meaning, because outside of this text it occurs only in Job 36:27. Scholars have compared it with the Assyrian eduÆ, "flood," and applied this meaning to the two Biblical passages where it occurs. But the word "flood" does not fit the context of either of these texts, whereas the word "mist" or "vapor" makes good sense in both instances. Ancient translations usually rendered the word "spring," which rendering reveals that they did not understand it. The improbability that one spring could have watered the earth plainly shows that "spring" cannot be the right translation of ed. "Mist" seems to be the best translation, and in this instance we may think of "mist" as synonymous with "dew" (PP 96).

The fact that the people of Noah's time scoffed at the idea that rain from heaven could bring destruction to this earth in the Deluge, and that Noah is praised for believing "things not seen as yet" (Heb. 11:7), indicates that rain was unknown to the antediluvians (see PP 96, 97). Only Noah's eye of faith could picture water falling from heaven and drowning all living beings who would not seek refuge in the ark he built. The fact that the rainbow was instituted after the Flood (Gen. 9:13-16), and seems not to have existed earlier, lends additional weight to the observation that rain had been unknown prior to that event.

7. God formed man. Additional important details about Adam's creation are given. We are allowed to peer, as it were, into the workshop of God and to watch His hand performing the mysterious act of creation. The word "to form," yas\ar, implies an act of molding and fashioning into a form corresponding in design and appearance to the divine plan. The word is used in describing the activity of the potter (Isa. 29:16; 49:5; etc.), of the goldsmith fashioning idols (Isa. 44:9; Hab. 2:18), and of God, who fashions various things, among others, the light (Isa. 45:7), the human eye (Ps. 94:9), the heart (Ps. 33:15), and the seasons (Ps. 74:17).

Of the dust of the ground. That man is composed of materials derived from the ground, the elements of the earth, is confirmed by science. Decomposition of the human body after death bears witness to the same fact. The major elements making up the human body are oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen. Many others exist in smaller proportions. How true that man was made of "the dust of the ground," and also that he shall "return to the earth" whence he was taken (Eccl. 12:7).

The breath of life. "Breath," neshamah. From the Source of all life the life-giving principle entered the lifeless body of Adam. The agency by which the spark of life was transferred to his body is said to be the "breath" of God. The same thought appears in Job 33:4, "The breath [neshamah] of the almighty hath given me life." Imparted to man, the "breath" is equivalent to his life; it is life itself (Isa. 2:22). At death there is "no breath [neshamah, life] left in him" (1 Kings 17:17). This "breath of life" in man differs in no way from the "breath of life" in animals, for all receive their life from God (Gen. 7:21, 22; Eccl. 3:19). It cannot therefore be the mind or intelligence.

A living soul. When the lifeless form of man was infused with this divine "breath," neshamah, of life, man became a living "soul," nephesh. The word nephesh has a variety of meanings: (1) breath (Job 41:21), (2) life (1 Kings 17:21; 2 Sam. 18:13; etc.), (3) heart as the seat of affections (Gen. 34:3; S. of Sol. 1:7; etc.), (4) living being (Gen. 12:5; 36:6; Lev. 4:2; etc.), and (5) for emphasizing the personal pronouns (Ps. 3:2; 1 Sam. 18:1; etc.). Note that the nephesh is made by God (Jer. 38:16), and can die (Judges 16:30), be killed (Num. 31:19), be eaten (metaphorically, Eze. 22:25), be redeemed (Ps. 34:22), and be refreshed (Ps. 19:7, Heb.). None of this applies to the spirit, ruach, indicating clearly the great difference between the two terms. It is obvious from the above survey that the translation "soul" given by the KJV to the nephesh of ch. 2:7 is not appropriate, if the commonly used expression "immortal soul" be implied. Although popular, this concept is completely foreign to the Bible. This passage may rightly be translated: "Man became a living being" (RSV). When "soul" is considered synonymous with "being," we gain the Scriptural meaning of nephesh in this text.

8. God planted a garden. The location of Eden is unknown. The Flood so altered the original physical features of the earth as to make present identification of former localities impossible. We commonly refer to this garden as "Paradise," a word of Persian origin meaning "park." The Hebrew word for paradise, pardes, occurs a few times in the OT (Neh. 2:8; Eccl. 2:5; S. of Sol. 4:13), but in reference to trees rather than as a name for the Garden in Eden. The word "paradise," Greek paradeisos, was originally applied to the home of our first parents by the translators of the LXX.

9. Every tree. In the preparation of man's wonderful abode attention was given to ornamentation as well as to utility. Every species of vegetation that could minister to his needs and his pleasure was provided. Flowers, trees, and shrubs regaled his senses with their fragrance, delighted his eye with their exquisite form and enchanting color, and pleased his palate with their luscious fruit. For all time, Eden became man's highest concept of earthly excellence.

The tree of life also. The sequence in which these words appear, as if they were an afterthought, seems strange to us in a modern language. This has led some critical scholars to claim that the last half of v. 9 is either a later addition or a corruption of the original. But this arrangement, which seems unusual when translated into English, is common in Hebrew. It provides no excuse whatever for doubting the purity of the text as we have it. For example, ch. 12:17 reads literally, "The Lord plagued Pharaoh with great plagues, and his house." Other examples of the same sentence structure, though not so recognizable in the English version, may be found in Gen. 28:14; Num. 13:23; Deut. 7:14.

In eating of the tree of life Adam and Eve were to have the opportunity of expressing their faith in God as the sustainer of life, just as by keeping the Sabbath they demonstrated faith in and allegiance to their Creator. To this end God had endowed the tree with supernatural virtue. Its fruit being an antidote for death and its leaves for the sustaining of life and immortality, men would continue to live just so long as they should eat of it (8T 288; PP 60).

One of the trees was called the tree of "life," literally, "the life," hachayyim. The fact that this word is plural in form is explained by recognizing it as a plural of abstraction, the definite article indicating that this tree had something to do with "the" life as such, that is, that life would be obtained or preserved through the use of its fruit. However, the other trees of the garden being "good for food" were also destined to sustain life. If one tree is distinguished from the others by the extraordinary name "tree of life," its fruit must have had the purpose of sustaining life in a way differing from and exceeding in value that of the other trees. The statement that the eating of the fruit of this tree would enable man to "live for ever" (ch. 3:22) shows that the value of this tree was entirely different from that of the many other useful trees of the garden.

The name of the second tree can more accurately be translated "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." "The" before the word "knowledge" signifies that the tree could not provide any and every kind of knowledge, but only a certain sad knowledge of "evil" in contrast with "good."

The names of these trees are important. In both cases the word "tree" is connected with abstract terms, life and knowledge. This provides no reason for declaring that these two trees did not exist, but attributes to them, rather, spiritual implications. Although the "ark of the covenant" was a real piece of temple furniture, it too received a name that had religious import. The blood of atonement spilled by the Saviour on our behalf was also a very real substance. The two trees must likewise be considered as actual trees that had significant purposes to fulfill, these physical and moral purposes being indicated by their names.

10. A river. Much scholarly effort has been put forth in an endeavor to clarify vs. 10-14, but a satisfactory explanation will probably never be found, because the surface of the earth after the Flood bore little resemblance to what it had been before. A catastrophe of such magnitude as to elevate lofty mountain ranges and to form the vast areas of ocean could hardly have left such lesser surface features as rivers untouched. We therefore cannot hope to identify antediluvian geographical terms with present-day surface features of the earth, except as Inspiration may do so for us (see PP 105-108).

11. Pison. The name of the first river, Pison, is unknown from any non-Biblical sources, and even in the Bible itself this river is nowhere else mentioned. The opinions of scholars identifying this river with the Indus or Ganges in India, the Nile in Egypt, or rivers in Anatolia are of no value.

Havilah, where there is gold. In other texts where the same proper name appears, it refers to postdiluvian times. These texts are thus of no help in locating the "Havilah" of ch. 2:11.

12. There is bdellium. According to Pliny, bdellium was the transparent and odoriferous resin of a tree native to Arabia, India, Persia, and Babylonia. Whether this was the same as the bdellium of antediluvian days, we do not know.

The onyx stone. This must be one of the precious or semiprecious stones, probably of a red color. The ancient versions vary in their translations between the onyx, sardonyx, sardius, and beryl; hence, it is not certain that the translation "onyx" is correct.

13. Gihon. See on v. 10 in comment on this and v. 14.

15. To dress and to keep it. God, having prepared an abode for man, whom He had created, placed him in this garden home with the definite commission "to dress and to keep it." This command teaches us that the perfection in which all creation came forth from God's hands did not exclude the need of cultivation, that is, of human labor. Man had to use his physical and mental faculties to preserve the garden in the same perfect state in which he had received it. The fact that physical labor will be a delightful feature of life in the new earth (Isa. 65:21-23) indicates that work was not intended to be a curse.

The commission given to Adam "to keep" the garden may perhaps be a veiled hint that dangers threatened to wrest it from him should he not be watchful. The verb "to keep," shamar, means "to guard," "to watch," "to preserve," "to observe," and "to hold fast." It is certainly unreasonable to think that Adam was asked to guard the garden against attacks of wild beasts, as some commentators have interpreted this text. No enmity existed on earth before the Fall, either among the animals themselves or between man and beast. Fear and enmity are the results of sin. But another and very real danger threatened to snatch from man his rulership over the earth and his possession of the garden. On the other hand, "to keep" the garden may simply be synonymous with "to dress" it.

We have the assurance that God does nothing affecting man without first informing him with regard to His intentions (Amos 3:7). If God, who does only that which is beneficial for man, deems it necessary to inform us of His purposes, it is certain that He must have kept Adam informed of the danger threatening this earth (PP 36, 52, 53).

16. Of every tree of the garden. The commandment related in these verses presupposes that man understood the language God spoke and the distinction between "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not." The command begins positively, granting permission to eat freely from all the trees of the garden--with the exception of one. The right to free enjoyment of all the other trees is made emphatic by the intensive idiom "eating thou shalt eat," akol to'kel; to a divine prohibition there is even a positive aspect.

17. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So much the more precise, therefore, is the limitation of this freedom. Man was not to eat from the one tree bearing the name "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (see on v. 9). It is futile to speculate what kind of fruit it may have borne, inasmuch as this has not been revealed. The very presence of this tree in the garden revealed that man was a free moral agent. Man's service was not forced; he might either obey or disobey. The decision was his.

The fruit itself was harmless (Ed 25). But God's explicit commandment to refrain from eating it set this tree apart as the testing ground of man's loyalty and obedience. As a moral being, man had God's law written upon his conscience. But, as if to clarify the principles of that law by applying it to a specific situation, and thus to make a fair test of man's allegiance to his Maker, an injunction was laid upon him. God was the real owner of all things, even of those that Adam held in trust, and this gave Him the right to reserve any part of the creation for Himself. It would not have been unreasonable for Him to reserve a great share of this earth for Himself and to allow Adam the use of only a small portion of it. But no, man could use freely of everything that was in the garden--except one tree. No other purpose, evidently, was to be served by refraining from eating the fruit of this tree than to give clear proof of allegiance to God.

In the day that thou eatest thereof. The prohibition was accompanied by a severe penalty for transgression, namely, death. Some have thought that the wording of the penalty required its execution upon the very day when the command was violated. They see a serious discrepancy between the announcement and its fulfillment. However, the divine pronouncement, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," literally, "dying thou shalt die," means that upon the day of transgression sentence would be pronounced. Man would pass from the status of conditional immortality to that of unconditional mortality. Just as prior to his fall Adam could be certain of immortality, vouchsafed to him by the tree of life, so now, subsequent to that catastrophe, his mortality was just as certain. This, more than immediacy of physical death, is what the language implies. God required of man that he make a choice of principles. He was to accept the will of God and subject himself to it, confident that he would fare well as a result, or he would by his own choice sever connection with God and become, presumably, independent of Him. But separation from the Source of life could inevitably bring only death. The same principles are still valid. Punishment and death are the certain results of man's free choice to indulge in rebellion against God.

18. An help meet for him. Appropriate, that is, to his needs; to complement him. Animals had been created in swarms or in groups, but man as a solitary individual. However, it was not God's purpose for him to be alone for long. Loneliness would be detrimental to man's well-being, and God would therefore make a companion for him.

19. Every beast of the field. The thought expressed by some Bible expositors, that God made several unsuccessful attempts to provide man with a companion by creating various animals, is a misapprehension of the purpose of this part of the narrative. It is not the time, but simply the fact, of the creation of the animals that Moses records. The Hebrew verb form rendered "formed" in the KJV may correctly be translated "had formed," thus referring back to the creative acts of the fifth and early sixth days. The first part of the verse, then, is given by way of providing a preface to that which immediately follows.

Brought them unto Adam. Adam was to study these animals and to engage in the important exercise of giving appropriate names to them, for which task he would require an understanding of them and their habits. This would qualify him or, perhaps, prove him qualified to rule over them. At the same time he would become aware of the family life they enjoyed and so of his own lack of companionship. Recognizing also that God had created him infinitely higher than the animals, he would realize that he could not choose a companion from them. If the formation of woman was to meet fully the purpose of the Creator, Adam must come to sense his own incompleteness and to feel his need of companionship--that "it was not good," in other words, that he should remain alone.

20. Adam gave names to all cattle. It is evident that man was created with the faculty of speech. This ability Adam now employed to express the observations made in his study of the animals. He was introduced thus to the natural sciences, and by naming the animals began his dominion over them. Cattle may be mentioned first because they were to stand nearer to man in their future relations than other animals. The birds, which man loves so much and of which some species were to become most helpful to him, are given second place in the enumeration. It is impossible to discover what these names were, inasmuch as it is not known what language Adam and the antediluvian world spoke.

Not found an help meet. Adam's study of the animal creation supplied him with considerable knowledge, but did not satisfy his longing for companionship with another being, his equal. This fact indicates the equal partnership that the woman should enjoy with the man. No real companion could be found for Adam among creatures inferior to him.

21. A deep sleep. God, planning to create Adam's companion from his body, caused him to fall into a deep sleep that may be compared to unconsciousness under anesthetic. And surgery indeed it was that God performed on Adam during his sleep, taking out one of his ribs and filling its place with flesh. The Hebrew word s\elaÔ, meaning elsewhere in the Bible "side," "door leaf," "wing" (of a building), and "panel" (of a wall covering), has here the meaning "rib." This traditional translation, taken over in modern Bibles from the LXX and the Vulgate, has more recently been proved correct from cuneiform records. In the Assyrian language, which was closely related to Hebrew, the word for rib was seÆlu.

22. Made he a woman. Moses had a ready command of the Hebrew language and knew how to use it to impress his readers. To describe the creative activity of God, he employed in the narrative in ch. 1 the verbs "to create" (ch. 1:27), "to make" (ch. 1:26), and "to form" (ch. 2:7). Now he adds to these more or less synonymous terms the verb "to build." Each of these has its own distinct shade of meaning. Adam's rib formed the basic material from which his companion was "built." The woman was formed for inseparable unity and fellowship of life with the man, and the mode of her creation was to lay the actual foundation for the moral ordinance of marriage. She was "to stand by his side as an equal, to be loved and protected by him" (PP 46). Marriage is a type of the fellowship of love and life that exists between the Lord and His church (Eph. 5:32).

Brought her unto the man. God Himself solemnized the first marriage. After making the woman He led her to Adam, who by that time must have awakened from his deep sleep. As Adam was the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), so Eve could properly be called the daughter of God; and as her Father, God led her to Adam and presented her to him. The marriage covenant, therefore, is appropriately called the covenant of God (Prov. 2:17), a name implying His authorship of that sacred institution.

23. This is now bone of my bones. Adam, recognizing in her the desired companion, welcomed her joyfully as his bride and expressed his joy in a poetic exclamation. The words, "this is now," reflect his pleasant surprise as he saw in the woman the fulfillment of his heart's desire. His thrice-repeated "this" (as in the Hebrew) vividly points to her upon whom, in joyful astonishment, his eye now rested with the intense thrill of first love. Instinctively, or as the result of divine instruction, he recognized in her part of his own being. He was henceforth to love her as his own body, for in loving her he loves himself. The apostle Paul stresses this truth (Eph. 5:28).

She shall be called Woman. The name Adam gave his newly created companion reflected the manner of her creation. The Hebrew word ishshah, "woman," is formed of the word ish, "man," with the feminine ending. The English word "woman" (Anglo-Saxon, wife-man) is similarly related to the word "man." The same is true in various other languages.

24. Leave his father and his mother. The words of this verse cannot be regarded as a prophetic utterance of Adam, but rather as the words of God Himself. They are part of the declaration made by God at the marriage ceremony (see Matt. 19:4, 5; MB 99). These words express the deepest physical and spiritual unity of man and woman, and hold up monogamy before the world as the form of marriage ordained by God. These words do not recommend a forsaking of filial duty and respect toward father and mother, but refer primarily to the fact that a man's wife is to be first in his affections and that his first duty is toward her. His love for her is to exceed, though certainly not to supersede, a very proper love for his parents.

They shall be one flesh. The unity of husband and wife is expressed in unmistakable words, existing as they do in a unity of bodies, a community of interests, and a reciprocity of affections. It is a significant fact that Christ uses this very passage in His strong condemnation of divorce (Matt. 19:5).

25. They were both naked. Adam and Eve had no need of material clothing, for about them the Creator had placed a robe of light, a robe symbolic of His own righteous character, which was reflected perfectly in them. When the moral image of their Maker is again reflected in His earthly sons and daughters, He will return to claim them as His own (see Rev. 7:9; 19:8; COL 69, 310). This white robe of innocence is the garment with which the saved of earth will be clad as they enter the gates of Paradise.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-25PP 45-51

1 DA 769

1-3GC 455; PK 180; PP 47, 336; 9T 212

2 GC 453; ML 140

2, 3 EW 217; GC 52; MM 215; PP 111; SR 145; 8T 197

3 DA 281; MB 99; 4T 147, 247

4 PP 112

6 PP 96; SR 66

7 MH 415; PP 56; 2T 300; 8T 264

8 AH 27; ML 136; PP 46; SR 58; 3T 77, 153

8, 9 Ed 20

8-17MYP 364

9 AH 27; Ed 23; PP 47, 48, 84; 6T 368; 8T 288

15 AH 27; CD 396; CT 147; Ed 21; FE 314, 327, 419, 512; LS 355;MH 261; ML 112; PP 47, 50; SR 24; 1T 568; 3T 77, 153; 4T 410

16 3T 50

16, 17 CH 108; Ed 23; 3T 72; 4T 11

17 CS 65; CT 12; EW 125, 147; GC 532; MH 449; PP 48, 53, 60; SR 24; 2T 561; 5T 365; 6T 386

18 AH 25; PP 56

18-20PP 46

19, 20 PP 51

21-23PP 56

22 AH 99; 3T 484

23 MB 99

23-25COL 310; FE 141

24 AH 25, 341; MB 99; PP 46

25 PP 445; SR 38

Genesis Chapter 3

1 The serpent deceiveth Eve. 6 Man's shameful fall. 9 God arraigneth them. 14 The serpent is cursed. 15 The promised seed. 16 The punishment of mankind. 21 Their first clothing. 22 Their casting out of paradise.

1. The serpent. With the serpent a new figure appears in the narrative, one that exercised a tremendous influence on the subsequent history of the world. Moses turns from his description of the perfect conditions in Paradise to the history of the Fall, by which this earth was transformed from a world of happiness, love, and perfection to one of sorrow, hatred, and wickedness. Moses leaves unmentioned the blissful period in Eden, time spent in complete happiness, in the study of natural history, in tending the garden as God had ordained, and in daily communion with the Creator in the cool hours of eventime (Gen. 3:8).

More subtil than any beast. The serpent is introduced as a creature more subtle than other animals. The word "subtil," Ôarum, is used in the Bible a few times to indicate an unfavorable tendency of character (Job 5:12; 15:5), with the connotation of being "clever" or "cunning," but usually in the favorable sense of being prudent (see Prov. 12:16, 23; 13:16; 14:8, 15, 18; 22:3; 27:12). The latter, favorable meaning would seem preferable here because the serpent was one of the created beings God had pronounced "good," even "very good" (Gen. 1:25, 31). The evil character of serpents today is a result of the Fall and subsequent curse, and not a trait of that animal when it was created.

The objection that the serpent was not a real animal, but a supernatural being, hardly needs any serious refutation in view of the explicit statement that it was, indeed, an animal. However, the whole Scripture makes it abundantly plain that the serpent itself was not responsible for man's fall, but rather Satan (see John 8:44; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rom. 16:20). Nevertheless, Satan is in a figurative sense occasionally called a serpent because he used the serpent as a medium in his attempt to deceive man (see Rev. 12:9; 20:2).

The fall of Lucifer, who had been foremost among the angels of heaven (Isa. 14:12, 13; Eze. 28:13-15), obviously preceded the Fall of man (see PP 36). God, who daily conversed with man in the garden, had not left him ignorant of events in heaven, but had acquainted him with the apostasy of Satan and other angels, for whose coming Adam was to be on guard. Adam and Eve may have expected to see Satan appear as an angel, and felt prepared to meet him as such and to reject his enticements. But, instead, he spoke to her through the serpent, and took her by surprise. This, however, in no wise excuses our first mother, though it is true that she was thereby deceived (see 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3).

The trial of our first parents was permitted as a test of their loyalty and love. This test was essential to their spiritual development, to the formation of character. Eternal happiness would have been the result for them if they had come out of the test unscathed. Inasmuch as God did not wish them to be tempted above their ability to withstand (1 Cor. 10:13), He did not allow Satan to approach them in the likeness of God, or at any other place than this one tree (1 SP 34). Satan, therefore, came in the form of a creature, not only far inferior to God, but far below man himself. Adam and Eve, in allowing Satan, through the medium of a mere animal, to persuade them to break the commandment of God, were doubly without excuse.

He said unto the woman. Using the serpent as his medium, Satan found a time when he could address the woman alone. It is always easier to persuade an individual to do wrong when he is detached from protective surroundings. Had Eve remained with her husband, his presence would have been a protection to her, and the story would doubtless have had a different ending.

Yea, hath God said. Satan addressed her with a question that looked innocent but was full of cunning. It has been debated whether the question should be translated (1) "Has God really said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" meaning, "Are there any trees in the garden of which you may not eat?" or (2) "Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden." The Hebrew allows both translations, and possesses therefore a certain ambiguity. Satan intended that his words should be indefinite and ambiguous. His purpose was obvious. He wished to sow doubt in the heart of the woman concerning the real phraseology and the exact meaning of the divine commandment, especially concerning the reasonableness and justice of such a command.

2. We may eat of the fruit. Eve evidently understood the question in the second sense discussed above, and instead of turning away and fleeing to her husband, showed signs of wavering and doubt, and a readiness to discuss the subject further with the serpent.

God declared, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Eve changed this to, "lest ye die." For the full certainty of the death penalty following a transgression of the command, the woman declared that death might follow such an act. The word "lest," pen, implies inner alarm at the thought of playing with something that might prove fatal, concealed under an assumed cynical attitude toward the idea that such a thing could ever really happen. The doubt and hesitancy in Eve's language, reflecting that of the serpent, make the motive to obedience predominantly one of the fear of death rather than of inherent love toward her beneficent Creator. Another symptom of awakening doubt in the absolute justice of God's injunction is the fact that Eve did not mention the name of the tree, which was certainly known to her. By speaking of this tree in general terms of locality as the one being "in the midst of the garden," she placed it almost in the same class with the other trees of her garden home.

4. Ye shall not surely die. If Satan's first question was intended to arouse doubt, as indeed it was, the statement with which he followed it up had the deceptive appearance of an authoritative declaration. But therein truth was most cleverly mixed with falsehood. This assertion contradicted God's explicit command in the most emphatic manner of which Hebrew is capable, and which may be rendered, "Ye will positively not die." Satan challenged the truthfulness of God's word by an unconcealed lie, for which reason Christ was right in calling him the father of lies (John 8:44).

5. Your eyes shall be opened. Satan proceeded to give a plausible reason for God's prohibition. He charged God with: (1) Envy of His creatures' happiness. Satan said in effect, "Depend upon it, it is not through any fear of your dying from its fruit that the tree has been prohibited, but through fear of your becoming rivals of your Master Himself." (2) Falsehood. Satan charged that God lied when He said death would follow the eating of the fruit. God's requirements were placed in the most heinous and reprehensible light. By mixing truth with falsehood Satan tried to confuse the mind of Eve, in order to make it difficult for her to distinguish between God's words and his. The expression "in the day ye eat thereof" sounded similar to what God had spoken (ch. 2:17), as did also the phrase "knowing good and evil." The promise, "Your eyes shall be opened," implied a present limitation of sight that could be removed by following the serpent's advice.

Ye shall be as gods. The same word translated in the KJV "gods," elohim, is rendered "God" in vs. 1, 3, and 5. The translators of the KJV here followed the LXX and the Vulgate. The correct rendering is, "Ye shall be as God." This reveals most sharply the blasphemous nature of Satan's words (see Isa. 14:12-14) and the full gravity of his deception.

6. When the woman saw. After doubt and unbelief in God's word had been awakened in the woman, the tree seemed vastly different to her. Three times mention is made of how charming it was; it appealed to her taste, to her eye, and to her longing for increased wisdom. Looking at the tree in this way, with a desire to partake of its fruit, was a concession to Satan's inducements. She was already guilty in her mind of transgressing the divine command, "Thou shalt not covet" (Ex. 20:17). The act of taking the fruit and eating it was but the natural result of entering thus upon the path of transgression.

She took of the fruit. Having coveted that to which she had no right, the woman proceeded to transgress one commandment after another. She next stole God's property, violating the eighth commandment (Ex. 20:15). By eating the forbidden fruit and giving it to her husband she also transgressed the sixth commandment (Ex. 20:13). She then broke the first commandment (Ex. 20:3), because she placed Satan before God in her esteem, and obeyed him rather than her Creator.

Gave also unto her husband. Observing that she did not die immediately, a fact which seemed to confirm the seducer's definite assertion, "Ye shall not die," Eve experienced a deceptive sense of elation. She wanted her husband to share the feeling with her. This is the first time the Sacred Record calls Adam "her husband." But instead of being a "help meet" for him she became the agent of his destruction. The statement that "she gave also to her husband with her," does not imply that he had been with her all the time, standing mute at the scene of temptation. Instead, she gave him of the fruit upon rejoining him that he might eat it "with her" and thus share its presumed benefits.

He did eat. Before he ate, a conversation between Adam and his wife must have taken place. Should he follow his wife in her path of sin and disobedience or give her up, trusting that God would somehow restore his shattered happiness? The fact that she had not died as the result of eating the fruit, and that no apparent harm had come her to her, did not deceive Adam. "Adam was not deceived, but the woman" (1 Tim. 2:14). But his wife's power of persuasion, coupled with his own love for her, induced him to share the consequences of her fall, whatever they might be. Fateful decision! Instead of waiting until he should have the opportunity of discussing the whole tragic matter with God, he took his fate into his own hands. Adam's fall is the more tragic because he did not doubt God, nor was he deceived like Eve; he acted in the certain expectation that God's terrible threat would come true.

Deplorable as was Eve's transgression and fraught as it was with potential woe for the human family, her choice did not necessarily involve the race in the penalty for her transgression. It was the deliberate choice of Adam, in the full understanding of an express command of God--rather than hers--that made sin and death the inevitable lot of mankind. Eve was deceived; Adam was not (see Rom. 5:12, 14; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:14; 2 Cor. 11:3). Had Adam remained loyal to God in spite of Eve's disloyalty, divine wisdom would yet have solved the dilemma for him and averted disaster for the race (PP 56).

7. The eyes of them both were opened. What irony lies in these words, which record the fulfillment of Satan's ambiguous promise! The eyes of their intellect were open--they realized that they were no longer innocent. Their physical eyes were open--they saw that they were naked.

And made themselves aprons. Standing ashamed in each other's presence, they sought to evade the disgrace of their nakedness. Their fig-leaf aprons were a pitiful substitute for the radiant garments of innocence they had forfeited. Conscience was at work. That this feeling of shame had its root not in sensuality but in the consciousness of guilt before God is evident from the fact that they hid themselves from Him.

The only ancient inscription that shows some resemblance to the story of the Fall of man as told in the Bible is a Sumero-Akkadian bilingual poem which says, "The maiden ate that which was forbidden, the maiden, the mother of sin, committed evil, the mother of sin had a painful experience" (A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients [Leipzig, 1930], p. 99).

8. The voice of the Lord. The periodical visits of God toward the close of day, when quiet evening zephyrs refreshed the garden, had always been occasions of delight for the happy pair. But the sound of God's approach was now a source of alarm. Both felt that they dared by no means meet their Creator. The reason for their fear was neither humility nor modesty but a profound sense of guilt.

9. Where art thou? Adam, who had always welcomed the divine approach, was now in hiding. He could not, however, be hidden from God, who called to Adam, not as if ignorant of his hiding place, but to bring him to confession. Adam sought to hide the sin behind its consequences, his disobedience behind his sense of shame, by proposing to God that he had hidden himself through embarrassment at his nakedness. His consciousness of the effects of sin was keener than of the sin itself. Here we witness for the first time the confusion between sin and punishment, which is characteristic of man in his fallen state. The results of sin are sensed and detested more than the sin itself.

12. The woman whom thou gavest. God put forth a question that revealed His knowledge of Adam's transgression and was designed to awaken within him a conviction of sin. Adam's reply was a devious and evasive apology for his embarrassment that amounted to an accusation of God. Thus had Adam's character changed in the short interval since he entered the pathway of disobedience. The man who had cherished his wife so dearly that he intentionally violated God's command in order that he might not be separated from her, now speaks of her with cold and callous antipathy as "the woman whom thou gavest to be with me." His words resemble those of Jacob's sons who spoke to their father about Joseph as "thy son" (Gen. 37:32; cf. Luke 15:30). One of the bitter fruits of sin is a hardness of heart, "without natural affection" (Rom. 1:31). Adam's insinuation that God was to blame for his sad plight in being bound to such a weak and seductive creature sinks to the very depths of ingratitude.

13. The serpent beguiled me. The woman also had an answer ready, blaming the serpent for deceiving her. Neither Adam nor his wife denied the facts, but each sought to escape blame by incriminating someone else. Neither gave evidence of contrition. One noteworthy difference, however, exists between their confessions. The woman protested that she had been deceived; Adam tacitly admitted his act had been deliberate, in full knowledge of its consequences.

14. Thou art cursed. The curse of sin rests not alone on the serpent but on all the animal creation, though it was to bear a greater curse than its fellows. Formerly the most clever and beautiful of creatures, the serpent was now deprived of wings and doomed henceforth to crawl in the dust.

It should not be supposed that unreasoning brutes were thus made objects of the anger of a vengeful God. This curse was for Adam's benefit, as one means of impressing him with the far-reaching consequences of sin. It must have brought intense suffering to his own heart as he beheld these creatures, whose protector he was supposed to be, bearing the results of his sin (PP 68). Upon the serpent, which had become for all time the symbol of evil, the curse fell more heavily--not so much that it might suffer as that it might also be for a man a symbol of the results of sin. Little wonder that most human beings feel revulsion and dread in the presence of a serpent.

Dust shalt thou eat. The fact that serpents actually do not eat dust has caused critical commentators to declare that ancient people erred, thinking that this animal, creeping always on its belly and living even in deserts where scarcely any food is available, fed on dust. This misconception influenced the author of Genesis, they say, to formulate the curse pronounced over the serpent so as to harmonize with this commonly held belief. Conservative scholars have more or less unsuccessfully tried to show that the serpent eats some dust when it eats its food. But is the same not true of many animals that pick up their food from the ground? This problem disappears when we view the phrase "dust shalt thou eat" as figurative. It was used in this sense by ancient peoples, as their literature and letters, recently recovered, reveal. The pagan myth of Ishtar's descent to the nether world says of cursed people that "dust is their fare and clay their food." Among the curses pronounced on enemies the wish is repeated over and over again that they shall have to eat dust. In the old Welsh battle hymn, "March of the Men of Harlech," the taunt is hurled at their enemies, "They shall bite the ground." In this light the expression, "Dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life," means simply, "Thou shalt be the most cursed of all creatures."

15. I will put enmity. Here the Lord turns from addressing the literal serpent who spoke to Eve, to pronounce judgment on the old serpent the devil. This judgment, expressed in prophetic language, has ever been understood by the Christian church as a prediction of the coming of the Deliverer. Even though this interpretation is unquestionably correct, it may be pointed out that the prophecy is also true literally--there is mortal enmity between the serpent and man wherever the two meet.

Between thy seed and her seed. Reference is made to the agelong struggle between Satan's "seed" or followers (John 8:44; Acts 13:10; 1 John 3:10) and the woman's seed. The Lord Jesus Christ is styled by pre-eminence "the seed" (Rev. 12:1-5; cf. Gal. 3:16, 19); it was He who came "to destroy the works of the devil" (Heb. 2:14; 1 John 3:8).

It shall bruise thy head. "Bruise," shuph. This word means "to crush" or "to lie in wait for." It is evident that crushing the head is far more serious than crushing the heel. It is important to notice that although the enmity foretold is to be between the seed of the woman and that of the serpent, it is the head of the serpent and not its seed that is to be crushed. In retaliation, the serpent will have been able to do no more than to bruise the heel of the woman's seed.

The "seed" is put in the singular, indicating, not that a multitude of descendants of the woman jointly shall be engaged in crushing the serpent's head, but rather that a single individual will accomplish this. These observations clearly show that in this pronouncement is compressed the record of the great controversy between Christ and Satan, a battle that began in heaven (Rev. 12:7-9), was continued on earth, where Christ again defeated him (Heb. 2:14), and will terminate finally with Satan's destruction at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:10). Christ did not emerge from this battle unscathed. The nail marks in His hands and feet and the scar in His side will be eternal reminders of the fierce strife in which the serpent bruised the woman's seed (John 20:25; Zech. 13:6; EW 53).

This pronouncement must have brought great comfort to the two dismayed offenders standing before God, from whose precepts they had departed. Adam, viceroy of God on earth so long as he remained loyal, had, by transferring his loyalty from God to the serpent, ceded his authority to Satan. That Satan was fully aware of his usurped "rights" over this earth, gained by Adam's submission, is clear from his statement to Christ on the mount of temptation (Luke 4:5, 6). Adam began to realize the extent of his loss, that from ruler over this world he had become a slave of Satan. Nevertheless, before hearing his own sentence pronounced, the healing balm of hope was applied to his shattered soul. To her whom he had blamed for his fall he was now to look for deliverance--for the promised seed, in whom would be power to vanquish the archenemy of God and man.

How kind was God! Divine justice required that sin should meet its penalty, but divine mercy had already found a way to redeem the fallen human race--by the voluntary sacrifice of the Son of God (1 Peter 1:20; Eph. 3:11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rev. 13:8). God instituted the ritual of sacrifice by way of providing man with a visual aid, that he might be led to understand something of the price that must be paid to make atonement for his sin. The innocent lamb had to give its lifeblood for that of man, and its skin to cover the sinner's nakedness, in order that man might thus ever be symbolically reminded of the Son of God, who would have to lay down His life to atone for man's transgression and whose righteousness alone would be sufficient to cover him. We do not know how clear Adam's understanding of the plan of redemption was, but we can be certain that enough was revealed to be an assurance to him that sin would not last forever, that the Redeemer would be born of the woman's seed, that the lost rulership would be regained, and that the happiness of Eden would be restored. From first to last the gospel of salvation is the central theme of the Scriptures.

16. I will greatly multiply thy sorrow. The phrase "thy sorrow and thy conception" is generally considered to be a literary form in which two similar phrases express a single idea. The phrase could thus read "the sorrow of thy conception." At the very first, man had been commanded, "Be fruitful and multiply" (ch. 1:28).

Repeated conception was therefore intended to be a blessing, not a curse. But the entrance of sin meant that henceforth pregnancy would be accompanied by pain.

In sorrow. Indeed, the pains of childbirth were to be so intense that in Scripture they are symbolic of the most severe anguish of body and mind (see Micah 4:9, 10; 1 Thess. 5:3; John 16:21; Rev. 12:2).

Thy desire shall be thy husband. The Hebrew word shuq, "desire," means "to run after, to have a violent craving for a thing," indicating the strongest possible desire for it. Though oppressed by man and tortured by the pains of childbirth, the woman would still feel an intense desire for her husband. Commentators have been divided in their opinion as to whether this is part of the punishment. It seems reasonable to conclude that this "desire" was given to alleviate the sorrows of womanhood and to bind the hearts of husband and wife ever more closely together.

He shall rule over thee. The woman had broken her divinely appointed relationship with the man. Instead of being a help "meet" for him she had become his seducer. Therefore her status of equality with man was forfeited; he was to "rule over" her as lord and master. A wife is described in Scripture as being "possessed" by her lord. Among most non-Christian peoples woman has been subjected throughout the ages to degradation and virtual slavery. Among the Hebrews, however, the condition of woman was one of distinct subordination though not of oppression or slavery. Christianity has placed woman on the same platform as man as regards the blessings of the gospel (Gal. 3:28). Although the husband is to be head of the household, Christian principles will lead a man and his wife into an experience of real partnership, where each is so devoted to the happiness and well-being of the other that it never occurs to either to attempt to "rule" over the other (see Col. 3:18, 19).

17. Because thou hast hearkened. For the first time the noun "Adam" is used as a proper name without the article, a fact that is not apparent in the KJV, where ha'adam, in chs. 2:19, 23; 3:8, 9, is translated as a personal name, although the article in each instance indicates that the word is used in the sense of "the man." Before passing sentence God explained why it was necessary and appropriate. Adam had acted in accord with Eve's persuasive arguments, setting her word above that of God. He had thus withdrawn his supreme affection and allegiance from God, and so had forfeited the blessings of life, and even life itself. Having exalted his will above the will of God, Adam must learn that independence from God does not mean a more exalted sphere of existence but separation from the Source of life. Death would therefore show him the worthlessness of his own nature.

Cursed is the ground. It should be noticed again that God did not curse either Adam or his wife. Curses were pronounced only upon the serpent and the ground. But "cursed is the ground for thy sake," God said to Adam.

In sorrow shalt thou eat. The same word that had been used to express the sufferings associated with childbearing is now used to inform Adam of the difficulties to be encountered in eking out a meager living from the cursed ground. So long as he lived there would be no hope of relief from this condition. The expression "all the days of thy life" is the first indication that death would surely come, though the event might for a time be postponed.

18. Thorns also and thistles. Prior to the Fall, only plants that were either useful for food or beautiful to the eye grew from the earth; now it was to produce "thorns and thistles" also (6T 186). The increased labor necessary to the cultivation of the soil would increase the misery of man's existence. He was to learn by bitter experience that life independent of God can at best be one of sorrow and affliction.

The herb. See on ch. 1:11, 29. The divine punishment provided also a partial change in diet. We evidently are to conclude that the quantity and quality of grains and nuts and fruits originally given to man were, as a result of the curse, reduced to such an extent that man would be required to look to the herbs for a portion of his daily food. This change may also have been due in part to the loss of certain elements from the tree of life, to a change in climate, and perhaps most of all to man's sentence to hard labor in the process of earning a livelihood.

19. In the sweat of thy face. The arduous toil that was to add to man's burdensome life is now vividly expressed. This refers specifically to the husbandman, who must live by forcing from a reluctant earth food for himself and his family, but it applies equally to all other vocations. Since Adam's fall human achievement may be realized only through toil. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that this punishment was indeed a blessing in disguise for sinful beings. When a man works he is far less likely to sin than when he spends his days in idleness. Toil and labor develop character and teach man humility and cooperation with God. This is one reason why the Christian church has generally found its most loyal adherents and supporters among the laboring class. Work, even when arduous, should not be despised; "a blessing is in it."

Till thou return unto the ground. The Lord informed Adam that the grave was his certain destination. Man thus understood that the plan of redemption (v. 15) would not prevent the loss of his present life, but it did offer assurance of a new life. With the change in Adam's nature from conditional immortality to mortality began the fulfillment of the dire prediction, "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Unless in mercy man had been granted a day of grace, death would have occurred instantaneously. Divine justice required man's life; divine mercy afforded man an opportunity to regain it.

20. Adam called his wife's name Eve. This verse is not a disturbing interpolation in the context of the story of the Fall and its consequences, as some commentators maintain. It shows that Adam believed the promise with regard to the woman's seed and manifested this faith in the name that he now gave to his wife.

Eve, chawwah. Chawwah means "life," and is here translated Zoe by the LXX. It is an old Semitic form, found also in old Phoenician inscriptions, but was no longer used in the Hebrew language at the time the Bible was written. This has been suggested as indicating that Adam spoke an old Semitic language. If Moses had used a contemporary Hebrew equivalent, he would have written the woman's name chayyah instead of chawwah, but by giving the name in an unusual archaic form he shows that his knowledge goes back into the remote past. In ch. 4:1 chawwah was roughly transliterated Eua by the LXX, whence comes our English "Eve."

She was the mother. Adam gave the name "the living one" to his wife in faith, seeing in her the "mother of all living" at a time when his death sentence had just been pronounced. Also, he looked beyond the grave and saw in the seed promised to his wife the One who would restore to him and his descendants the immortality they had forfeited that day. Instead of calling her in gloom and despair--as could be expected under the circumstances--"the mother of all doomed," he fastened his eye in faith upon his Judge, and, before she even gave birth to her first-born, called her, hopefully, "the living one." Faith was indeed to him "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1).

21. Coates of skins. Before expelling Adam and Eve from the garden, God provided them with more durable clothing, suitable for the hard labor that lay ahead and as protection against the extremes of heat and cold that followed the Fall (PP 61). Also the skins were a constant reminder of their lost innocence, of death as the wages of sin, and of the promised Lamb of God, who would by His own vicarious death take away the sins of the world. He who had been commissioned protector of the animal creation now unhappily found himself taking the life of one of them. They must die that he might live.

The sacrificial service, though not specifically mentioned here, was instituted at this time (PP 68; cf. DA 28). The story of Cain's and Abel's sacrifices related in the next chapter shows that the first sons of Adam and Eve were well acquainted with this ritual. If God had not issued definite regulations concerning sacrifices, His approval of Abel's offering and His disapproval of Cain's would have been arbitrary. That Cain did not accuse God of partiality is evidence that he as well as his brother knew what was required. The universality of animal sacrifices in ancient times points to a common origin of this practice.

22. As one of us. Man had learned of his punishment and the plan of redemption, and had been provided clothing. By disobedience he had learned the difference between good and evil, whereas God had intended him to gain this knowledge through voluntary cooperation with the divine will. Satan's promise that man would become "like God" was fulfilled only in that man now knew something of the results of sin.

Put forth his hand. It was now necessary to prevent man from continuing to partake of the fruit of the tree of life lest he become an immortal sinner (PP 60). Through sin man had fallen under the power of death. Thus the fruit that produced immortality could now do him only harm. Immortality in a state of sin, and thus of endless misery, was not the life for which God designed man. Denying man access to this life-giving tree was an act of divine mercy which Adam may not have fully appreciated at that time, but for which he will be grateful in the world to come. There he will eat forevermore from the long-lost tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14). By partaking of the emblems of Christ's sacrifice, we have the privilege of eating by faith of the fruit of that tree today, and of looking forward with confidence to the time when we may pluck and eat its fruit with all the redeemed in the Paradise of God (8T 288).

24. He drove out the man. In sending Adam forth from Eden to earn a living by the sweat of his brow, God performed what must have been to Him, as well as to Adam, a sad duty. Even with the primeval forests cleared away, there would ever be a perpetual struggle against weeds, insects, and wild beasts.

Cherubims. The origin of the name "cherubim" is not clear, but the word cherub is probably related to the Assyrian word karaÆbu, "to bless," or "to pray." The Bible represents cherubim as belonging to the class of beings we call angels, especially those close to God and His throne (Eze. 9:3; 10:4; Ps. 99:1). For this reason cherubic figures were to be upon the ark and the curtains of the tabernacle (Ex. 25:18; 26:1, 31), and were afterward engraved upon the walls and doors of the Temple (1 Kings 6:29, 32, 35).

A memory of heavenly beings guarding the way to the tree of life is perhaps retained in the old Mesopotamian epic of Gilgamesh, who went out in search of the "herb of life," or immortality. Of the place where the "herb of life" was to be found, the epic reports that "scorpion men guard its gate, whose terror is fearful, whose beholding is death; their awesome glory throws down mountains." Assyrian palaces were guarded by great winged colossi called kaÆribu, half bull and half man, perhaps a pagan corruption of the record of the God-appointed guardians of Paradise. In Egyptian temples are found numerous representations of cherubim, creatures similar to human beings, with their wings spread protectingly over the shrine of deity.

A flaming sword. Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence. As such, the Shekinah glory of God appeared between the two cherubim, one on either side of the mercy seat covering the ark of the covenant in the holy of holies (see Ex. 25:22; Isa. 37:16; DA 464; PP 349; GC 24). The phrase "a flaming sword" is a rather inexact translation of the Hebrew, which reads literally "a glittering of the sword." There was no literal sword guarding the gate of Paradise. There was, rather, what appeared to be the scintillating reflection of light from a sword "turned every way" with great rapidity--flashing shafts of light radiating from an intensely brilliant center. Furthermore, the form of the Hebrew verb mithhappeketh, rendered in the KJV "turned every way," really means "turning itself every way." This verb form is used exclusively to express intensive, reflexive action, and requires in this instance the conclusion that the "sword" appeared to whirl itself about. This radiant, living light was none other than the Shekinah glory, the manifestation of the divine presence. Before it, for centuries, those loyal to God gathered to worship Him (PP 62, 83, 84).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-24PP 52-62; SR 32-41

1 DA 118; GC 505, 531; PP 53; SR 32; 5T 384, 504, 698

1-5CH 108, 109; GC 554; PP 54; 5T 503

1-8CT 12; MH 427

2-5GC 532; SR 33

3 Te 283

3-5Ed 24

4 Ev 598; EW 218; GC 533, 538; PP 96; SL 49; SR 388; 1T 301, 342 344; 3T 72; 4T 146

4, 5 COL 108; GC 561; PP 685; SR 398

4-61T 565; 3T 455; 4T 248

5 CT 361;] Ed 25; FE 437; GC 532, 538; PK 178; SR 395; 1T 551; 5T 625, 702, 738

5, 6 3T 139

6 CD 145; CH 108, 111, 409; DA 116; Ed 25; Ev 610; EW 125, 147, 218; FE 446, 471; GC 532; GW 260; MB 83; ML 323; MM 93; MYP 69; Te 13, 15, 20, 273; 2T 561; 3T 72, 161, 324, 483, 486, 491, 542, 561; 4T 311, 573; 5T 504; 6T 163; 8T 288, 290

7 COL 311, 312; MH 462; ML 311; PP 45, 57

8 SC 19

8-2PP 57

9-14SR 39

12, 13 SC 45; 5T 638

13-16PP 58

15 AA 222; DA 31, 52, 103, 115, 578, 663; Ed 27; EW 178; GC 505, 507; PK 681, 685, 701, 702; PP 65, 77, 370; Te 275, 284; 3T 526; 4T 594, 595; 9T 283

16 PP 58; 3T 484

17 SC 9

17, 18 COL 289; Ed 101; MH 296; 8T 256

17-19Ed 26; PP 50, 59; SR 40

18, 19 FE 513; 9T 283

19 AH 27; CT 274; FE 314, 326; GC 532, 533; PP 478; 2T 529; 5T 181

21 PP 61; SR 46

22, 23 TM 133

23 ML 168; SR 46

23, 24 Ed 25; EW 51, 218

24 EW 126, 148; GC 511, 534; PP 60, 62, 83, 84; SR 388; TM 134; 6T 19; 8T 288

Genesis Chapter 4

1 The birth, trade, and religion of Cain and Abel. 8 The murder of Abel. 11 The curse of Cain. 17 Enoch the first city. 19 Lamech and his two wives. 25 The birth of Seth, 26 and Enos.

1. I have gotten a man from the Lord. The Hebrew reads literally, "I have gotten a man, the Lord." When Eve held her first-born in her arms she apparently remembered the divine promise of ch. 3:15, and entertaining the hope that he was to be the promised Deliverer, named him Qayin, "gotten" (DA 31). Forlon hope! Her eager longing for the speedy fulfillment of the gospel promise was doomed to meet the most heartbreaking disappointment. Little did she realize that this very child would become the world's first murderer.

2. His brother Abel. The absence of the usual expression "and she conceived," and the use of the peculiar phraseology "she again bare," literally, "she continued to give birth," have suggested to some commentators that Abel was Cain's twin brother. This may be true but is not necessarily implied by the text. Abel's name means "vanity" or "nothingness." It reflects the fact that either a mother's hopes had already met with disappointment in her elder son or that Abel personified for her the miseries of human life. In this chapter Abel is seven times called Cain's brother, seeming to emphasize the heinousness of Cain's sin.

A keeper of sheep. There is no reason for finding in the professions chosen by the two men an intimation of difference in moral character, although these choices were probably determined by their talents and tastes.

3. In process of time. Literally, "at the end of days." This denotes the passing of a considerable, indefinite period of time, and may indicate the harvest season. To understand it as meaning the end of a week or a year, as has been done by some commentators, hardly seems warranted in this instance, since there is no particular reason why either should be mentioned here. The word yamim, "days," is, however, used in a number of instances where the context makes it clear that a year is meant. In such cases it has been translated "year" (see Ex. 13:10; Num. 9:22; 1 Sam. 2:19; 27:7; 2 Chron. 21:19; etc.).

An offering unto the Lord. "Offering," minchah. Minchah is used in the Levitical laws for the bloodless thank offering, consisting of flour and oil, or flour prepared with frankincense (Lev. 2:1, 4, 14, 15). Here, however, the word has a wider meaning and includes both meal offerings and animals sacrifices, because it is used as a designation not only for Cain's bloodless offering but also for Abel's sacrifice (see v. 4). It is not stated that either Cain or Abel built an altar for their offerings, but obviously they must have done so (see PP 71). The next time the offering of a sacrifices is reported in the Bible, its altar is mentioned (Gen. 8:20). The system of sacrificial offerings had been introduced by God at the time man was expelled from the garden (PP 68, 71). The following verses make it plain that Cain knew he was doing wrong in bringing the kind of gift he offered to God. He had been taught that the blood of the Son of God would atone for his sins. By following the divinely instituted rule of sacrificing a lamb for his sins, he would show allegiance to God, who had ordained the sacrificial system, and express faith in the plan of redemption (Heb. 11:4). The universal prevalence of sacrifices among ancient peoples points to a divine precept rather than to human invention as their origin (see DA 28).

What was it that made Cain's offering unacceptable to God? He acknowledged, in part, grudgingly, the claims of God upon him. But a secret spirit of resentment and rebellion prompted him to meet the claims of God in a way of his own choosing rather than to follow precisely the plan ordained by God. Ostensibly he complied, but the manner of his compliance revealed a defiant spirit. Cain proposed to justify himself by his own works, to earn salvation by his own merits. Refusing to recognize himself a sinner in need of a savior, he offered a gift that expressed no penitence for sin--a bloodless offering. And "without shedding of blood is no remission," for "it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Heb. 9:22; Lev. 17:11; PP 71, 72).

Cain recognized the existence of God and His power to give or to withhold earthly blessings. Feeling it advantageous to live on good terms with Deity, Cain considered it expedient to appease and avert divine wrath by a gift, even though it be offered grudgingly. He failed to realize that partial, formal compliance with the explicit requirements of God could not earn His favor as a substitute for true obedience and contrition of heart. We today do well to examine our hearts lest we, like Cain, be found offering to God valueless and unacceptable gifts.

4. The firstlings of his flock. The word "firstlings" indicates that Abel brought of the first-born of his flock (see Ex. 13:12). The sacrificial ordinance as set forth by Moses required the sprinkling of the blood of first-born animals upon the altar and the burning of their fat in the fire (Num. 18:17). Abel's offering was a demonstration of faith (Heb. 11:4). Cain's offering, in contrast, was an attempt to earn salvation by works. With Abel, faith in the plan of salvation and in the atoning sacrifice of Christ revealed itself in unquestioning obedience.

Had respect. ShaÔah, "to consider graciously." Though the manner of God's acceptance of Abel's offering is not here revealed, it consisted in the appearance of heavenly fire to consume the sacrifice, as often in later times (see Lev. 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chron. 21:26; 2 Chron. 7:1; PP 71). It is noteworthy that God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice betokened the acceptance of his person; in the narrative, in fact, mention of the acceptance of Abel himself precedes mention of the acceptance of his offering. This is an indication that God was not so interested in the sacrifice as in the one who brought it.

5. Unto Cain and to his offering. Cain noticed that absence of any visible sign of God's pleasure and acceptance of his offering. A deeply burning anger was the result. The Hebrew phrase here used can be translated literally, "It burned with Cain exceedingly." He felt fierce resentment against his brother and toward God. There was apparently no sorrow for sin, no spirit of self-examination, no prayer for light or pardon. Cain's behavior is a typical example of a stubborn and unrepentant sinner whose heart does not melt under correction and reproof but becomes even more hard and rebellious. No attempt was made by Cain to hide feelings of disappointment, dissatisfaction, and anger. His face bespoke his resentment.

6. Why art thou wroth? Here it is evident, as in vs. 14 and 16, that God did not cease making personal contact with men at the time He expelled them from the garden. The rejection of Cain's offering did not necessarily mean the rejection of Cain himself. In mercy and patience God was ready to give him another chance. Though clearly manifesting His displeasure by rejecting the offering, God appeared to the sinner and reasoned with him in an attempt to persuade him of the error of his way and the unreasonableness of his anger. God spoke to Cain as to a willful child, to draw out into the open that which was lurking like a wild beast before the door of his heart. The question Why was designed to lead Cain to acknowledge the baselessness of his anger. For the rejection of his offering there must be a valid reason, which he should discover and eliminate.

7. If thou doest well. This verse presents certain linguistic difficulties that have led some modern commentators to think that a copyist's error has changed the Hebrew text. That the translators of the LXX found its meaning obscure even in their time is apparent from their garbled translation of it. The rabbis tried to explain it in the sense that Cain's offering was rejected because he did not follow precisely the rules of Levitical ritual. But the obvious contrast between the results of "doing well" and those of "not doing well" precludes such an explanation. The first clause reads literally, "Is there not lifting up if thou doest well?" What will be lifted up? The burden of guilt or the countenance? The expression "to lift up one's face" for "to be joyful or innocent" is common in Hebrew (Job 11:15; 22:26; 2 Sam. 2:22), and probably appears here in an abbreviated form as a complement to the preceding statement that Cain's countenance had fallen (v. 6). God wished Cain to understand that if he would mend his ways and live according to the divine precepts, there would be no more reason for God to show His displeasure and no more reason for Cain to show a disappointed and angry face. However, if Cain would not change, but would continue in the pathway of evil, sin would overwhelm him. The phrase "sin lieth at the door" (like a wild beast) is probably a proverbial one (see 1 Peter 5:8).

Sin. Some have suggested that the Hebrew word here translated "sin," chat\t\a'th, should be rendered "sin offering," as it is in nearly half the passages where it occurs in the OT (see for example Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:32; Num. 7:16, 22; etc.; cf. Hosea 4:8; Heb. 9:28; 2 Cor. 5:21). God would then be saying to Cain, "If you were innocent, your [bloodless] offering would be acceptable as a thank offering, would it not? And when you have sinned, is there not a sin offering ready at hand?" One difficulty in rendering chat\t\a'th as "sin offering" should be pointed out. Chat\t\a'th, is feminine, whereas the participle robes\, "lieth," is masculine. It should be feminine if it is to agree with chat\t\a'th, its subject. This difference suggests that Moses was personifying "sin" as a wild beast crouching at the door, and so deliberately chose to make robes\ agree with the masculine wild beast of his figure of speech rather than with the subject in its literal sense as "sin" or "sin offering."

Unto thee shall be his desire. This cannot refer to Abel as having a "desire" toward his elder brother in the same sense as Eve toward her husband (see ch. 3:16), that is, to accept his supremacy. Such an explanation would seem to be at variance with the context and with divine principles. If sin is personified as a wild beast lying in wait for Cain, it would be appropriate to continue the comparison by translating, as does the RSV, "its desire is for you, but you must master it."

8. Cain talked with Abel. The subject of Cain's talk with his brother is not stated. The RSV, following the Samaritan Version and the LXX, has added the words, "Let us go out into the field." This clause appears to be a copyist's addition, though the context makes it entirely possible that the original read thus. It is improbable that Cain told Abel what God had just said to him, but he may have tried to argue with his brother, accusing God of unrighteousness in His dealings with him.

When they were in the field. Cain's "works were evil and his brother's righteous" (1 John 3:12). That is why Cain killed his brother. Enmity between good and evil, predicted by God before the expulsion from the garden, was seen now for the first time in its most horrible form. Twice in this verse the words "his brother" are added to the name of Abel to bring out clearly the horror of Cain's sin. In him the seed of the woman had already become the seed of the serpent. Cain's crime revealed the true nature of Satan as "a murderer from the beginning" (John 8:44). Already there had sprung up that contrast of two distinct "seeds" within the human race, a contrast that runs through the entire history of mankind.

9. Where is Abel thy brother? As with Adam and Eve, God now sought after Cain, to present his transgression to him in its true light, to stir up his guilty conscience to repentance, and to create in him a new heart. As God had come to Cain's parents with a question, so He now came to Cain. The results, however, were vastly different; Cain boldly denied his guilt. Disobedience had led to murder; to murder he now added falsehood and defiance, blindly thinking to hide his crime from God.

10. What hast thou done? The tactful, indirect approach having proved unavailing, God proceeded to charge Cain with his crime. The question "What hast thou done?" implied perfect knowledge of the facts.

The voice of thy brother's blood. The trembling murderer found an all-seeing and all-knowing God reading his naked soul. How could He who notes the sparrow's fall, He who is the author of life, be deaf to the silent cry of the first martyr (see Ps. 116:15)? Blood is life, and as such is precious to the great Giver of life (Gen. 9:4).

Against all the inhumanity of man toward his fellow men down through the intervening ages, the cry of Abel ascends to God (Heb. 11:4). Abel met his death at the hand of a near kinsman. Similarly, Jesus, coming to this earth as a kinsman to the human race, was rejected and sent to His death by His brethren.

11. Now art thou cursed. A divine curse had already been visited upon the serpent and the ground (ch. 3:14, 17); now for the first time it falls on man. The Hebrew phrase rendered in the KJV, thou art "cursed from the earth," may with equal accuracy be translated as a comparative, "Thou art more cursed than the earth." Some commentators have understood this text to mean that Cain was banished to a less fertile region. The context (vs. 12, 14) seems to favor this explanation, or perhaps the idea that because Cain had misused the fruits of the ground God would no longer permit him to gain his livelihood by tilling the soil. A wanderer in the earth (vs. 14, 16), whether shepherd or nomad, cannot be a successful farmer.

12. It shall not henceforth yield. Cain was doomed to a life of perpetual wandering in order to secure food for himself, his family, and his beasts. Having been compelled to drink innocent blood, the earth rebelled, as it were, against the murderer; and when he should till it, it would withhold its strength. Cain was to have but little reward for his labor. Similarly, at a later time, the land of Canaan is said to have "spued out" the Canaanites on account of their abominations (Lev. 18:28).

13. Greater than I can bear. The divine sentence turned Cain's truculence into despair. Though Cain deserved the death penalty, a merciful and patient God gave him further opportunity for repentance and conversion. But instead of repenting, Cain complained of his punishment as being more severe than he deserved. No word of sorrow came from his lips, not even a recognition of guilt or of shame, nothing but the sad resignation of a criminal who realizes he is powerless to escape the penalty he so justly deserves.

14. Thou hast driven me out. Cain knew that he was to be cut off, not only from the blessings of the earth, but, by his own choice, from all contract with God as well.

Every one that findeth me. Cain despaired of his own life, in fear that the curse of God meant the withdrawal of divine restraint from those who might seek to avenge Abel's blood. A guilty conscience warned him that he deserved to die and that henceforth his own life was in danger. But the death penalty, his due, was commuted to banishment for life. Instead of being imprisoned he was to be shut out from every happy, normal association with his fellow men, and, by his own choice, from God. He who had taken his brother's life saw in his fellow creatures his own prospective executioners.

15. Therefore. It is not entirely clear what antecedent idea is intended by this word. The RSV, following the LXX, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, renders it, "Not so!" In other words, to Cain's declaration, "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," God replied, "Not so!"

Sevenfold. This implies a most severe penalty upon anyone murdering Cain (see Lev. 26:18, 21, 24, 28; Ps. 79:12; Prov. 6:31). Special protection was granted him in harmony with the principle, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord" (Rom. 12:19). The tares must grow together with the wheat; the fruits of sin must be permitted to reach maturity, in order that the character of its seed may be manifest. The lives of Cain and his descendants were to be exhibits of the outworking of sin in rational beings (PP 78).

A mark. Some commentators have seen in this mark an outward sign attached to Cain's person, whereas others believe that he received a sign from God as a divine pledge that nothing would endanger his life. Whatever it was, it was not a sign of God's forgiveness but only of temporal protection.

16. Cain went out. He felt neither remorse nor repentance, but only the heavy burden of God's displeasure. He left the divine presence, probably never to return, and began his life as a wanderer in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden. This antediluvian land, whose name means "wandering," "flight," or "exile," became the home of the godless descendants of Cain.

17. Cain knew his wife. The sudden mention of Cain's wife creates no problem. Chapter 5:4 states that Adam "begat sons and daughters" besides the three sons whose names are given. The earliest inhabitants of earth had no other choice than to marry their brothers and sisters in order to fulfill the divine command, "Be fruitful and multiply" (see Acts 17:26). That the custom long remained in vogue is seen in Abraham's marriage to his half sister Sarah. Such marriages were later prohibited (see Lev. 18:6-17).

She conceived, and bare Enoch. That God did not withhold offspring from the disobedient and reprobate Cain is another evidence of His merciful character (Ps. 145:9; Matt. 5:45). The name "Enoch" may mean "dedication" or "consecration" it may also mean "initiation." Perhaps the name Cain gave his son indicated his intention to begin living his life as he pleased. Luther thought the mother may have selected the name Enoch, thereby expressing hope that the child might be an augury of blessing for their saddened home.

He builded a city. Literally, "he began to build." This was probably no more than an attempt to erect a fortified camp for his family as a more or less permanent place of abode. This suggests that Cain may not have had much confidence in God's assurance of protection. It is possible also that his attempt to found a city may have been dictated by a desire to bid defiance to the curse that doomed him to a wandering life.

It is worthy of note that the world's first "city" was founded by the world's first murderer, a perversely impenitent individual whose life, wholly and hopelessly dedicated to evil, was spent in defiance of God. God's plan that man should live amid nature and behold in it the Creator's might and power was in this way thwarted. Many present-day evils are the direct result of the unnatural gathering together of human beings into great cities, where man's worst instincts bear rule, and vice of every type flourishes.

The name of the city. In naming this city after his son Enoch, "dedication" or "initiation," Cain apparently consecrated it to the realization of his sinful ambitions.

18. Unto Enoch was born Irad. Of the following generations only names are mentioned. The names resemble those of some of Seth's descendants, as for instance Irad and Jared, Mehujael and Mahalaleel, Methusael and Methuselah, Cain and Cainan, but the names of Enoch and Lamech occur in both families. Critical scholars have considered this as proof that the two genealogical tables are simply different forms of one original legend. However, similarity in names in no way implies identity of persons. For instance, the name Korah appears in the families of Levi (Ex. 6:24) and Esau (Gen. 36:5), and Enoch is the name not only of Cain's son and one of Seth's pious descendants but also of the eldest son of Reuben (ch. 46:9), and of a son of Midian (ch. 25:4). The character of Enoch the son of Cain is in such distinct contrast to that of Enoch in the line of Seth as to preclude identifying the two as one individual.

As to the other pairs of names, similarity is only superficial. The names in Hebrew, as in English, are not identical either in spelling or in meaning. For example, Irad has been translated as "townsman" or "ornament of a city," Jared as "descent." Mehujael may mean either "smitten of God" or "destroyed of God"; Mahalaleel, "praise of God." Methusael has the meaning "man of God" or "man of prayer"; Methuselah, "man of growth." The meaning of Lamech is not known.

19. Lamech took unto him two wives. Lamech was the first to pervert marriage as ordained by God into the lust of the eye and the lust of the flesh, without even the pretext that the first wife had no children. Polygamy was a new evil that held its ground for long centuries. The names of Lamech's wives are suggestive of sensual attraction, Adah meaning "adornment" and Zillah either "shadow" or "tinkling."

20. Adah bare Jabal. The names of Adah's two sons occur nowhere else in the Bible. Their meaning is not clear. Jabal may mean "sprout," "leader," or "stream"; Jubal, a "joyful sound" or a "channel." These names may indicate their particular abilities. The first was a typical nomadic herdsman. Meaning literally "possession," the word "cattle" signifies the wealth of the nomads, which consisted of sheep and other domesticated animals.

21. Such as handle the harp and organ. "Harp," kinnor. The world's first musical instrument, the "harp," is mentioned 42 times in the OT (see Ps. 33:2; etc.). The word kinnor is always translated in the KJV "harp," though it is actually a lyre. Many ancient pictures of this instrument from Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia bring us a clear idea of what the kinnor was like. These pictures represent the instrument as consisting of a sounding board across which strings are stretched. In the earliest instruments the strings run parallel, but in later models they diverge as they extend outward.

The origin of the word translated in the KJV "organ," in the RV "pipe," and identified by some with the bagpipe, is not so certain as that of the lyre. Whatever the correct explanation of the name may be, all modern scholars agree that the instrument was a flute. This instrument is still played by the shepherds throughout the Near East.

22. Tubal-cain. Although "Tubal" appears frequently as a personal name in the OT (Gen. 10:2; Isa. 66:19; Eze. 27:13; etc.), its meaning is obscure. The word "cain" may have been added later, perhaps to identify him as a Cainite.

An instructer of every artificer. The Hebrew word translated "instructer" in the KJV means literally "hammerer," "whetter," or "forger," and refers to early work in bronze and iron, which was more a process of hammering than of smelting. Doubt has been expressed that iron was known as early as Genesis implies. However, recent discoveries made in Egypt and Mesopotamia have shown that iron objects were produced in the earliest historical periods of which we have record. The first iron objects were meteoric, their high percentage of nickel precluding terrestrial origin. Objects made of meteoric iron must have been produced by hammering rather than by smelting, again confirming the Biblical record. Though early man did not have bronze and iron in large quantities, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Bible statement that antediluvian man knew how to use these metals. Copper, bronze, and iron objects (ornaments, tools, weapons, vessels, etc.) from very early levels of civilization are being found in increasing numbers.

Naamah. Why Tubal-cain's sister should be specifically mentioned is unknown. Jewish tradition made her Noah's wife. Her name, meaning "the beautiful" or "the pleasant one," reflects the worldly mind of the Cainites, who looked for beauty rather than for character as the chief attraction in women.

23. I have slain a man. Lamech's words, in Hebrew poetic form, have aptly been called the "Song of Lamech." So far as is known this "song" constitutes the world's first poetic composition. The exact meaning of his somewhat cryptic words is difficult to ascertain. Origen wrote two books concerning the "song" and then pronounced it beyond explanation. The Hebrew words employed permit the explanation that Lamech had slain one or two men for wounds they had inflicted upon him, with the implication that he would be ready to commit such acts again should the necessity arise. His threatened revenge, however, is ambiguous, and leaves room for more than one interpretation. The RSV reads: "I have slain a man for wounding me."

25. Seth. After having reported the development of the ungodly family of Cain, the author returns to Adam and Eve and recounts briefly the history of those who were loyal to God. Shortly after Abel's death a third son was born, to whom his mother gave the name Seth, Sheth, the "appointed one," the "compensation" or "substitute" for Abel. Eve, seeing that her godly son was dead and recognizing that God's words concerning the promised seed could not find their fulfillment in cursed Cain, expressed her faith that the promised Deliverer would come through Seth. Her faith was rewarded, for the descendants of Seth obeyed the Lord.

26. Enos. In his time a more formal worship was begun. Man had of course called upon the Lord before Enos' birth, but as time went on a more pronounced distinction arose between those who worshiped the Lord and those who defied Him. The expression "to call upon the name of the Lord" is used frequently in the OT to indicate, as it does here, public worship (Ps. 79:6; 116:17; Jer. 10:25; Zeph. 3:9).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-15PP 71-80; SR 52-56

1-5PP 71, 364

3 GW 156, 162; 4T 395, 609

3, 4 COL 152; PP 84

3-8Ev 598; TM 77

4 6T 392

5 PP 73

6, 7 PP 74

8 DA 618; MB 50, 54; PP 77

9 ChS 13; CS 52; FE 50; ML 59; Te 41; WM 220; 1T 113, 149, 368, 480, 535; 2T 33, 228; 4T 69, 648; 5T 459, 531, 569, 611

9-12PP 77; SR 54

10 MH 340; Te 41; 5T 451

15 EW 213; PP 325

16 PP 62

16, 17 PP 81

19 SR 76

23, 24 PP 81

25 SR 57

25, 26 PP 80

Genesis Chapter 5

1 The genealogy, age, and death of the patriarchs from Adam unto Noah. 24 The godliness and translation of Enoch.

1. This is the book. A period of about 1,500 years is covered in the list of generations presented in this chapter. Only the names of the principal patriarchs, their age at the birth of their first-born sons, and their total age are given. In somewhat monotonous outline we see them being born, growing up to manhood, marrying wives, begetting children, and then dying, without leaving to posterity more than their names to remember. Only two, Enoch and Noah, surpass the others in excellence and piety. Enoch was the first sinner, saved by grace, to be honored with translation; Noah was the only family head to survive the Flood.

This chapter contains a family register like others incorporated at different places into the OT narrative. The expression, "the book of the generations of" someone, is a technical term for a genealogical list (see Matt. 1:1). The word "book," sepher, is used in the OT to refer to a complete scroll (Jer. 36:2, 8) or for a single leaf of a scroll (Deut. 24:1).

2. Called their name Adam. The dignity of their being created in God's likeness, their distinction in sex, and their divine benediction are described briefly. The only new information is the name given them by God--"man," adam. From this text it is clear that the name Adam was originally generic, inclusive of both the man and the woman, and equivalent to our word mankind.

3. In his own likeness. Though Seth was not Adam's first-born son, he was the one through whom the godly line was to be perpetuated. Adam's career after the Fall is summarized in three short verses that serve as a pattern for subsequent biographies.

5. All the days that Adam lived. The remarkable longevity of the antediluvian race has been the target of much criticism. Some have declared that the figures are the product of a mythical age or the result of faulty transmission of the text. Others have suggested that they do not represent individuals but dynasties, or that they were not years but shorter periods, perhaps months. All such considerations must be rejected as doing violence to a literal interpretation of the text and to its inspired origin. We must accept these figures as historical and accurate. The longevity of the antediluvian race may be attributed to the following causes: (1) the original vitality with which mankind was endowed at creation, (2) superior piety and intelligence, (3) the residual effect of the fruit of the tree of life, (4) the superior quality of available food, and (5) divine grace in postponing the execution of the penalty of sin. Adam lived to see eight successive generations reach maturity. Inasmuch as his life spanned more than half the time to the Flood, it is apparent that many could hear from his own lips the story of creation, of Eden, of the Fall, and of the plan of redemption as it had been revealed to him.

And he died. With these somber words ends Adam's short biography. The monotonous repetition of this statement at the close of each biography--except that of Enoch--affirms the dominion of death (Rom. 5:12). It reveals that the sentence of death was not a vain threat. Death is a persistent reminder of the nature and results of disobedience.

Biographies of the succeeding patriarchs follow the pattern of Adam's life story and do not call for individual explanation (see on ch. 4:17, 18 for an explanation of some of the names).

22. Enoch walked with God. Enoch's most exceptional life called for very special attention. Twice it is stated that "he walked with God." This expression is used also of Noah (ch. 6:9), and is found, in similar words, in other passages (see Gen. 17:1; Deut. 13:4; Ps. 116:9; Micah 6:8; Eph. 5:1, 2). It portrays a life of singularly elevated piety, not merely the constant realization of the divine presence or even a continued effort at holy obedience, but maintenance of the most intimate relations with God. Enoch's life was most evidently in complete and beautiful harmony with the divine will.

After he begat Methuselah. The statement that "he walked with God" after Methuselah's birth does not imply that he had been a godless person before and only now experienced conversion. He belonged to the faithful race and doubtless had served God loyally during the first 65 years of his life. But with the arrival of a son to grace his home he understood through experience the depth of a father's love and the confidence of a helpless baby. As never before he was drawn to God, his own heavenly Father, and eventually qualified for translation. His walk with God consisted not only in the contemplation of God but also in active ministry on behalf of his fellow men. He looked forward to the second Advent of Christ, earnestly and solemnly warning the sinners around him of the terrible doom that awaited the ungodly (Jude 14, 15).

Three hundred years. Enoch's constant faithfulness manifested over a period of 300 years speaks encouragement to those Christians who seem to find it difficult to "walk with God" for even one day.

And begat sons and daughters. According to the Inspired Record, Enoch begat sons and daughters during this life of exceptional piety. Here is undeniable evidence that the state of matrimony is in accord with the most strict life of holiness.

24. He was not; for God took him. The most significant event of the antediluvian era, an event that filled the faithful with hope and joy, the translation of Enoch, is related by Moses in these few simple words. Enoch was translated "that he should not see death" (Heb. 11:5). This meaning is implicit in the word laqach, "he [God] took away," a word that is never used to denote death. Modern Christian usage of the expression as a euphemism for death is without Scriptural authority. The word is used, however, in connection with Elijah's translation (2 Kings 2:3, 5, 9, 10). The LXX renders it "for God translated him," an expression taken over literally in Heb. 11:5. So far as we know, Enoch was the only antediluvian believer not to see death. As a paragon of virtue, Enoch, "the seventh from Adam," stands in sharp contrast to the seventh generation of the Cainite line, Lamech, who added the crime of murder to the vice of polygamy (Jude 14; cf. Gen. 4:16-19).

Enoch's departure was witnessed by some of both the righteous and the wicked (see PP 88). The translation of Enoch was designed by God, not only to reward the piety of a godly man, but to demonstrate the certainty of God's promised deliverance from sin and death. The memory of this remarkable event has survived in Jewish tradition (Ecclesiasticus 44:16), in the Christian record (Heb. 11:5; Jude 14), and even in heathen fables. The Apocryphal Book of Enoch describes the patriarch as exhorting his son and all his contemporaries, and warning them of coming judgment. The Jewish Book of Jubilee says that he was carried into Paradise, where he wrote down the judgment of all men. Arabic legends have made him the inventor of writing and arithmetic. His departure must have made a tremendous impression upon his contemporaries, if we are to judge by the extent to which the story of Enoch has come down to later generations. Enoch's exemplary life with its glorious climax testifies in our day of the possibility of living in a wicked world without being "of it."

25. Methuselah. Enoch's short earthly life of only 365 years was followed by that of his son Methuselah, who lived for 969 years, to within the year of the Flood. The meaning of his name is uncertain. Commentators have explained it variously as "man of military weapons," "man of sending forth," or "man of growth." The meaning of the name of his son Lamech is even more obscure.

29. Noah. In the hope that his first-born might be the promised seed, the redeemer for whose coming the faithful longingly waited, Lamech called him Noah, "rest," saying, "this same one shall comfort us." The name "Noah," nuach, "to rest," and the word "to comfort," nacham, both point back to a common root meaning "to sigh," "to breathe," "to rest," and "to lie down." Lamech was a godly man who followed in the footsteps of his exemplary grandfather Enoch and his pious, long-lived father Methuselah.

Our work. Lamech apparently felt the burden of tilling the ground that God had cursed and looked forward in faith to the time when the existing misery and corruption would cease and redemption from the curse would come. His hope that this might be realized in his son was not fulfilled, at least in the way he expected. Nevertheless, Noah was destined to proclaim a bold warning against evil and to play an important role by becoming the progenitor of all who have lived since his time.

32. Noah was five hundred years old. In Hebrew this expression reads literally, "Noah was a son of 500 years," meaning that he was in his 500th year. Now "son of a year" means, strictly speaking, within the first year of life (Ex. 12:5). This fact, an important point in Hebrew chronological language, becomes even more clear from a comparison of the 6th and 11th verses of ch. 7. Although both verses speak of the beginning of the Flood, one of them declares Noah to be 600 years old, and the other says that the event occurred in Noah's 600th year. Consequently the former verse, "Noah was a son of 600 years," means that he was "in his 600th year," and not in his 601st year as we would naturally conclude.

Not one of the preceding patriarchs waited so many years before the birth of his offspring as did Noah; half a millennium passed before his own home was blessed by the arrival of a son (see p. 183). This genealogy breaks off with Noah, mentioning only the birth of his sons. The mention of all three sons foreshadows their importance in repopulating the earth after the Flood.

Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Another principle of Hebrew genealogy must be explained in this connection. From the sequence of the names of Noah's sons given here and elsewhere the impression may be gained that Shem was the oldest and Japheth the youngest of Noah's three sons. That this is incorrect can be seen from a comparison of this text with certain others. Noah's sons were not triplets (see chs. 9:24; 10:21). According to ch. 9:24 Ham was the youngest of the brothers. Chapter 10:21, furthermore, refers either to Shem or to Japheth as "the elder" of the two, although the ambiguous Hebrew grammatical construction does not make it clear which of the two was older. From ch. 11:10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old two years after the Flood, when his father would be about 602 years of age; the age of Noah at Shem's birth must then have been 502 years--not 500 as might be inferred from ch. 5:32. But one of the three, the eldest, was born in Noah's 500th year (ch. 5:32). These texts lead to the conclusion that actually Japheth was the eldest son of Noah, being born when his father was 500 years old, and that Shem and Ham followed in that order. The KJV translation of ch. 10:21 is therefore the correct one, rather than that of the RSV, according to which Shem would have been the eldest son. The last part of ch. 5:32 would therefore be stated more accurately, "And Noah began to beget Japheth, Shem, and Ham."

Shem is mentioned as the first of the three sons because of his importance as the progenitor of the postdiluvian patriarchal line from which the chosen people of God, together with the promised seed, should spring. Ham is mentioned next as the forefather of races with whom the OT readers of Moses' time, and later, had much more contact than with the descendants of Japheth, who inhabited more remote regions. The same principle is repeated in Abraham's case, where he, the youngest of Terah's sons, is mentioned first (ch. 11:27) on account of his greater importance to those for whom the record was written.

By reducing the ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech at the birth of their first-born sons, the Samaritan Pentateuch leaves only 1,307 years between creation and the Flood, instead of 1.656 years as in the Hebrew text and English translations based upon it.

But the LXX, in contrast, presents a much longer period before the Flood. It does this by assigning to some of the patriarchs, at the oldest son's birth, an age 100 years higher than does the Hebrew text. Therefore it arrives at a total of 2,242 or 2,262 years (the various MSS show a discrepancy between 167 and 187 for Methuselah's age at the birth of Lamech).

Josephus, whose figures are practically identical with those of the LXX, presumably derived them from that version, which was current in his day. Josephus gives Methuselah's age as 187.

If the Septuagint figure 187 for Lamech is to be taken as a correction of an earlier 167, it can be easily accounted for (see p. 180).

Many readers are not aware of those differences in the ancient lists, because the KJV and practically all other Protestant translations into English are based on the Hebrew text.

The Chronology of Genesis 5

It is interesting to note that, just as the list in Gen. 5 records ten long-lived generations before the Flood, similarly the ancient Mesopotamian traditions also point to precisely ten generations before the Flood and to the longevity of the race during that era. The Babylonian list opens with the remark that "sovereignty descended from heaven," and gives Alulim, meaning "man," as the progenitor of the human race (cf. Heb. adam, "man"). There are no other similarities between the two lists, however, either in the names or in

Ellen G. White Comments

1-32CH 19; PP 80-89; 3T 139

1, 3 PP 80

3-8SR 57

5 PP 82

5, 8 3T 138

18-24SR 57

21, 22 GW 51; PP 84

21-248T 305, 329, 331

22 CT 487; Ev 78, 681; ML 8, 14, 98, 255; MM 124, 276; PP 92; SC 103; 2T 121; 3T 543; 4T 616; 5T 113, 535, 596

24 Ed 127; EW 40; GC 299; GW 254; MB 54; ML 341; PK 486; PP 87; SC 103; SR 59; TM 338, 388; 6T 392; 7T 155

Genesis Chapter 6

1 The wickedness of the world, which provoked God's wrath, and caused the flood, 8 Noah findeth grace. 14 The order, form, and end of the ark.

1. And it came to pass. This expression does not imply that the conditions here described arose subsequent to events recorded in previous chapters. The author is simply pointing to the state of society in the days of Noah, when ten generations of increasing corruption reached a climax.

Men began to multiply. The human race increased rapidly not only in wickedness but in numbers as well. Among the manifold dangers for pious Sethites were the beautiful daughters of unbelievers. Wives were taken not because of their virtue but for beauty's sake, with the result that godlessness and wickedness made heavy inroads among Seth's descendants.

2. The sons of God. This phrase has been interpreted in various ways. Ancient Jewish commentators, the early church Fathers, and many modern expositors have thought these "sons" to be angels, comparing them with the "sons of God" of Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. This view must be rejected, because punishment soon to be meted out was for the sins of human beings (see v. 3), and not of angels. Further, angels do not marry (Matt. 22:30). The "sons of God" were none other than the descendants of Seth, and the "daughters of men," of the godless Cainites (PP 81). God later spoke of Israel as His "firstborn son" (Ex. 4:22), and Moses called the people of Israel "children of the Lord your God" (Deut. 14:1).

They took them wives. These unholy alliances between Sethites and Cainites were responsible for the rapid increase of wickedness among the former. God has ever warned His followers not to marry unbelievers, because of the great danger to which the believer is thus exposed and to which he usually succumbs (Deut. 7:3, 4; Joshua 23:12, 13; Ezra 9:2; Neh. 13:25; 2 Cor. 6:14, 15). But the Sethites did not heed the warnings they surely must have received. Guided by sense attractions, they were not content with the beautiful daughters of the godly race, and often preferred Cainite brides. Moreover, the prevalence of polygamy seems to be suggested by the plural expression used, they took "wives."

3. My spirit shall not always strive. The fact that this statement follows immediately after the reference to these unsanctified marriages would suggest that God's displeasure was most particularly displayed toward this evil practice. Captive to their passions, they were no longer subject to God's Spirit. The word "strive" in the Hebrew means "to rule," and "to judge," as corollary to ruling. These words indicate that the Holy Spirit could continue working but a little longer, and would then be withdrawn from the unregenerate and unrepentant of the human race. Even God's long-suffering must end. Peter refers to the work of the Spirit on the hearts of the antediluvians, saying that the Spirit of Christ preached to these prisoners of Satan (1 Peter 3:18-20).

For that he also is flesh. This expression may also be translated, "in their going astray man is flesh," from shagag, "to wander," "to go astray." By following after the lusts of the flesh, says God, men have surrendered themselves to its desires to the extent that they are no longer responsive to the control of the Holy Spirit. Insensibility to divine influence is complete; hence, the Spirit of God is to be withdrawn. There is no further use in "striving" to restrain or improve them.

His days. This divine prediction cannot mean that man's life span would henceforth be restricted to 120 years. (Compare ages of men after the Flood.) They predict, rather, that God's patience would come to an end and probation close within the period of time here specified. In the meantime, divine mercy lingered.

Christ compared God's dealings with the antediluvians to His work for the human race at the end of time (Matt. 24:37-39). Under similar circumstances God may be expected to work in similar ways. However, attempts to determine the time of Christ's coming on the basis of this are wholly invalid. We are now living on borrowed time, knowing that the destruction of the world will soon occur (see 2 Peter 3:3-7). We know also that God's Spirit will not endlessly strive with men who do not choose to heed His warnings and prepare for that great event.

4. There were giants in the earth. These "giants," nephilim, were not the product of mixed marriages, as some have suggested. The LXX translated nephilim by gigantes, from which the English "giant" is derived. In Num. 13:33 the Israelites reported that they felt like mere grasshoppers in the sight of the nephilim, which the KJV translates "giants." There is reason to believe that this Hebrew word may come from the root naphal, and that the nephilim were "violent" ones, or terrorists, rather than physical "giants." Since in those days the entire human race was of great stature, it must be that character rather than height is designated. The antediluvians generally possessed great physical and mental strength. These individuals, renowned for wisdom and skill, persistently devoted their intellectual and physical powers to the gratification of their own pride and passions and to the oppression of their fellow men (PP 80, 84, 90).

5. God. To be consistent, the KJV should read "Lord" instead of "God," as in the Hebrew the word Yahweh, Jehovah, is used. Apparently, KJV translators were influenced by the LXX, which reads, the "Lord God."

The wickedness of man was great. Human language could hardly provide a more forceful picture of human depravity. There was no more good left in man; he was "rotten to the core." His "every imagination" was evil. The word "imagination," from yeser, means "device" or "formation," and is derived from the verb "to fashion," "to form," yas\ar. Therefore "imagination" refers to evil thoughts as the product of an evil heart. Christ said, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts," and observed that they in turn produce "murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Matt. 15:19). The heart was popularly considered the center of the higher powers of the mind--the conscience and the will. A contaminated "heart" sooner or later infects the entire life.

Continually. Literally "every day" or "all day long." This brings the sorry description of antediluvian wickedness to a climax. If this is not total depravity, how could human language express it? Here we find evil supreme in the heart, in the "imaginations," or thoughts, and in the actions. With very few exceptions, there was nothing but evil, not temporarily but always, not in the case of merely a few individuals but in society as a whole. This came about because men were "willingly ignorant" of God's word (2 Peter 3:5).

6. It repented the Lord. The force of the words "it repented" the Lord, may be gathered from the explanatory statement "it grieved him" to His heart. This shows that the repentance of God does not presuppose lack of foresight on His part or any variableness in His nature or purpose. In this sense God never repents of anything (1 Sam. 15:29). The "repentance" of God is an expression referring to the pain of divine love occasioned by the sinfulness of man. It presents the truth that God, in consistency with His immutability, assumes a changed position in respect to changed man. The mention of divine grief at man's depraved state is a touching indication that God did not hate man. Human sin fills the divine heart with deep-felt grief and pity. It excites all the fathomless ocean of sympathy for sinning men of which infinite love is capable. Nonetheless, it moves Him also to judicial retribution (see Jer. 18:6-10; PP 630).

7. I will destroy man. The Hebrew expression here translated "I will destroy" means literally "I will wipe off" or "blot out" or "erase" (see Ex. 32:32, 33; Isa. 43:25). Its use in this passage, describing the extinction of the human race in general, by a devastating flood, is most appropriate.

8. Noah found grace. In these words mercy is seen in the midst of wrath. By them God pledged the preservation and restoration of humanity. The word "grace" occurs here for the first time in Scripture, and clearly has the same meaning as in the NT references, where the merciful, unmerited favor of God exercised toward undeserving sinners is described. How deeply God loved man even in his fallen state can be observed from a number of factors. He gave them a gospel of mercy, in the promise of the woman's seed; a ministry of mercy, by raising up and maintaining a succession of pious men to preach the gospel and warn them against the ways of sin; a spirit of mercy to strive and plead with them; a providence of mercy, by measuring out to them a long probationary period of time; an additional grant of mercy, a reprieve of 120 years; and finally an example of mercy, by saving the righteous when all others were destroyed. This ancient example of grace and mercy is a source of assurance and hope for believers who live at the end of time, a time that Christ Himself compared to Noah's age (see Matt. 24:37-39). His loyal followers can rest assured that God will accept them as He accepted Noah, will likewise preserve them amid the evil of this day, and provide for their safety in the coming judgment.

9. Noah was a just man. A new subtitle introduces Noah's history and that of the Flood. The author presents, first, the reasons why Noah had found grace in God's sight and was spared during the coming destruction. It was not some divine whim that made him the recipient of God's favor, but a life that was in harmony with God's will. Noah is characterized by three expressions, each one placing him in a most favorable light in contrast with his contemporaries. He was a "just man." The word "just" does not imply spotless innocence, but uprightness, honesty, virtue. It is noteworthy that he is not merely called "just," but a "just man." To live an exemplary life in Noah's time required a man who could stand fearlessly and steadfastly against evil inducements, subtle temptations, and vile mockery. He was no weakling, void of judgment or will power; he was a "man," strong of conviction, straight in thinking and action.

Perfect in his generations. The second attribute points to Noah as being "blameless in his generation," RSV. This does not mean that he lived in a state of sinlessness, but rather of moral integrity. It refers not only to Noah's lifetime of piety but also to the constancy of his religion amid the miasma of iniquity in which he lived. To be sure, he was of pure descent, and in that respect also distinct from his contemporaries, many of whom were the offspring of promiscuous marriages between the godly and the ungodly.

Noah walked with God. Third, Noah's life resembled that of his pious ancestor Enoch (see ch. 5:22, 24), who had been translated to eternal glory only 69 years before Noah's birth. During his own childhood, when Enoch's translation was still vivid in the memory of the older generation, Noah must have heard much of that godly man's life.

But the fact that Noah is thus described does not imply that by his own efforts he had attained unto righteousness. Like all others who are true children of God, he was saved by faith in God (see Heb. 11:7).

10. Noah begat three sons. See on ch. 5:32.

11. The earth also was corrupt. The sinful condition of antediluvian man is represented as corrupting the whole earth. Elsewhere the term "corruption" is applied to idolatry, the sin of perverting and depraving the worship of God (Ex. 32:7; Deut. 32:5; Judges 2:19; 2 Chron. 27:2). They practiced evil publicly, flagrantly, as the expression "before God" implies.

12. God looked upon the earth. Conditions on this earth became the subject of God's special investigation. Inspiration thus assures man that the coming judgment was not an ill-considered and arbitrary act of Deity. This investigation revealed that there no longer existed a distinction between the God-defying Cainites and God-fearing Sethites. With very few exceptions "all flesh" was corrupt.

13. The end of all flesh. Having concluded that sin could be checked by no other means that the annihilation of the race (save for one family), God announced His plan to Noah. The preceding notices of divine intent to destroy this earth (vs. 3, 7) are presumably the record of words God uttered in heavenly council, rather than to any human ear. Here, however, a communication was made directly to Noah. This probably took place 120 years before the Flood, as suggested in v. 3. God wished to give men the opportunity to mend their evil ways, should they so desire, and accordingly commissioned Noah, a "preacher of righteousness" (2 Peter 2:5), to give this message of warning. This was in itself a manifestation of mercy, based upon the divine principle of not acting before men have been advised of what to expect in case of continued sin (Amos 3:7).

The earth is filled with violence. God's introductory words must have been shocking to Noah, but the reason for His fateful decision follows. Instead of filling the earth with a people who would attempt to live according to God's will, man had "filled the earth with violence."

I will destroy them with the earth. Note that God did not announce His intention to destroy man "from" or "on" the earth but "with" it. Though the earth as such can suffer no penal destruction, it must share in man's destruction, because, as his dwelling place and the scene of his criminal acts, it is one with him. This does not mean, of course, the annihilation of our planet, but rather the utter desolation of its surface.

14. Make thee an ark. Provision must be made to save Noah and his family, hence the command to build a ship. The Hebrew word translated "ark" is from an Egyptian term designating large seaworthy ships used for the transport of obelisks, and also processional barks for carrying sacred statues on the Nile.

Gopher wood. The Hebrew word gopher is from the ancient Sumerian giparu, a tree not yet definitely identified. The ancient Egyptians built their big ships of cedar, and therefore commentators have suggested that gopher wood may have been timber from coniferous trees such as cedar or cypress. Their resinous quality would make them ideal for such use. Ellen G. White states that the timber Noah used was cypress (PP 95).

Rooms shalt thou make. The ark was to be divided into cells, literally "nests," needed especially for the many animals, and to be caulked within and without. The word translated "pitch" is of Babylonian origin, and designates both pitch and bitumen. Since ancient times such materials have been found in Mesopotamia and used for caulking ships (see on ch. 2:12).

15. This is the fashion. The ship was to be built according to exact divine instructions. Its dimensions as given to Noah show the vessel to be of extraordinary size. Had it not been for these detailed instructions from God, Noah, a man of no previous experience in ship construction or sailing, could never have built it. The largest ancient vessel now known was an Egyptian ship up to 130 cubits long and 40 cubits wide. The ark of Noah was almost three times as long. If the cubit of 20.6 in. is meant (cf. Deut. 3:11), the length of the ark would have been 515 ft., its width 86 ft., and its height 52 ft. It has been generally assumed that the ark was in the form of a chest or box rather than that of a ship, but this is nowhere stated in the Sacred Text. Because of the lack of precise information in regard to the form of the ship, it seems futile to compute the exact cubical contents of Noah's ark. It is clear, however, from the given description, that it was a vessel of formidable dimensions, with ample space for the animals housed within and for a year's food for all.

16. A window. Certain Hebrew words and the grammatical construction employed in this verse are the occasion of difficulty in ascertaining what Moses meant. The word translated "window," s\ohar, may mean either "light," "light opening," or "roof." The translation "roof," as in the RSV, seems to rest on stronger evidence than the translation "window." The fact that Noah could not see the surface of the earth until the s\ohar was opened (see ch. 8:6) seems to favor this view. Whatever it may mean, light was admitted from the top (see PP 95).

In a cubit shalt thou finish it above. This sentence is difficult to interpret. If the word sohar means a "light opening," the sentence may refer to a kind of lattice-work one cubit high surrounding the upper part of the ark to admit light. If s\ohar means "roof," it may have practically the same meaning, namely that there was one cubit between the roof and the upper edge of the walls.

17. I, even I. The repeated and emphatic "I" is a clear indication that the coming catastrophe was a divine visitation and not a natural occurrence.

A flood of waters. The word "flood," mabbul, is used throughout the OT only for the Flood of Noah, with the possible exception of Ps. 29:10. Mabbul may be derived from an Assyrian root meaning "to destroy." The Hebrew construction of the phrase "a flood of waters" would permit the reading, "a destruction, [even] waters." This passage is the first intimation of the means of destruction to be used.

18. I establish my covenant. The first recorded agreement between God and Noah (see on ch. 15:9-17 for the procedure followed in effecting a covenant). By concluding a covenant with Noah, God strengthened that righteous man's confidence in the surety of the divine watchcare. Whatever might occur, Noah knew that he and his family would be saved.

And thy sons. These promises included even Noah's unborn sons and their wives, because at the time Noah was still childless, although already 480 years of age (see on ch. 5:32). Not one of Noah's ancestors had waited so long for offspring, and he may have given up the hope of being blessed with children. On many occasions God prepared His chosen agents for times of crisis by leading them through long periods of disappointment, that they might learn patience and trust in Him. This very experience came to the parents of Isaac, Samuel, and John the Baptist. The commission to build the ark, then, included indirect assurance that in preserving life, the family line of Noah would not become extinct. The birth of his sons would then be to Noah a sign of the equal certainty of the coming deluge. In faith he went forward, believing "things not seen as yet" (Heb. 11:7).

19. Of every living thing. Animal life, as well as human, was to be preserved through Noah's faith. Commentators have seen a contradiction between the command to provide for "two of every sort" and the order given later to take seven of certain kinds (ch. 7:2). The first order was meant to inform Noah concerning the provisions that must be made to save the animal world from complete annihilation, and a pair of each would be essential for reproduction. That is all God intended on this occasion.

21. Food. Food for Noah's family and fodder for the animals would have to be gathered in sufficient quantity to last for more than a year. It had to be not only harvested but stored away in the ark. The talent of a wise organizer was needed to accomplish all this work in an efficient way. Noah had to be not only a shipbuilder and a preacher but a farmer and provider as well.

22. Thus did Noah. The record of instruction given Noah closes with the observation that he had done everything God had asked him to do. He showed no hesitancy in obeying God. His association with relatives, who had become like the cursed Cainites, in no way influenced him. His education, at the hands of devout parents and grandparents, had prepared Noah for implicit faith in God and obedience to His instructions.

This short verse covers 120 years of faithful service. Some of those who believed Noah's message, like his grandfather Methuselah, died before the dread event took place. He lived out the message he preached, and those who knew him best, his own family, could not avoid his holy influence. His sons not only believed what he preached but actively participated in preparations for that awful event foretold before their birth.

Noah's experience sets a noble example for Christians who know they are living in the time of the end and are preparing themselves for translation. Their greatest missionary work is to be done in the home.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-22PP 90-98; SR 62-64

2 PP 81, 338; SR 62; 5T 93

3 FE 504; GC 338; LS 208; PP 92, 102; 4T 308

5 CH 109; CS 205; DA 633; Ev 567; FE 221, 421; GC 543; MYP 456; PP 79, 91; Te 281

5, 6 SR 62

5-7PP 325

5-8GC 431

7 PK 297; PP 91, 92; SR 58

9 PP 363

11 GC 543; PP 91; Te 25

11-13CH 109

12, 13 PP 363

12-16PP 92

13 FE 504

13, 14 GC 338

14-16PP 92

17, 18 SR 146

18 PP 363

Genesis Chapter 7

1 Noah, with his family, and the living creatures, enter into the ark. 17 The beginning, increase, and continuance of the flood.

1. Come thou. For 120 years God has continued long-suffering beyond measure (1 Peter 3:20), and Noah's life and labor had "condemned the world" (Heb. 11:7). But human beings carelessly and indifferently hastened onward to their doom. In saving one family and destroying all others God was not arbitrary. Noah alone had qualified for admission to the new earth that was to follow purification of the earth by water.

2. Of every clean beast. Instruction to take more clean than unclean animals with him into the ark presupposes that Noah knew how to distinguish between the two classes. It is clear that this distinction did not originate with Moses. It reached back to the very earliest times, to divine instructions concerning sacrifices--for which only clean animals might be used (see ch. 8:20).

Since ancient times the number of clean animals to be taken into the ark has been the subject of dispute among Bible translators and commentators. The Hebrew text, reading literally, "Thou shalt take to thee seven seven, a male with his female," can be understood as meaning "seven pairs" or "seven of each kind" of animal. The LXX, Vulgate, and many ancient and modern scholars favor the translation "seven pairs," whereas certain church Fathers, the Reformers, and in fact some scholars in all ages, have expressed themselves in favor of "seven individuals." Whatever the exact explanation may be, it is obvious that more clean animals were to find room in the ark than unclean. Foreseeing the need for emergency food after the Flood had destroyed all vegetation, God knew man would need to eat, temporarily, the flesh of clean animals. Furthermore, they were needed for sacrificial purposes. For these obvious reasons God made provision to preserve enough clean animals that they might not become extinct. That in His first instructions to Noah (ch. 6:19) God made no distinction between clean and unclean animals can be explained by the fact that at that time, 120 years before the Flood, such minute instructions were not necessary (see on v. 9).

5. All that the Lord commanded him. As Noah had fulfilled all commands of God during the previous 120 years (see ch. 6:22), so he acted in like manner during the last hours before the Flood came. How much he must have suffered as he saw the multitude of human beings with whom he had lived for six centuries, indifferently and carelessly drifting to their doom! Knowing that all of them were to die at the end of one week, and seeing them carouse as if nothing would happen (Matt. 24:37-39), he must have redoubled his final efforts to warn and invite them to enter the ark with him. But all was to no avail.

6. Noah was six hundred years old. See on ch. 5:32.

7. Noah went in. That Noah did not wait until the last day prior to the Flood to enter the ark is obvious from a comparison of vs. 7 and 10. Moved with fear and impelled by faith, Noah and his family lost no time in obeying the command to enter the ship of refuge. Peter tells us that only eight persons were saved from the Flood (1 Peter 3:20); whence it is obvious that Noah and his three sons each had but one wife. Polygamy, common among the Cainites, was not yet practiced by the followers of the true God.

9. There went in two and two. In obedience to a mysterious impulse, animals of all kinds moved into the ark. Nothing less than divine power could have effected such a timely and orderly entrance into the huge vessel. What a vivid warning this must have been for the ungodly who witnessed it! Here were domesticated and wild beasts, creeping and flying animals, all making their way into the ark, apparently of their own volition. What a contrast--dumb brutes obedient to their Creator, and intelligent beings refusing to heed His warning call of mercy! If anything could do so, this should have made an impression upon the sinners; but they had hardened their hearts so long that even this miracle left them unimpressed.

11. Six hundredth year. The first of many exact chronological statements in the OT. So careful a statement as to the exact day, month, and year of the Flood stands in sharp contrast to the legendary accounts of ancient pagan peoples concerning the activity of their gods in relation to this world.

The fountains of the great deep. This earth, which had never before experienced rain (see on Gen. 2:6), was suddenly flooded by huge masses of water. A heavy and incessant rain set in. Simultaneously the crust of the earth was broken open, with the result that masses of water from beneath the surface of the earth gushed forth to work havoc and completely to inundate the once-dry land.

16. The Lord shut him in. This statement emphasizes the miraculous nature of events during the week immediately preceding the Flood. This divine act signified also that the time of grace for the fallen race had reached its end. As in the days of Noah the door of mercy closed a short time prior to the day of God's visitation, so in these last days God's people are to be warned, "Shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself" (Isa. 26:20, 21; Matt. 24:37-39; 2 Peter 3:6, 7).

17. The waters increased. The tremendous extent and intensity of the Flood is well expressed by a graphic series of verbs and adverbs: the waters "increased" (v. 17), "prevailed" and "increased greatly" (v. 18), "prevailed exceedingly" (v. 19), and even "prevailed" 15 cubits (about 26 ft.) above the mountains (v. 20). The description is simple, majestic, and vivid. An immeasurable volume of water covered the whole earth. The universal extent of the Flood could hardly have been expressed in more forceful words than these.

This description renders utterly foolish and impossible the view set forth by some that the Flood was a local affair in the Mesopotamian valley. Deposits of silt uncovered by archeologists at Ur of the Chaldees, for example, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be made to answer to the Genesis account of the Deluge (PP 107, 108).

Everywhere over the surface of the earth we find fossil remains of plants and animals obviously deposited by water. These deposits extend, in certain localities, to depths of at least three miles, but the average depth is somewhat over half a mile. The universal distribution of these remains and the depth of their burial testify unmistakably to both the worldwide extent and the terrific violence of the Noachian Deluge.

The universality of this catastrophe is also attested by the Flood legends preserved among the people of nearly every race on the face of the earth. Most complete among these accounts is that of the ancient Babylonians, who settled in close proximity to the place where the ark rested after the Flood and whence the human race again began to spread abroad. The Epic of Gilgamesh bears many conclusive similarities to that of Genesis, and yet differs from it in such a way as to prove it a corrupted version of the same story. A comparison of the two accounts presents impressive evidence of the inspiration of the Genesis narrative.

The ark is mentioned twice in vs. 17 and 18 as being "borne" or "lifted up." That it "went" with safety "upon the face of the waters" provides all future generations with assurance of God's ability to save those who trust and obey Him. The very elements loosed to destroy the wicked, safely bore up the faithful family of Noah. God is never at a loss for means to save His own. At the same time it is His will that man should exercise to the full the intelligence and strength God has given him. God miraculously preserved the ark, but He had Noah build it.

21. All flesh died. The word "all" is thrice used, and accompanied by a detailed list of the different forms of life, "fowl," "cattle," "beasts," "creeping things," and "man." Now, to make it still more emphatic, "every" is used twice.

24. The waters prevailed. That the 150 days include the 40 days of vs. 4, 12, 17, and so must be counted from the beginning of that period, is seen from v. 11, and ch. 8:4, where it is said that the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the 7th month, exactly 5 months after the beginning of the rain. The reckoning is in terms of 30-day months.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-24PP 97-105; SR 65-69

1 DA 634; EW 284; FE 504; PP 98, 117; SR 65, 76, 408

2, 3 PP 97

4 SR 65

9, 10 PP 98

10 SR 65

11 AA 572; PP 99, 104

11, 12 EW 284

11-24Ed 129

13 FE 504

16 PP 98; SR 65

18, 19 CD 49

20 PP 105

23 PP 112

Genesis Chapter 8

1 The waters asswage. 4 The ark resteth on Ararat. 7 The raven and the dove. 15 Noah, being commanded, 18 goeth forth of the ark. 20 He buildeth an altar, and offereth sacrifice, 21 which God accepteth, and promiseth to curse the earth no more.

1. God remembered Noah. This verse does not imply that God had forgotten Noah for a time. It is an expression indicating divine solicitude and grace. A touching indication of the tenderness of God toward His creatures is found in the statement that God also remembered, with Noah, all other living things. He who proclaimed that although five sparrows are "sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God" (Luke 12:6, 7; cf. Matt. 10:29-31; 6:26), will remember His faithful children, who "are of more value than many sparrows."

4. Ararat. All Bible expositors agree that the mountainous land of Armenia is meant, though it is uncertain just what part of the Ararat range is indicated. Rumors to the effect that the remains of Noah's ark have been discovered have not yet been substantiated. The traditional location, modern Mt. Ararat, has two peaks, one 16,945 ft., the other 12,287 ft. high. Among the Persians these twin peaks are known as Koh-i-nuh, "the mountain of Noah." Here was an ideal location for the ark to rest while the waters subsided, and from which the survivors of the Flood might spread to every land (see on ch. 7:24).

5. The waters decreased. The waters diminished gradually for two and one-half months after the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.

7. He sent forth a raven. Forty days after the appearance of the mountaintops, Noah became anxious to know the extent to which the waters had dried up, and whether it was safe for him to leave the ark. As the waters had abated, the ark had already found safety from the tempests in a sheltered spot high in the mountains. From such a position it was difficult to ascertain the extent to which the waters had receded in the lower valleys. A raven was therefore dispatched, that Noah might observe from its behavior something of the condition of the earth. Not able to find a resting place, the raven flew about over the surface of the waters, returning from time to time to the ark (PP 105).

8. He sent forth a dove. Although it is not stated how long Noah waited before making another trial, the expression "and he stayed yet other seven days" (v. 10) indicates that the first period of waiting had also been of the same duration. A week later the dove remained away all day, but returned in the evening with an olive leaf apparently from a tree that had survived the flood. In Hebrew the expression "pluckt off" clearly indicates that the leaf had not been found floating upon the surface of the water. Noah recognized the olive leaf as evidence that the earth must be nearly dry, and that he might soon leave the ark. A week later the dove did not return, evidence that conditions were sufficiently normal to permit it to remain outside the ark. How joyous must Noah's feelings have been!

13. The covering of the ark. An additional period of waiting is indicated, after which Noah felt the time had come to investigate for himself. Inasmuch as little could be seen through the lattice openings below the roof of the ark, he removed a portion of the roof. The word "covering," mikseh, is used in the OT to designate the roof of the tabernacle (Ex. 26:14), and also slip covers for the furniture of the sanctuary while it was being transported (Num. 4:10-12). Since these coverings were made of skins, it is possible that the covering of the ark may have been also (see on ch. 6:16).

14. In the second month. To Noah the ground appeared sufficiently dry. But God had closed the door of the ark, and Noah awaited God's instruction as to when he was to leave it. Altogether he waited 57 days longer before the waters were completely dried up and God could give the desired permission.

If we assume a 30-day month throughout (see on ch. 7:24), a ship's log for the ark during the Flood would read as follows:

A period of exactly five months elapsed from the beginning of the Flood to the time the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat (ch. 7:11; 8:4). This is also given as 150 days (ch. 7:24), thus indicating that the 5 months contained 30 days each. It is uncertain, however, whether the year of Noah's time was lunar or solar, and whether it began in the spring or in the autumn.

The ark is proof of the goodness of God and the obedient faith of Noah. The ark was a refuge in time of peril, a home for the homeless, and a temple where the godly family of Noah worshiped. It bore them safely from the old world to the new, from an environment of vice and sin to an earth purified from sin. The ark was God's appointed place of salvation, and outside of it there was no safety. And as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be when this present age is brought to an abrupt close at the coming of the Son of man (see Matt. 24:37). Those who wish to be saved must avail themselves of the provision God has made for the

16. Go forth. Noah had learned to trust in God and to wait patiently during his 120 years of preaching and building the ark. That long period of active labor was followed by more than a year in the ark. During the first weeks and months he had experienced incessant rain, raging tempest, and tremendous upheavals of the earth, which seemed ready to destroy his frail bark. Later, as the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat, there began a tedious time of waiting, which lasted for more than seven months. How often Noah might have felt that God had forgotten the lonely ark and its inmates on that high mountaintop. Happy twin virtues--faith and patience! With what eager joy Noah must have listened once more to the voice of God, bidding him go forth.

17. That they may breed abundantly. This statement has been viewed by some commentators as implying that God had restrained the reproductive power of the animals during the year they spent in the cramped quarters of the ark. Now the original blessing upon animals to multiply and fill the earth (ch. 1:22) is repeated.

18. Noah went forth. As an angel descended from heaven and swung open the door that had been closed a year earlier by similar means, Noah and his family came forth. The animals followed Noah's example, leaving the ark in orderly fashion, each after its own kind. This instinct to associate with other members of their own kind is generally characteristic of the animal world to the present day.

20. Noah builded an altar. Noah's first act upon leaving the ark was one of worship. The sacrifices offered by Noah were not only an expression of gratitude for preservation but also a new pledge of his faith in the Saviour--typified by every sacrificial animal. In the offering "of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl" Noah gave evidence both of gratitude and of generosity. Although this passage is the first one in Scripture to mention the building of an altar, it should not be thought that altars were not in use prior to the Flood. The word "burnt offerings," Ôoloth, is not the same as that used to describe Abel's sacrifice. It is derived from a verb meaning "to rise up," and suggests, not the elevation of the gift upon the altar, but the ascent of the smoke of the burnt offering toward heaven (see Judges 13:20; 20:40; Jer. 48:15; Amos 4:10).

21. The Lord smelled a sweet savour. God's satisfaction with Noah's conduct and His acceptance of Noah's gift are presented in very human language. The divine response to Noah's devoted worship was a resolve that the earth would never again be destroyed by a flood. This promise was not communicated to Noah until a little later (see ch. 9:8-17). The words "I will not again curse the ground" did not remove the curse of ch. 3:17. They simply refer to the fact that a universal catastrophe such as the Deluge would not overtake the human race again. Localized floods were not included.

The imagination of man's heart. Some commentators have seen a contradiction between this verse and ch. 6:5-7. God had ordained the Flood because "every imagination of the thoughts" of man's heart was "only evil continually," and here, for the very same reason, He promised never to send another. It must be that in the first case "imagination" refers to a fixed pattern of thought as translated into action (ch. 6:5), and that here it refers to man's inherent tendencies. The KJV marginal reading, "though," instead of "for," is probably correct.

22. While the earth remaineth. Man's ordinary seasonal pursuits had been completely and universally interrupted by the Flood. God now assured Noah that not only would there never be another flood but also no other comparable interruption of the seasonal cycle would occur. Seasons had been ordained at creation (Gen. 1:14); these were to continue.

The most remarkable account of the Deluge outside of the Bible occurs in the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. Although that section of the epic which deals with the Flood exhibits surprising similarities to the Genesis record, differences between the two accounts constitute convincing evidence of the inspiration and accuracy of the Biblical record. Polytheism and other heathen religious ideas give the Epic of Gilgamesh a definitely pagan flavor. Although similar Flood stories persist today among all branches of the human race, it is only natural to find the Babylonian account more nearly accurate than the others because of the proximity of Babylon to the mountains of Ararat. For further information on the Epic of Gilgamesh, see "Archeology and the Recovery of Ancient History," pp. 115-117.

Ellen G. White Comments

4, 6-11, 13, 15-20PP 105

21 PP 106

22 COL 65; Ed 105; PP 106

Genesis Chapter 9

1 God blesseth Noah. 4 Blood and murder are forbidden. 8 God's covenant, 13 signified by the rainbow. 18 Noah replenisheth the world, 20 planteth a vineyard, 21 is drunken, and mocked of his son, 25 curseth Canaan, 26 blesseth Shem, 27 prayeth for Japheth, 29 and dieth.

1. God blessed Noah and his sons. Noah and his family received a blessing that was similar to the one pronounced upon Adam and Eve after their creation (ch. 1:28). As Adam had been the progenitor of all members of the human race, Noah became the progenitor of all human beings after the Flood. The blessing consisted in both instances of a divine commission to "be fruitful" and to fill the earth. One part of the previous blessing, however, was absent from the new one, namely, the charge to "subdue it," the earth. This omission doubtless reflects the fact that the world dominion assigned to man at the time of creation had been forfeited by sin. Sin had disturbed the relationship that originally existed between man and the animals, and they were, to a certain extent at least, released from subjection to him.

2. The fear of you. Inasmuch as sin with its consequences had loosened the bond of voluntary subjection on the part of the animals to the will of man, it was only by force that henceforth he could rule over them, through that "fear" which God now instilled in the animal creation. Nature had become estranged from man.

The fear that all land, air, and water animals were to have, would not exclude their occasional rebellion against man's dominion over them. They would sometimes rise and destroy man. Indeed, God used them, at times, to administer divine justice (see Ex. 8:6, 17, 24; 2 Kings 2:24). However, the normal condition of the lower creatures was to become one of instinctive dread of man, which causes them rather to avoid him than to seek his presence. It is a fact that animals retreat wherever human civilization advances. Even ferocious wild beasts, unless provoked, usually avoid man and flee from him rather than attack him.

Into your hand are they delivered. This divine pronouncement has found its fulfillment in the domestication of certain animals whose help man needs, in the taming of wild animals by man's superior will power, and in the successful reduction to impotency of harmful creatures by his inventiveness and ingenuity.

3. Meat for you. Not that man then first began to eat animal flesh, but only that God for the first time authorized, or rather allowed, him to do what the Flood had made a necessity. The wicked antediluvians were flesh eaters (CH 109). But it was not the original will of the Creator that His creatures should consume one another. He had given man plants for food (ch. 1:29). With the temporary destruction of all plant life during the Flood and the exhaustion of the food supplies that were taken into the ark, an emergency arose that God met by giving permission to eat the flesh of animals. Furthermore, the eating of flesh food would shorten men's sinful lives (CD 373).

This permission did not imply an unrestrained and unlimited eating of every kind of animal. The phrase, "moving thing that liveth," clearly excludes the eating of carcasses of animals that had died or been killed by other beasts, which the Mosaic law later specifically forbade (Ex. 22:31; Lev. 22:8). Though the distinction between clean and unclean animals in regard to food is not made here, it does not follow that it was unknown to Noah. That Noah was acquainted with this distinction is clear from the previous command to bring more clean than unclean beasts into the ark (Gen. 7:2), and by the fact that he offered only clean animals as his burnt offering (ch. 8:20).

This distinction must have been known to early man so well that it was not necessary for God to draw Noah's special attention to it. It was only when this distinction had been lost through the centuries of man's estrangement from God that new and written directives were issued regarding clean and unclean animals (see Lev. 11; Deut. 14). The immutability of God's character (James 1:17) precludes the possibility of construing this passage as permission to slaughter and eat all creatures. Animals that were unclean for one purpose could not have been clean for another.

Even as the green herb. This implies the newness of the permission to eat flesh food, in addition to the vegetables and fruits that had originally been destined to be man's food. Not only was the temporary absence of plant life, as a result of the Flood, the reason for God's permission to man to supplement his vegetarian diet with meat, but probably also the fact that the Flood had so thoroughly changed this earth's outward form and diminished its fertility that in some lands, such as the far north, it would not produce sufficient vegetarian food to sustain the human race.

4. Flesh with the life thereof. The prohibition applies to the eating of flesh with blood in it, whether of living animals, as had been the barbarous custom of some pagan tribes in the past, or of slaughtered animals from which the blood had not been properly drained. This prohibition was, among other things, a safeguard against cruelty and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals, in which blood, as the bearer of life, was held sacred. God foresaw that man, easily falling victim to superstitious beliefs, would think that, in partaking of the life-bearing fluid of animals, his own life power would be either strengthened or prolonged. For these and probably other reasons not now clear to us, the eating of flesh with the blood in it was irrevocably prohibited. The apostles considered this prohibition still binding in the Christian Era. They especially drew the attention of Gentile Christian believers to it, because these new believers, before their conversion, had been accustomed to the eating of flesh with blood in it (Acts 15:20, 29).

"Life," nephesh (see on Gen. 2:7). To translate it "soul," as some have done, obscures the true meaning (see Lev. 17:11). Blood is vital to life. If the circulation of blood to any part of the body is cut off, that part dies. A complete loss of blood inevitably brings death. This being true, the Hebrew word nephesh, standing parallel to "blood" in this text, should be rendered "life," as in the KJV.

5. Your blood of your lives. The two possessive pronouns "your" emphasize the value of man's life, nephesh, in the sight of Heaven. God would personally concern Himself with avenging the shedding of human blood, as is implied by the words, "will I require," literally, "search after," with a view to punishment.

At the hand of every beast. The life of man was made secure against animals as well as against other men by a solemn proclamation of the sanctity of human life. The statute that a beast which slew a man should be destroyed was later incorporated into the Mosaic code (Ex. 21:28-32). This command was not given by way of punishing the murderous beast, which is not under moral law and so cannot sin, but for the safety of men.

At the hand of man. This warning is directed against suicide and homicide. God requires the man who takes his own life as well as the one who takes the life of his fellow man to give an account of his act. The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is so wide in its implications that every kind of shortening or taking of life is prohibited. Man cannot give life and has therefore no right to take it, unless required to do so by a divine command. No one in possession of his mental and moral faculties, and thus responsible for his acts, can escape God's retribution, not even the man who lays hand on himself. At the resurrection every individual will have to appear before the judgment seat of God to receive his reward (Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10).

6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood. God would avenge or inflict punishment for every murder, not directly, however, as He did in the case of Cain, but indirectly, by placing in the hand of man judicial power. The word "sheddeth" implies willful murder and not an accidental taking of life, manslaughter, for which the law made other provisions than those mentioned here (Num. 35:11). The divine injunction endows temporal government with judicial power, and places in its hand the sword. God took care to erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil, and thus laid the foundation for an orderly civil development of humanity.

7. See on v. 1.

9. I establish my covenant. To give Noah and his sons a firm assurance of the prosperous continuance of the human race, God established a covenant with them and their descendants and confirmed it with a visible sign. The covenant contemplated all subsequent posterity in its provisions, and, along with the human family, the entire animal creation.

10. All that go out of the ark. This passage does not imply, as some expositors have explained it, that certain animals had survived the Flood without having been in the ark, and that therefore there was only a partial inundation of the earth. Inasmuch as this view squarely contradicts clear statements that all land and air animals that had not found a haven of refuge in the ark had been destroyed (chs. 6:17; 7:4, 21-23), another explanation must be found. The preposition "to," in the phrase "to every beast," is here more appropriately rendered "of" or "with regard to" (see ch. 20:13, "of me"). The RSV, following the LXX, renders it thus: "Every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark."

11. Neither shall all flesh be cut off. This "covenant" contained but one provision and assumed the form of a divine promise. Regions might be devastated and animals and men swept away by the hundreds or thousands, but never again would there be a universal destruction of the earth by a flood. However, this promise does not imply that God is bound never to destroy the world again by another means than water. His declared plan to put an end to all wickedness at the close of this world's history by a great destructive fire (2 Peter 3:7, 10, 11; Rev. 20:9; etc.) in no way contradicts the promise.

12. This is the token. This token God deemed necessary in order to give His creatures faith in His promises, it being an instance of His condescension to the weakness of man. Man looks for signs (Matt. 24:3; 1 Cor. 1:22), and God in His mercy and goodness has provided them, within limits, although He wants His followers to retain their faith even when no signs guide them, and to believe without visible evidence (John 20:29).

13. I do set my bow. The establishment of the rainbow as a covenant sign of the promise that there would never be another flood, presupposes that it appeared then for the first time in the clouds of heaven. This is one more indication that no rain had fallen before the Flood. The rainbow is produced by the refraction and reflection of the sun's light through the ball-shaped raindrops on which the rays fall.

15. I will remember my covenant. The rainbow, a natural physical phenomenon, was a fitting symbol of God's promise never to destroy the earth again by a flood. Inasmuch as the climatic conditions of the earth would be completely different after the Flood, and rains would in most parts of the world take the place of the former beneficent dew to moisten the soil, something was needed to quiet men's fears each time rain began to fall. The spiritual mind can see in natural phenomena God's revelations of Himself (see Rom. 1:20). Thus the rainbow is evidence to the believer that the rain will bring blessing and not universal destruction.

John saw in vision a rainbow surrounding the throne of God (Rev. 4:3). Man looks on the bow to recall the promise of God, but God Himself looks upon it to remember and fulfill His promise. In the bow man's faith and trust meet God's faithfulness and immutability.

The beams of holy light streaming forth from the Sun of Righteousness (Mal. 4:2), as seen by the eye of faith through the prism of life's experiences, reveal the beauty of the righteous character of Jesus Christ. The eternal covenant between Father and Son (Zech. 6:13) assures to every humble, faithful son and daughter of God the privilege of beholding in Jesus the One altogether lovely, and, beholding Him, of being changed into His very likeness.

17. This is the token. This covenant between God and Noah brought to a conclusion the events connected with the greatest catastrophe this earth has ever experienced. The earth, once beautiful and perfect, offered a picture of utter desolation as far as the eye could reach. Man had received a lesson concerning the awful results of sin. The unfallen worlds had seen the fearful end to which man comes when he follows the bidding of Satan.

A new beginning was to be made. Inasmuch as only faithful and obedient members of the antediluvian human family had survived the Flood, there was reason to hope that the future would present a happier picture than the past. After having been saved by God's grace from the greatest imaginable cataclysm, the descendants of Noah might be expected to apply for all future ages the lessons learned from the Flood.

18. The sons of Noah. His three sons, mentioned repeatedly in previous passages (chs. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13), are again mentioned as the heads of the nations into which the human family developed. Their names are explained in connection with the table of nations, ch. 10.

Ham is the father of Canaan. Ham's son Canaan is mentioned here in prospective allusion to what follows. Furthermore, it must have been the purpose of Moses to direct the attention of the Hebrews of his time to the unsavory event described in the next verses, in order that they might understand better why the Canaanites, whom they soon would meet, were so deeply degraded and morally corrupt. The root of their depravity was found in their early ancestor Ham, "the father of Canaan."

19. Of them was the whole earth overspread. This passage declares in terse but unmistakable words that all later inhabitants of this globe are descendants of Noah's three sons. Even if we are not able to trace every nation and tribe back to one of the heads of families enumerated in the following chapter, this text states emphatically that the whole earth was populated by Noah's descendants. The view that certain races had been spared by the Flood in remote regions of this world, and had no direct relationship with Noah's sons, is un-Scriptural.

20. Noah began to be an husbandman. The text does not necessarily imply that Noah had not been a husbandman before the Flood, but that he began the new era as, literally, "man of the ground." Although Noah had received license to slaughter animals and eat their meat, he felt that it was nevertheless necessary at once to till the ground and obtain food from it.

He planted a vineyard. The statement does not imply that Noah planted nothing else than a vineyard. The vineyard is mentioned to explain the following events, but not to exclude his tilling the ground for other purposes. Armenia, the country in which the ark settled down, was, in antiquity, known as a country of vineyards, as the Greek soldier-historian Xenophon testifies. The cultivation of the vine was common to the whole ancient Near East, and can be traced back to the earliest times.

Noah did nothing wrong in planting a vineyard. The vine is one of the noble plants of God's creation. Christ used it to illustrate His relationship to the church (John 15), and honored its fruit by drinking of it the last night of His earthly ministry (Matt. 26:27-29). Grape juice is highly beneficial to the human body, as long as it is unfermented.

21. Wine. Heb. yayin, the juice of the grape. In most if not all instances the Scripture context indicates a fermented--and therefore intoxicating--drink. As a result of Noah's use of this beverage he became "drunken." Since drunkenness had been one of the sins of the antediluvian era, we must assume that Noah was acquainted with the evils of drinking alcoholic beverages. The record of Noah's sin testifies to the impartiality of the Scriptures, which record the faults of great men as well as their virtues.

Neither age nor previous spiritual victories are a guarantee against defeat in the hour of temptation. Who would have thought that a man who had walked with God for centuries, and had withstood the temptations of multitudes, should fall alone? One heedless hour may stain the purest life and undo much of the good that has been done in the course of years.

He was uncovered. "Wine is a mocker" (Prov. 20:1), and may deceive the wisest of men if they are not watchful. Drunkenness deforms and degrades the temple of the Holy Spirit, which we are, weakens moral principle and thus exposes a man to countless evils. He loses control both of physical and of mental faculties. Noah's intemperance brought shame to a respectable old man, and subjected one who was wise and good to derision and scorn.

22. The nakedness of his father. That Ham is again called the father of Canaan seems to imply that both father and son had similar unholy inclinations that revealed themselves, not only in the incident described here, but later in the religious practices of a whole nation. Furthermore, it shows that the event took place some time after the Flood, when Canaan, the fourth son of Ham (ch. 10:6), was already born. The sin of Ham was not an unintentional transgression. He may have seen his father's shameful condition accidentally, but instead of being filled with sorrow over his father's folly, he rejoiced in what he saw and found delight in publishing it.

23. Shem and Japheth took a garment. Ham's two older brothers did not share his perverted feelings. Adam also had had two well-disciplined sons, Abel and Seth, and one child of sin, Cain. Although all had received the same parental love and training, sin manifested itself much more markedly in one than in the others. Now the same spirit of depravity breaks forth in one of Noah's children, while the older sons, reared in the same home and under the same conditions as Ham, show an admirable spirit of decency and self-control. As the evil trends of criminal Cain were perpetuated in his descendants, Ham's degraded nature revealed itself further in his offspring.

24. Noah awoke. When Noah regained consciousness and reason he learned of what had happened during his sleep, probably by making inquiry as to the reason for the garment covering him. His "younger son," literally, "his son, the little one," meaning "the youngest son," refers to Ham (see on ch. 5:32).

25. Cursed be Canaan. The curse being pronounced on Canaan, Ham's fourth son, rather than on the perpetrator of the crime himself, has been taken by many commentators as evidence that Canaan had really been the culprit and not Ham, and that he is meant in v. 24 as the youngest member of the Noachic family. The church Father Origen mentions the tradition that Canaan first saw the shame of his grandfather, and told it to his father. It is not impossible that Canaan had shared in his father's evil deed.

Noah's curse does not seem to have been pronounced resentment, but rather as a prophecy. The prophecy does not fix Canaan in particular or Ham's sons in general in the bonds of an iron destiny. It is merely a prediction of what God foresaw and announced through Noah. Presumably Canaan already walked in the sins of his father, and those sins became such a strong feature in the national character of Canaan's descendants that God later ordered their destruction.

A servant of servants. Shem has subdued Japheth, and Japheth has subdued Shem, but Ham has never subdued either.

26. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem. In contrast with the curse, the blessings upon Shem and Japheth are introduced with a fresh "And he said." After the statement of each blessing comes the announcement of Canaan's servitude, like a minor refrain. Instead of wishing good to Shem, Noah praises the God of Shem, namely, Jehovah, as Moses did in the case of Gad Deut. 33:20). By having Jehovah as his God, Shem would be the recipient and heir of all the blessings of salvation that Jehovah bestows upon His faithful ones.

27. God shall enlarge Japheth. By a play on Japheth's name, Noah sums up his blessing for this son in the word "enlarge," pathach. By this, Noah indicated the remarkable dispersion and prosperity of the Japhethic nations.

He shall dwell in the tents of Shem. The personal pronoun "he" refers to Japheth and not to God, although some ancient and modern Bible commentators have understood it thus. The meaning of the utterance may have been twofold, inasmuch as Japheth's descendants in the course of time took away many of the Shemite lands, and dwelt in them, and because the Japhethites were to participate in the saving blessings of the Shemites. When the gospel was preached in Greek, a Japhethic language, Shem's descendant Israel, though subdued by Japhethic Rome, became the spiritual conqueror of the Japhethites and thus, figuratively, received them into his tents. All who are saved are a part of spiritual Israel and go into the holy city through gates bearing the names of the 12 tribes of Israel (Gal. 3:29; Rev. 21:12).

Prophecies such as this do not determine the fate of individuals within the group concerned, either for salvation or for condemnation. The Canaanite Rahab and the Jebusite Araunah were received into the fellowship of God's chosen people, and the Canaanite woman was aided by the Lord because of her faith (Matt. 1:5; 2 Sam. 24:18; Matt. 15:22-28). But the hardened Pharisees and scribes had woes pronounced upon them, and Israel was rejected because of unbelief (Matt. 23:13; Rom. 11:17-20).

29. All the days of Noah. The history of Noah ends with a well-known formula from ch. 5, suggesting that the stories contained in chs. 6-9 belong to Noah's history. Although Noah was a righteous man and walked with God, he did not attain to the spiritual stature of his great-grandfather Enoch. Having witnessed the growth and spread of a new generation and seen how rapidly it followed the wicked inclinations of its evil heart, he died.

Ellen G. White Comments

1 8T 213

2, 3 PP 107

3, 4 CD 373

4 CD 393

6 PP 516

11-14SR 70

11-16PP 106

16 Ed 115; SR 70; TM 157

21-23, 25-27PP 117

Genesis Chapter 10

1 The generations of Noah. 2 The sons of Japheth. 6 The sons of Ham. 8 Nimrod the first monarch. 21 The sons of Shem.

1. These are the generations. The authenticity of Gen. 10 has been challenged by Bible critics, who brand it either a late document based on faulty information or perhaps a sheer invention. Recent discoveries, however, attest its validity. Without Gen. 10 our knowledge of the origin and interrelationship of the various races would be far less complete than it is. This chapter confirms the words of Paul at Athens, that God "hath made of one blood all nations" (Acts 17:26).

The sons of Noah. The expression, "These are the generations," appears frequently in Genesis (see Gen 6:9; 11:10; 25:12, 19; etc.), usually as a title for genealogical information. Noah's sons are not listed according to age, but according to their relative importance to the Hebrews (see on ch. 5:32). All three sons were born prior to the Flood. Shem means "name" or "fame," Ham, "warmth," and Japheth, either "beauty" or "expansion." The latter meaning for Japheth seems preferable in view of the blessing pronounced upon him by his father (see ch. 9:27). These names probably reflect the feelings of Noah when they were born. The birth of Shem assured Noah of "fame"; there was a particularly "warm" place in his heart for Ham; in Japheth he saw the growth of his family. The names also suggest prophetic foresight. Shem was famed as progenitor of Abraham and thus of the Messiah; Ham's nature was hot, unbridled, and sensual; Japheth's descendants are dispersed over several continents. But it is not alone in the names Noah gave his sons that the spirit of inspiration was revealed; it is reflected, as well, in the blessings and the curse pronounced over them (see ch. 9:25-27). The name of Ham appears often as a Jewish name today, in the form of Chaim.

Unto them were sons born. The marked blessing of God upon the survivors of the Flood resulted in the rapid multiplication of the human race (see ch. 9:1; 10:32). The sequence in which the names of Noah's sons are considered is in harmony with a Hebrew literary device known as "inverted parallelism." After giving their names in the customary order, "Shem, Ham, and Japheth," Moses lists the descendants of Japheth first and those of Shem last. Another instance of this device occurs in Matt. 25:2-4.

2. The sons of Japheth; Gomer. Gomer was the ancestor of a people known in Assyrian inscriptions as Gamir or Gimirrai. They are the Cimmerians of ancient Greek literature, and belong to the Indo-European family of nations. According to the Greek author Homer, the Cimmerians lived in Northern Europe. They appeared in the northern provinces of the Assyrian Empire at the time of Sargon II, during the 8th century b.c. They invaded ancient Armenia, but were pushed westward by the Assyrians. An old Assyrian letter comments that none of their interpreters knew the language of the people of Gomer. The Cimmerians overthrew, in turn, the Phrygian and Lydian kingdoms of Asia Minor, but were gradually absorbed by the peoples of Anatolia. Poets of the time speak of the terror inspired in men's hearts by the Cimmerians. In testimony of their power, a great part of Anatolia once bore the name Gomer. The ancients spoke of the "Cimmerian Bosporos," and the Armenians still call part of their country Gamir. It is thought that the Crimea bears their name to the present day.

Magog. The identification of this name is difficult. In Eze. 38, 39 Gog, a king of Magog, appears as a cruel enemy of God's people. From him may have come the barbaric tribe of Gagaia named in a letter from a 15th-century Babylonian king to an Egyptian Pharaoh. This tribe is assumed to have lived somewhere north of the Black Sea, probably in proximity to the descendants of Gomer, a brother of Magog.

Madai. The Medes, or Madai, appear for the first time in Assyrian inscriptions of the 9th century b.c. as a people who lived on the high Iranian plateau to the east of Assyria. After playing a minor role in the history of the ancient world, they appear suddenly in the 7th century b.c. as a powerful nation under King Cyaxares, when in conjunction with the Babylonians they overthrew the Assyrian Empire. When the two allies divided up the shattered empire, the Medes received the northern provinces up to the river Halys in Asia Minor, governing their vast domain from Ecbatana, the Biblical Achmetha (see Ezra 6:2). Cyaxares' son Astyages was defeated and deposed by the Persian ruler Cyrus, who consolidated the kingdoms of Media and Persia and then overthrew Babylon. For the first time in history world supremacy thus fell into the hands of an Indo-European race.

Javan. The Greeks, or Ionians, descended from Javan. The early Ionians are first mentioned in Hittite records as the inhabitants of the western coastal regions of Asia Minor. This was in the middle of the second millennium b.c., about the time Moses wrote Genesis. In Assyrian inscriptions they are called Jamnai.

Tubal. The Tibarenians of Herodotus and the Tabalaeans of Assyrian cuneiform sources are to be identified with the descendants of Tubal. Tubal is mentioned in inscriptions of the 12th century b.c. as being allied with Muski (Meshech) and Kaski in an attempt to conquer northeastern Mesopotamia. Shalmaneser III refers to Tabal as a country for the first time in the 9th century b.c., whereas inscriptions a century later locate the Tabalaeans as settlers in the Anti-Taurus Mountains of southern Cappadocia. They were later pushed into Armenia, where Greek authors of the classical period came in contact with them.

Geographical Distribution of the Sons of Noah

Meshech. Probably ancestor of the Moschoi of Greek classical writers, the Mushku of Assyrian inscriptions. These inscriptions represent Tabal and Mushku as allies, as in Eze. 38. The Mushku appear in the northern part of Mesopotamia for the first time during the reign of Tiglath-pileser I, about 1100 B.C. A little later they settled in Phrygia, and from thence, under their king Mita, made war on Sargon II, in the 8th century. In his struggle against the Assyrians the last king of Carchemish tried in vain to get help from Mita, king of Meshech. After ruling over northern Anatolia for a time the Mushku lost it, first to the Cimmerians and then to the Lydians.

Tiras. Probably ancestor of the Turseµnoi. This people, named after Tiras, lived on the west coast of Asia Minor, where they were notorious as pirates. Related probably to the Italian Tyrsenians, they appear in Egyptian inscriptions of the late 13th century b.c. under the name Turusha. They played a leading role among the migrating coastal peoples of the pre-Hellenic period.

3. The sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz. First son of Gomer, son of Japheth, Ashkenaz was ancestor of the Indo-European people, the Ashkuza, who lived southeast of Lake Urmiah in the time of Esarhaddon, 7th century b.c. The Ashkenian Lake of Phrygia is named for them. Esarhaddon gave his daughter to the Ashkuza king Bartatua as wife, upon being assured by his sun god that Bartatua would remain loyal to Assyria. Hence we find the Ashkuza joining forces with the Assyrians against the Cimmerians and the Medes. Madyes, Bartatua's son, tried unsuccessfully to aid the Assyrians when Nineveh was besieged by the Medes and Babylonians. Upon the fall of Assyria the Ashkuza became subject to the Medes. Together with the Indo-European kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Media, they are called up by Jeremiah to destroy Babylon (Jer. 51:27).

Riphath. Because of his relationship to Gomer, Ashkenaz, and Togarmah, Riphath was probably the progenitor of another Indo-European tribe of Cappadocia. His name, however, has not yet been found in ancient inscriptions. Josephus identifies his descendants with the Paphlagonians, who lived west of the lower Halys in Asia Minor and whose capital was Sinope.

Togarmah. Ancestor of the Tagarma or Tagarama, mentioned in Hittite records of the 14th century b.c. They are the Tilgarimmu of Assyrian inscriptions, which locate them in the northern Taurus Mountains. Sennacherib, Sargon's son, mentions them with the Chilakki, who lived on the Halys in Asia Minor. Both Assyrian kings claim to have conquered their country. Ezekiel states (Eze. 27:14) that mules and horses were brought from their land to the markets of Phoenicia. Togarmah appears in Eze. 38:6 among the allies of Magog. The Armenians trace their genealogy back to Haik, the son of Torgom, and seem therefore to be descendants of Togarmah.

4. The sons of Javan; Elishah. Since Tyre imported its purple cloth from the "isles of Elishah" (Eze. 27:7), probably the islands of Sicily and Sardinia, it would seem likely that the descendants of Javan's son Elishah should be sought in that region. It is known that Sicily and Sardinia were colonized by Greeks; thus the inhabitants of Sardinia and Sicily were the "sons" of mainland Greece just as Elishah was the son of Javan, progenitor of the Greeks. The similarity of the name Elishah to that part of Greece called Aeolis or Elis and to the name by which the Greeks called their country, "Hellas," seems to connect Elishah, originally, with mainland Greece.

Tarshish. This name appears frequently in the Bible. According to Isa. 66:19 and Ps. 72:10, Tarshish was a land "afar off." It had good trade relations with Tyre, which imported silver, iron, tin, and lead from thence (Eze. 27:12). Jonah intended to escape to Tarshish when the Lord sent him to Nineveh (Jonah 1:3). It was, presumably, the remote Phoenician colony in the mining district of southern Spain, the Tartessus of the Greeks and Romans, in the area of the middle and lower Baetis (now Guadalquivir) River. "Tarshish," meaning "smelter" or "refinery," was probably the name of several different places with which the Phoenicians and, at times, the Hebrews, carried on a trade in metals, in "ships of Tarshish" (Ps. 48:7; see on 1 Kings 10:22).

Kittim. Many commentators have identified Kittim with Cyprus because a capital of Cyprus was named Kition. This would agree with Isa. 23:1, 12, which speaks of Chittim as being not far from Tyre and Sidon. In Jer. 2:10 and Dan. 11:30 the name Chittim denotes Greeks in general. But its earlier meaning, as in Isaiah, seems to be more circumscribed. It is, therefore, safe to identify Kittim either with Cyprus or with other islands in the vicinity of Greece.

Dodanim. If this spelling is correct, the Greek Dardanians, along the northwestern coast of Asia Minor, must be meant. The LXX, however, reads Rodioi. The parallel list of 1 Chron. 1:7 reads Rodanim in Hebrew, which the KJV translators changed to Dodanim, to agree with the Hebrew spelling in ch. 10:4. The letters d and r in Hebrew are so similar that a scribe may easily have mistaken the r for a d in this verse. If Rodanim was indeed the original spelling of the name, Greeks on the island of Rhodes are probably meant.

5. The isles of the Gentiles. Javan's descendants, the various Greek tribes mentioned in the preceding verse--the people of Greece and islands adjacent to it, of Sicily, Sardinia, Spain, and Cyprus--went forth to settle the islands and coastal regions of the Mediterranean. This verse indicates that the names given designate only main tribal groups. Apparently, further branching out had occurred by the time of Moses. When Genesis was written the populations of the central and western Mediterranean were subdivided into many different groups, all probably descended from Javan, the fourth son of Japheth.

6. The sons of Ham; Cush. The Hebrew people were more intimately associated with the Hamitic races than with the descendants of Japheth. Cush, or Kush, is ancient Ethiopia, which was in classical times called Nubia. It was not Abyssinia, but included a part of Egypt and a part of the Sudan, extending from the first cataract of the Nile, at Aswan, as far south as Khartoum. In Egyptian inscriptions this land is called Kash, in Assyrian cuneiform texts, Kusu. Cush, however, included not only African Nubia but also the western part of Arabia bordering on the Red Sea. Some of the sons of Cush are known to have settled there. Zerah, the Cushite of 2 Chron. 14:9, and the Cushites of Isa. 45:14, mentioned with the Sabeans as men of stature, are thought to be western Arabians. About the time of Hezekiah, Judah was in contact with the African Cush, or Ethiopia, which is mentioned frequently in the later books of the OT (see 2 Kings 19:9; Esther 1:1; 8:9; Ps. 68:31; etc.).

Mizraim. The Egyptians were descendants of Ham's second son. The origin of the Hebrew name Mizraim is obscure. Although this word is virtually the same in the Assyrian, Babylonian, Arabian, and Turkish languages as in the Hebrew, a similar native name has never been found in Egyptian inscriptions. The Egyptians called their country either the "Black Land," designating the fertile strip of soil bordering on both banks of the river Nile in contrast with the desert "Red Land," or they spoke of it as the "Two Lands," reflecting an earlier historical division of the country into two separate kingdoms. Whether the word Mizraim, with its Hebrew dual ending, may be a reflection of the expression "Two Lands" is a disputed subject among scholars. Modern Egyptians use the name Misr and the adjective Misri in referring to Egypt.

Phut. Phut has traditionally been identified as the progenitor of the Libyans. This tradition goes back to the time of the LXX, which translated Phut as "Libya." This identification is probably wrong. Ancient Egyptian inscriptions mention an African land by the name of Punt, Put\a in Babylonian texts, to which from early times Egypt sent expeditions to obtain myrrh trees, leopard skins, ebony, ivory, and other exotic products. Punt, therefore, was probably the African coast of Somaliland and Eritrea and the Phut, or Put, of this text.

Canaan. Hieroglyphic and cuneiform inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. locate Canaan as the region bordering the Mediterranean on the west, Lebanon on the north, and Egypt on the south. It is, furthermore, a collective name for the indigenous population of Palestine, Phoenicia, and the Hittite city states of northern Syria. The Phoenicians and their colonists the Carthaginians of Northern Africa referred to themselves as Canaanites, on their coins, until Roman times (see v. 15). Though Canaan was the son of Ham, the Canaanitic language was Semitic--as the writing of the Canaanites clearly reveals. It seems that they accepted the Semitic language at a very early stage of their history. This was apparently true of the Egyptians also, for their language is strongly Semitic. In fact, the ancient Egyptians, whose Hamitic relationship no scholar will dispute, took over so many Semitic elements into their language that some scholars have classified ancient Egyptian as Semitic. The geographic proximity of the Canaanites to the Semitic nations of the Near East may have been responsible for their acceptance of the Semitic language. Babylonian culture, language, and script were taken over by virtually all peoples who lived between the Euphrates and Egypt, as the Amarna Letters of the 14th century b.c. indicate. On the Amarna Letters, see p. 106.

That a language spoken by a people is not always a clear indication of the race to which they belong is evident from numerous ancient and modern examples. The Arabic conquest of the whole Mediterranean region made Arabic the spoken and written language of Semitic and non-Semitic populations alike, from the Atlantic coast to the Indus.

7. The sons of Cush; Seba. The Jewish historian Josephus identifies Seba with the Nubian kingdom of Meroë an African land situated between the Blue Nile and Atbara rivers. This view may have been correct at the time of Josephus, since the Ethiopians had by then migrated to Africa from southern Arabia. However, Seba was a tribe, originally at least, in the southern part of Arabia. In Ps. 72:10 the most remote nations of Solomon's time are pictured paying Solomon homage--Seba far to the south, Tarshish to the west, and Sheba to the east. In Isa. 43:3 Seba is referred to as being in close proximity to Cush. Isaiah 45:14 emphasizes the great stature of its people.

Havilah. Aside from the Bible itself Havilah is not mentioned. Various Biblical statements indicate that it was an Arabic tribe not far from Palestine. Genesis 25:18 places Edom's eastern border at Havilah, which was also the eastern limit of Saul's campaign against the Amalekites (see 1 Sam. 15:7). For the antediluvian Havilah see on Gen. 2:11.

Sabtah. Some commentators have identified Sabtah with Sabota, the capital city of the south Arabic country of Hadhramaut. Others think it was the same as Ptolemy's Saphtha on the Persian Gulf. Definite identification is impossible.

Raamah. Inasmuch as the Arabic tribes of Sheba and Dedan were originally located in southwestern Arabia, it is likely that the people of Raamah lived in the same region. Ezekiel mentions Raamah with Sheba, as trading incense, precious stones, and gold in the market places of Tyre. It is probably the tribe of the Rhammanites, located by the Roman geographer Strabo in southwestern Arabia. They are also referred to in a famous Arabian inscription that ascribes praise to the local deity for saving the Minaeans from attacks of Sheba and Haulan, on the way from Ma½in to Raamah.

Sabtechah. Nothing further is known of this son or his descendants. Some have sought to identify their home with Samudake on the Persian Gulf. This is very doubtful, because the Cushite Arabians all seem to have settled in the western part of Arabia.

Sheba. The Sabaeans, descendants of Sheba, are well known both from the Bible and from other sources. In OT times Sheba appears as a wealthy trading nation. It is generally held that it was this country whose queen paid a state visit to Solomon. Later the Sabaeans became the most important people of southern Arabia, in the country now called Yemen. A wealth of inscriptions, the majority as yet unpublished, bears witness to their religion, their history, and the high level of their culture. Through the building of large dams and an extensive irrigation system the Sabaeans greatly increased the fertility and wealth of their country, to the extent that it became known in classical times as Arabia Felix, "Happy Arabia." The neglect and eventual destruction of these dams brought the gradual eclipse of the Sabaean nation.

Dedan. This grandson of Cush became the ancestor of a South Arabic tribe of which nothing more is known. This tribe must not be confused with that descended from a grandson of Abraham by Keturah that lived at the southern border of Edom in northwestern Arabia (Gen. 25:3; 1 Chron. 1:32; Isa. 21:13; Jer. 25:23; 49:8; Eze. 25:13; 27:15, 20; 38:13).

8. Cush begat Nimrod. Although Nimrod's name is yet to be found in Babylonian records, Arabs still connect some ancient sites with his name. Birs-Nimrud, for instance, is their name for the ruins of Borsippa; and Nimrud, of Calah. These names must rest on very old traditions, and cannot be attributed to the influence of the Koran alone. So far as currently available historical evidence goes, the earliest inhabitants of Mesopotamia were not Semitic but Sumerian. Little is known as to the origin of the Sumerians. The fact that Nimrod, a Hamite, founded the first city states of Mesopotamia suggests that the Sumerians were possibly Hamitic.

A mighty one. This expression denotes a person renowned for bold and daring deeds. It may also include the connotation of "tyrant."

9. Before the Lord. The LXX renders this phrase "against the Lord." Although the hunter Nimrod acted in defiance of God, his mighty deeds made him famous among his contemporaries, and in future generations as well. Babylonian legends about Gilgamesh, who appears frequently on Babylonian reliefs and cylinder seals and in literary documents, may possibly refer to Nimrod. Gilgamesh is usually shown killing lions or other wild beasts with his bare hands. The fact that Nimrod was a Hamite may be the reason why the Babylonians, descendants of Shem, credited his famous deeds to one of their own hunters and purposely forgot his name.

10. The beginning of his kingdom. This may mean either his first kingdom or the beginning of his sovereignty. Nimrod appears in the register of nations as the author of imperialism. Under him society passed from the patriarchal form to the monarchical. He is the first man mentioned in the Bible as the head of a kingdom.

Babel. Nimrod's first kingdom was Babylon. Having the idea that their city was the earthly reflection of the heavenly dwelling place of their god, the Babylonians gave it the name Bab-ilu, "the gate of god" (see on ch. 11:9). Babylonian legends equate the founding of the city with the creation of the world. No doubt with this in mind Sargon, an early Semitic king of Mesopotamia, took sacred soil from Babylon for the founding of another city modeled after it. Even in the later period of Assyrian supremacy Babylon did not lose its significance as the center of Mesopotamian culture. Its greatest fame and glory, however, came in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, who made of it the world's first metropolis. After its destruction by the Persian king Xerxes, Babylon lay partly in ruins (see on Isa. 13:19).

Erech. The Babylonian Uruk, modern Warka. Recent excavations prove this to be one of the oldest cities in existence. The earliest written documents ever to be discovered were found there. Uruk was known to the Babylonians as the vicinity where the mighty deeds of Gilgamesh were performed, a fact which seems to support the suggestion that the Gilgamesh legends were reminiscences of Nimrod's early accomplishments.

Accad. The seat of the early kings Sargon and Naram-Sin (p. 135). The ruins of this city have not been located, but must be in the neighborhood of Babylon. The ancient Semitic population of Lower Mesopotamia came to be called Accadian, and the Babylonian and Assyrian languages are now referred to, collectively, by the same term.

Calneh. Though Calneh has not yet been identified with certainty, it was probably the same as Nippur, the present Niffer. A large percentage of the known Sumerian texts have been found at this site. It was called by the Sumerians Enlil-ki, "the city of [the god] Enlil." The Babylonians reversed the sequence of the two elements of this name and referred to the city, in their oldest inscriptions, as Ki-Enlil, later Ki-Illina. This may have given rise to the Hebrew "Calneh." Next to Babylon, Nippur was the most sacred city of Lower Mesopotamia and boasted important temples. From earliest times to the late Persian period, the city was a center of culture and extensive trade.

Shinar. The afore-mentioned cities lay in the land of Shinar, the term generally used in the OT for Babylonia, comprising Sumer in the south as well as Accad in the north (see Gen. 11:2; 14:1, 9; Joshua 7:21, Heb., "a garment of Shinar"; Isa. 11:11; Zech. 5:11; Dan. 1:2). The name is still somewhat obscure. It was formerly thought to have been derived from the word Sumer, the ancient Sumeria, which lay in the southernmost part of Mesopotamia. More likely, however, it is from Shanhara of certain cuneiform texts, a land whose exact location has not been determined. Some texts seem to indicate that Shanhara was in northern Mesopotamia rather than in the south. Although it is certain that Shinar is Babylonia, the origin of the term is not yet clear.

11. Out of that land went forth Asshur. Even though this translation is possible, the sentence construction in Hebrew favors that given by the RSV, which retains Nimrod as the subject and reads, "From that land he went into Assyria." In Micah 5:6 Assyria is called "the land of Nimrod." Nimrod's move into Assyria and his renewed building activity there constituted an extension of his empire in a northerly direction. What Assyria lacked in geographical size it made up in political power later in its history.

Nineveh. For centuries Nineveh was famous as the capital of Assyria. The Assyrians themselves called it Ninua, apparently dedicating it to the Babylonian goddess Nina. This points to Babylon as Nimrod's previous home and agrees with the Biblical report that he, the first king of Babylon, was also founder of Nineveh. Excavations have shown that Nineveh was one of the oldest cities of Upper Mesopotamia. Lying at the intersection of busy international trade routes, Nineveh early became an important commercial center. It changed hands repeatedly during the second millennium b.c., belonging in turn to the Babylonians, Hittites, and Mitannians before being brought under Assyrian control in the 14th century b.c. Later, as capital of the Assyrian Empire, it was embellished with magnificent palaces and temples and strongly fortified. In 612 B.C. the city was destroyed by the Medes and Babylonians, and has since then remained a heap of ruins. In its famous library, established by Ashurbanipal, have been found thousands of baked clay tablets containing invaluable historical, religious, and business documents and letters. Above all others, this discovery has enriched our knowledge of ancient Assyria and Babylonia.

Rehoboth. Literally, the "wide places" or "streets of the city." This probably designates Rêbit-Ninâ a suburb of Nineveh mentioned in certain cuneiform texts. Its exact location, however, is still uncertain. Some scholars think it to have been northeast of Nineveh; others, across the river Tigris on the site of modern Mosul.

Calah. The ancient Assyrian city of Kalhu, which lies at the confluence of the Great Zab and Tigris rivers, about 20 miles south of Nineveh. Its present name, Nimrud, perpetuates the memory of its founder. Magnificent palaces were once the pride of this city, which served intermittently as the capital of the Assyrian Empire. In its extensive ruins have been preserved huge stone monuments and some of the finest examples of Assyrian sculpture. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, on which appears the earliest pictorial representation of an Israelite king and other Hebrews, was found in one of its palaces. The inscription on the obelisk records the payment of tribute by King Jehu of Israel in 841 B.C.

12. Resen. The Bible places Resen between Nineveh and Calah, but its exact site is yet to be discovered.

13. Mizraim begat Ludim. Moses proceeds to the descendants of Ham's second son, Mizraim, whose name was later given to Egypt. Some commentators assume a scribal error to be responsible for a supposed change from Lubim, the Libyans, to the Ludim, or Lydians. But the name appears in different books of the Bible (1 Chron. 1:11; Isa. 66:19; Jer. 46:9; Eze. 27:10; 30:5); therefore it is impossible to see mistakes in all passages where Ludim, or Lud, occurs. In some of these passages Ludim and Lubim are both mentioned as being distinct and separate peoples. Moreover, the LXX translated Ludim as "Lydians." This makes plausible an identification with the Lydians of Asia Minor, who must have migrated from Northern Africa to Anatolia at an early stage in their history. They appeared in the plain of Sardis in western Asia Minor before the middle of the second millennium b.c. and gradually spread over half of the country, to the great river Halys. During the Hittite supremacy Lydia was subject to them, but again became a strong, independent kingdom after the collapse of the Hittite Empire in the 13th century b.c. Cyrus conquered Lydia in the 6th century b.c. and incorporated it into the Persian Empire. Its former capital, Sardis, however, remained an important city for many centuries. It was still a flourishing metropolis in the early Christian period, when John wrote his letter to the church there (Rev. 3:1-6).

If, however, the Biblical Ludim are not the historical Lydians, they must have lived somewhere in Northern Africa, in proximity to most of the other descendants of Mizraim. If this be so, we cannot identify the Ludim, for mention is not made of such a people in any ancient record but the Bible.

Anamim. Perhaps the Anamim lived in the great oasis of Egypt called Kenemet (the k sound is frequently represented in Hebrew by the consonant Ôayin, with which the name ÔAnamim begins). But in 1920 Albright, from Assyrian Anami, made a different identification: Cyrene.

Lehabim. Presumably the Libyans (called in Egyptian inscriptions Rbw, probably pronounced Lebu), attested by very early records as representing the tribes bordering on Egypt to the northwest. Eventually they occupied most of Northern Africa. Apparently in the Bible they are also called "Lubim" (see 2 Chron. 12:3; 16:8; Dan. 11:43; Nahum 3:9). The identification of the Lehabim with the Libyans would constitute one more argument against seeing in the previously discussed Ludim a mistake for Lubim.

Naphtuhim. The identity of this people is uncertain. Perhaps the best suggestion is that it refers to Egyptians of the Nile Delta. In Egyptian inscriptions these people were called Na-patuÆh, which may be the same as the Biblical Naphtuhim.

14. Pathrusim. The Pathrusim were probably the inhabitants of Upper Egypt. In Isa. 11:11 Pathros is listed between Cush (Nubia) and Mizraim (Egypt). The name Pathros is the Hebrew rendering of the Egyptian Pa-ta-res, written in Assyrian inscriptions Paturisi, and meaning "the southland." Ezekiel 29:14 points to Pathros as the original homeland of the Egyptians. This agrees with their own ancient tradition that the first king Menes, the one who united the nation, came from the old upper Egyptian city of This.

Casluhim. Not yet identified. Whether they may have been the inhabitants of the area bordering on the Mediterranean west of Egypt is uncertain.

Philistim. Because Amos 9:7 declares that the Philistines came from Caphtor, most commentators think that the word "Caphtorim" should be placed before the phrase "out of whom came Philistim." Inasmuch as Casluh and Caphtor were sons of the same father, some of the Philistine tribes may have originated from Casluh, others from his brother Caphtor. The Philistines who came into Palestine from Crete by way of Asia Minor and Syria may have had their original home in Northern Africa. As inhabitants of the coastal region of southern Palestine they played an important role in Hebrew history. The Philistines are mentioned frequently not only in the Bible but also in Egyptian records as Prst (probably pronounced Puresati). Egyptian reliefs picture their features, dress, and modes of traveling and fighting, thus supplementing information about them given in the Bible. They are also mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions under the name Palastu. The Greeks called the land of Philista Palaistineµ and applied that name to the whole country, which has been known ever since as Palestine (see Isa. 14:29, where Peleshet is translated "Palestine").

Caphtorim. This people is mentioned also in Deut. 2:23, Jer. 47:4, and Amos 9:7. Egyptian inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. definitely apply the name Keftiu to the first inhabitants of Crete, and also in a wider sense to the coastland peoples of Asia Minor and Greece. This usage of Keftiu suggests Crete and migrations to surrounding coastal regions, which would include Syria and Palestine. The Philistines were remnants of these so-called "peoples of the sea."

15. Canaan. For some unknown reason Moses omits the enumeration of the descendants of Ham's third son Phut, and proceeds to Canaan, youngest of the four brothers. The land of Canaan was strategically located on the important "bridge" between Asia and Africa, between the two great river cultures of antiquity, in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The Biblical Canaan was Palestine west of the Jordan, extending north into present Lebanon and Syria.

Sidon his firstborn. The seaport Sidon, known as "great Zidon" at the time of the Hebrew conquest (Joshua 11:8), named in Egyptian hieroglyphic and Mesopotamian cuneiform texts, was the most powerful of the Phoenician city-states from the earliest times. Many Phoenicians then called themselves Sidonians even when they were actually citizens of neighboring cities.

The Sidonians occupied Cyprus and founded colonies in Cilicia and Caria in Asia Minor, on various Greek islands, on Crete, and on the coasts of the Black Sea.

Leadership among the cities of Phoenicia passed from Sidon to its sister city Tyre about 1100 B.C. The Phoenicians were friendly to David and Solomon and to the northern kingdom of Israel as well, but exercised an evil religious influence upon the latter. Esarhaddon claimed to have conquered the island city of Tyre, but Nebuchadnezzar, after capturing mainland Tyre, failed to take the island city after a siege lasting 13 years. As a result Sidon once more played an important role, during the Persian period, but was completely destroyed by Artaxerxes III in 351 B.C. The same fate befell Tyre a few years later, when Alexander took it in 332 B.C., so bringing to a close the long and glorious history of the Phoenician city-states.

Heth. Ancestor of the Hittites, called Kheta by the Egyptians and Hatti in cuneiform texts. The Hittites, with their capital in central Asia Minor, grew into a strong empire in the 17th century b.c. They gained control over much of Asia Minor and Syria, and in extending southward came into conflict city Egypt. This centralized Hittite Empire was later destroyed by the "People of the Sea" and dissolved into many Syrian city-states. The Assyrians called Syria the country of the Hittites. Hittite texts, in both cuneiform and hieroglyphic forms of an Indo-European language, have given us rich information on the history, laws, and culture of this nation. Probably, however, the descendants of Heth were the earlier "proto-Hittites," whose language was called Hattili (see p. 137).

16. The Jebusite. These inhabitants of pre-Israelitic Jerusalem seem to have been only a small and unimportant tribe, since they are never mentioned outside of the Bible and are confined to Jerusalem in the OT records (see Gen. 15:21; Num. 13:29; Judges 19:10, 11; etc.). Solomon made the remnants of the Jebusites serfs of the crown (1 Kings 9:20).

The Amorite. A powerful group of peoples found from the border of Egypt to Babylonia during the patriarchal age. They were the founders of the First Dynasty of Babylon, of which Hammurabi, the great Babylonian lawgiver, was the most famous king. The available evidence shows that they infiltrated Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine in the early part of the second millennium b.c., and replaced the existing ruling classes in those countries. At the time when the Hebrews invaded the country only remnants of the formerly powerful Amorite populations were encountered (Num. 21:21).

The Girgasite. Mentioned only in the Bible, this people was an indigenous Canaanite tribe of Palestine (Joshua 24:11).

17. The Hivite. Though mentioned 25 times in various OT passages, the Hivites were nevertheless an obscure Canaanite tribe. Some hold that the name Hivite should read "Horite" (Hurrian), as the LXX has it twice, with a change of only one letter in Hebrew. (See pp. 425, 138.)

The Arkite. This people inhabited the Phoenician seaport of Irkata, situated about 16 mi. northeast of Tripoli in the foothills of Lebanon. Pharaoh Thutmose III conquered the whole region during the 15th century b.c. It remained in Egyptian possession for at least 100 years, as the Amarna Letters of the 14th century indicate. King Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria mentions the city as one that paid tribute to him in the 8th century.

The Sinite. This group lived in and about the city of Siannu, which Tiglath-pileser III mentions, together with other tributary Phoenician vassals, in the 8th century b.c. Its exact location is still unknown.

18. The Arvadite. The Arvadites inhabited the ancient city of Arvad, built on an island off the northern coast of Phoenicia. The city appears repeatedly in ancient records of Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt. Inscriptions of about 1100 B.C. say that Tiglath-pileser I sailed for a whale hunt with the ships of Arvad. The mentioning of the whale as occurring in the Mediterranean Sea during the second millennium b.c. is significant in connection with the story of Jonah, and with the mention of great sea monsters in Ps. 104:26. Ezekiel 27:8, 11 mentions the Arvadites as mariners and brave warriors.

The Zemarite. Also a Phoenician people. Simirra occurs in Assyrian, Palestinian, and Egyptian documents as a wealthy city of merchants. The Egyptian Pharaohs Thutmose III and Seti I conquered the city for Egypt in the 15th and 14th centuries b.c., but during the period of the Assyrian supremacy Simirra, like other Phoenician cities, became tributary to Tiglath-pileser III and his successors.

The Hamathite. Hamath was a famous ancient city situated on the principal river of Syria, the Orontes. It is mentioned in Egyptian as well as in Assyrian documents. Tiglath-pileser III subjugated it, but it soon regained its independence and joined other enemies of Assyria in a long but unsuccessful struggle against that empire.

19. The border of the Canaanites. Not all the borders of the Canaanite area are here given. Only cities at the southern limit of the eastern border are mentioned. (For a more complete discussion of the geographical location of these cities, see on ch. 14:3.) Although the eastern and northern borders are not specifically mentioned, it may safely be assumed that the northern Arabian Desert in the east and the Syrian city of Hamath on the Orontes (see v. 18) in the north marked the limits of the Canaanite area. The Canaanites were scattered all along the Phoenician and Palestinian coasts.

21. The children of Eber. After enumerating the descendants of Japheth and Ham, Moses next lists those of Shem. His first statement concerns the Hebrews, who as descendants of Eber (ch. 11:16-26), were Shemites (or Semites). Recent discoveries make it evident that the Habiru mentioned in Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite, Syrian, Canaanite, and Egyptian inscriptions were to be found among all of these nations during the second millennium b.c., and that they were apparently related to the Hebrews. There is reason to assume that the Habiru were descendants of Eber as the Hebrews were; also, ancient sources occasionally refer to the Hebrews as Habiru. But it is certain that not all the Habiru mentioned in non-Biblical documents were Hebrews. The exceptionally wide dispersion of the Habiru throughout many countries of the ancient world may have led Moses to make the unusual statement that Shem was "the father of all the children of Eber."

The brother of Japheth the elder. In Hebrew this phrase permits a translation making Japheth the elder brother of Shem, as the KJV renders it, or Shem "the elder brother of Japheth," as in the RSV. The KJV is correct (see on ch. 5:32).

22. The children of Shem; Elam. This verse leads the reader to the home of the Semites, Mesopotamia and eastern Arabia. Elam was the region bordering on the lower Tigris in the west and on Media in the northeast. Elam's ancient capital, Susa, the Biblical Shushan (Dan. 8:2), became, in later times, one of the capitals of the Persian Empire (see, for example, Esther 1:2). Excavations at Susa have brought to light numerous documents written in cuneiform script that allows us to reconstruct their history and religion. Elam's descendants, Semites, settled very early in that area, but they evidently mingled with others, for their language as known from cuneiform records was not Semitic. It belonged to the Asianic-Armenoid group of languages. The relationship of the later Elamites with other known nations, however, is obscure.

Asshur. Assyria occupied the central part of the Tigris valley, extending in the north to the mountains of Armenia and in the east to the Median plateau. The name of Shem's son Asshur was in turn taken over by the chief god of the Assyrians, by the oldest capital of the country, Assur, now Kalah-Shergat, and by the nation itself. Assyria appears in historical records from the beginning of the second millennium b.c. until its destruction by the Medes and Babylonians in the latter part of the 7th century. During its most powerful period Assyria was the scourge of all nations. Its cruelty toward conquered foes has never been surpassed. The kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom of Judah itself barely escaped.

Arphaxad. Identified by some commentators with Arrapha, the region between Media and Assyria. It is more likely the ancient country of Arrapachitis, between Lakes Urmia and Van. It was probably named after Arphaxad (Heb. Arpachshad).

Lud. Distinct from the Ludim mentioned in v. 13. Lud can be identified with the country of Lubdi, which appears in the ancient records as a region lying between the upper Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

Aram. Ancestor of the Aramaeans. In the early second millennium b.c. this people occupied the northwestern portion of Mesopotamia, but they spread southward in later times.

The Aramaeans in the north were never united as a nation, but were divided into many small tribes and city-states. The strongest of the Aramaean states, Damascus, was finally conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in 732 B.C. This event marks the end of the political history of the Aramaeans, but by no means the end of their cultural influence upon surrounding nations. They were scattered far and wide among the ancient peoples and passed their language and script on to them. As a result the Aramaic language became, within a very short time, a universal vehicle of communication from the border of India in the east to the Aegean Sea in the west, and from the Caucasus in the north to Ethiopia in the south. For centuries Aramaic remained the most widely used language in the Near East, and was the common tongue of the Jews in Jesus' day.

Either Aramaean in origin or closely related were the Chaldeans, a south Babylonian tribe living in an area around "Ur of the Chaldees," who fought the Assyrians, held the throne of Babylon several times in the 8th century b.c. and later founded the great neo-Babylonian dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar II, conqueror of Jerusalem.

23. The children of Aram; Uz. The name Uz was borne not only by Aram's eldest son but also by the first son of Nahor (ch. 22:21, KJV, "Huz"), and by a grandson of Seir, the ancestor of the Horites. It is therefore difficult to limit Uz to a well-defined region. For the same reason it is not possible to determine Job's location as an inhabitant of the land Uz (Job 1:1), nor to identify Sasi, the prince of Uz, mentioned by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. Nothing is known of the Aramaic tribes of Hul, Gether, and Mash.

24. Arphaxad begat Salah. Inasmuch as the line from Arphaxad to Abraham is considered more in detail in ch. 11, Moses says little about it here. He follows it, however, through the first several generations in order to show the descent of the Joktan Arabs, who were cousins of the Hebrews through their common ancestor, Eber.

Eber. On Eber's possible connection with the Habiru of non-Biblical sources, see on v. 21.

25. Peleg. Peleg means "division." He was the first-born son of Eber and one of the ancestors of Abraham. Although the text speaks literally of a splitting up of the "earth," it is more likely that the word "earth" signifies its people, as in chs. 9:19 and 11:1. Moses probably anticipates the events described in the next chapter, the confusion of tongues and the resulting dispersion of peoples. His remarks made in ch. 10:5, 20, and 31 about the diversity of tongues are to be understood in the same way. If the confusion of tongues took place about the time of Peleg's birth, we can easily understand why he received the name Peleg, "division." "In his days was the earth divided."

Joktan. Peleg's brother Joktan was the ancestor of an important group, the Joktan Arabs. The descent of the western, or Cushite, Arabs is given in v. 7, whereas the genealogy of the Arab descendants of Abraham is given in later chapters of Genesis. A third group of Arabs, described here, seems to have settled in the central, eastern, and southeastern parts of Arabia. Much less is known about them than about the other two Arabian groups.

26. Almodad, and Sheleph. The name Almodad has not yet been found in non-Biblical sources; hence no identification beyond the brief information in this text is possible. Sheleph may have been an Arabic people, the Salapenes, mentioned by Ptolemy.

Hazarmaveth. The Hadramaut of the south Arabic inscriptions, a country rich in incense, myrrh, and aloes. Its ancient population was devoted to the worship of the moon god Sin and his messenger Hol. Nothing is known of the Arabian tribe of Jerah.

27. Hadoram. The south Arabian tribe of the Adramites. Uzal may have been in Yemen. Diklah is still unidentified.

28. Sheba. As already noticed in connection with the explanation of the Cushite Sheba of southern Arabia (v. 7), the Joktanite Sabaeans are probably north Arabians of this name. They are mentioned in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II (8th century b.c.) as allies of the Aribi. Nothing is known of Obal and Abimael.

29. Ophir. Designates both a people and a land. Although mentioned frequently in the OT, its precise location is still unknown. Inasmuch as it took Solomon's ships three years to complete a voyage from the Red Sea port of Ezion-Geber (1 Kings 9:28; 10:11, 22; etc.), Ophir must have been a rather distant land. Scholars have identified it with a southeastern region of Arabia, with a strip on the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf called Apir by the Elamites, or with India. The products imported from Ophir, gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks, may favor an identification with India rather than with Arabia. If Ophir was in India, it is hard to explain why all the other identifiable descendants of Joktan migrated eastward to the subcontinent of India after Genesis was written, because Moses places all the descendants of Joktan within definite geographical limits (see v. 30). According to another explanation, Ophir of the table of nations was in Arabia, whereas that of Solomon's expeditions was in India. The latest available evidence, however, based on Egyptian inscriptions, seems to identify Ophir with Punt, which is understood to be the region of Somaliland in East Africa.

Havilah, and Jobab. Neither has as yet been identified.

30. Their dwelling. The places mentioned cannot be identified with certainty. Mesha is perhaps Mesene at the northwestern end of the Persian Gulf, and Sephar is possibly the city Saprapha of Ptolemy and Pliny, now Dofar, on the southeastern coast of Arabia. A high mountain standing in the immediate neighborhood of Dofar, which corresponds to the "mount of the east" mentioned by the Inspired Record, seems to favor this identification.

31. The sons of Shem. The enumeration of Shem's descendants is concluded in words similar to those of Japheth and Ham in vs. 5 and 20. There is no doubt that the names given in this table of nations refer primarily to tribes and peoples, and but indirectly to individuals.

32. These are the families. The detailed discussion of the names, their identification, and other information about the nations mentioned point to the Biblical table of nations as an ancient and reliable document. Many of the names appear in non-Biblical sources of the first half of the second millennium b.c., some as early as 2000 B.C., or perhaps even earlier. Ancient records being fragmentary, some nations appear only in records of a comparatively late date. The Medes, for instance, do not appear in secular documents earlier than the 9th century b.c. This does not mean that such nations did not exist in earlier times, but rather that records by them or about them have not been found. Some, like the Joktan Arabs, may have had little contact with the nations whose records we do possess. The continuous discovery of ancient historical source material may be expected to shed further light on Gen. 10.

This table proclaims the unity of the human race, declaring that all have descended from a common source. Diverse as they now are in their geographical location, their physical appearance, or their national peculiarities, all can trace their origin back to Noah and his three sons. This list condemns all theories that would trace mankind back to different original parents. The list, furthermore, constitutes evidence supporting the account of the dispersion of races as being due to the confusion of tongues described in the next chapter. Moses (Deut. 32:8) and Paul (Acts 17:26) both affirm that the allocation of territory was made by God.

Ellen G. White Comments

1 PP 117

10 8T 213

Genesis Chapter 11

1 One language in the world. 3 The building of Babel. 5 The confusion of tongues. 10 The generations of Shem. 27 The generations of Terah the father of Abram. 31 Terah goeth from Ur to Haran.

1. One language. Literally, "one lip and one kind of words," indicating not only one language understood by all but the absence of differences in dialect as well. Pronunciation and vocabulary were the same among all men. Unity of language goes with unity of descent, and a common language does much to promote unity of thought and action. Modern research in comparative grammar has demonstrated conclusively that all known languages are related and that they have descended from one common original. The question as to whether any known language resembles that original speech cannot be answered. It is possible, even probable, that one of the Semitic tongues, such as Hebrew or Aramaic, is similar to the language men spoke before the confusion of tongues. Personal names of the period preceding the confusion of tongues, as far as they can be interpreted, make sense only if considered to be originally Semitic. The record containing these names, the book of Genesis, is written in Hebrew, a Semitic tongue, by a Semite author, and for Semitic readers. It is therefore possible, although unlikely, that Moses translated these names from an original language unknown to his readers, into Hebrew names that would have meaning for them.

2. As they journeyed. As indicated by the verb "journeyed," literally, "to pull out," like the pegs of a tent, men lived a nomadic life for a time after the Flood. The mountainous region of Ararat was not well adapted to agricultural pursuits. Furthermore, those who forsook God resented the silent witness of the holy lives of those who were loyal to Him. Accordingly, there occurred a separation of the evil from among the good, with those who defied God leaving the mountains (PP 118).

From the east. The KJV translation "from the east," for miqqedem, is misleading. The same Hebrew expression is translated "eastward" in ch. 2:8 and "east" in ch. 13:11. To reach the land of Shinar, Babylonia, from the mountains of Ararat, the direction of travel would of necessity be southeasterly, not "from the east" in a westerly direction.

They found a plain. That is, a wide, open land. In antiquity the southern Mesopotamian lowland, often called "Shinar" in the Bible (see on ch. 10:10), was a well-watered, fertile region. The oldest known civilization, that of the Sumerians, thrived here. The spade of the archeologist reveals this land to have been densely populated in earliest historical times. This fact agrees with Genesis as to the locality in which a permanent settlement was first attempted. Excavations have shown, furthermore, that the earliest population of Lower Mesopotamia possessed a high culture. The Sumericans invented the art of writing on clay tablets, built well-constructed houses, and were masters in the production of jewelry, tools, and household utensils.

3. Let us make brick. The plain of Babylonia, alluvial in formation, lacked stone of any kind but had an ample supply of clay for making brick. Lower Mesopotamia has as a result always been a land of brick buildings, in contrast to Assyria, where stone is plentiful. Most bricks, in ancient as in modern times, were sun dried, but bricks for public buildings were baked in the fire to make them more durable. This process was employed by the earliest settlers in Mesopotamia, as the Bible and the spade both testify.

Brick for stone. Writing for the Hebrews in Egypt, a land of majestic stone monuments and public buildings, Moses explains that in Babylonia brick was used because of the lack of stone. This detail, like many others, attests the historical and geographical accuracy of the Genesis narrative.

Slime had they for morter. Another exact detail concerning Babylonian methods of construction. The Hebrew word here translated "slime" means, more accurately, asphalt or bitumen. Mesopotamia abounds in oil and related products, and asphalt wells existed in the vicinity of Babylon as well as in other parts of the country. Having discovered the durable quality of asphalt, early Babylonian builders used it extensively in the erection of buildings. Asphalt binds the bricks together so well that it is difficult to save any of them when a building is demolished. In fact, it is almost impossible to detach bricks from ancient ruins in whose construction asphalt was used.

4. Let us build us a city. Cain had built the first city (ch. 4:17), in an attempt, perhaps, to avoid the nomadic life God had marked out for him. God's original plan called for men to spread over the face of the earth and to cultivate the soil (see ch. 1:28). The building of cities represented opposition to this plan. The concentration of human beings has always encouraged laziness, immorality, and other vices. Cities have ever been hotbeds of crime, for in such an environment Satan finds less resistance to his attacks than in smaller communities where people live in close touch with nature. God had told Noah to replenish, or fill, the earth (ch. 9:1). In fear of unknown or suspected dangers, however, men wanted to build a city, in the hope of finding security through the works of their hands. They chose to forget that true security comes only in trusting and obeying God. The rapidly increasing descendants of Noah must have departed very soon from the worship of the true God. In the fear that their evil ways would again invite catastrophe, they sought protection.

A tower. This would give inhabitants of the city the desired feeling of security. Such a citadel would protect them against attack, and enable them, they believed, to escape another flood--which God had promised should never be. The Flood had covered the highest mountains of the antediluvian world, but had not reached "unto heaven." If, therefore, a structure higher than the mountains could be erected, men reasoned, they would be safe whatever God might do. Archeological excavations reveal that the earliest inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia erected many towerlike temples dedicated to the worship of various idol deities.

Let us make us a name. The Tower of Babel was to have been a monument to the superior wisdom and skill of its builders. To establish a "name," or reputation, for themselves, men have been willing to endure hardship, danger, and privation. The desire for renown was apparently one of the impelling motives for building the tower, and pride in such a structure would, in turn, tend to maintain unity in the accomplishment of other unsanctified schemes. According to the divine purpose, men were to have preserved unity through the bond of true religion. When idolatry and polytheism broke this inner spiritual bond, they lost not only unity of religion but also the spirit of brotherhood. A project such as the tower, to preserve by outward means the inward unity which had been lost, could never succeed. Obviously, only those who had forsaken God took part in these activities.

5. The Lord came down. This coming down is not the same as at Sinai, where the Lord revealed His presence by a visible symbol (see Ex. 19:20; 34:5; Num. 11:25; etc.). It is simply a description in human language of the fact that men's doings are never hidden from God. When men would build up toward heaven and exalt themselves, God came down to investigate and defeat their impious plans.

Builded. The perfect form of the Hebrew verb here translated "builded" implies that construction was progressing rapidly toward completion. The term "children of men," literally "sons of the man," is so general in its sweep as to suggest that all, or at least a majority, of those who no longer served God took part in the project.

6. This they begin to do. The Tower of Babel represented doubt of God's word and defiance of His will. It was designed as monument to apostasy and as a citadel of rebellion against Him. This was but the first step in an evil master plan to control the world. Prompt and decisive action was called for, to warn men of God's displeasure and to frustrate their wicked schemes. That men may be assured that God is not arbitrary in His dealings and does not act on sudden impulse, He is represented as taking counsel with Himself. The reason for His intervention is clearly stated.

Except for the restraining power of God exercised from time to time in the course of history, the evil designs of men would be carried forward to success, and society would become wholly corrupt. The comparative order in society today is due to the restraining power of God. Satan's power is definitely limited (see Job 1:12; 2:6; Rev. 7:1).

7. Let us go down. The use of the pronoun "us" indicates the participation of at least two persons of the Godhead (see Gen. 1:26).

Confound their language. God did not wish again to destroy man. Wickedness had not as yet reached the limits to which it had gone before the Flood, and God determined to check it before it should again reach that point. By confusing their language and thus forcing them to separate, God designed to forestall future united action. Each of the groups might yet pursue an evil course, but the division of society into many groups would prevent concerted opposition to God. Upon repeated occasions since the dispersion of the races at Babel, ambitious men have sought, unsuccessfully, to contravene the divine decree of separation. Ingenious leaders have succeeded, at times, in forcing the nations into an artificial unity. But with the establishment of God's glorious kingdom the nations of the saved will be truly united and speak one language.

Not understand one another's speech. Not that one man could not understand any of his fellow men, as such a situation would render the existence of society impossible. There were to be various tribal groups, each of which was to have its own speech. Such is the origin of the world's great variety of languages and dialects, which now number approximately 3,000.

The division of languages, though an obstacle to human schemes for political and economic cooperation, was not to be an obstacle to the triumph of the cause of God. The gift of tongues at Pentecost was to be one means of overcoming this difficulty (see Acts 2:5-12). National differences do not prevent either unity of faith and action on the part of God's children or the advancement of His eternal purpose. God's Word has been made available to the nations in their own tongue, and brethren of like faith, though separated by racial and linguistic differences, are nevertheless bound together in their love for Jesus and their devotion to truth. The brotherhood of faith unites them more firmly than could the possession of a common language. In the unity of the church the world is to see convincing evidence of the purity and power of its message (see John 17:21).

8. Scattered them abroad What men had not been willing to do voluntarily and under favorable circumstances, they were now compelled to do because of necessity. Inability to understand one another's speech led to misunderstanding, distrust, and division. Those who could understand one another formed a small community of their own. This verse indicates that the builders of Babel were scattered far and wide, with the result that soon thereafter representatives of the human family were to be found in most parts of the world. Evidence from many lands testifies to the presence of human beings within a comparatively short time after the Flood. Archeological discoveries point to the Mesopotamian valley as the first locality to develop a distinct civilization. Similar civilizations sprang up soon afterward in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Anatolia, India, China, and elsewhere. All available evidence supports the cryptic saying of Holy Writ that "the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth."

They left off to build. The tower that was to rise to heaven to rise to heaven was never completed. However, it is evident from the Bible and from history that the local population subsequently completed the work of building the city.

9. Babel. By a play on words the Hebrew linked the name of the city, Babel, with the Hebrew verb balal, "to confuse." It would have been a strange procedure, however, for the Babylonians to derive a name for their city from a Hebrew word. Ancient Babylonian texts interpret Bab-ilu or Bab-ilanu as meaning "port of god" or "gateway of the gods." It is, however, possible that this meaning was secondary, and that the name was originally from the Babylonian verb babalu, meaning "to scatter," or "to disappear." Perhaps the Babylonians were not particularly proud of a name that reminded them of the inglorious climax of earlier plans for the city, and so invented an explanation that made it appear to be a compound of the names bab, "port," and ilu, "god" (see on ch. 10:10).

Most modern commentators explain the story of the building of the tower and the subsequent confusion of tongues either as an outright legend or as a gross exaggeration of some tragedy that occurred during the construction of Babylon's historical temple tower, called a ziggurat. Contrary to what many popular works on Biblical archeology have stated, archeologists have found no evidence that the Tower of Babel ever existed. The very fragmentary tablet K3657 of the British Museum, which has frequently been quoted as referring to the story of the building of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, actually makes no references at all to this event, as subsequent studies and a better understanding of this text have shown. One who believes only those Bible stories that are corroborated by outside evidence will refuse to believe the story of Gen. 11. However, he who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God will accept this narrative, along with all other Bible narratives, as authentic.

The passion of Mesopotamian peoples for building lofty towers did not cease with the first unsuccessful attempt to erect one that would "reach unto heaven." Throughout antiquity they continued building temple towers, or ziggurats. Several such ruins are still standing. The best preserved one is at Ur, Abraham's early home.

The exact location of the original tower is unknown. Probably the later temple tower of Babylon replaced it. An old Jewish tradition, probably based mistakenly on a 7th-century ruin, located the Tower of Babel at Borsippa, a city 9 mi. southwest of Babylon. An imposing ruin 156 feet high is all that remains of an ancient tower in Borsippa which once consisted of seven steps surmounted by a temple. Inscriptions by Nebuchadnezzar found under the foundations of the building state that he completed the building of this tower, the erection of which a former king had begun. The Jewish historian Josephus attributes the tower to Nimrod, a tradition that has been perpetuated by the local population in their name for it, Birs-Nimrud. Like all Babylonian edifices, this tower was built of brick and bitumen, and the ruins show the marks of numerous bolts of lightning which struck it in ages past. This application of heat has welded the uppermost bricks and asphalt together in a solid mass. Travelers have for centuries described the effects of heavenly fire upon the tower, usually with reference to the events described in Gen. 11.

It should not be forgotten, however, that the tower of Borsippa was not built earlier than the 7th century b.c., by Ashurbanipal and Nebuchadnezzar. Whatever the location of the first Tower of Babel may have been, all traces of the original structure have vanished.

It is more probable that the ancient Tower of Babel was on the site of the temple tower of the city of Babylon, which once stood in the Marduk temple area on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. Babylonian traditions claimed that its foundation had been laid in very early times. Several kings restored the tower during the course of its history, Nebuchadnezzar being the last to do so. This tower is described in detail by the Greek historian Herodotus, and also by a Babylonian cuneiform text, as having had 7 steps and a total height of 250 ft. The Persian king Xerxes destroyed it completely, along with the city of Babylon, in 478 B.C. Planning to rebuild the tower, Alexander the Great had the debris cleared away, but he died before his plan could be carried out. Nothing whatever remains of the highest and most famous temple tower of ancient Mesopotamian, save the foundation stones and the lowest steps of its old stairway. The fact that since Xerxes' time nothing could be seen of this tower, whereas the one in neighboring Borsippa remained standing, may be the reason that Jews and Christians alike connected the story of Gen. 11 with the ruins of Borsippa.

10. The generations of Shem. The usual title for a genealogy (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; etc.). Moses now returns to the line of Shem, his discussion of which was interrupted by the account of the confusion of tongues. But vs. 10-26 do not form a continuation of the table of nations of ch. 10; they present the genealogy of the patriarchal line from Shem to Abraham. Chapter 10 sets forth the racial relationship of the various tribes and nations and their common descent from Noah, whereas ch. 11:10-26 presents the exact descent of God's chosen people through the many intervening generations. This is a continuation of the list of generations from Adam to Noah as given in ch. 5. The first four descendants of Shem, already enumerated in the Shemite part of the table of nations, are repeated here to show the direct descent of the Terahites through Peleg.

Shem was an hundred years old. This statement shows that Shem was two years younger than Japheth (see on ch. 5:32).

The list doubtless presents personal, not tribal, names; for it gives the exact age of each man at the birth of the son through whom the line continues, and his length of life thereafter. Although names such as Arphaxad or Eber are also tribal names, as in ch. 10:21, 22, that does not contradict the fact that the men here named were real individuals.

11. Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad. Inasmuch as the formula used by Moses in vs. 10 and 11 is a pattern for the brief biographical sketches that follow, it is not necessary to comment in detail on vs. 12-26. A notable difference between the formula used here and one of ch. 5 is the omission of the total age of each person listed in ch. 11. Nothing is lost, however, because in each case the total age can easily be computed by adding the years of a man's age at the birth of the son to the remaining years of his life. Moses' reason for making this difference between the style of the two lists is not known.

12. Arphaxad. See on ch. 10:22. Prior to the Flood the average age of paternity had been 117 years (the lowest 65, the highest 187 years), but thereafter it decreased to 30-35 years, reaching unusual heights only in the cases of Terah and Abraham.

The same decrease is seen in the total ages of men after the Flood. Although Noah himself reached the antediluvian age of 950 years, Shem's age was only 600 and that of his son Arphaxad but 438 years. In succeeding generations the process continued, so that Nahor, the grandfather of Abraham, lived to be only 148 years of age. This greatly abbreviated life span may have been due partly to climatic changes. More important still was the change in diet from vegetarian to one including the flesh of animals (PP 107; CD 391). With each succeeding generation the human race was further and further removed from the vigorous physical heritage of Adam and from the invigorating fruit of the tree of life.

13. Salah. "The one sent forth." This is a Semitic name, used also among the Phoenician colonists of Carthage in Northern Africa.

14. Eber. "The one who passes over." Inasmuch as Eber's descendants were to cross the Euphrates and migrate toward Syria and Palestine, this name may indicate prophetic insight on the part of his parents (see on ch. 10:21).

16. Peleg. Meaning "division" (see on ch. 10:25).

18. Reu. Meaning "friend" or "friendship." It is possibly an abbreviation of Reuel, "friend of God," the name of several Bible characters (Gen. 36:4; Ex. 2:18; Num. 2:14).

20. Serug. May mean "the one interlaced," "the entangled one," or "vine branch." Which meaning was intended is uncertain.

22. Nahor. "The snorter." Perhaps there may have been some impediment in his speech.

24. Terah. Without meaning in Hebrew, but in the related Ugaritic language, "bridegroom."

26. Terah lived seventy years. This text seems to imply that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, born when their father Terah was 70 years old. That such was not the case is evident from the following considerations. Terah died in Haran at the age of 205 years (ch. 11:32). Abram journeyed to Canaan at the age of 75 (ch. 12:4). Abram's call to leave Haran came after his father's death, as explicitly stated in Acts 7:4.

Abram cannot then have been older than 75 at the death of his father, and Terah was at least 130 years old when Abram was born. Therefore, ch. 11:26 means that Terah began to beget sons when he was seventy years old. Youngest of the three sons, Abram is mentioned first because of his importance as ancestor of the Hebrews. Although it is not certain which of the two remaining sons of Terah, Nahor or Haran, was the elder, the fact that Nahor married Haran's daughter (ch. 11:29) may point to Haran as Nahor's senior (cf. on ch. 5:32).

Abram. "Father of elevation" or "exalted father," pointing to his honored position as ancestor of God's chosen people. His name was later changed by God to Abraham (ch. 17:5). The name appears in Egyptian records as that of an Amorite ruler of a Palestinian city at the very time Abram lived. It appears also in a contemporary cuneiform document from Babylonia, showing that the name was not uncommon.

Nahor. This son of Terah was named after his grandfather.

Haran. This name has no meaning in Hebrew. It is similar to Haran, Charan, the city where Terah settled. The name of the city, related to an Assyrian root word meaning "highway," may indicate its location astride one of the principal trade routes between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean.

As with the antediluvian chronology, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX credit patriarchs from the Flood to the birth of Abram with considerably longer lives than do the Hebrew text and English translations based upon it (see on ch. 5:32). Whereas the KJV has 352 years between the Flood and Abram's birth, the Same LXX, 1,132 or 1,232 (according to variant readings; see p. 180).

The LXX insertion of Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah may, however, be justified. In this the LXX is confirmed by Luke, who also lists Cainan in this position (Luke 3:35, 36). In spite of apparent disagreement between Moses (and 1 Chron. 1:24) on the one hand and Luke and the LXX on the other, no real difficulty exists. The Scriptures contain numerous and striking instances of the omission of names from genealogical lists. In tracing his own ancestry back to Aaron, Ezra for instance, omits at least six names (see Ezra 7:1-5; cf. 1 Chron. 6:3-15).

Centuries later Matthew's genealogy of Jesus omits four kings of Judah, and possibly other ancestors of our Lord (see on Matt. 1:8, 17). Moses' possible omission of Cainan from the list of Gen. 11:10-26 should not therefore be considered an inaccuracy, but rather an example of what was a common practice among Hebrew writers.

Whatever may be the case, the list as given by Moses must be considered at least fairly complete. Ellen G. White refers (PP 125) to an "unbroken line" of righteous men--from Adam to Shem--who passed down the knowledge of God that Abram inherited. This has been taken by some to imply that Abram must have been instructed by Shem personally; if so, then Abram was born some years before Shem's death, which is dated 500 years after the Flood.

The Chronology of Genesis 11

Those who arrive at this conclusion from the above passage infer that it upholds the Hebrew against both the Samaritan and LXX chronologies of the period, and renders impossible any considerable number of omissions from Moses' genealogical list. Until more definite information becomes available the chronology of events prior to the birth of Abram should be considered approximate. With the advent of the patriarch Abram we reach a more solid foundation on which to build

27. Terah. Up to this point Moses has narrated the history of all mankind. Henceforth the inspired record concerns itself almost exclusively with the history of but one family, the chosen people of God. Throughout the remainder of the OT attention is generally given to other nations only as they come in contact with God's people.

Haran begat Lot. Lot, "the concealed one." Lot is introduced because of the role he is to play as Abram's companion in the land of Canaan and as ancestor of the Moabites and Ammonites.

28. Haran died before his father. Literally, "in the face of his father," meaning "while his father was still alive," or, "in the presence of his father." This is the first mention (though not necessarily the first case) of a son having died before his father.

Ur of the Chaldees. As shown by literary documents and recent excavations, the city of Haran's nativity had a long and glorious history. The ruins of Ur have long been known under the modern name Tell el-Muqayyar, which is situated about halfway between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf. Between 1922 and 1934 a joint British-American expedition carried out what have proved to be among the most fruitful of all Mesopotamian excavations. Royal tombs of an early dynasty gave up their fabulous store of treasures. The well-preserved ruins of houses, temples, and a temple tower have provided a wealth of material from which we may reconstruct the checkered history of this city which played so important a role from the dawn of history to the time of the Persian Empire. At the beginning of the second millennium b.c., when Abram lived there, the city possessed an exceptionally high culture. Houses were well constructed, and usually two stories high. Rooms on the ground floor were grouped around a central courtyard, and a staircase led up to the second story. The city had an efficient sewage system, which is more than some cities in that country can boast even today. In the schools of Ur reading, writing, arithmetic, and geography were taught, as the many school exercises that have been recovered make evident. In the OT this city is usually called "Ur of the Chaldees," an expression that has not yet been found in the cuneiform texts of Mesopotamia. There it is simply called "Ur." It is, however, known that the region of Ur was later inhabited by Aramaic Chaldean tribes, who may have come somewhat earlier (see on ch. 10:22). These tribes were closely related to the family of Terah, and both were descendants of Arphaxad. The memory of this relationship was kept alive by referring back to the original family home as Ur in Chaldea, or "Ur of the Chaldees."

The advanced cultural level of Ur in Abram's time puts to silence the sneers of those who would stigmatize Abram as an ignorant nomad. His youth was spent in a highly cultured and sophisticated city as the son of one of its wealthy citizens, and without doubt he was a well-educated man.

Abram must, as well, have been acquainted with the religious life of Ur, which, as excavations have shown, was polytheistic. Joshua states that Terah, Abram's father, had served other gods in Ur (Joshua 24:2). We are led to assume that Terah's other sons did likewise, for Rachel, Jacob's wife, stole idols from her father, Laban, who was a grandson of Abram's brother Nahor (Gen. 31:19). It is a miracle that Abram remained untouched by the pagan influences surrounding him.

29. Abram and Nahor took them wives. Nahor's wife, Milcah, was a daughter of his brother Haran and therefore his own niece. Abram's wife, Sarai, was his half sister, a daughter of Terah by another wife than Abram's mother (see ch. 20:12). Marriage with a half sister, and with other close relatives, was afterward forbidden by the Mosaic civil code, though apparently still permitted in Abram's time (see Lev. 18:6, 9, 14).

Iscah. It is not clear why Iscah, another daughter of Haran, is mentioned here. Following an old Jewish tradition, some commentators have seen the name as another name of Sarai, Abram's wife. Others think she was the wife of Lot. There is no factual basis for any such suppositions.

30. Sarai was barren. This statement seems to imply a contrast with Milcah, Sarai's sister-in-law (see ch. 24:24), and foreshadows the great importance of Sarai's childlessness in the trial of Abram's faith.

31. They went forth. The Scriptures make it clear that Abram was the one to whom God revealed Himself in Ur of the Chaldees, and not to Terah, as might be inferred from this passage (PP 127). Stephen told his hearers that Abram had left "Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran," in response to an explicit command addressed to him personally of God (Acts 7:2, 3). God later reminded Abram that He had brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 15:7), not out of Haran (see also Neh. 9:7). We conclude that Abram's call occurred in two stages. The first call, when he lived at Ur, was to leave his ancestral tribe, but the second, at Haran, was to forsake his immediate relatives, even his father's house (see Gen. 12:1). When the first call came to Abram, he obeyed immediately and left the old environment to find a new home in the country God promised to provide for him. He must have had considerable influence over his father, Terah, his brother Nahor, and his nephew Lot, because they all chose to accompany him. Nahor is not mentioned as one of those who left Ur with Terah and Abram, but if he did not go at this time he must have followed a little later (see ch. 24:10). Although Abram was the one to whom the call came at Ur, he still lived under his father's roof and would look to his father to take the initiative should he be willing to do so. Terah evidently consented and, as head of the house, led out in making the move. Oriental propriety would require that Terah be given credit for acting as head of his house. It would seem most inappropriate to say that Abram took his father Terah.

To go into the land of Canaan. This indicates that Canaan was their destination from the very beginning. There were two possible routes of travel from Ur in southern Mesopotamia to Canaan. One route lay directly across the great Arabian Desert, but a large caravan of flocks, herds, and many servants could not possibly traverse such terrain. The other route lay up the Euphrates, across the narrow desert of northern Syria, and then through the Orontes valley southward into Canaan. This was obviously the way by which they must travel.

They came unto Haran. Haran is situated on the Balikh river in northern Mesopotamia, halfway between Ur and Canaan. The reason for this interruption of the journey is not given, but it may have been occasioned by the attractiveness of the region, or more likely by the advancing age and feebleness of Terah. For the greater part of the family Haran became a permanent place of abode, which implies, perhaps, that the attractiveness of the region may have led to the original decision to stop there. The Balikh and Chabur valleys contain fertile pastureland. It is possible that the whole region was sparsely populated, and seemed to offer fine possibilities for increasing the wealth of the family before they proceeded on to Canaan. Whatever the reason may have been, Terah and his family camped at a place they called Haran, perhaps in honor of their son, and brother, who had died in Ur. Because of a slight difference between the Hebrew spelling of the name of Terah's son Haran and that of the city Charan the relationship of the two is uncertain.

Evidence of how strongly the Terahites took root in their new home is plainly seen in the fact that several of their family names remained attached to cities of the region for centuries, and in some instances for millenniums. Haran, an important city during the second and first millenniums b.c., may have been named in honor of Haran, as suggested above. Peleg's memory lived on in the name of the city Paliga, at the mouth of the Chabur River. Nahor gave his name to Nahor's city (ch. 24:10, the later Til-Nahiri, near Haran. Serug's name is reflected in the neighboring town of Sarugi, and the site Til-sha-turahi on the Balikh River may perpetuate the name of Terah. These place names are clear evidence of the fact that the family of Terah occupied this region in ancient times.

32. Terah died in Haran. How long Terah lived in Haran is not indicated. In view of Abram's proverbial readiness to obey God, it seems most unlikely that he would have remained in Haran for many years, knowing that the Lord wanted him to go to Canaan, except on account of his father's age or illness. It is more likely that Terah halted for a season at the Balikh River to restore his wasted powers, than that the attractiveness of the region led him to forget his objective. Filial piety, under such circumstances, would keep Abram watching solicitously over his father. All would thus have remained in Haran in anticipation of resuming their journey upon Terah's recuperation. When he died Abram and Lot went forward with their original plan, but other members of the family were bewitched by the fertility of the region and were unwilling to leave.

Terah, like Moses some centuries later, failed to enter the Land of Promise. We are forcibly reminded of our pilgrim state by the fact that many of God's faithful ones die on their way to the heavenly Canaan. The seriousness of Terah's death, however, was as nothing in comparison to Nahor's decision to remain in Haran. He and his family voluntarily separated themselves from God's promises by refusing to accompany Abram to the Promised Land. As a result, they and their descendants finally vanish from the stage of history, while Abram and his posterity remain for centuries the recipients of God's special favor and the channel of His blessing for the world.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-9PP 117-124; SR 72-75

2, 4 PP 118; 8T 213

5 PP 123; 8T 214

5-7PP 119

8 PP 120

9 8T 215

28 3T 138

31 PP 127

Genesis Chapter 12

1 God calleth Abram, and blesseth him with a promise of Christ. 4 He departeth with Lot from Haran. 6 He journeyeth through Canaan, 7 which is promised him in a vision. 10 He is driven by a famine into Egypt. 11 Fear maketh him feign his wife to be his sister. 14 Pharaoh, having taken her from him, by plagues is compelled to restore her.

1. Get thee out. Henceforward Abram is the hero of the Genesis narrative. This is the first recorded divine revelation to Abram, although it is known from Acts 7:2 that God had appeared to him at least once previously. The word of Jehovah begins with a command, continues with a promise, and ends with a blessing. These three significant aspects characterize every manifestation of God to man. The promises of God are fulfilled and His blessings received only as His commands are obeyed. Men are usually desirous of sharing God's blessings and realizing His promises without cooperating with His requirements.

The Lord's call required Abram to make a complete break with the past. He not only had to leave the land of the two rivers, Mesopotamia, in which Ur as well as Haran was situated, but also had to give up family ties and even his father's house, never to return to those of his own blood and race. It was a severe test. Haran and Ur shared the same civilization and standards of living. All this would change immediately when he should leave the land of the two rivers and cross over to Syria and Palestine. Instead of fertile grazing lands he would find a heavily wooded and mountainous country. Instead of living among related and highly civilized peoples, he would be sojourning among tribes of a materially lower culture and an especially degraded religion.

It certainly must not have been easy for Abram to sever all ties with his beloved homeland, a land in which he had spent all of his life and which was hallowed by many tender associations. A youth may leave his native land with little regret, but to a man 75 years of age such a decision is not easy.

A land that I will shew thee. Genesis 11:31 indicates that Abram's original destination had been Canaan. Obviously, God must have specified Canaan as the land toward which he should direct his steps. Upon this occasion (ch. 12:1) Canaan is not mentioned, but it is clear that Abram knew Canaan to be the place where God wanted him to go. He set out with Canaan in mind (v. 5). Paul's statement in Heb. 11:8 that Abram "went out, not knowing whither he went" apparently refers to the fact that henceforth he would have no certain dwelling place, but was to be a pilgrim and a stranger (see Heb. 11:9; 4T 523). Henceforth God would guide him day by day, and he would never know long in advance what the future might bring.

2. Make of thee a great nation. Abram's compensation for leaving family and homeland behind is announced. Abram no doubt wondered how this promise would meet its fulfillment, in view of the fact that he was childless, and not a young man. God could not mean that Abram's servants, the shepherds an overseers of his flocks, would constitute the promised nation. How did Abram understand the word "great"? Did it imply numerical strength, or influence, or greatness in spiritual things? Only the eye of faith, fixed upon the promises of God, could penetrate the future and behold things that the natural eye could not see.

I will bless thee. This promise included both temporal and spiritual blessings, particularly the latter. Paul clearly includes justification by faith among the blessings that rested on Abram (Gal. 3:8).

Make thy name great. True greatness was to result from compliance with God's commands and cooperation with His divine purpose. The builders of Babel had thought to make themselves "a name" by defying God, and yet not one of their names has survived. Abram, on the other hand, was simply to follow where God should lead, in order to win fame. The name Abram is common as a personal name even today, and untold millions of Jews, Mohammedans, and Christians have acclaimed him in times past, and still look back to him, as their spiritual ancestor.

3. I will bless. Such an assurance was the highest pledge of friendship and favor God could bestow upon Abram. God considered as done to Himself the insults and wrongs done to His friend and promised to make common cause with him, to share his friends and to treat his enemies as if they were His own. Abram was "the Friend of God" (James 2:23).

All families of the earth. The Hebrew word here translated "earth," Ô'adamah, means, essentially, "ground," or "soil." All nations and all ages are included. It was the "ground" that had been cursed after the Fall (Gen. 3:17), the same ground out of which man had originally been made. That curse had come because of the unfaithfulness of one man (Rom. 5:12), and now all families of the "ground" were to receive blessing through the obedience of one who was found faithful. As his spiritual offspring, Christians today share in the blessing imparted to Abram (Gal. 3:8, 29). The blessing vouchsafed to him would finally unite divided families on earth, and change the dread curse pronounced upon the ground because of sin into a blessing for all men. All further promises to the patriarchs and to Israel either clarified or amplified the promise of salvation offered the entire human race in the first promise made to Abram.

4. So Abram departed. Abram cheerfully followed the Lord's call, without arguing and without mentioning conditions under which he would obey. He simply "departed."

Lot went with him. Of all the relatives of Abram only Lot and his family were willing to continue on to the Promised Land. Peter refers to him as "just Lot," and a "righteous man" (2 Peter 2:7, 8). His desire to obey God as his uncle did made him willing, for the time at least, to share the hardships of the journey and the uncertainties of an insecure future.

Seventy and five years old. The giving of Abram's age indicates that his departure for Canaan marked the beginning of a new and important era. He was already advanced in years when called upon to adapt himself to life in a new country, to its climate, and to the strange customs of a foreign people.

5. All their substance. Abram's and Lot's wealth consisted chiefly in large herds of cattle and flocks of sheep. Abram was a prosperous man (ch. 13:2), but his prosperity in no way proved to be a hindrance to his religious life. Although it is true that wealth often makes it more difficult for its possessors to qualify for the kingdom of God, it is by no means a fatal handicap (see Matt. 19:23-26). When a person of means considers himself a steward of God, and uses the wealth entrusted to him to the honor of God and to the advancement of His kingdom, wealth is a blessing and not a curse.

Souls. Heb. nephesh. The RSV here uses the word "persons." Included in this company were some converts to the true God (PP 127). These converts attached themselves to the household of Abram and became his retainers. Both Abram and Lot are mentioned as possessing herdsmen (Gen. 13:7). That Abram could later rescue Lot with the help of 318 armed and trained retainers (see ch. 14:14) clarifies still further the fact that these "souls" were the members of his household (see on ch. 14:14).

Into the land of Canaan. The land of Canaan includes not only Palestine but also Phoenicia and southern Syria (see on ch. 10:19). Egyptian and north Syrian inscriptions of the second millennium b.c. use the term Canaan in this sense. Inasmuch as Abram was to settle in the southern part of Canaan--Shechem, Hebron, Gerar--the journey took him about 450 mi. from Haran. Owing to the fact that topographical features leave but few alternate possibilities, his route of travel may be traced rather exactly. Leaving the region of Haran, the great caravan must have moved slowly southward along the Balikh River until it reached the Euphrates, which it followed upstream for some 60 mi. From this point 80 mi. of desert must be crossed in order to reach the north Syrian river Orontes. The great oasis of Aleppo lies halfway between the Euphrates and the Orontes, and was probably used by Abram on his journey to give rest and drink to the weary animals and men. Reaching the Orontes, he presumably followed it upstream to the south, leading the great caravan through the Syrian plain, called Beqa today, which lies between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Passing the watershed whence the Orontes flows north and the Litani south, the latter was followed until the caravan reached Galilee with its rugged, hilly terrain.

Abram's Journeys

6. Abram passed through the land. Palestine was heavily wooded at that time. Its roads are described in ancient Egyptian documents as being a nightmare to travelers. Progress of the caravan may have been very slow, in view of the great number of animals and people accompanying the patriarch. The journey was probably broken by frequent pauses for rest. Having crossed Galilee, the wanderers came to the plain of Esdraelon, in which there were already several powerful Canaanite cities, such as Megiddo and Taanach. Then they crossed the Carmel ridge and entered the hilly country that would later belong to Ephraim, and here made their first prolonged halt. This was probably done because the Lord told Abram (v. 7) that he had reached the end of his journey and was now in the land that had been promised him.

Sichem. This city is called Shechem elsewhere in the OT (Gen. 35:4; etc.). Situated at the eastern entrance to a narrow valley flanked by the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, it occupied a strategically important place. It is a deserted site today, called Balatah, close to Nablus. Excavations and documentary evidence prove that Shechem was a flourishing and fortified city early in the second millennium b.c., when Abram camped in its vicinity. One of the earliest Egyptian military expeditions into Palestine of which a clear record has been preserved was directed against this very city. The stele of an Egyptian warrior who served under King Sen-Usert III (1878-1840 B.C.) of the Twelfth Dynasty describes a campaign against Sekemem, the Egyptian name for Sichem or Shechem, and relates that the native Asiatics were defeated. At the time Abram entered the country of Canaan, Egypt exerted a great influence over its Canaanite neighbors. Though Egypt did not actually exercise political control over Canaan, the latter country was economically dependent upon Egypt, which had royal representatives in its principal cities. These commissioners guarded Egypt's economic interests and played the role of advisers to the local Canaanite rulers. Such was the political situation Abram found in Canaan.

The plain of Moreh. The word "plain" is not an accurate rendering of the Heb. elon, literally, "a great tree." RSV says "oak." The word is presumably used here in a generic and collective sense, and may or may not refer to one particular tree. It has been suggested that a grove of oaks is meant. This view is supported by a later reference Moses makes to the same locality, using the plural form of elon, "trees" (KJV, "plains"), clearly indicating that Moreh possessed more than one such tree (Deut. 11:30). The grove itself has not been identified, but must have been in the immediate vicinity of Shechem, as this text and Deut. 11:29, 30 indicate.

Moreh means "teacher." The ancient Jewish translators of the LXX rendered it by the Greek word hupselen, "lofty." Commentators have attempted to explain the name Moreh as an indication that Abram understood he was to be "taught" there by God, or that the grove belonged to a teacher of fame.

The Canaanite. If Abram had expected to be led into an unpopulated land whose pastures he would not have to share with others, he was mistaken. For this reason, perhaps, the statement is added, "the Canaanite was then in the land." Finding himself an alien amidst a strange people, Abram could not regard the land as his own and actually take possession of it (see Heb. 11:9, 13). This he could do only by faith.

7. The Lord appeared. This is the third divine revelation accorded Abram, the first one in Canaan. Its purpose was to comfort him and to inspire him anew with confidence and courage. After a long and arduous journey Abram arrived in the land promised as a home for him and his posterity, only to find it occupied by Canaanites. A message confirming the promises made at Ur and Haran would bring assurance that possession of the land would come in God's own time and way.

Unto thy seed. The entire message consists of only five words in Hebrew, eight in the KJV. Although one of the shortest of divine revelations, it was nevertheless of great importance to Abram, now an alien in a strange country. Its brevity was in no way proportionate to its importance and value. It called for faith to believe that the Canaanites in their strongly fortified cities should be dispossessed and their country given to a childless old man. The apparent improbability of the realization of such a promise rendered it a strong test of the patriarch's faith.

An altar. The soil hallowed by the presence of God, Abram dedicated as a place of worship to Him. The altar erected and sacrifices offered bore witness to the God of heaven, and silently protested against the idolatry round about. Abram thus publicly pledged allegiance to the true God. As the lord of a large household, he sensed also a responsibility toward his servants, to impress upon them a more perfect knowledge of the God he served (ch. 18:19). The sacrifice testified of Abram's belief in the death of the Son of God as an atonement for sin.

8. Beth-el. In need of fresh pastureland, Abram moved from the vicinity of Shechem to the east of Bethel, 20 mi. farther to the south. Abram pitched his tent on one of the hilltops between the cities of Bethel and Ai. The city is here referred to by the name it bore in later times. It was still called Luz in Abram's time (see ch. 28:19). This Canaanite city, now called Beitin, lies about 10 mi. north of Jerusalem. It played an important role in Jacob's life (ch. 28:19; 35:1), and was one of the first cities of Canaan conquered by Joshua. During the period of the divided kingdom, one of the two idolatrous cult places of Israel was situated there (1 Kings 12:28, 29). Scholars have identified the present Et-Tell with Ai, because of the similarity of names, Ai being the Hebrew name for "ruin," whereas Tell is the Arabic name for a ruined site. This identification is, however, questionable.

He builded an alter. Abram erected an altar, wherever he pitched his tent (see Gen. 12:7; 13:18), and conducted public worship for the members of his household and for pagans living nearby. Although the service was presumably simple, consisting essentially in prayer, the offering of a sacrificial animal, and doubtless an evangelistic appeal, the great number of retainers whom Abram had led to a knowledge of Jehovah must have made these occasions impressive (see ch. 14:14; 18:19). Many keep their faith secret, afraid to confess it, but not Abram. Wherever he went he confessed the One whom he trusted and obeyed. His altars dotting the Palestinian countryside became memorials to the one true God. The Canaanites, whose iniquity was not yet full (ch. 15:16), were thus made aquainted with the Creator of the universe, and by Abram's precept and example were called upon to discard their idols and worship Him. The world's first foreign missionary, Abram journeyed tirelessly through Palestine and preached God wherever he pitched his tent. Isaac and Jacob were also called of God to spend their lives in this land. Although these men were not always shining examples of truth, the Canaanites could not but see the difference between their own way of life and that of the Hebrews. When the time of their judgment should come they could not deny that God had provided them every opportunity to learn of Him.

9. Toward the south. Bethel was not to be Abram's permanent home. He proceeded toward the "south," Negeb, which retains this name to the present day. The Negeb was and still is a semiarid country lying to the south and southwest of the mountains, which in later times belonged to Judah. Since ancient times Beersheba, situated at the crossroads of several caravan routes, has been its chief city. Abram perhaps felt that the mountainous parts of Canaan, which were already occupied by the Canaanites, could not provide sufficient pasture for his own great flocks and those of Lot. With its sparse population and wide and open grazing land, the Negeb seemed to him more suitable.

10. There was a famine. Abram had scarcely passed through the Promised Land when a severe famine compelled him to leave it. Canaan, though naturally fertile, was subject to visitations of drought, especially in those years when the November and December rains, on which the country depended, either failed or were scanty (Gen. 26:1; 41:56; 1 Kings 17:1; Haggai 1:10, 11). The occurrence of this famine just at the time of Abram's entering the land was an additional trial of his faith. It was to teach him lessons of submission, faith, and patience. He was to realize that even in the Promised Land food and blessings come from the Lord alone.

Abram went down into Egypt. Being in the south of Canaan, Abram found it natural to turn to Egypt, the country of plenty, to find sustenance. Although Egypt itself occasionally suffered from famine, because of failure of the Nile to overflow, it was known to surrounding countries as a haven of refuge in times of need. Ancient Egyptian records repeatedly mention the fact that Asiatics entered the country to feed their starving flocks. At times these visitors would remain in the country and become a menace to the natives. Amenemhet I (1991-1962 B.C.), first king of the Twelfth Dynasty, walled off his eastern frontier with the avowed purpose "not to allow the Asiatics to go down into Egypt, that they may beg for water after [their] customary manner so as to give their cattle to drink." A later document, the report of a frontier official of the time of the Hebrew judges, mentions that Bedouins of Edom had been allowed to enter Egypt to keep themselves and their cattle alive.

The most famous record of a visit of Asiatics to Egypt at the time of Abram is a tomb painting for a nobleman under King Sen-Usert II (1897-1879 B.C.). It depicts the arrival of 37 Semitic Bedouins who had come to trade cosmetics with the Egyptians, and shows their features, colorful garments, weapons, and musical instruments. This unusual document is an important contribution to our understanding of Abram's time. No modern artist preparing pictures of the patriarchal age can afford to neglect this contemporary painting of Abram's time. This documentary evidence about Asiatics entering Egypt for trading purposes or to acquire food in times of want makes it easy to visualize Abram going down to the valley of the Nile to keep his herds and flocks alive (see p. 160).

12. This is his wife. Abram was to discover in Egypt that human cunning is worthless and that deliverance from fear and perplexity comes only from the Lord (Ps. 105:14, 15). Approaching Egypt Abram feared for his life on account of the beauty of Sarai, his wife. Since she was his half sister, he felt justified in asking her to pass herself off as his sister (see Gen. 20:12). The conduct of the Canaanites, as seen later in the case of the men of Sodom (ch. 19:4-11), is evidence that he had reason for his anxiety. His experience in Egypt shows even more clearly that, from a human point of view, his fears were well founded. But the precaution he took did not spring from faith. How could he expect to retain her as his wife when she herself had denied her marital status? How could he think to protect her more effectively as his sister than as his wife? His clever plan brought upon him the very thing he feared and hoped to avoid, even though as her alleged brother he was treated well by Pharaoh and given cattle and slaves as a token of royal pleasure and friendship (see on ch. 20:13-16). It is often thus with our supposedly "clever" schemes.

14. She was very fair. How could Sarai at the age of 65 have been as attractive as this incident suggests? It should be remembered that in Abram's time the life span was twice what it is now, and Sarai, who died at the age of 127 (ch. 23:1), was therefore in middle age. The Pharaohs are known to have fancied the fairer complexion of foreign women, and to have secured Libyan, Hittite, Mesopotamian, and Palestinian girls for the royal harem.

15. Pharaoh's house. The word "Pharaoh," and Egyptian term literally meaning "great house," was not originally a royal title but a term denoting the palace. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, under whose kings Moses wrote the book of Genesis, it became a term of respect designating the king. Similarly, the Sultan was called the Sublime Porte. Also, the President of the United States is sometimes referred to impersonally and indirectly as "the White House." In later times the proper name of the king was added to his title, the earliest example of this use in the Bible occurring in the 10th century b.c. (see 2 Kings 23:29, "Pharaoh-nechoh").

16. He had sheep. Of the domestic animals here mentioned, only the camel was still uncommon at this time. It was not entirely unknown, however, as a number of figurines of laden camels found in tombs of the third and second millenniums b.c. prove. The horse had not yet been introduced into Egypt, and is not mentioned. Archeology points to the Asiatic Hyksos, who ruled in Egypt more than a century, as introducing the horse and chariot. Moses' mention of horses in Joseph's time and not in Abram's time is evidence of his accurate knowledge of Egypt.

17. The Lord plagued Pharaoh. Man's extremity is God's opportunity. Though Abram had failed God, God intervened on his behalf. What the nature of these plagues was cannot be determined, but they were obviously of such a nature as to protect Sarai from dishonor and to convince Pharaoh that he should restore her to Abram. Sarai herself may have revealed her actual marital status, or God may have spoken directly to Pharaoh as He did later to Abimelech (see ch. 20:3).

This experience should have taught Abram to trust in God rather than in his own clever devices. It seems strange, however, to find him a little later making the same mistake, and even more strange to find his son Isaac trying the same artifice (see chs. 20:2; 26:7). That God should rescue his servants from circumstances of their own contriving is evidence of His mercy and love. Those who profess faith in Him may at times act unworthily of their calling, yet God often teaches their opponents to respect them. The Lord remains faithful toward His children even in their hours of unfaithfulness (see 2 Tim. 2:13). But, to act deliberately, in the anticipation that God will save us from untoward results, is presumption. To a temptation such as this Christ replied, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God" (Matt. 4:7).

18. Pharaoh called Abram. Pharaoh's words of reproof imply that he would not have taken Sarai had he known her to be another man's wife. His intentions were above reproach; his arrangements for making her his wife were entirely legitimate. Sarai had been taken to court in preparation for the wedding, but had not yet joined the king. And Abram, on his part, had accepted the customary dowry and other gifts in token of the king's favor.

19. Take her, and go. Recognizing that the plagues had come upon him because of God's displeasure, the monarch did not dare to deal harshly with Abram, but sought, rather, to mitigate the anger of God by providing him a safe-conduct from the country. The graciousness of Pharaoh and the mercy of God had humbled him, and in silence he acknowledged his guilt. What dishonor comes to the cause of God when His representatives, as the result of ill-advised and disgraceful courses of action, bring upon themselves well-earned reproof from men of the world!

Ellen G. White Comments

1-20PP 125-131

1 COL 36; FE 286, 505; GW 112; PP 126; 4T 523

1, 2 PP 368

2 COL 286; MB 69; MH 405; PK 15, 703; PP 129

2, 3 DA 27; PK 368; PP 125

3 PK 683

4-6PP 127

6, 7 PP 128

7, 8 ML 33, 35; 5T 320

10 PP 129

11-17PP 130

13 PP 147

18, 19 PP 130

Genesis Chapter 13

1 Abram and Lot return out of Egypt. 7 By disagreement they part asunder. 10 Lot goeth to wicked Sodom. 14 God reneweth the promise to Abram. 18 He removeth to Hebron, and there buildeth an altar.

1. Abram went up out of Egypt. It was in the mercy of God that Abram returned safely from Egypt with his wife, his family, and his possessions. The mention of Lot as returning with Abram prepares the reader for the succeeding account of relations between Lot and his uncle. Their immediate destination was the Palestinian southland, the Negeb which extends from Kadesh-barnea in the south to the area north of Beersheba, its chief city (see ch. 12:9).

2. Abram was very rich. The word here translated "rich" literally means "heavy" or "weighty," used in the sense of being "loaded" with possessions. A wealthy man before he went to Egypt, Abram came back greatly increased in goods, owing to the generosity of Pharaoh. For the first time the Bible mentions silver and gold as precious metals, and their possession as making a man wealthy. Abram may have had silver when he left Mesopotamia, a country rich in this metal; but the gold probably came to him in Egypt, the richest god-mining country of antiquity. About the middle of the second millennium b.c. Asiatic rulers begged for gold in almost every letter they wrote to the Pharaohs. It was commonly believed that "gold was as plentiful in Egypt as stones." The tombs of some Phoenician rulers of Byblos, discovered in the 1920's, contained many precious gifts from Egyptian kings of the 19th and 18th centuries b.c. Beautiful vessels, boxes, ornaments, and other luxury objects may have been included in the present Abram received from Pharaoh.

3. To Beth-el. Traversing the southland, Abram retraced his steps to the vicinity of Bethel, where he had camped previously. The word here translated "journeys" means "stations," or places where he pitched his tent. This indicates, not a direct, continuous journey from Egypt through the southland to Bethel, but a trek made in gradual stages from one pastureland to another, in the general direction of Bethel (see ch. 12:8).

4. The place of the altar. Moses emphasizes Abram's return to a place in which he had previously conducted public worship. Bethel was dear to his heart because of the sacred memory of communion he there had enjoyed with the Lord. Perhaps, also, he expected to find ready ears and willing hearts among the people of the vicinity, who must have remembered his earlier sojourn there. The site of each encampment of Abram was marked by an altar at which roving Canaanites learned of the true God and where, after Abram had moved on, they returned to worship Him (PP 128). An important point to consider in choosing a home is "the place of the altar."

6. Their substance was great. The uncle's prosperity overflowed upon his nephew. Lot, the only other member of Terah's family who had obeyed God's command to go to Canaan, shared in the blessing promised Abram. Inasmuch as the land was already occupied by the Canaanites, and the mountains of Canaan were heavily wooded, as ancient records show, there was scant permanent grazing land for the large flocks and herds of the newcomers.

7. Strife. The scarcity of available pastureland, and sometimes of water as well, resulted in strife between Abram's shepherds and those of Lot. Each group naturally wanted to see his master's possessions prosper.

The Canaanite and the Perizzite. The Perizzites are mentioned, together with the Canaanites, in other passages (see Gen. 34:30; Judges 1:4, 5), and are frequently enumerated with the various other tribes that occupied Canaan in patriarchal times (Gen. 15:19-21; Ex. 3:8, 17; 23:23; etc.). Many commentators have thought the Perizzites to be village dwellers (Heb. perazi, "the inhabitants of the open land," Esther 9:19), in contrast to the Canaanites who dwelt in walled cities. The relationship of the Perizzites to other nations of Palestine is uncertain, inasmuch as they do not appear either in the table of nations of ch. 10 or in non-Biblical sources.

8. Let there be no strife. The quarrels of the shepherds were probably reflected in Lot's attitude and conduct. Anxious to avert discord and enmity between himself and his nephew, Abram proposed the separation of their flocks and herds as a solution to the difficulty. In view of the fact that Lot was his junior, and that the entire country had been promised to Abram, his dealings with Lot reflect a truly generous spirit. The nobility of soul revealed upon this occasion stands forth in sharp contrast to the weakness of character he had so recently exhibited in Egypt. Abram proved himself to be a man of peace.

We be brethren. Abram recognized the pernicious influence that hatred and strife between himself and Lot would have upon the surrounding nations. Nothing would have more effectively thwarted God's plan to evangelize the nations of Canaan than continuous discord between the two families. Although Abram was the elder of the two, he took no advantage of his seniority of age and position to make preferential claims. His reference to himself and Lot as "brethren" was meant to assure his nephew equality of position and treatment. He sought to disperse any doubt Lot may have had regarding the honesty of his uncle's intentions.

9. Is not the whole land before thee? Though appointed heir to the entire country, Abram manifested true humility by subordinating his own interests to those of Lot and so permitting him to take as much of the land as he wanted. Abram waived his own rights for the sake of peace, but in so doing earned our highest respect. He displayed a generosity of spirit, a nobility of mind, a character worthy of emulation. To do otherwise than he did would have been to follow the selfish principles that usually govern men in their dealings with one another. But a spiritual man lives according to higher principles and looks beyond the temporary advantages of this world to eternal gains. This Abram did by defeating Satan's purpose to create discord and strife between him and his nephew.

10. All the plain of Jordan. Less noble than his uncle, Lot proceeded immediately to take advantage of the offer. In his mind he surveyed the country as far as he knew it. He had noticed that the plain of the Jordan, called in ancient times the Kikkar, today el-Ghor, was well watered. Lot, a citizen of Mesopotamia, where rivers and canals imparted great fertility to the land, could not have failed to compare his former homeland with the mountainous and seemingly less fertile country to which he had come. Abram had induced him to come to Canaan, he reasoned, and accordingly should see to it that he was comfortably settled.

Western Palestine does not possess any rivers worth the name. The only river of importance is the Jordan, and most of its tributaries flow from the east. With its source in the Anti-Lebanon Mountains, the Jordan runs through what was once Lake Huleh in Upper Galilee, some 7 ft. above sea level. Falling then rapidly in altitude, it enters the Sea of Galilee 10 mi. south of Lake Huleh, 685 ft. below sea level. Leaving the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan flows for 65 mi., as the crow flies, to the Dead Sea. But in that distance it meanders 200 mi., entering the Dead Sea at an altitude of 1,275 ft. below sea level. Lying deeply embedded between the mountains of western Palestine and the high plateau of Transjordan, the whole valley of the Jordan has a tropical climate all the year round with a corresponding fertility.

Sodom and Gomorrah. For the first time the two wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are linked with Lot's fortunes. These cities seem to have been situated to the south of the Dead Sea, which in the time of Abram was much smaller than now (see chs. 14:3 and 19:24, 25). Hence the valley in which these cities lay is probably included by Moses in the expression the "plain of the Jordan," called in v. 12 simply the "plain."

As the garden of the Lord. The fertile Jordan valley, with its tropical vegetation, seemed to compare favorably with what Moses had heard of the long-lost Paradise, and with the fertile Nile delta, which Lot and Abram had recently left.

11. Lot chose. Allured by its beauty and fertility and heedless of other considerations, Lot chose the Jordan valley as his future place of abode. Impelled by selfishness and guided only by his own inclinations and the prospect of temporal advantage, Lot made the fateful decision of his life. This decision led him through a series of unfortunate experiences which imperiled his life, his soul, and his family. Leaving Abram at Bethel, Lot and his family departed eastward.

12. Pitched his tent toward Sodom. Desirous of settling in the immediate neighborhood of the cities of the Jordan valley, in whose wealth he hoped to share, Lot stands in marked contrast to his uncle, who remained a wanderer throughout life (see Heb. 11:9). The experience of Lot is a lesson for the Christian who is tempted to choose earthly associates and temporal gain in exchange for eternal happiness. First he "beheld," and then he "chose." Leaving the Jordan valley, north of the Dead Sea, he pitched his tent toward Sodom, then moved into the city (see Gen. 14:12; 19:1). Though he himself was righteous, his fateful decision meant the loss of almost everything he held dear (PP 168).

13. The men of Sodom. It is clear that the men Lot chose for neighbors were already wicked when Lot made his home among them. The greatest depravity is often found among people situated in the most fertile lands and enjoying the advantages of an advanced civilization. Such is the ingratitude of human nature that where the gifts of God are most abundantly lavished, there men forget Him first (see Hosea 4:7; 10:1). It is one of the moral dangers of prosperity that men become so satisfied with the things of this present world that they feel no need of God.

14. Lift up now thine eyes. This is the fourth occasion on which the patriarch was addressed directly by God. Each of these occasions marked a crisis in his life. Evidently approving the separation of Lot from Abram, God again bade Abram survey the country, all of which would eventually belong to him and his posterity. The divine command, "Lift up now thine eyes," must have reminded Abram of Lot, who had recently "lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan" (v. 10). Although Lot had chosen that portion which appeared to be the most favorable part of the land, Abram was told that in time it would all belong to his descendants.

15. For ever. The promise of God is immutable. As the seed of Abram were to exist before God forever, so Canaan was ever to be their homeland. This promise, originally made with respect to the literal descendants of Abram, is vouchsafed in turn to his true spiritual posterity, of the household of faith (see Gal. 3:29). This promise, therefore, did not preclude the expulsion of the unbelieving seed from the land of Canaan.

16. As the dust of the earth. This is a repetition of the previous promise that Abram should be the father of "a great nation" (ch. 12:2). The promise is expressed in the colorful imagery of the Orient, now comparing Abram's seed to the innumerable dust of the earth, as at a later time to the stars of heaven (ch. 15:5).

18. The plain of Mamre. Obeying God's directions, Abram set forth once more. If he believed the word of God literally, this journey took him gradually through the length and breadth of the land. Abram finally pitched his tent at a grove near Hebron. The Hebrew word elone, translated "plain" in the KJV, should be rendered "oaks" (see on ch. 12:6). Here it is used in the plural and clearly indicates the presence of a number of large trees. This grove belonged to an Amorite chieftain, Mamre, who later became the friend and ally of Abram (ch. 14:13, 24).

Which is in Hebron. The city of Hebron lies 22 mi. south of Jerusalem, on the way to Beersheba. It is a city of great antiquity, having been built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Num. 13:22). Since the date of the foundation of the Egyptian Tanis is not known, this chronological statement from the book of Numbers is unfortunately without meaning for us. The name Hebron was used at a later period. In the time of the patriarchs it was known as Kirjath-arba, or the city of Arba (see Gen. 23:2; Joshua 14:15). This is one of several instances in which Bible writers favored contemporary names in order to make the story more intelligible for their readers.

An altar unto the Lord. As earlier at Shechem (Gen. 12:7) and at Bethel (ch. 12:8), Abram again set up an altar. Each memorial to the true God expressed gratitude for His mercies and loyalty to His principles. That Abram's Amorite and Hittite neighbors became his friends (chs. 14:13, 24; 23:7-17) may have been due to his wholesome influence upon them. Perhaps, also, they appreciated to some extent at least the fact that God's blessing rested upon him, and felt they might share it with him (see ch. 12:3). There must have awakened in their hearts the conviction that the God Abram worshiped and served was indeed the true God, Creator of heaven and earth. Abram's witness by precept and example was certainly not without results (PP 128).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-18PP 132-134

8-11ML 192

10 PK 229; PP 156, 174

10, 11 4T 110

10-13PP 133

12 Ev 78; MYP 419; PK 229

14-16SR 76

Genesis Chapter 14

1 The battle of four kings against five. 12 Lot is taken prisoner. 14 Abram rescueth him. 18 Melchizedek blesseth Abram. 20 Abram giveth him tithe. 22 The rest of the spoil, his partners having had their portions, he restoreth to the king of Sodom.

1. It came to pass. The attitude of the scholarly world toward this chapter has been divided. Some have accepted it as a reliable ancient document based on historical facts. Others have considered it a story fabricated by a late Jewish writer with the purpose of glorifying the patriarch Abram. However, discoveries have shown that the setting, language, and proper names fit exactly into the early second millennium b.c., thus strengthening materially the position of those who believe in the historicity of the chapter. It is still impossible, however, to identify any of the kings listed with persons mentioned in non-Biblical sources, since very little is known of the political history of this period.

Amraphel king of Shinar. This king has customarily been identified with Hammurabi, the sixth and greatest king of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Wherever Shinar is mentioned in the OT record it is used as a designation for Babylonia (see on ch. 10:10), a fact that would seem to suggest that Amraphel was a king of Babylonia. However, it is also possible to see in this Shinar the ShanhÉara of cuneiform sources, which was in northwestern Mesopotamia. It seems, furthermore, chronologically impossible to identify Hammurabi with Amraphel. Although some scholars hold to the older dating of Hammurabi's reign, the more recent view is that he ruled in either the 18th or 17th century b.c., which would place him more than a hundred years later than Abram. Linguistic identification of Amraphel with Hammurabi is also not without difficulties. Since about 1930 three more kings named Hammurabi have come to light, who lived in the same period: one of Ugarit, one of Aleppo, and another of an unidentified city. It is evident, therefore, that definite identification cannot as yet be made.

Campaign of Chedorlaomer and the Kings of the East

Arioch king of Ellasar. The name Arriwuk (Arioch) is attested in cuneiform texts as that of a son of King Zimrilim of the Mesopotamian city Mari, in the 18th century b.c. Though this is not the same individual as the king of Ellasar, the occurrence of the name Arioch in records from the post-Abramic period indicates that the story fits appropriately into that age. It is tempting to identify Ellasar with the city Larsa in Lower Mesopotamia. This has often been attempted in the past, but definite evidence is lacking.

Chedorlaomer king of Elam. A good Elamite name meaning "servant of [the goddess] Lagamar." The names of several Elamite kings begin with the word kudur, "servant," such as Kudur-Mabuk, Kudur-Nachunte, and Kudur-Ellil. The second part of Chedorlaomer is the Hebrew transliteration of the name of the Elamite goddess Lagamar. However, no Elamite king by the name Kudur-Lagamar is so far known from non-Biblical sources.

Tidal king of nations. Several Hittite kings bore this name, in the form of Tudhalia, but it is uncertain whether this particular king appears in any record outside of the Bible.

Although it is impossible to identify the four kings with certainty, the occurrence of all their names in the period in which Abram lived shows clearly that the account of ch. 14 is historical, not legendary.

2. Bera king of Sodom. There is less reason to expect to find the names of the city kings of the Jordan valley in non-Biblical documents than those of the great nations of the time. The four names given are, however, Palestinian and can be explained as such. In Arabic, Bera would mean "victor"; Birsha, "long man"; Shinab, "[the moon-god] Sin is father"; and Shemeber, "mighty of fame."

3. The vale of Siddim. According to this text the valley of Siddim is to be identified with all or part of what is known in later times as the Salt Sea or Dead Sea. The northern two thirds of the present-day Dead Sea is very deep (500-1,128 ft.), and must have existed already in Abram's time. The southern part is shallow, its depth nowhere exceeding 15 ft. Submerged trees show that this part of the Dead Sea was dry land in comparatively recent times. It is therefore reasonable to locate the "vale of Siddim" in the southern part of the Dead Sea, which became submerged in the course of time as the waters of the sea rose. It was rising gradually in modern times until irrigation shrank the Jordan inflow and lowered the amount reaching the Dead Sea. Since a number of streams flow into the southern portion of the sea in a region that is still very fertile, it is reasonable to assume that the whole valley now forming the southernmost part of the Dead Sea was once that exceptionally fertile plain that the Bible compares with Paradise and the Nile valley (ch. 13:10). In this region, then, the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim, and Zoar were presumably situated.

4. Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer. Chedorlaomer was leader of the coalition of kings. It is shown that Elam was a great Mesopotamian power at the time of Abram. In alliance with other Asiatic rulers, Elam may have undertaken this western campaign in order to reopen its caravan route to the Red Sea. Inasmuch as western Palestine was under Egyptian influence, it was only natural for Asiatic powers to seek control of its trade routes. That more nations had been tributary to Chedorlaomer than the five city-states of Siddim is apparent from the following verses. Taxation may have been heavy, and when the various peoples had somewhat recovered from the previous campaign, they rebelled and ceased sending tribute annually to Mesopotamia.

5. In the fourteenth year. The revolt brought a punitive expedition by which it was hoped that the former situation might be restored. It is not necessary to presume that all the rulers named in v. 1 were personally present in the campaign. Ancient Oriental rulers always speak as if they had directed and won every battle singlehanded.

The Rephaims. The first battle took place in Bashan at the city Ashteroth Karnaim, the modern Sheikh SaÔad, about 22 mi. east of the Sea of Galilee. The Rephaim are frequently mentioned in early books of the Bible as one of the ancient peoples living mostly in trans-Jordan (cf. Deut. 2:11, margin; 3:11, 13; etc.).

The Zuzims. Neither this people nor the locality is mentioned anywhere else in the Bible, and therefore cannot be identified, unless they were the Zamzummim of Deut. 2:20, who were later replaced by the Ammonites.

The Emims. The people who preceded the Moabites east of the Dead Sea and were displaced by them were called Emims (Deut. 2:10, 11). Shaveh Kiriathaim means the high plateau of Kiriathaim, the latter word being the name of a city which lay on a northern tributary of the river Arnon and was later assigned to the tribe of Reuben (Joshua 13:19).

6. The Horites. Proceeding southward, the victorious forces smote Horites, or Hurrians, who lived in the mountainous region south of the Dead Sea later taken over by the Edomites (Deut. 2:22). They pursued the defeated peoples as far as the desert of Paran, in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula.

7. En-mishpat, which is Kadesh. This passage mentions for the first time a desert oasis destined to play an important role in the history of the Israelites during their 40 years of wandering. Its full name was Kadesh-barnea (see Num. 32:8). The earlier name En-mishpat means "Spring of Judgment."

The Amalekites, and also the Amorites. The Amalekites, desert tribes that roamed in the regions south of Palestine, were the next objective of the victorious forces, as were also the Amorites living west of the Dead Sea. Hazezon-tamar is identified in 2 Chron. 20:2 with En-gedi.

8. The king of Sodom. The next encounter took place to the southeast of Engedi, in the valley which is now covered by the southern part of the Dead Sea (see on v. 3). The five city-states joined forces and fought against the armies of the four northeastern kings.

10. Slimepits. This battlefield had apparently been chosen by the five local kings in order that they might profit by their knowledge of the geographical peculiarities of the region. Open asphalt wells are characteristic of Mesopotamia, but are nowhere found in Palestine or trans-Jordan today. In the southern part of the Dead Sea, however, considerable quantities of asphalt still rise to the surface and float on the water, one more proof that the "vale of Siddim" is now covered by the waters of the Dead Sea. The erupting asphalt, already a phenomenon in classical times, as Josephus, Strabo, Diodorus, and Tacitus testify, gave to the Dead Sea the name Lake Asphaltitis.

The kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled. Their last attempt to resist the victorious forces of the great powers failed, as had all preceding ones, and the kings "fled, and fell there." This latter phrase cannot mean that all the kings were killed, because v. 17 shows that at least the king of Sodom survived the battle. It simply designates their utter defeat.

12. They took Lot. The defeated cities were spoiled and their surviving inhabitants were carried away into captivity. Among them was Lot, with his family and all his possessions (see v. 16). This passage re-emphasizes the unfortunate results of Lot's foolish choice (ch. 13:12, 13).

13. Told Abram the Hebrew. A fugitive, probably one of Lot's servants, arrived at Abram's dwelling near Hebron with a report of what had happened. Here for the first time Abram is called "the Hebrew," designating him a descendant of Eber. Eber's descendants were to be found all over the ancient Orient in the second millennium b.c., and were called Habiru in cuneiform inscriptions and ÔApiru in Egyptians texts. As a descendant of Egyptian texts. As a descendant of Eber, Abram may have been known to the Amorites and Canaanites of Palestine as "the Hebrew."

Confederate with Abram. The three Amorite brothers mentioned in this text as confederates of Abram were probably tribal heads. Abram had concluded with them a treaty of mutual assistance, as is seen from the designation they receive here, literally, "men of Abram's covenant," and from the fact that they aided Abram in his raid to rescue Lot.

14. His trained servants. Abram is the only patriarch to appear in the role of military leader. He lost no time in making preparations to rescue his nephew, but set out in pursuit immediately, with his own retainers and those of his Amorite friends (v. 24). The Hebrew word here translated "trained servants" occurs nowhere else in the Bible, but is identified in a letter from Taanach in the 15th century b.c. as a Canaanite word meaning "retainers." Born in Abram's house, his 318 "trained servants" could be trusted. This suggests that Abram possessed more than 318 male servants, if those obtained during his recent sojourn in Egypt (ch. 12:16; 16:1) are not included (see PP 141). How many followers and servants of Abram's three friends followed him on his rescue mission is unknown, but they probably constituted a substantial addition to his army. The idea that Abram's forces could defeat so powerful an enemy has often been the target of criticism. History records, however, many examples of great armies being defeated by smaller forces. Furthermore, ancient armies were very small by modern standards. At the battle at Megiddo in the 15th century b.c. Thutmose III killed 83 enemies and took 340 captives, and considered this a great victory. The Tell el ½Amarna Letters of 14th-century Palestine speak of armed forces of 40 to 50, sometimes of only 10 to 20 men, with which Palestinian city kings successfully defended their cities. For a consideration of the Tell el ½Amarna Letters, see p. 106. These documents have added much to our knowledge of 14th-century Palestine.

Pursued them unto Dan. This later name is here substituted, as in similar instances already noted, for its older name Laish (see Joshua 19:47, also on Gen. 47:11). The city of Laish lay at the foot of Mt. Hermon, about 10 mi. north of Lake Huleh, and formed in later times the northernmost border of Israel. The expression "from Dan even to Beer-sheba" designated the limits of Canaan (see 2 Sam. 17:11; etc.). The victorious army of the Mesopotamia kings, being on its homeward march, was already well on its way, and Abram had to traverse all of Palestine before he overtook it.

15. Smote them. In a false sense of security the undefeated Mesopotamian army had relaxed its vigilance. Approaching the enemy, Abram divided his forces into several groups and surprised them by a night attack. As Abram's raiders fell upon the enemy's camp from different directions, so much confusion resulted that the powerful Mesopotamian army fled, leaving all the spoil and captives behind.

Pursued them unto Hobah. Hobah has not been definitely identified, but Damascus lies some 40 mi. northeast of Dan. Abram pursued the fleeing enemies far enough to prevent them from regrouping their forces and turning again to attack him. His victory was complete.

16. He brought back all. Though apparently possessing military genius, Abram certainly did not set out in pursuit of the professional armies of the conquering kings without first placing himself under the direction and protection of God. His fearless faith and unselfish spirit were amply rewarded. Whether Paul included Abram when he spoke of heroes of faith who "waxed valiant in fight" (Heb. 11:34) is not certain.

17. The king of Sodom. Bera, who had escaped from the battle in the vale of Siddim, received word of Abram's victory and went forth to meet him upon his return. The meeting took place in a valley anciently known as Shaveh, but in later times "the king's dale." This seems to be "the king's dale" of 2 Sam. 18:18, and if so, is possibly to be identified with the Kidron valley (PP 703), later called the valley of Jehoshaphat. This valley lies at the foot of Mt. Zion, where David's palace was later built.

18. Melchizedek. The priest-king of Salem joins the king of Sodom in welcoming Abram. In the days of Abram, Jerusalem was known as Salem, or Shalem, "peace," or "security" (see Ps. 76:2). The city of Jerusalem is first attested in Egyptian records of the 19th century b.c., and was then ruled by Amorite kings. Jerusalem means "city of peace," and Melchizedek, "my king is righteous" or "King of righteousness," as the name is interpreted in, Heb. 7:2. While Sodom's king came to meet Abram with the purpose of obtaining the release of his subjects (Gen. 14:21), Melchizedek came to bless the victorious commander.

Bread and wine. These were the chief products of Canaan. The purpose of Melchizedek's meeting Abram with bread and wine has been the subject of much speculation. Some have thought that these were presented to Abram and his soldiers as refreshments, others consider them symbolic of the transfer of the soil of Canaan to the patriarch. Most likely they were simply a token of gratitude to Abram for recovering peace, freedom, and prosperity to the land.

He was the priest. The occurrence of the term "priest," here used for the first time, implies the existence of a regularly constituted form of sacrificial worship.

The most high God. Hebrew El-ÔElyon, this name for God occurs only here and in v. 22. The first part of this word, El, from the same root as Elohim, signifies the "Strong One." It is seldom applied to God without some qualifying attribute, as in El-Shaddai, "God Almighty," or Eloe-Yisra'el, "God of Israel." The second term, ÔElyon, occurring frequently in the OT (Num. 24:16; Deut. 32:8; 2 Sam. 22:14; etc.), describes God as "the Highest," "the Exalted," "the Supreme One." It is surprising indeed to find among the wicked Canaanites and Amorites of Abram's time a local ruler who was not only loyal to the true god but also officiated in a priestly capacity (cf. Ex. 2:16). It shows that God still had His faithful ones scattered here and there. Although in the minority, God's true servants had by no means vanished from the face of the earth. God has never been without faithful witnesses, however dark the period or however wicked its people.

Bible commentators have speculated much about the person of Melchizedek, a priest-king who appears suddenly in the Biblical narrative only to disappear again into the impenetrable obscurity of ancient history. Such speculation is almost entirely without value. "Melchizedek was not Christ" (EGW, RH, Feb. 18, 1890), but his work prefigured that of Christ (Ps. 110:4; Heb. 6:20 to 7:21; DA 578). His unexpected appearance makes him in a certain sense a timeless figure, and his priesthood a type of the priesthood of Jesus Christ.

19. And he blessed him. In pronouncing the blessing of "the most high God" upon Abram, Melchizedek acts in the role of a true priest (see on v. 20). The blessing itself is clothed in poetical language and consists of two parallelisms.

20. Tithes of all. That Abram, and not Melchizedek, was the tithepayer is clearly stated in Heb. 7:4. Giving the tenth of the booty taken from the enemy was an acknowledgment of the divine priesthood of Melchizedek, and proves that Abram was well acquainted with the sacred institution of tithe paying.

This is the first mention of tithing, repeatedly recognized throughout both the OT and the NT as a divine requirement (see Gen. 28:22; Lev. 27:30-33; Num. 18:21-28; Neh. 13:12; Matt. 23:23; Heb. 7:8). That Abram paid tithe shows clearly that this institution was not later, temporary expedient to provide for the sacrificial services, but that it was a divinely instituted practice from the earliest times. By returning to God one tenth of his income the believer recognizes God's ownership over all his property. Abram, of whom God testified that he had kept His commandments, statutes, and laws (Gen. 26:5), performed all his religious duties conscientiously. One of them was to return to God a tenth of his increase. In this act the father of the faithful set an example for all those who desire to serve God and share in the divine blessing. As in days of old, God's promises for faithfulness in tithe paying are still valid (see Mal. 3:10). God is still ready to fulfill His promises and richly bless those who, like Abram, return to him a faithful tithe of their increase.

21. The king of Sodom. Though arriving first (v. 17), the king of Sodom appears to have deferred to the greater personage, Melchizedek, and to have witnessed the interview between him and Abram. Now, he advanced with his request for the release of his subjects, who, according to the rules of ancient warfare, had become the property of Abram and his allies.

22. I have lift up mine hand. Abram made his statement with uplifted hand, the sign of an oath, a common form of swearing (see Deut. 32:40; Eze. 20:5, 6; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5; 6). Thus doing, he called upon the same "most high God," in whose name Melchizedek had blessed him, so indicating that the God of Melchizedek, the possessor of heaven and earth, was his God also (see v. 19).

23. I will not take any thing. Abram, so generous in dealing with his nephew (ch. 13:8, 9), exhibited the same spirit of generosity toward the king of a wicked city. He returned not only all the men, women, and children whom he had rescued, but also all the spoil of war which was in his hand. Though not averse to accepting presents from heathen monarchs (ch. 12:16), the patriarch could not, in marked contrast to Lot, consent to share in the wealth of the impious Sodomites. The only thing Abram could not return was that portion of the spoil his retainers had used as food and what belonged to his confederates.

When Abram refused for himself the spoils offered by the king of Sodom, he demonstrated a loftier hope than that which motivates the children of this world. He was ready to give us his own rights, without hindering others in the realization of theirs. He permitted his own young men to take their subsistence, and his allies their portion. They would receive only what was their due. But Abram, on his part, was not mindful of these things. He stood upon a higher plane, looking for "a better country, that is, an heavenly" (Heb. 11:16), and could afford to think lightly of every earthly good. Though in the world, his hopes and desires were not of it. Children of faith are marked by a certain greatness of mind and purpose that enables them to live above the world.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-24PP 134-136

13-17PP 135

17-24PP 136

18 DA 578

18-20PP 136, 703; 3T 393

19 3T 57

19, 20 MM 216; PP 157

20 CS 66; PP 525

21 PP 135

22, 23 PP 136

Genesis Chapter 15

1 God encourageth Abram. 2 Abram complaineth for want of an heir. 4 God promiseth him a son, and a multiplying of his seed. 6 Abram is justified by faith. 7 Caanan is promised again, and confirmed by a sign, 12 and a vision.

1. The word of the Lord. This new revelation of the Lord differs from previous ones, both in form and in substance, and constitutes another distinct turning point in Abram's life. The remarkable phrase "the word of the Lord [Yahweh, Jehovah]," afterward so common in the Scriptures (Ex. 9:20; Num. 3:16; Deut. 34:5; 1 Sam. 3:1; Jer. 1:4, 11; etc.), is used here for the first time. This phrase, inseparably connected with the work of prophets, is most fitting for this divine revelation to Abram (see Gen. 15:4, 5, 13-16, 18-21), the more so since God Himself refers to Abram as a prophet (ch. 20:7).

In a vision. Though this is not the first vision recorded in the Bible, the word "vision" is here used for the first time. The revelations of God occurred in different ways, whether to patriarchs, prophets, evangelists, or apostles: (1) By the personal manifestation of the second person of the Godhead, afterward incarnate for the salvation of mankind, for example, Deut. 34:10. (2) By an audible voice, sometimes accompanied by the appearance of symbols, as at Jesus' baptism, in Matt. 3:16, 17. (3) By the ministry of angels appearing as human beings and performing miracles to accredit their mission, as to Samson's mother, in Judges 13:3-7. (4) By the powerful agency of the Spirit of God upon the mind, imparting to it a clear conception and strong persuasion of the truth of the things perceived, as with Paul, in Acts 20:23. (5) By dreams, as in Jacob's experience, in Gen. 28:11-15. (6) By visions occurring by either day or night, as in the instance discussed here or that of Balaam, in Num. 24:4, 16. The last two were the more common forms God used to communicate His will to men. This accords with the divine pronouncement, "If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream" (Num. 12:6).

Fear not. These reassuring words were designed to set Abram's mind at ease. The Mesopotamian kings might return to avenge their defeat, or the heathen Canaanites, already jealous of his growing power, might attack. But God promised to be his "shield," the symbol of protection in ancient warfare (see Ps. 3:3), and his "reward." Abram had experienced both during the preceding military expedition, for God had protected him in battle and rewarded him with victory. He must believe that God would continue to do for him what He had done in the past.

2. I go childless. Abram's fear was not so much due to possible military reprisals as to the fact that he was still without an heir. From more immediate problems his mind reverted to the divine promise that had brought him to Canaan in the first place. How could God's promise come true that he, childless as he was, should become the ancestor of a great nation? The combination, Lord God, Adonai Yahweh, occurs here for the first time. Recognizing in God his Lord, Ruler, and Monarch, Abram addresses Him as Adonai, "my Lord," and adds to it the divine personal name Jehovah.

The steward of my house. Mesopotamian records, particularly from the city of Nuzi in patriarchal times, have shed a welcome light on this hitherto obscure passage. These records show that wealthy but childless couples might adopt one of their slaves to become the heir to all their property, and also to care for them in old age. The rights and duties connected with adoption were written, sealed, and then signed by several witnesses as well as by both parties to the agreement. Abram feared that no other course was left to him than to follow the common practice of the time and adopt his most trusted servant, Eliezer of Damascus, as his legal son and heir. This thought is expressed first in the Hebrew phrase which the KJV translates "steward of my house," literally "the son of the possession of my house," meaning "the one who shall be heir of my house." The same thought is clearly repeated in the words, "Lo, one born in my house is mine heir" (v. 3). All the longings, sufferings, and disappointments of the years of Abram's married life are expressed in this lamentation, that not one born of him, but only one born in his house would be his heir. Eliezer, born in Abram's household and brought up as were all of Abram's servants, in the fear of the Lord, was not only a trusted slave but a worthy follower of the faithful patriarch. He was "a man of piety, experience, and sound judgment" (PP 172).

5. Look now toward heaven. This shows that the vision was given to Abram at night. Still in vision, the patriarch was led out into the open and bidden to lift his eyes to the starry sky and count--if he could--its myriad glittering orbs, if he would know the number of his seed.

6. He believed in the Lord. Paul used this text as the cornerstone on which he erected the doctrine of justification by faith (Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6). Although the possibility that Abram would have children had decreased since God's first promise, as his age increased, he did not hesitate to take God's word that it would be so. The Hebrew verbal form, translated "he believed," he'emin, is from the same root as the word amen, with which we emphasize our desire that God may hear and fulfill our prayers. This verb expresses complete trust in the power and promises of God. The particular form of the verb here used expresses, furthermore, that this was not just Abram's historical experience at the moment, but an abiding character trait as well. He kept on believing.

Abram's faith and childlike trust in God did not make him "righteous"; rather, the Lord, "counted it to him for righteousness." For the first time these important concepts, faith and justification, are brought together. It is obvious that Abram had no "righteousness" until it was credited to him by God. And if he had none, no man has ever had. Abram was a sinner and needed redemption, as does every other human being; but when righteousness was imputed to him, mercy and grace were also extended, effecting the pardon of his sin and bringing the rewards of righteousness. Here for the first time the full importance of faith is brought to view. Here also, for the first time, imputed righteousness is mentioned. From this point onward both fundamental concepts run through the Holy Scriptures, to find exhaustive and masterful treatment by the pen of the apostle Paul (see Rom. 4).

7. I am the Lord. Between vs. 6 and 7 there must have been an interval of indeterminate length. The new revelation takes place during the day, apparently toward the end of the day (vs. 12 and 17), whereas the previous vision had taken place during the night (v. 5). This may have occurred the following day, or possibly later. The initial circumstances of the new revelation are not described.

To give thee this land. For the third time God assures Abram that he is to possess the entire land of Canaan (see ch. 12:7; 13:14, 15). But his status had not changed in the least since he first entered Canaan. At intervals God repeated the promise, and Abram accepted it without ever seeing a visible sign of its fulfillment. He was still the homeless wanderer he had been when he arrived from Mesopotamia, and was still childless. It is only natural that questions arose in his mind.

8. Whereby shall I know? This request for a sign may be compared with the requests of Gideon (Judges 6:17, 36-40) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8). Abram's question was not a symptom of unbelief or doubt, but the expression of heartfelt longing to see the promises of God fulfilled. Later, Zacharias, in unbelief, asked for a sign (Luke 1:18, 20), but Mary put a similar question to the angel in faith, humbly yearning for further assurance (Luke 1:34, 35). God, who sees the heart and answers accordingly, recognized the right of his faithful servant Abram to seek for faith's full assurance.

9. Take me an heifer. God condescended to enter into a solemn covenant with Abram, in a form customary among the ancients. The expression "to conclude" or "to make" a covenant (v. 18), literally, "to cut" a covenant, was derived from the practice here described. The animals Abram was directed to use were precisely those later prescribed as sacrificial beasts by Moses (see Ex. 29:15; Num. 15:27; 19:2; Deut. 21:3; Lev. 1:14). The requirement that the quadrupeds were to be "three years old" specifies mature animals.

10. Divided them in the midst. Each of the three animals was slaughtered and divided, and the two halves placed one against the other, with a space between. The birds were killed, but not divided. One was probably laid on one side, and the other opposite it. Those entering into the covenant were to walk between the divided pieces, symbolically vowing perpetual obedience to the provisions thus solemnly agreed upon. The lives of the animals pledged the lives of those participating in the covenant. This practice remained in force for many centuries, for we find it practiced in Jeremiah's time (Jer. 34:18, 19).

11. The fowls came down. This was, of course, a real occurrence and not merely a vision or dream. The reality of Abram's fulfilling the divine directives is implied by the fact that he had to drive away birds of prey that tried to feed on the carcasses. If they are not prevented from doing so, vultures and other birds, in Oriental lands, begin to consume fallen animals immediately upon their death, usually picking their bones clean within a matter of minutes. Abram reverently walked between the severed parts of the sacrifice, according to custom, yet there was no visible evidence that God on His part accepted the obligations of the covenant. This was to come later (v. 17). But until then Abram felt it his duty to protect the carcasses from being torn to pieces and devoured (PP 137).

12. A deep sleep. Whether Abram's sleep was the natural result of weariness from the day's work or a sleep induced by God is not stated. The Hebrew word translated "deep sleep" is also used in ch. 2:21 for the unconscious state God caused to fall upon Adam when He created Eve. In 1 Sam. 26:12 this same "deep sleep" is said to be "from the Lord." The use of this particular word, together with the fact that God appeared to Abram while he thus slept, seems to support the view that the sleep was supernaturally induced.

Great darkness. The meaning of this horror which came over Abram is not given. It may have been designed by God to impress him with the affliction his posterity was to suffer.

13. Know of a surety. This dream--or perhaps it was a vision--clarified for Abram the promises previously made to him. Additional information now revealed made it clear that immediate possession of Canaan could not be expected. But the certainty of the promises is stated in the strongest possible language of which Hebrew is capable. The phrase may be rendered literally, "knowing thou shalt know." Abram may have wondered many times how much longer he would have to remain a stranger in the Land of Promise, and how he would ever realize the fulfillment of God's promises. This revelation left no uncertainty as to the fact that he would remain a wanderer as long as he lived, as would his unborn descendants for four generations. The land of their sojourn is not mentioned in the vision, but its fulfillment made clear that both Canaan and Egypt were included. Canaan being economically dependent upon Egypt during the days of Abram and Isaac, and politically dependent as well under the Hyksos kings in Jacob's and Joseph's time, it is not strange to find both lands included in the singular "a land."

Serve them. How strange it must have seemed to Abram that his seed, concerning whom such wonderful promises had been made, were to serve those in whose midst they should live. This prophecy was fulfilled in due time. Jacob, his grandson, became a servant for 20 years to Laban (ch. 31:41). Joseph, his great-grandson, was even sold as a slave, and later imprisoned (see chs. 39:1; 40:4). Finally, all the descendants of Israel were made slaves in Egypt (Ex. 1:13, 14).

They shall afflict them. Israel's sojourn was to include not only servitude but affliction--persecution--as well. The sequence of pronouns seems rather ambiguous to the English reader, but is not so to one acquainted with Hebrew. According to the rule of inverted parallelism, in which the last member of a pair comes first when the parallelism is next mentioned, the pronoun "they" in the expression "they shall afflict them" refers back to the "them" of "shall serve them" (see on Gen. 10:1, 2).

The fulfillment of this prophecy may be traced in practically every generation for four centuries. Abram's son Isaac was "persecuted" by Ishmael (Gal. 4:29; cf. Gen. 21:9). Jacob fled for his life from Esau (Gen. 27:41-43) and later from Laban (ch. 31:2, 21, 29). Joseph was sold by his own brothers as a slave and later unjustly thrown in jail (chs. 37:28; 39:20). The children of Israel, finally, were sorely "afflicted" by the Egyptians after Joseph's death (Ex. 1:8, 12).

Four hundred years. The questions to be answered are: (1) Is this the time of affliction or the time of sojourning, or both? (2) How are these 400 years related to the 430 of Ex. 12:40, 41 and Gal. 3:16, 17? The first question hinges upon a solution to the second.

The statement in Ex. 12:40, that "the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years," seems to imply that the Hebrews actually spent 430 years there, from Jacob's entry to the Exodus. That this cannot be the meaning is evident from Gal. 3:16, 17, where it is stated that the law was promulgated at Sinai 430 years after the covenant between God and Abram. If Paul refers to the first promise made to Abram in Haran (Gen. 12:1-3), the 430 years began when Abram was 75 years old (ch. 12:4). The 400 years of affliction would then begin 30 years later, when Abram was 105 and his son Isaac 5 years old (ch. 21:5). This would be about the time Ishmael, who "was born after the flesh persecuted him [Isaac] that was born after the Spirit" (Gal. 4:29; Gen. 21:9-11).

The exact time from the call of Abram to Jacob's entry into Egypt was 215 years (see Gen. 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), which would leave 215 years of the 430 as the actual time the Hebrews spent there. For this reason the 430 years of Ex. 12:40 must include the sojourn in Canaan as well as that in Egypt, from Abram's call to the Exodus. The LXX renders Ex. 12:40 thus: "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years." As already pointed out, the land of Canaan was so dependent upon Egypt during the patriarchal period that Egyptian kings actually considered it theirs and referred to it as such. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose kings controlled both Palestine and Syria, Moses could appropriately include Canaan in the term Egypt as used in Ex. 12:40.

That nation. Without revealing the name of the nation referred to, the prophecy points to the time of the plagues that came upon Egypt (see Ex. 6:6).

Come out with great substance. This promise was remarkably fulfilled in the miraculous deliverance of the Hebrews from bondage, and in the immense wealth they carried with them (Ex. 12:36).

15. Go to thy fathers. Most commentators explain this text as implying the immortality of the soul and its disembodied existence in some haven of departed souls. Such an interpretation, however, ignores a common Hebrew figure of speech and forces a literal meaning from figurative words. To "go to" one's fathers (Gen. 15:15), to be "gathered to" one's people (ch. 25:8, 17) or to one's fathers (Judges 2:10), and to sleep with one's fathers (2 Kings 10:35) are common Hebrew euphemisms meaning simply "to die." To imply from these expressions the immorality of the soul apart from the body is to assume to be true that which the Scriptures elsewhere specifically deny (see, for example, Ps. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6; etc.). Abram eventually died, and will not receive the promise until the heroes of all ages are rewarded for their faith (see Heb. 11:10, 13, 39, 40; 1 Thess. 4:16, 17; Matt. 16:27; Col. 3:3, 4).

Be buried. This emphasizes the view just expressed, that Abram was not promised that his soul would wing its flight to heaven or to any other place. He would be buried as his ancestors had been. They were resting in their graves; Abram would join them there. Nevertheless, God comforted him with the assurance of a peaceful old age. Abram lived to be 175 years old (Gen. 25:7, 8).

16. In the fourth generation. Commentators who apply the 400 years of v. 13 to the actual time the Hebrews spent in Egypt find a grave difficulty here. They must assume that the four generations averaged exactly 100 years each. This is contrary to available evidence. However, since the 400 years of v. 13 must refer to the time from Abram to the Exodus (see on v. 13), and the actual time of Israel's stay in Egypt was only some 215 years, no discrepancy exists between this prediction and its fulfillment. Caleb belonged to the fourth generation from Judah (1 Chron. 2:3-5, 18), and Moses, from Levi (Ex. 6:16-20). Attempts to determine the length of a "generation" on the basis of Gen. 15:13, 16 are unjustified, and the results quite sure to be misleading. However ever this may be, one "generation," or group of people, went into Egypt, two dwelt there, and a fourth came out.

The iniquity of the Amorites. There were two fundamental reasons for the apparent delay in the fulfillment of the divine promise. In the first place, it would take time for Abram's seed to multiply to the point of being able to take over the country. In the second place, divine love and justice claimed for the Amorites an extension of their day of grace, lest they or others should charge God with unfairness and partiality when the time should come to destroy them and take over their country. In other words, the Hebrews were not ready to possess the land, nor was God ready to dispossess the Amorites.

There is a fixed degree of iniquity beyond which nations may not go without incurring the judgments of God. The depth of depravity and moral degeneration to which the peoples of Canaan had sunk by the time of Moses is revealed by their mythological literature, recently discovered. They describe their gods as blood-thirsty and cruel beings, killing and deceiving each other, and immoral beyond imagination. As were the antediluvians and the men of Sodom, the men of Canaan, like their gods, were controlled by the basest passions. We find them sacrificing their children, worshiping serpents, and practicing immoral rituals in their temples. Their sanctuaries housed professional prostitutes of both sexes. The Amorites, most powerful of several Canaanite tribes, here stand for all the inhabitants of Canaan (see Joshua 24:15; Judges 6:10; etc.).

17. A burning lamp. The final phase of the divine revelation was designed to impress Abram with the surety of God's promises. A "smoking furnace" or "burning lamp," symbols of the divine presence, passed between the severed carcasses, as Abram himself had done earlier, by daylight. That this was not merely a vision is evident from the fact that the animals were totally consumed (PP 137). By this visible token God confirmed His covenant with Abram, who thus for the first time beheld the sacred symbol of the divine presence.

18. This land. God herewith reaffirms His promise concerning possession of the land of Canaan. For the first time the precise geographical limits of the Promised Land are indicated. For practical purposes these limits were realized during the reigns of David and Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:21; 2 Chron. 9:26).

19. The Kenites. The ten tribes listed do not include all the Canaanites. The number is perhaps symbolic of universality. The Kenites were in the mountainous parts of southwestern Palestine, near the Amalekites (Num. 24:20, 21; 1 Sam. 15:6; etc.). Their origin is not certain. At some time they may have intermarried with the Midianities, for Hobab, Moses' brother-in-law, is called a Kenite (Judges 1:16; 4:11) and also a Midianite (Num. 10:29). They may have been a subfamily of the Midianites.

The Kenizzites. Not yet identified. Some think them to have been descendants of Esau's grandson Kenaz (Gen. 36:15). If this be so, their mention here as a tribe would of necessity be prophetic, for Esau, a grandson of Abram, was not yet born. This suggestion hardly seems acceptable.

The Kadmonities. Not mentioned elsewhere. Their origin cannot be determined. Their name, meaning "easterners," points to the eastern regions of Canaan as their abode.

20. The Hittites. See on ch. 10:15.

The Perizzites. See on ch. 13:7.

The Rephaims. See on ch. 14:5.

21. The Amorites. For these and other tribal groups mentioned in v. 21, see on ch. 10:15, 16.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-21PP 136-137; SR 75-76

1 GC 86; MB 57; 3T 434; 6T 312; 7T 287; 9T 152

1, 3 SR 76

1-3PP 136

5 SR 75, 77

6 PP 370

12 PP 137

12-14SR 75

13 FE 287

13, 14 PP 282; SR 120

14 DA 32

16 PP 232, 434; 5T 208

18 PP 137, 716

Genesis Chapter 16

1 Sarai, being barren, giveth Hagar to Abram. 4 Hagar, being afflicted for despising her mistress, runneth away. 7 An angel sendeth her back to submit herself, 11 and telleth her of her child. 15 Ishmael is born.

1. An handmaid. Notwithstanding all the promises of God, the fact remained that Abram was still without a child ten years after the first promise had been made to him (v. 3). Hagar, an Egyptian servant of Sarai, is introduced. Since the Egyptians were a powerful nation in Abram's time, it is most singular to find an Egyptian servant in a Palestinian household. Hagar was probably the personal attendant given to Sarai when she was taken to Pharaoh (see ch. 12:15, 16). That she was still in Abram's house tends to show that Pharaoh had not taken back the gifts he had given Abram.

Hagar. This is not an Egyptian name. Her original name is not given. The name Hagar, meaning "flight" in Arabic, may have been given to her after her flight from her mistress.

2. Go in unto my maid. Faithlessly concluding that there was no hope of her bearing children, Sarai decided to follow the practice of her native country in order to provide an heir for the family. The legal codes of Mesopotamia recognized the practice whereby a childless wife might give one of her slaves to her husband and obtain children by means of her, and determined precisely the rights of such offspring. Regulations were needed particularly in the case of a first wife who would bear children after the servant had done so, or when a servant would become overbearing after being honored by giving birth to an heir (see the code of Hammurabi, sections 144-146, 170, 171).

Abram hearkened. Faith may be genuine and yet prove to be weak in moments of stress and perplexity. A vigorous faith will cling to the promise, and to that alone, trusting entirely to God for its accomplishment. Such was Abram's faith, except upon three or four brief occasions, throughout a long and eventful life. God had no need of Abram's devices for the accomplishment of His promise. Trust and obedience alone were required. In complying with Sarai's rash suggestion, Abram followed in the footsteps of Adam. In both instances the result was suffering and disappointment, and the imagined blessing proved to be a curse. By listening to Sarai's suggestion Abram created for himself difficulties far reaching in their consequences. There ensued domestic trouble and heartache, and hatred between the future offspring of both wives. Again, in the present day, how bitterly the modern representatives of Sarai's and Hagar's descendants, the Jews and the Arabs, have contended for the possession of the Holy Land!

3. Ten years. The faith of Abram and Sarai, which had remained constant for ten years, now gave way. This comment is introduced probably to account for their impatience at the delay in the arrival of an heir. Little did Abram realize that the delay was divinely appointed to test his faith and to develop his character.

4. Her mistress was despised. Barrenness among the Hebrews was ever regarded as a dishonor and a reproach (Gen. 30:1, 23; Lev. 20:20; see on Luke 1:25), whereas fecundity was considered a special mark of divine favor (see Gen. 21:6; 24:60; Ex. 23:26; etc.). That the Egyptian maid, honored by admission to the rank of a wife (v. 3), should forget her privileged status and become haughty, was precisely the conduct that might have been expected. She would not assent to the plan of her mistress; why should her child be passed off as Sarai's son? The maid who had served Sarai so faithfully through the years as to be considered eligible to become Abram's wife began to despise her whom she had honored heretofore. Homes where the divinely approved marriage status is interfered with are homes where heartache, jealousy, and bitter strife prevail. Abram's home was no exception, and the harmony of earlier times was transformed into discord.

5. My wrong be upon thee. Sarai uses the language of passionate irritation, indicating regret for her previous decision and the intention to blame her husband for the act and for its bitter consequences. She even makes an irreverent use of the name of Jehovah, invoking His judgment upon Abram.

6. Do to her as it pleaseth thee. Section 146 of the ancient Mesopotamian code of Hammurabi says that "if later that female slave has claimed equality with her mistress because she bore children, her mistress may not sell her; she may mark her with the slave-mark and count her among the slaves." This law permitted the humiliation of an overbearing slave-concubine, but also laid certain restrictions upon her owner. Abram, a Mesopotamian by birth and education, was certainly well acquainted with the laws and customs of his homeland, and complied therefore with the law, which allowed his wife to humiliate Hagar but not to sell her. Abram's conciliatory disposition is also apparent from the permission he gave Sarai. He suppressed his own feelings in order to restore harmony to the troubled home. On the other hand, he exhibited weakness in yielding to Sarai's passionate purpose to inflict unjustifiable punishment on the future mother of his child.

Sarai dealt hardly with her. When Sarai restored her to the status of a slave, as the civil law of that time permitted, and even took recourse to corporal punishment as the Hebrew term "dealt hardly" implies, Hagar left the home of Abram and fled. If the slave was legally at fault in running away, her mistress was certainly liable to censure.

7. The angel of the Lord. Although most conservative expositors have here recognized the second person of the Godhead, it is far from certain that He appeared in person. Angels were frequently used to transmit divine messages to men, and this "angel of the Lord" may have been understood by Hagar either to be Jehovah Himself (v. 13), or perhaps simply a representative of Jehovah. Ellen G. White speaks of him simply as "an angel" (PP 145, 152). God Himself repeatedly appeared to Abram (Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12). Only once was an angel commissioned to speak to him (Gen. 22:11, 15). The account here closely resembles that of the visit of the angel, but differs greatly from those of God Himself.

In the way to Shur. Hagar was on the way to her native Egypt, and had almost reached the Egyptian border (see Gen. 25:18; 1 Sam. 15:7). "The fountain" implies a particular, well-known spring.

9. Submit thyself. The Hebrew verb translated "submit" is another form of the verb rendered "dealt hardly" in v. 6. Hagar was to return and submit meekly to Sarai, however, no matter how unkindly Sarai might treat her.

God did not condone Sarai's harshness toward Hagar. He will punish those who misuse their authority, but He rarely entrusts this duty to those who are suffering under harsh and unjust treatment. Meekness is a trait of character God looks for in His children (see Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 1 Peter 2:18-23).

10. I will multiply thy seed. God recognized the difficult circumstances in which Hagar found herself, and for which she was not primarily to blame. Hagar honored the true God, and He would not abandon her in her extremity. The promise He there made to her, a slave, is without parallel. This promise greatly comforted Hagar. Although her son was not to be the son of the divine plan, he would nevertheless share in the promise made to Abram. God had promised to multiply Abram's seed, without limiting it to the offspring of Sarai. Therefore He would abide by His promise to the very letter, but reserve the spiritual blessing for the seed originally intended by the promise, that is, Isaac (see Gal. 4:23-30; Rom. 9:7, 8).

11. Ishmael. This is the first time God named an unborn child (see Gen. 17:19; Luke 1:13, 31). He thus manifested to Hagar His interest in her and her offspring. The name of the child, Ishmael, "God shall hear," was to remind her of God's merciful interposition, and to remind Ishmael that he was an object of God's gracious providence.

12. He will be a wild man. Literally, "a wild ass of a man," as in the RSV. This figure of speech referring to the onager, a wild and untamable animal that roams at will in the desert, aptly depicts the Bedouin's love of freedom as he rides, hardy and frugal, reveling in the varied beauty of nature and despising town life. A highly poetic description of the wild ass appears in Job 39:5-8.

His hand will be against every man. An accurate description of the Arabs, many of whom claim Ishmael as their father. Powerful nations have attempted to conquer Arabia, and subject it to their will, but none have met permanent success. The Arabs have maintained their independence, and God has preserved them as a lasting monument to His providential care. They stand today an incontestable argument to the truth of this divine prediction.

13. Thou God seest me. This experience convinced Hagar that God had spoken to her. Apparently believing that death must come to one who sees God (Ex. 20:19; 33:20), she was astonished to have seen Him and yet remain alive. Therefore she called Him "God of seeing," for He not only had seen her and come to her in her affliction but had also permitted her to see Him and live.

14. Beer-lahai-roi. Thenceforth the well was known by a name meaning "well of the living One seeing me." For generations Arabs refreshing themselves at this well were reminded that God here revealed Himself to their ancestor.

Between Kadesh and Bered. The location of the well, mentioned also in chs. 24:62 and 25:11, has been lost. Inasmuch as Bered is also unknown, all that can be said is that the well must have been west of Kadesh in the southwestern part of Canaan, on the way to Egypt. Some scholars have identified it with the well Ain Kadesh, which the Arabs call Moilahi Hagar.

15. Hagar bare Abram a son. In compliance with the divine order given to Hagar, Abram named his son Ishmael. For 13 years Abram seems to have remained under the illusion that Ishmael was the promised seed. When Abram was 99 the will of God was more clearly unfolded to him (see ch. 17:1, 18).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-16PP 145-147; SR 77-83

3 PP 174

6, 8-11PP 145

12 AH 226; PP 174

13 EW 112; FE 348; ML 291; 5T 558, 627

Genesis Chapter 17

1 God reneweth the covenant. 5 Abram his name is changed in token of a greater blessing. 10 Circumcision is instituted. 15 Sarai her name is changed, and she blessed. 17 Isaac is promised. 23 Abraham and Ishmael are circumcised.

1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine. Thirteen years had elapsed since the birth of Ishmael (ch. 16:16) before God again revealed Himself to Abram. During the previous 11 years God had appeared to him at least 4 times (see ch. 12:1, 7; 13:14; 15:1). The long delay on the part of God to appear again to Abram was probably not without purpose. It was perhaps intended as a remedial penalty for Abram's impatience in not waiting for God to work things out in His own good time and way.

I am the Almighty God. This name of God, El-Shaddai, is found only in the books of Genesis and Job, 6 times in the former and 31 times in the latter. This is one of many indications that the author of both books was one and the same person. The origin and meaning of the word Shaddai are uncertain, but the KJV translation, "almighty," is in all probability the most nearly correct one (Isa. 13:6; Joel 1:15). This name was well chosen in view of the new promise God was about to make to Abram. Twenty-four years had passed since his entry into the land of Canaan (see Gen. 12:4). During the first ten years God had repeatedly promised Abram a child, until he took things into his own hands, married Hagar, and begot Ishmael. Since Ishmael's birth there is no record of any further divine revelations having been received, and Abram seems to have thought that Ishmael was the fulfillment of God's promises (see vs. 17, 18). Ready now to renew His promise to Abram, God found him somewhat skeptical. For this reason God introduced Himself as "the Almighty God," for whom nothing, however difficult it might appear to men, would be impossible.

Relief Map of Palestine

Walk before me. For 13 years Abram had not fully walked "before" God; hence the command to do so. Abram was to walk as if in God's very presence, conscious of divine inspection and solicitous for His approval--not behind Him, as if sensible of his shortcomings and desirous of avoiding observation. There is a marked difference between the expression used to designate Enoch's (ch. 5:24) and Noah's (ch. 6:9) lives, and this command. Of the two earlier patriarchs it was said that they walked "with God," while Abram is asked to walk "before" Him. This suggests a less-complete degree of fellowship, and may have implied God's displeasure with Abram's lack of faith in marrying Hagar.

Be thou perfect. Just as righteousness received in faith (justification) was necessary to the establishment of the covenant, so a blameless walk before God (sanctification) was necessary to its maintenance. This exhortation may perhaps have been a veiled reference to the fact that Abram's past life had not been entirely blameless. God wished Abram to understand that the ultimate realization of the divine promise required him to measure up more completely to God's exalted standard of purity and holiness (see Matt. 5:8, 48). Abram was called to a higher experience than he had known heretofore.

2. My covenant. This does not intimate a new covenant, but rather that the covenant concluded some 14 years earlier (ch. 15) was about to be carried out.

3. Abram fell on his face. Abram, who may have wondered during the many years of silence whether God would ever reveal Himself again, fell down in reverential awe. This attitude in worship was common in ancient times, and was even a posture showing respect for human beings (see Gen. 17:17; 24:52; Num. 16:22; Mark 14:35).

4. As for me. God refers to Himself at the beginning of the sentence by way of emphasis. The expression is equivalent to saying, "So far as I am concerned I," or, "I for my part," hold myself bound to the covenant of many years ago.

A father of many nations. This prediction was to have a twofold fulfillment. In the first place, it pointed to the numerous tribes that would trace their genealogy back to Abram. The Ishmaelite Arabs, the Midianites, and other Arabic tribes descending from Keturah (see ch. 25:1-4), and the Edomites--as well as the Israelites--all were the offspring of Abram. In a wider sense, however, this promise pointed to the innumerable spiritual descendants who would claim Abram as their father (Gal. 3:29).

5. Thy name shall be Abraham. Abram was the first of several men whose names God changed. Names were of much greater importance to the ancients than they are to us. All Semitic names have meanings, and usually consist of a phrase or sentence that expresses a wish, or perhaps gratitude, on the part of the parent. In view of the importance people themselves attached to names, God changed the names of certain men to make them harmonize with their experiences, past or future. Abram, meaning "exalted father," does not appear in this form elsewhere in the Bible, but is found under the form Abiram, meaning "my father is exalted" (see Num. 16:1; 1 Kings 16:34). That the name Abraham is only an extended form of Abram, as some commentators maintain, is unlikely in view of the explanation given in this verse. With our present knowledge of the various Semitic languages current in Abraham's time, however, it is not easy to explain the name Abraham. It is still best to take recourse to the Arabic word ruham, as several generations of Bible expositors have done. The word ruham means "great number," and may have existed in ancient Hebrew, though it does not occur in Hebrew literature available today. The name Abraham would accordingly be translated "father of a great number," which agrees with the explanation God gave to the patriarch after changing his name, "a father of many nations have I made thee."

7. I will establish my covenant. The terms and benefits of this covenant relate not only to Abraham as an individual but to all his descendants as well, both literal and spiritual. The promise here made to Abraham refers specifically to Christ (Gal. 3:16; Acts 2:30), and through Him, according to Paul, all Christians are to share in it (Gal. 3:29; Acts 16:31). A correct understanding of the terms of this covenant will go far toward maintaining a right relationship between God and the believer today.

An everlasting covenant. The word translated "everlasting" does not by any means always indicate an endless period (see on Ex. 21:6). "Everlasting" as used in the Bible generally denotes circumstances or conditions that are to persist so long as the object to which they apply can, by virtue of its inherent nature, be affected by them. This is clear from such expressions as let the king "live for ever" (1 Kings 1:31; Neh. 2:3; etc.), which simply expresses the wish that the king may enjoy a long life. Inasmuch as all followers of Christ--the spiritual seed of Abraham--are heirs to the glorious covenant promises (Gal. 3:7, 27-29), the "everlasting covenant" must remain in effect as long as the plan of salvation is operative. The provisions of God's covenant with Abraham are thus available throughout all generations.

To be a God. This promise comprehends all the blessings of salvation and is a clear indication of the spiritual character of the Abrahamic covenant. God gives Himself to the one who enters into the covenant relationship, and in so doing bestows upon him all the privileges, the joys, and the glorious hope that come with kinship to God. He who thus becomes a son or a daughter of God can desire nothing more to make him happy, either in this life or in the life to come. It is as if God had said to Abraham, "Whatever I am or have, or whatever I can do, I will be and do for you and for your seed. All my boundless resources shall be employed for your protection, your consolation, and your salvation" (see Rom. 8:32). Blessed indeed are those whose God is Jehovah (Ps. 144:15). Under the terms of the everlasting covenant, God and the believer each gives himself without reservation to the other.

8. All the land of Canaan. To those far-reaching promises of a spiritual nature was added once more the assurance that the whole land of Canaan was to belong to Abraham and to his posterity. This promise had been made repeatedly in the past (see chs. 12:7; 13:15; 15:7, 18-21). Upon this occasion he was told that the promise would remain in force forever, meaning that his literal descendants were to possess the land so long as they should comply with the conditions of the covenant, and that his faithful children, both literal and spiritual, would eventually inherit the heavenly Canaan forever and ever.

10. Every man child. In the Hebrew this is much more of a command than the English rendering implies. Literally, "Circumcise among you every male." The rite of circumcision is here introduced as an obligation in connection with the covenant. It was to be the sign of the covenant with literal Israel as baptism is for spiritual Israel (see Gen. 17:11; Col. 2:11, 12; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:21). The one was related to physical birth; the other accompanies the spiritual rebirth.

11. Ye shall circumcise. From ancient times various suggestions have been made in explanation of this rite. The Alexandrian philosopher Philo, a Jew, believed it was ordained by God merely to promote physical cleanliness; others saw in it a protest against certain idolatrous rites practiced by the Egyptians and other heathen nations. Calvin believed it to mean a symbolic putting away of the fifth of the flesh, and so of sin in general. The following points, however, may be noted with reference to the importance of circumcision. It was destined: (1) to distinguish the seed of Abraham from the Gentiles (Eph. 2:11), (2) to perpetuate the memory of the Jehovah's covenant (Gen. 17:11), (3) to foster the cultivation of moral purity (Deut. 10:16), (4) to represent righteousness by faith (Rom. 4:11), (5) to symbolize circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29), and (6) to foreshadow the Christian rite of baptism (Col. 2:11, 12).

The Hebrews were not alone in ancient times in their practice of circumcision. For example, there are records of the custom among the early Egyptians and various Semitic peoples.

It has been practiced in differing forms and administered to persons of varying ages or classes, and has survived into modern times among some African tribes, the Arabs, and other Moslem peoples, and scattered groups such as the Pacific islanders.

A token of the covenant. God has appointed signs and memorials of various significant events. The Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of creation; circumcision, of the Abrahamic covenant; baptism, of Christ's death and resurrection; and the Lord's Supper, of Christ's vicarious sacrifice. Outward signs may teach spiritual truths, thus becoming God's appointed channels of spiritual blessing. Thus they may serve as perpetual reminders of God's grace and of our own duty and responsibility.

12. Every man child. Abraham was given specific instructions as to who should participate in the rite of circumcision, and when it was to be administered. These regulations were later incorporated into the law of Moses (Lev. 12:3; Luke 2:21). No male member of Hebrew society, whether free or slave, was exempted. Circumcision, the token of God's covenant with Abraham, became a sign to Israel that they were God's people, and every male Israelite, therefore, received that sign. With the rejection of literal Israel as God's chosen people, circumcision ceased to have significance as a religious rite (Acts 15:5, 10, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29; Gal. 2:3-5; 5:2-6; Rom. 2:28, 29).

14. Be cut off. This judgment is repeated in the Mosaic legislation, for various infractions of its provisions (see Ex. 12:15, 19; Lev. 17:4, 10; Num. 15:30; 19:13). The personal experience of Moses indicates the solemn importance God attached to the performance of this rite (Ex. 4:24-26). Whether the sentence was to be carried out at the hands of the congregation, the civil magistrates, or God Himself is not explicitly stated. That the expulsion from one's people was in certain cases followed by the death penalty (see Ex. 31:14) does not prove that capital punishment invariably accompanied such a sentence (see Ex. 12:19; Lev. 7:20, 21; Num. 19:13). However this may have been, an uncircumcised Hebrew, whether child or adult, would forfeit his social, political, and religious standing as a Hebrew (see on Ex. 12:15).

15. Sarah shall her name be. This is the first time Abraham's wife Sarai was mentioned by name in any divine communication with him. No great difference exists between the two names Sarai and Sarah. Sarai, meaning "my princess," became simply Sarah, "a princess." Formerly she had been Abraham's princess, but henceforth she was to be recognized as the princess and progenitor of an entire nation. She would belong to her descendants as well as to Abraham.

16. A son also of her. After the many years of waiting Abraham was given definite instructions to the effect that the promised seed would be Sarah's child and not the child of Hagar (see Gal. 4:22-31).

Kings of people shall be of her. This refers primarily to David and his successors upon the throne of Judah, but includes as well the royalty of Edom. God assures Abraham that notwithstanding the perversity of men, who so often in their haste hinder Him, His purpose will prevail (see Isa. 46:10, 11; 55:10, 11).

17. Abraham fell upon his face. That Abraham fell once more upon his face indicates that he had risen since prostrating himself at the beginning of this revelation (see v. 3).

And laughed. Commentators vary in their opinion as to whether Abraham's laughter was the expression of joy or of doubt. Although it would be more pleasing to agree with those who advocate the former, on the basis of Rom. 4:19, 20, the context seems to favor the latter. Paul's statement in Romans would then apply to Abraham's state of mind after being convinced of the reality of the promise. The questions asked by Abraham, probably in his heart rather than spoken audibly, "Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old," and, "Shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" do not leave the impression of being spoken in joy. They seem to express doubt. Perhaps Abraham's laughter may also have reflected his embarrassment in finding that the divine promise regarding Sarah ignored his plans for Ishmael (see Gen. 17:18). Those who find it difficult to think of doubt in the heart of Abraham, the great hero of faith, should consider the events recorded in chs. 12:11-13 and 16:2-4. Note also Sarah's laughter in ch. 18:12-15, which shows that she still doubted, even after Abraham had believed (see ch. 21:6, 9; also on ch. 17:19).

18. That Ishmael might live before thee! This plea suggests that ever since the birth of Ishmael, Abraham had clung tenaciously to the hope that this son might be the promised heir. Blind to the possibility of Sarah's presenting him with a son, at her advanced age, Abraham intercedes on behalf of Ishmael. Abraham would be content to accept him, the son of his own devising, in lieu even of the one to be born of Sarah. Furthermore, it would save him the embarrassment of giving up his publicly announced plan for Ishmael to be his heir (see PP 146).

19. Call his name Isaac. "Indeed"--unquestionably--Sarah would become a mother; there was no reason to doubt. The name God selected for Sarah's promised son, Isaac, means "he laughs." This may be a reference to Abraham's laughter, the lasting reminder of a weak moment of doubt. More likely, however, it reflects the joy Abraham would experience with the birth of the son of promise. He might laugh now in doubt, but then he would rejoice indeed, when faith should meet reality (see Gen. 21:6, 7; Isa. 54:1; Gal. 4:27). The names of both Isaac and Ishmael were selected prior to birth, and the names of Abram and Sarai were changed because a new experience was in store for them.

20. As for Ishmael. God reassured Abraham that the special promises made to Isaac would not contravene those made to Ishmael's mother at the well in the wilderness (ch. 16:10). The names of the 12 sons of Ishmael are given in ch. 25:12-16. Like the 12 sons of Jacob, each of them became the father of a tribe (see on ch. 25:13-16).

21. With Isaac. Repeating the statement of v. 19, God assured Abraham that Isaac, not Ishmael, was to be the son of the covenant. While Ishmael should share generally in the blessings promised to Abraham, the offspring of Isaac would become sufficiently numerous to possess the land of Canaan. Specifically, the covenant, with all its material and spiritual blessings, was to Sarah's son, Isaac, and to his posterity. The later history of the two sons fully justifies God's selection of the one and rejection of the other. Even though Hagar had come to believe in the true God, the influence of her earlier Egyptian training proved to be decisive in the life of Ishmael and his sons, for his descendants became pagans.

At this set time. A time limit is now attached to the promise of a son. No longer could there be room for uncertainty. After waiting nearly 25 years since the first promise, and having shown faith and doubt in the past, Abraham learned that the time of waiting was soon to end.

22. God went up. This statement indicates that the revelation of God had been a visible one. We have no idea of the form under which Abraham saw God.

23. Abraham took Ishmael. Obeying God, Abraham circumcised all male members of his large household, including Ishmael. Because Ishmael was 13 years old when circumcised (v. 25), the Arabs even now defer this rite to a much later period than do the Jews, generally from the age of 5 to 13 and frequently not before the 13th year.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-16PP 137-138

1 PP 137, 370

1, 2 SR 146

4 PP 137

5 PP 138

7 PP 370; SR 78, 146

10 PP 138, 363; SR 148

10, 11 SR 146

16 PP 138, 146

18 SR 78

18-20PP 146

19 SR 78

Genesis Chapter 18

1 Abraham entertaineth three angels. 9 Sarah is reproved for laughing at the strange promise. 17 The destruction of Sodom is revealed to Abraham. 23 Abraham maketh intercession for the men thereof.

1. The Lord appeared unto him. This must have occurred but a short time after the experience of ch. 17, since both events took place approximately one year prior to Isaac's birth (see chs. 17:21; 18:10, 14). For the "plains of Mamre," meaning the grove of Mamre near Hebron, see on ch. 13:18.

Throughout the narrative of the 18th chapter, note that whereas Moses consistently refers to Abraham's divine visitor as "Lord" (KJV), Yahweh, "Jehovah," Abraham always addresses Him as "Lord," Adonai, "Sir" (see on v. 3).

The heat of the day. This expression probably designates noontime (see 1 Sam. 11:11), and the "cool of the day," literally, the "wind" of the day (Gen. 3:8), refers to late afternoon or evening. The usual Hebrew term for noon is s\ohorayim (ch. 43:16), a dual form meaning literally, the time of "double," that is, "greatest" light. A poetical expression refers to noon as, literally, "the height of the day" (Prov. 4:18), because the sun has then reached the zenith. We speak of "high noon." Upon this occasion Abraham had perhaps dined and was resting, for upon the arrival of his visitors it was necessary to begin preparations for their entertainment.

2. Three men stood by him. Thus opens the account of the Lord's sixth appearance to Abraham (see on ch. 17:1). Some expositors have taken the three "men" to be the three persons of the Godhead. This view seems unwarranted, since two of the three are referred to as angels (Gen. 19:1, 15; Heb. 13:2), and as men (Gen. 19:10, 12, 16). It seems best, therefore, to see in the three "men" the Lord and two angels.

When he saw them. Abraham was not yet aware of their identity. He saw only three travel-weary strangers looking for rest and food. With true Oriental courtesy he ran toward them to offer the facilities of his home, bowing down before them in harmony with Eastern custom. This form of greeting in no way indicates that Abraham recognized Jehovah as one of the three. He did the same in the presence of his Hittite neighbors (ch. 23:7, 12). Similarly, Jacob bowed down before Esau (ch. 33:3), Joseph before his father (ch. 48:12), Solomon before his mother (1 Kings 2:19), and the sons of the prophets before Elisha (2 Kings 2:15).

3. My Lord. That Abraham directed his invitation to one of the strangers has been taken by some expositors as an indication that he already recognized Jehovah as one of them. It is probable that one of the three excelled the others in appearance or that one stepped forward as spokesman for the group, with the result that Abraham directed his remarks to that one. It should be noted, furthermore, that the Hebrew word here translated "Lord" is not the sacred Yahweh, but adonai, equivalent, to "sir," a respectful form of salutation.

If now I have found favour. This expression was frequently used by one person in talking to another of higher rank, or to one whom he desired particularly to honor. It does not imply that Abraham had recognized one of the men to be God. Laban thus addressed Jacob (ch. 30:27), Jacob, Esau (chs. 32:5; 33:8, 10, 15), Shechem, Jacob (ch. 34:11), the Egyptians, Joseph (ch. 47:25), and Jacob, Joseph (ch. 47:29). Many other examples show this to have been a common formula.

Pass not away. With typical Oriental charm and hospitality Abraham invited the strangers to pause long enough to refresh themselves. Abraham was apparently one of those who "entertained angels unawares" (Heb. 13:2). This experience shows that Abraham habitually practiced hospitality toward strangers. Although these persons were at first entirely unknown to him, his greeting was as respectful as if a messenger had arrived in advance to announce their identity and their intention of paying him a visit. Those who hold themselves in readiness to show kindness to strangers and travelers may unexpectedly be favored with the presence of guests in whose power it is to confer special blessing (see Luke 24:29).

4. Wash your feet. Abraham first mentioned water to wash the feet of the tired travelers, a necessary aspect of hospitality in some Eastern countries to the present day. While they rested under a tree he would prepare a meal for them. After this they could depart in peace and continue their journey.

6. Make ready quickly. Like a Bedouin sheik of the present day, Abraham directed his wife to take three "measures," se'im (or about 20 qts.), of fine meal and bake cakes. The baking was done upon hot stones. The "butter" was curded milk, considered a delicacy in many Oriental lands even today. The menu listed in this and the next two verses provided a bountiful and satisfying meal. Abraham gave them the best he had.

8. They did eat. Abraham's heavenly visitors actually ate the food he had prepared for them, as Christ in His risen and glorified form later did to prove the reality of His resurrection (Luke 24:21-43). The acceptance of Abraham's hospitality on the part of Christ and the angels was perhaps to prove to Abraham that their visit to his tent at Mamre was not a dream or a vision but a genuine experience.

9. Where is Sarah? Abraham stood (v. 8), and waited upon them while they ate. Having eaten, they asked for Sarah. Such a request was decidedly out of keeping with Oriental custom; strangers should neither know nor use a wife's given name. Their knowledge of her name probably suggested to Abraham that his guests were more than men, and their request implied that their visit had to do with her. The ensuing conversation made their identity clear, and from the promise now repeated, Abraham certainly recognized the One who had appeared to him five times previously. This was the first occasion on which Sarah had personally witnessed one of the divine manifestations accorded her husband. Abraham already knew and believed (Rom. 4:19, 20). From these facts, and from Gen. 18:9-15, it appears that this visit was designed to prepare Sarah for the supreme experience of her life--the birth of her first and only son.

10. The time of life. This may indicate a year, as implied by Rom. 9:9 and so rendered in the LXX, or it may perhaps refer to the normal period of pregnancy, nine months. In either case, Sarah was to give birth to a son by that time.

Sarah heard it. Sarah was standing behind the tent curtains, as has been the custom of Arab women since ancient times. Forbidden to mingle freely with menfolk, including male guests, especially if they are strangers, but nevertheless intensely interested in their conversations, Bedouin women, now as then, are usually to be found close to the opening of the tent but just out of view. Although they themselves cannot be seen, they usually hear everything spoken by visitors and observe them closely. The mention of her name must have surprised Sarah as well as Abraham. With what intense fascination and rapt attention she must have followed the announcement that she was to have a son.

11. Abraham and Sarah were old. Like Abraham at the previous revelation, Sarah could not now believe that the promise made would ever come true. For 25 years she had heard it reiterated, but to her the days had been prolonged beyond credibility, and each of Abraham's visions in turn had apparently failed. As a result of the previous revelation (ch. 17) Abraham's doubt had been turned to faith, and on this occasion there is no evidence of doubt on his part, as Paul pointedly observes (see Rom. 4:19, 20).

12. Sarah laughed. On the occasion of the previous divine revelation Abraham had laughed (see on ch. 17:17). Now Sarah laughed, probably expressing bitterness at her lot and incredulity that circumstances should ever be otherwise. By a half-sarcastic, half-wistful laugh she gave expression to the thought, "That is too good to be true!" (see Eze. 12:22-28).

My Lord. In contrast to Sarah's obvious faults, her deferential submission to Abraham is praiseworthy. Even when talking to herself she referred to him as "my lord," for which the NT commends her as an example of Christian wifely virtue (1 Peter 3:6).

14. Is any thing too hard? The veil of anonymity was now thrown completely aside, and the speaker unmistakably identified Himself as the Lord. It is interesting to note that although this divine appearance was perhaps intended more for Sarah's benefit than for Abraham's, since he already knew and believed, the Lord did not address Sarah directly until she had first spoken to Him. Instead of speaking to Sarah, He asked Abraham whether anything could be too difficult for the Lord. It was primarily to correct Sarah's unbelief and to strengthen her faith that God spoke thus. Where human wisdom and strength fail, and where nature, enfeebled, lacks ability to act, there God still has full sway and brings things to pass according to the counsels of His own divine will. In fact, He often permits circumstances to reach an impasse so that human impotence may stand forth in striking contrast to His omnipotence.

15. Sarah denied. Sarah's denial shows that her laugh and remark of v. 12 were scarcely audible, if even that, and that she did not think either had been heard. Now she spoke directly to the strangers, either remaining behind the tent curtains or stepping out into the open. Fear of offending the guests and of having her secret feelings revealed led to denial. The sudden consciousness of detection forced her into a moment of confusion from which she sought escape by the route of falsehood.

Thou didst laugh. With terse directness resembling that with which He had addressed the first culprits in Eden, God solemnly and unequivocally declared her denial to be false. The subsequent silence of Sarah is evidence of conviction, whereas her eventual conception of Isaac implies repentance and forgiveness.

16. The men rose up. Rested and refreshed, the three heavenly visitants were ready to continue their journey. Their destination is now mentioned for the first time. If Sodom and its sister cities were in the valley that now forms the southern part of the Dead Sea (see on ch. 14:3), they were about 25 mi. from Hebron--a good day's journey. Inasmuch as Abraham's guests had arrived at noon, and no doubt spent several hours with him, their departure probably took place in the late afternoon.

Abraham went with them. In accordance with an old custom of friendship continued throughout NT times (Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:11; Acts 20:38; 3 John 6), Abraham accompanied his guests for a short distance. In Oriental lands it is still customary upon the departure of guests to escort them on their way, the distance indicating the degree of respect and honor the host wishes to show them. An old tradition claims that Abraham went as far as Caphar-Barucha, a mountain spot approximately 4 or 5 mi. by road east-northeast of Hebron, whence one may see the Dead Sea. From this point, perhaps, Abraham and his guests beheld the prosperous cities of the plain.

17. Shall I hide from Abraham? Abraham is called in the Scriptures the friend of God (2 Chron. 20:7; Isa. 41:8). Since he stood so high in the divine favor and fellowship, God saw fit to impart to him a more intimate knowledge of His works and ways. Similarly, He has entrusted messages to the prophets, concerning whom He says that they stand in His counsel, or "secret" (Jer. 23:18-22; Amos 3:7). It is particularly with reference to acts of judgment upon the earth that the Lord speaks thus.

18. A great and mighty nation. Referring to the first promises ever made to Abraham (ch. 12:2), God explains why it is fitting and proper to inform him as to the judgment about to be visited upon the cities of the plain. Theoretically, at least, all the land belonged to Abraham. If God, as senior partner to the covenant, proposed to take action affecting a certain part of it, Abraham as a proved and reliable junior partner should be informed thereof. It was essential, in fact, that Abraham should understand and approve of the action about to be taken, since it involved Lot and his family, some of whom were soon to lose their lives as a result.

19. For I know him. Abraham could be trusted; he would not betray God. Happy tribute to the aging patriarch! The intelligent discharge of his divinely appointed task required that he share in a knowledge of God's purposes. Abraham's posterity must also understand, lest they share the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was to be his duty to pass on to future generations what he knew of God's dealings with the human race. God's moral and ceremonial laws were also part of the sacred heritage he was to transmit to future generations. Abraham not only prayed with and before his family, but interceded for them as priest, a practice followed by other patriarchs and holy men of old (see Job 1:5). As a prophet he instructed his family in both the theory and the practice of religion, with emphasis on the practical virtues. He taught his family not only to know these things but to do them as well. A benevolent husband, father, and supervisor, he gave positive direction to the social and religious life of his vast family.

God could trust Abraham, for he would "command" his family, not by dictatorial methods, but by clear precept and consistent example. In training children, every word, look, and act has its effect. In many homes, there is little training by way of either instruction or example. Parents are held accountable for the sacred trust of children and should therefore combine firmness with love, as did Abraham. This task of training up children in the way they should go cannot be delegated to another, custodian or teacher, without grave danger of loss. The influence of godly teachers should not be expected to supplant, but rather to supplement, home training. Each has its place, and is incomplete without the help of the other to aid and reinforce it.

20. They cry of Sodom and Gomorrah. This refers to the exceeding wickedness that prevailed in the cities of the plain (see ch. 13:13). The limit of God's patience and long-suffering had now been reached. Though the ways of the people of the plain had long been evil, God gave them a period of grace during which He had not left Himself without witnesses. Lot's righteous life provided them with an example of how they should live, but this had no influence upon them (see 2 Peter 2:7, 8). Their previous dealings with Abraham had placed them in contact with the true God (see Gen. 14:22). But all was to no avail. Their wickedness, which was "very grievous," literally, "very heavy," cried to heaven for punishment. The world in our day has nearly reached the same depth of evil (see Luke 17:28-32; 5T 208).

21. I will go down now, and see. This does not imply that God was not completely informed as to what was going on at Sodom (see ch. 13:13). As at the building of the Tower of Babel (see ch. 11:5), God safeguarded man's concept of divine justice by making it clear to Abraham that the decision to destroy Sodom was not arbitrary, but based on necessity. Therefore no discrepancy exists between God's announcement of His intent to investigate Sodom personally and the certainty of judgment already implied in v. 17.

22. Abraham stood yet. Two of Abraham's heavenly visitors now left him and descended to the plain (see ch. 19:1). The Lord, however, remained behind to converse further with Abraham.

23. Abraham drew near. This expression seems to indicate more than a mere physical approach to the Lord. The Hebrew word translated "drew near" is sometimes used to indicate a reaching out of the mind and heart toward God in contrition and worship (Ex. 30:20; Isa. 29:13; Jer. 30:21). The same thought is similarly expressed in the NT (see Heb. 4:16; 10:22; James 4:8).

Wilt thou also destroy? This personal concern for his fellow men is one of the sublime traits of Abraham's character. His intercession on their behalf is one of several similar situations recorded in Scripture (see Ex. 32:11-32; Job 42:10; Eze. 14:14; Dan. 9:3-19; Luke 23:34; Acts 7:60). Abraham was moved not only by his concern for Lot but still more by a deep sense of compassion toward the inhabitants of Sodom, with many of whom he had become personally acquainted upon the occasion of their rescue from the hands of the Mesopotamian kings. Abraham must have had reason to believe that some of the inhabitants of the plain had been influenced favorably by his earlier ministry on their behalf. Though Lot is obviously not forgotten, his name is never mentioned. Abraham's compassion was probably heightened and intensified by the memory of his own need of forgiving grace on previous occasions.

This question presupposes that God had, according to the resolution of Gen. 18:17, explained to the patriarch His intention to destroy the cities of the plain. Abraham's objective was not simply the preservation of any godly remnant that might be found within the doomed cities, but an extended period of probation for their entire population. Realizing it to be a settled fact, however, that the wealthy but wicked cities of the plain were to be destroyed, Abraham proceeded with bold humility to inquire whether the Lord had considered the fate of the righteous in the general overthrow of the wicked. Here Abraham's appeal was to God's gracious mercy.

25. Shall not the Judge? God alone is the Judge of all men. Addressing Him thus, Abraham gives evidence that he knew the One before whom he stood to be the Supreme Being. Now he appealed, not to God's grace and pardon, but to His absolute judicial equity. This principle had been demonstrated by God in His extension of probation for the Amorites another 400 years. Their iniquity was "not yet full" (ch. 15:16). When God consented to spare Sodom if only ten righteous men could be found within its gates, He followed the same principle.

26. I will spare. God accepted the stipulation proposed by Abraham, not as an act of justice, but as an exercise of mercy. Justice required the preservation of the righteous, but mercy alone could spare the wicked. Presumably, also, the presence of a group of 50 righteous persons would offer hope for the conversion of others. God entered into Abraham's reasoning and showed Himself willing to grant mercy to those who did not deserve it, for the sake of "fifty righteous."

27. But dust and ashes. In this expression, Ôaphar wa'epher, Abraham uses two Hebrew words similar in sound and related in meaning. These words reveal the profound humility of soul he felt in the presence of God. He realized all too well his lowly origin, and the fact that he was destined to return to the substance from which he had been taken (see ch. 3:7, 19).

28. Peradventure. The patriarch presented his case with adroit Oriental tact. His first hypothetical estimate of the number of pious Sodomites was designedly high enough to elicit a favorable response. Realizing, however, that this number was probably too high, he again showed rare diplomacy. Instead of pleading for the city's safety on the basis of 45 just persons, he protested the thought that it might be destroyed on account of the lack of 5. Encouraged by the continued gracious response of God, he grew bolder, gradually diminishing the number of righteous persons which, in his opinion, should be sufficient to save the city.

Abraham did not request the unconditional sparing of the city, but only its preservation on certain conditions. It would be rash to speculate as to what would have happened had he continued, and reduced the number to less than ten. Perhaps Abraham felt safe in letting the number stand there; besides Lot, his wife, and two daughters at home, were there not Lot's married daughters and their families also (see ch. 19:14, 15)? Starting out with a number he deemed likely to elicit a favorable response, it is probable that Abraham originally intended to decrease it so long as there appeared to be hope of securing such a response. And divine mercy met Abraham's intercession without hesitation.

33. Abraham returned. Every man who truly loves God will love his neighbor also, and will sacrifice, if necessary, to promote his neighbor's well-being. We cannot prevent men from sinning against God, but we can intercede for them and plead with them. God is well pleased with such intercession, because it reflects His own great heart of love. How much the energetic prayer of righteous man often avails! When Abraham drew near to God in love and faith, humbly interceding for sinners, God drew near to him in mercy, graciously acceding to each request. The same experience awaits those today who follow in the footsteps of the father of the faithful.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-33PP 138-144

1-7ML 192

1-8PP 138; 6T 341

2, 8 GC 631

17 PP 139

18 PK 368

19 AA 133; AH 184, 317; CSW 50; Ed 187; FE 286; MH 390; ML 124; PP 140, 142, 144, 575; Te 290; TM 342; IT 118, 218, 405; 5T 214, 424, 494, 499, 547; 7T 91, 148, 196, 211; 8T 189; 9T 283

20 Ev 25; PP 139

21, 25, 27 PP 139

32 5T 714

Genesis Chapter 19

1 Lot entertaineth two angels. 4 The vicious Sodomites are stricken with blindness. 12 Lot is sent for safety into the mountains. 18 He obtaineth leave to go into Zoar. 24 Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed. 26 Lot's wife is a pillar of salt. 30 Lot dwelleth in a cave. 31 The incestuous original of Moab and Ammon.

1. Two angels. The Hebrew reads literally, "there came the two angels," indicating that they were the same two who had visited Abraham earlier that afternoon (see ch. 18:22). Although it is not stated that their arrival at Sodom occurred the same day they left Abraham, it is so implied here and in v. 27. The distance from Hebron to Sodom was at least 25 mi., over mountainous territory, and the journey would take at least 7 or 8 hours. Since the angels left Abraham in the late afternoon, they could not have reached Sodom before nightfall by ordinary means of travel.

Lot sat in the gate. Lot, who first pitched his tent toward Sodom (ch. 13:12), had in the meantime built himself a house within its walls. In ancient Oriental cities public life centered at the city gate Markets were held there (2 Kings 7:1; Neh. 13:19) and the court sat there (Deut. 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Joshua 20:4; Ruth 4:1; etc.). David sat in the gate to show himself to the people (2 Sam. 19:8), the events of the day were discussed there (Ps. 69:12; Prov. 31:31), and public announcements were made there (Prov. 1:21; 8:3). Why Lot was sitting in the gate is not stated. That he was on the outlook for travelers on whom to bestow hospitality and whom he might protect from the Sodomites, is certain. The explanation that he had been promoted to the office and dignity of judge, though not a necessary inference from Gen. 19:9, is not at all unlikely, particularly in view of his relation to Abraham, who had once saved the whole city from slavery.

Lot seeing them rose up. Recognizing the men to be strangers, Lot, like his uncle Abraham, immediately offered them the hospitality of his own home. Not only did he greet them as Abraham had done, but his offer was expressed in words similar to those of his uncle (see ch. 18:2-5).

2. We will abide in the street. The angels had accepted Abraham's offer immediately, but appeared reluctant to accept Lot's. They were testing the sincerity of Lot, proving whether his invitation was merely a hollow form or the earnest desire of his heart. Ancient records reveal that travelers often spent nights in the open (see ch. 28:11). Except for the men of Sodom it would probably not have been a real hardship to do so there, since the cities of the plain were in a semitropical climate. Lot's consideration for others proved to be the means of his own salvation; he manifested a spirit in striking contrast to the men of Sodom (see Matt. 25:34-40).

3. He pressed upon them greatly. Knowing Lot to be a righteous man, but not being willing at that time to reveal their own identity, the angels consented to take shelter under his hospitable roof. Many centuries later Christ similarly concealed his identity on the way to Emmaus, but yielded finally to the urging of the two disciples (Luke 24:28-30).

4. All the people. This phrase probably signifies a large concourse of men generally representative of all social groups (PP 159).

5. Where are the men? The wickedness of the men of Sodom was clearly demonstrated by their action here (see chs. 13:13; 18:21). News of the arrival of two strangers had spread quickly. The men of the city gathered around Lot's house, intending to violate the Oriental right of hospitality in order to satisfy their unnatural lusts. On the meaning of "to know" see ch. 4:1. The term is used here in reference to the abominably immoral practice Paul describes in Rom. 1:27, known as sodomy. According to archeological evidence this sin, punishable by death under the law of Moses (Lev. 18:22, 29), was prevalent among the Canaanites. Moses' emphasis on the fact that both old and young were at the door of Lot's house shows clearly how justified God was in bringing destruction on these cities (see Gen. 6:5, 11).

7. Do not so wickedly. Lot left the house, carefully locking the door behind him to prevent the mob from entering, and made an earnest attempt to turn his fellow citizens from their evil purpose.

8. I have two daughters. Seeing that no words could change their minds, he made an extreme proposal to save his visitors from dishonor. His belief in the solemn duty of hospitality, so highly regarded among Eastern nations, explains, though it does not justify, his decision. He who had taken a stranger under his protection and care was bound to defend him even at the expense of his own life. In some Near Eastern countries the duty of hospitality is still regarded in this light. Only to an Oriental mind, perhaps, would the obligation of a host toward his guests seem to justify, or at least excuse, Lot's conduct on this occasion. The purity of his two daughters in a city like Sodom is evidence of the great care with which Lot had brought them up, and proves that the offer was not lightly made. The natural concern of Orientals to protect their female relatives was demonstrated upon one occasion by Jacob's sons (see ch. 34). The fact that such a rash proposal was made at all proves that Lot had exhausted every conceivable means of averting the evil, and was beside himself. He knew full well the wickedness of his fellow citizens (2 Peter 2:7, 8).

9. And he will needs be a judge. Lot's attempt to frustrate their evil purpose served only to enrage the Sodomites. They would not have anyone telling them what they should do, particularly a foreigner. If Lot had been appointed a judge, as has been suggested (see v. 1), they felt it was high time to get rid of him. It would seem from their language that either as a judge or as a private citizen he had admonished them to amend their evil ways. In their unreasoning rage they therefore threatened to deal with Lot in a more fearful way than they had planned to do with his guests, should he presume to stand longer in their way. It was only the restraining power of God, together, perhaps, with their momentary hesitancy to lay hands on a man whose righteous example had stirred a faint feeling of respect in their debased minds, that prevented the mob from tearing him to pieces on the spot.

11. Blindness. God permitted Lot to make an attempt to change the wicked design of the Sodomites in order that he might be impressed with the degree of their depravity. When his extreme efforts proved unavailing the heavenly visitors stepped in to protect both him and themselves from harm. The Hebrew word here translated "blindness" is used but once elsewhere in the OT (see 2 Kings 6:18-20). In both instances it denotes a supernatural form of blindness. It may not have been total, and perhaps involved only a temporary loss of clear vision that bewildered the mind. That they "wearied themselves to find the door" implies mental as well as visual confusion. Had they been struck totally blind in the usual sense of the word it seems unlikely that they would have persisted in their evil purpose.

12. Hast thou here any besides? By now Lot must have become aware of the supernatural nature of his visitors. It was time for them to acquaint him with the purpose of their mission, and they proceeded to tell him in the plainest possible language of the impending utter destruction of the city. Although Lot's married children seem to have adopted the life of the people of Sodom, the angels were willing to save them for Lot's sake should they be willing to leave the city. Though they shared in the sins of Sodom, nothing but their own choice would render their destruction with it inevitable.

14. Lot went out. That sons and daughters are not mentioned again does not prove that Lot had only sons-in-law, nor that these so-called sons-in-law were young men betrothed to the two daughters yet living in his home. Lot believed the angels and put forth an earnest effort to persuade his children to seek safety by leaving the city, but they only ridiculed the idea that God would destroy it.

15. Arise. Apparently Lot had warned his children during the night, and when the sun was about to rise the heavenly angels urged him to flee without delay, with his wife and two daughters. The phrase, "which are here," implies that Lot had others not "here," who were unwilling to leave.

16. While he lingered. Lot and his wife believed but found it difficult to leave all their possessions behind. In momentary confusion and bewilderment Lot lingered, undecided as to what he should carry with him as he fled. The angels, who manifested no concern over Lot's possessions, therefore pulled the four of them away by force, "the Lord being merciful unto him." Such is the weakness of human nature that even a good man may become so infatuated with the world that he cannot tear himself from it. He is like the wanderer in a snowstorm who, feeling a fatal numbness creeping up his frozen limbs, is tempted to surrender to what he knows to be the sleep of death. He needs someone to rouse him up and urge him on to a place safety.

17. Escape for thy life. The One with whom Abraham had interceded the day before now joins the angels, outside the city walls, and adds imperative urgency to their warning. The need for Christ Himself to join the angels in their appeal to Lot suggests that he and his wife were even yet hesitant about leaving everything behind. Could the destruction not be postponed until they should have opportunity to remove their possessions? Given time, they might even persuade others to accompany them. Why such haste? But Christ appears and commands, "Escape for the life" (PP 160; cf. chs. 18:21, 32; 19:22).

Look not behind thee. Inasmuch as there was barely time enough to escape the fire so soon to descend, further delay could not be permitted. If Lot's request for time had been granted, he would have found it increasingly difficult to part with the accumulated fortune of a lifetime as the days went on. He might even have decided to remain. His only safety lay in an immediate and complete break with those things that bound his heart to Sodom. So it is with us today.

Escape to the mountain. The plain, which had once been so attractive for its beauty and fertility, had become the most dangerous place on earth, and must be abandoned. How fateful had been Lot's decision to make this region his place of abode (see ch. 13:11)! He was not to find refuge in the hills (see Ps. 121:1). Here, among the rocks and clefts of the mountains, he would be safe from the lake of fire into which the fair plain was soon to be transformed.

18. Not so, my Lord. Instead of cooperating cheerfully with God's plan for the preservation of his life, Lot presumed upon God's great mercy. Referring to the supposed impossibility of escaping to the mountains, he begged for permission to take refuge in the small neighboring city of Bela (ch. 14:2), afterward called Zoar, "little," on this account. Lot was still reluctant to leave the ease and luxury of city life for what seemed to him a precarious and uncertain existence.

22. Zoar. The fact that Lot had to flee again, into a cave (v. 30), can be taken to indicate that Zoar also was later destroyed. Most authorities assume that it lies under the Dead Sea. If so, it may be near the town later called Zoara by Eusebius and placed at the southeast corner of the Dead Sea on the sixth-century a.d. mosaic map at Medeba (now Madeba).

24. Brimstone and fire. The judgment announced by the angels came suddenly and unexpectedly (see Luke 17:28, 29). Though only Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned here, it is clear that the other cities of the plain, Adamah and Zeboim, were also destroyed (see Deut. 29:23; Hosea 11:8; Jude 7). Only the little town of Bela, or Zoar, was spared, and that but briefly (see Gen. 19:30; PP 167).

The phrase "brimstone and fire" is a common Hebrew idiom for "burning brimstone," sulphur. The miracles by which God has from time to time intervened in the ordinary process of nature generally consist in the use of existing natural forces and elements in an unusual manner. Even today the southern region of the Dead Sea is rich in asphalt (see on ch. 14:3, 10). from rock crevices in the area. Asphalt rising to the surface of the southern part of the Dead Sea gave to it the name Lake Asphaltitis in classical times. Massive lumps of asphalt floating on the surface are often of sufficient size to support several persons. Asphalt, sulphur, and other combustible materials have been reclaimed and exported from this region for years. Neighboring Arabs use the asphalt for protection against garden pests and for medicinal purposes. Whatever the means employed to set the cities afire, the holocaust was beyond question miraculous, for destruction came at the precise time appointed by God.

For centuries the seared landscape of this region remained a mute testimony to the great catastrophe that had turned its fertile plain into a scene of utter desolation. Moses referred to it as an example of what the land of Israel would become as the result of disobedience (Deut. 29:21-24). Classical writers eloquently describe the southern Dead Sea region as a burned-out land of rugged terrain, scorched rocks, and ashen soil. They mention also the uined sites of ancient cities (Diodorus ii. 48. 7-9; Strabo Geography xvi. 2. 42-44; Josephus Wars iv. 8. 4; Tacitus Histories v. 6. 7). In Bible times, what is now the southern arm of the Dead Sea was dry land. In more recent years the level of the sea, which has no outlet, has risen and covered most of the region. Dead trees still protrude form this section of the sea like a ghost forest.

Some scholars have tried to identify the doomed cities with ruins discovered at Teleilat el-Ghassul on the northern shore of the Dead Sea. The weight of evidence, however, points to the southern reaches of the sea as the location of the great catastrophe. That awful event has lived on in the traditions of the region to the present day. It is reflected, for instance, in the Arabic name for the Dead Sea, Bahr Lut, "Lake of Lot," and of the mountain range bordering on the southwestern shore of the Lake, Jebel Usdum, "Mount Sodom."

25. He overthrew those cities. This expression is suggestive of an earthquake, but is also used to describe cities destroyed by enemy action so thorough as to leave them like Sodom and Gomorrah (see 2 Sam. 10:3; Isa. 13:19). Repeated reference is made to this catastrophe throughout the OT (Deut. 29:23; Isa. 1:9; Jer. 49:18; 50:40; Amos 4:11; etc.). They serve as an example of final judgment by fire on all the wicked (2 Peter 2:6; Jude 7).

26. His wife looked back. The angels had led all four of them out of the doomed city and given them explicit instructions as to what to do and what to avoid doing, if they would save their lives. But merely to escape from the city was not sufficient; continued compliance with instructions was necessary. Lot's wife looked back to the city, where her home and possessions and some of her children were. She now refused to give them up. Her obdurate heart has made her memory a perpetual warning to those who would like to be saved but who are content with halfway measures, who seem to forsake the world, but whose hearts are still in it. Not enduring unto the end, they cannot be saved (see Matt. 24:13; Phil. 1:6). It is well not to forget the solemn admonition of our Lord, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32). Greater firmness on Lot's part in heeding the angel's command would have meant her salvation (PP 160, 161). The angels had forced her to leave the city, but they could not effect her salvation against her will. She was naturally an irreligious person, probably a native of Canaan (PP 174). She chose to die rather than to leave Sodom. We lament her fate; let us profit by her example.

Pillar of salt. It cannot said how long the salt pillar containing her body remained visible. In some places the southwestern shore of the Dead Sea is lined with salt rock formations, some of them roughly resembling human figures. Travelers have called one or another of them "Lot's wife." But to attempt thus to identify any of these would be folly.

27. Early in the morning. Anxious to learn the result of his intercession the day before, Abraham returned to the spot northeast of Hebron where he and the Lord had parted. How great must have been his disappointment when he saw the entire plain aflame and its smoke billowing toward heaven.

29. God remembered Abraham. Unable to save the cities for which Abraham had pleaded, the Lord nevertheless rewarded his intercessory prayer by sparing those who were willing to leave. For Abraham's sake, as here stated, salvation was offered to the family of Lot.

30. Lot went up out of Zoar. Panic-stricken, Lot soon left Zoar, fearful that it too would share the fate of its four sister cities (PP 167).

36. With child by their father. In this action Lot's daughters revealed the evil influence of Sodom. They had grown to womanhood in a country where drunkenness and all forms of immorality were rampant; consequently, their judgment was dull and their conscience numb. Lot had been able to protect his daughters from becoming victims of the Sodomites (see v. 8), but he had not been as successful in fixing the principles of right in their hearts. They are more to be pitied than blamed, for Lot himself shared in their sin. He was responsible for the circumstances that led up to it, as he was also for drinking the wine they set before him (see on ch. 9:21). The price Lot paid for a few years in Sodom was the loss of his entire family. The vile and idolatrous Moabites and Ammonites were his only posterity.

37. Moab. Ancestor of the Moabites. His name probably means "of my father," as the LXX renders it. Although cousins of the Israelites, the Moabites were ever their enemies. Originally they inhabited the country between the Arnon and the Zered, east of the Dead Sea. From the time of David to that of Ahab they were temporarily tributary to their western neighbors, but regained independence under their king Mesha (2 Kings 3:4, 5), who extended his territory northward.

38. Ben-ammi. The name of the ancestor of the Ammonites probably means "son of my people." By this his mother expressed the fact that his father and mother were of one family stock. Her son was in reality her own half brother, but his ancestors were hers as well. The Ammonites became nomads and lived in the eastern part of the region lying between the Jabbok and the Arnon. The name of their stronghold, Rabbath Ammon, is perpetuated in the name Amman, present capital of the Kingdom of Jordan.

The story of Lot and his family is tragic. A blot lies on his memory to all generations. His sin was forgiven, but the evil of years devoted to pleasure and profit lived after him for generations (PP 168).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-38PP 156-170

1 GC 632; PP 158

1-36T 342

2 DA 500; PP 158

3-5, 7, 10, 11PP 159

13 PP 159; 4T 110

14 DA 634; PP 160; 4T 110; 5T 234

15, 16 PP 160; 4T 111

16 GC 431

17 PP 160, 166, 167; TM 446; 5T 233; 8T 16, 36

18, 19 4T 111

19-22PP 161

23 PP 162

24 CD 60; CH 110; 9T 43

24, 25 PP 162

24-28MYP 419

26 PP 161; 4T 111

30-38PP 167

Genesis Chapter 20

1 Abraham sojourneth at Gerar, 2 denieth his wife, and loseth her. 3 Abimelech is reproved for her in a dream. 9 He rebuketh Abraham, 14 restoreth Sarah, 16 and reproveth her. 17 He is healed by Abraham's prayer.

1. Abraham journeyed from thence. No reason is given for Abraham's departure from the grove of Mamre near Hebron (chs. 13:18; 14:13; 18:1) for the southland, the Negeb (see on ch. 13:1). It is likely that God directed his footsteps thither, either in the pursuance of his pilgrim life or that he might be a witness to the inhabitants of the region. Again, his flocks may have required fresh grazing land, or political changes may have disturbed the peace and security of the country. While Abraham's early confederates at Hebron, Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner, were Amorites (see ch. 14:13), the Hittites were apparently in control of the region some years later (see ch. 23:3). Critics have declared it impossible for the Hittites to have reached southern Palestine as early as the 19th century b.c., but more recent discoveries prove this to have been so. Some perhaps reached Hebron and expelled the Amorites. If so, Abraham may have moved to the Negeb to avoid the unsettled conditions of the transition period. Whatever may have led him to the southland, he made it his home for about 20 years.

Kadesh and Shur. Kadesh-barnea was about 80 mi. southwest of Hebron, and Shur lay to the west of Kadesh, not far from Egypt (see ch. 16:7). The word "dwelled" seems to indicate that Abraham spent some time in this region, a stay which must have awakened sacred memories in Hagar's heart (see ch. 16:7-14).

Gerar. Since the southern Negeb was a semidesert region, its pasturelands may have in time proved inadequate. This area, which had but few oases, was later called the "wilderness of Zin." Turning northward again, Abraham made his temporary abode at Gerar, which lay in a very fertile valley to the south of Gaza. Huge grain silos of the Persian period uncovered in the great mound of Gerar show that it was then the center of a grain-producing area. Though evidence is lacking, the city may have been equally important in earlier times.

2. She is my sister. Although Abraham lived in peace and security wherever he had previously pitched his tent in the land of Canaan, he seems to have mistrusted the king of Gerar, a Philistine prince (see on ch. 21:32). It is paradoxical to find one who had defeated the combined expeditionary forces of four Mesopotamian powers suddenly cowering in mortal fear before a single city prince. It is even more puzzling to discover Abraham, that paragon of faith, abruptly reverting to the very ruse that had brought him so much embarrassment and anxiety in Egypt (see ch. 12:10-20). After the many evidences of the power and protection of God he had witnessed, another dismal failure of faith such as this is strange indeed. Some 20 years had passed since that former mistake, and it may be that time had erased the impression then made.

Abimelech. The name Abimelech, "my father the king," may in reality have been a Philistine title like that of Pharaoh in Egypt, instead of a proper name. The king of Gerar in Isaac's time is called Abimelech (ch. 26:8), as is also King Achish of Gath in David's time (1 Sam. 21:10; cf. Ps. 34, title). The ruler of Gerar seems to have taken into his harem all the unmarried women of this domain who captured his fancy. Even more so than 25 years earlier, it seems strange that Sarah, at the age of 90, was still so attractive as to be desired by a Palestinian prince. To be sure, nearly 40 years of her life still remained. Abimelech may also have intended this marriage to seal an alliance between himself and Abraham. He apparently felt the presence of Abraham a benefit to him (see ch. 20:15).

Abraham's Wanderings in the Negeb

3. A dream. The dream was God's usual mode of revealing Himself to the heathen, as He did to Pharaoh (ch. 41:1) and to Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:5). To the patriarchs and prophets God gave visions, though He sometimes spoke to them in dreams also.

Thou art but a dead man. Literally, "you are about to die." Abimelech contracted the malady that had fallen upon his house (see v. 17).

4. Not come near her. Abimelech was prevented from dishonoring Sarah by the peculiar disease that had overtaken him, but concerning whose nature little is revealed. This statement was made to avoid the possibility that Isaac, soon to be born, might be considered a child of Abimelech rather than of Abraham.

Lord, wilt thou slay? In ancient times dreams were considered as of divine origin, and Abimelech therefore believed that the one who appeared to him was a divine being. The authority with which the one addressing him spoke was obviously superior even to his own, as king.

6. The integrity of thy heart. Abimelech had inadvertently wronged an ambassador of the heavenly King. It would seem that this heathen ruler must have been a man of principle, for his conscience was obviously clear in the matter. This fact indicates that the Philistines were at this time by no means as degenerate as the men of Sodom. Perhaps the same might also be said of other peoples of Canaan. Their iniquity was "not yet full" (ch. 15:16).

7. He is a prophet. This is the first occurrence of the term "prophet," nabi'. It is derived from the root word naba', which means "to proclaim," "to call out," "to declare." As used in the Bible, the word "prophet," nabi', therefore describes one who proclaims divine messages. These may relate to the past, the present, or the future, and may consist of description, exhortation, instruction, consolation, or prediction. The term conveys, furthermore, the idea of being an intermediary. The English word "prophet" comes from the Greek prophetes, a combination of the preposition pro, "for," or "on behalf of," with the verb phemi, "to speak." He speaks for someone. He may speak to man on behalf of God, or vice versa. It seems clear from v. 7 that Abraham was here spoken of as a prophet in the latter sense; he was to pray to God on behalf of Abimelech.

The fact that the term nabi' is first used here does not preclude belief that the Spirit of prophecy was found among men from the very beginning (Gen. 9:25-27; Acts 3:21; Jude 14, 15). The charge that the use of this term in the books of Moses proves that they cannot be older than the time of Samuel, before which a prophet was called a "seer" (1 Sam. 9:9), is likewise invalid. As used by Moses the term usually applies to a recipient of divine revelations. During the period of the judges the term "seer," ro'eh, appears to have come into use and to have held its ground until the time of Samuel, when the older term in turn replaced it.

He shall pray for thee. The value of intercessory prayer is stated forcefully in James 5:16. The promise to Abimelech that he would regain his health through the intercession of Abraham supports the principle that a righteous man may become the channel through which divine blessing can flow to others (see Acts 9:17, 18). It is the purpose of God to direct to His human representatives those who are susceptible to truth.

8. Abimelech ... called all his servants. The Hebrew word here translated "servants" includes officials of all ranks. They too were vitally concerned with the situation, and were no doubt with the situation, and were no doubt looking to their king for a solution to the problem.

9. Abimelech called Abraham. The earlier rebuke administered by Pharaoh (ch. 12:18, 19) was even more justified now. Abimelech's words of censure must have been most humiliating. He who had been commissioned to represent, by precept and example, the true God to the people of Canaan was now the deserving recipient of reproof from one of their pagan rulers. His misconduct not only had marred the happiness of his own home but had also become the occasion of suffering to the people whose hospitality he enjoyed.

12. She is my sister. Abraham defended his conduct on the assumption that there was no "fear of God" in Gerar, and that consequently his life was in danger (see ch. 12:4-13). Furthermore, he justified the subterfuge by the excuse that Sarah was indeed his "sister"--his half sister--as well as his wife. He sought to make it appear that he had not deviated from the strict letter of truth. But his failure to tell the whole truth made him a deceiver. On marriage between brothers and sisters, see on ch. 4:17.

13. At every place. This was not the first occasion on which Abraham had passed Sarah off as his sister. It would almost seem to have been his usual practice, but that heretofore Egypt had been the only place where the ruse caused trouble. Years of success in employing the same deception, since that bitter experience with Pharaoh, had made Abraham forgetful of its lesson of strict rectitude (see Eccl. 8:11). Perhaps the comparative ease with God had rescued him from serious difficulty also tended to make him less cautious.

The secluded life of women, typical in the East, made it relatively easy for Abraham to follow the practice he did. Spending much of their time in the tents, beyond the gaze of curious eyes, few men ever even so much as saw them (see Gen. 18:9). Abimelech's contact with her must have been accidental, possibly at an unguarded moment when she was away from home, such as drawing water at a public well (see ch. 34:1-4). However that may be, the time for the birth of the promised seed was rapidly approaching (see ch. 21:1), and Satan took advantage of Abraham's weakness to thwart the divine plan (see on Gen. 12:12-20; cf. Rev. 12:1-4).

14. Abimelech took sheep. Abimelech's gifts were similar to Pharaoh's (ch. 12:16), but were given with a different motive. Pharaoh's gifts were "for the sake of Sarah," as a dowry, while those of Abimelech were intended to avoid Abraham's displeasure for the wrong he had suffered.

15. My land is before thee. This seemingly generous offer is precisely the opposite of Pharaoh's request under similar circumstances (see ch. 12:19, 20). Abimelech sought to make it clear to Abraham that he had intended no wrong and wanted to live on good terms with this wealthy prince from Mesopotamia. Knowing of Abraham's rescue of the men of Sodom some years earlier, Abimelech may also for that reason have feared reprisal for his deed.

16. A thousand pieces of silver. Although neither the word "pieces" nor the word "shekel" is in the Hebrew text, the latter word is undoubtedly the correct complement of the word "thousand." Coined money did not exist in pre-Persian times. Precious metals were cast into bricks and evaluated according to weight. Since the weight of the shekel varied widely in different localities and at different times, it is difficult to estimate its present monetary value. A weight found in the ruins of Tell Beit Mirsim in Palestine gives a shekel of .402 oz. av. (11.4 gr.), one from Ugarit in Syria .335 oz. (9.5 gr.), whereas the Egyptian and Babylonian shekel varies from .31 to .345 oz. (8.8 to 9.8 gr.). If we take a shekel of 11.4 grams (.4 oz. av.) for a "piece of silver," a thousand would weigh about 25 lb. av. Inasmuch as the buying power of money was much higher then than it is now, this figure should be increased considerably if it is to represent a true picture of the value of this gift. Abimelech probably used the expression "thy brother" in irony, as if he were saying "this `brother' of yours."

He is to thee a covering of the eyes. The meaning of the Hebrew statement thus translated is obscure. If literal, the "covering" would be a veil for the protection of the face; if figurative, it would be a gift intended to placate ill will. The Hebrew word translated "he" in the KJV, indicating Abraham, could be just as well translated "it," referring to the gift. If the word refers to Abraham, Abimelech would mean either that he was herewith returning Sarah to Abraham's protection, or that Abraham should take better care of her in the future. If, on the other hand, it refers to the gift, Abimelech would be saying, "Please accept my gift as evidence of your innocence, and also as a token of my desire to do right by you." Three details of the context imply that this expression refers to the gift rather than to Abraham: (1) Abimelech desired the friendship of Abraham (see on v. 15). (2) The gift is the center of attention in the preceding statement. (3) The "covering" was to constitute evidence to her companions and to all others that the wrong had been righted and the case settled.

All that are with thee. Perhaps this refers to Sarah's handmaids, who may have been with her at the time of the incident. "With all other" may refer to other members of Abraham's large household, or may include all who might learn of it. See also the following paragraph. This suggests too that the "covering" may have been intended, in part at least, to save her "face" before the other members of her household, a most important consideration among Orientals.

Thus she was reproved. This expression in the Hebrew confronts us with two problems. (1) Some ancient versions omit the word "thus," Heb. "and," and combine this expression with the preceding phrase, "and with all other." (2) Whether the original Hebrew read "she" or "you" is uncertain. The vowel pointing which makes the difference was added by the Masoretes several centuries after Christ. If the Masoretes were correct, then Sarah was "reproved" by Abimelech as being primarily to blame for the unfortunate situation. If, however, the Masoretes made the wrong choice, as some ancient versions imply, and if the preceding phrase, "and with all other," is to be connected with "she was reproved," the two together would read as follows: "and in all respects thou art justified," or, "before every one you are righted," as in the RSV. This rendering would agree more exactly with the context. The word translated "umpire" in Job 9:33, margin, is from the same root as the word here rendered "reproved."

17. God healed Abimelech. Had restitution not been made, death would have been the result (see vs. 3, 7). The Hebrew word translated "maidservants" refers to female slaves of the royal harem. A different word is employed in v. 14 to describe the "womenservants" included in the king's gift to Abraham.

18. Closed up. From an Oriental point of view, according to which the bearing of children was esteemed as perhaps the greatest of all blessings, there could be no greater calamity than barrenness. To be childless was a reproach (Gen. 30:23; Luke 1:25; etc.). Furthermore if no more children were to be born to the wives of the family of Abimelech, the family would eventually die out.

Genesis Chapter 21

1 Isaac is born. 4 He is circumcised. 6 Sarah's joy. 9 Hagar and Ishmael are cast forth. 15 Hagar in distress. 17 The angel comforteth her. 22 Abimelech's covenant with Abraham at Beer-sheba.

1. The Lord visited Sarah. This divine act of grace is called a "visit" of the Lord. The verb here translated "to visit," when used of a "visit" of the Lord, may refer either to His coming in judgment to punish men (Isa. 24:21; Jer. 9:25; Hosea 12:3; etc.) or, as here, to favor them (Gen. 50:24; Ruth 1:6; 1 Sam. 2:21).

The birth of Isaac was contrary to the usual course of nature (Gal. 4:23; Heb. 11:11). From time to time in God's dealings with the chosen people He gave them miraculous evidences of His divine power and leadership in order to inspire them with confidence in Him (see John 15:11). These miracles reached a climax in the great miracle of all time--the incarnation, perfect life, vicarious death, glorious resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 3:16).

2. At the set time. Like many of God's promises, this one was fulfilled precisely on time (see chs. 17:21; 18:10, 14). The coming of the Flood, the deliverance from Egypt, the birth of the Messiah, along with various events foretold by Daniel and John, were in fulfillment of time prophecies (Gen. 6:3; Ex. 12:41; Dan. 9:25; Gal. 4:4). Of the repeated promises made to Abraham of the birth of a son, only those immediately prior to that event made specific mention of the time of the event. At first Abraham was informed only that he would have a son. Later he was told that Sarah would give birth to that son, and only at the very last was he told when the son would be born.

3. Isaac. God had already selected a name for the child (ch. 17:19). Isaac's name, meaning "he laughs," was to be a perpetual reminder of the glad occasion when faith became reality (see Gen. 17:17; 18:12; 21:6; Ps. 126:2). The birth of Samuel and that of John the Baptist, both under similar circumstances, also brought great joy (1 Sam. 2:1; Luke 1:58).

4. Abraham circumcised his son. A year earlier Abraham and Ishmael, together with all male members of the household, had been circumcised. The sign of the covenant was now bestowed upon Isaac, the son of the covenant (see on ch. 17:10-14, 23).

5. Abraham was an hundred years old. Exactly 25 years had passed by since the first promise of a son (ch. 12:1-4). Whether Isaac was born at Gerar or Beersheba is not clear (see ch. 20:15; 21:31).

6. God hath made me to laugh. Sarah's laughter a year previously had reflected cynicism and incredulity, but now she laughed for joy. The steadfastness of Abraham and Sarah through what seemed to them long, dark years of disappointment and delay, was now rewarded. To them the birth of Isaac meant the dawn of a new day (see Ps. 30:5). It was the "earnest," or token, that the promise in its entirety--the coming of the Messiah, the gospel to all nations, and the eternal home in Canaan--would eventually be realized (Gen. 22:18; Gal. 3:16; Heb. 11:9, 10). Repeated reference is made to this glad event by Bible writers (see Isa. 54:1; 51:2, 3; Gal. 4:22-28). Like Sarah, "Jerusalem which is above," "the mother of us all," rejoices as children of faith are born to her today (Isa. 66:10; Luke 15:10).

8. And was weaned. Among Orientals weaning took place later than it does in Western lands. According to 2 Macc. 7:27, Jewish mothers nursed their children for three years (see also 2 Chron. 31:16). Samuel appears to have been brought to the sanctuary as soon after he had been weaned as he was able to minister before the Lord (1 Sam. 1:22-28). It is an Oriental custom to celebrate the weaning of a child by a ritual feast, at which he is expected to eat a meal of solid food for the first time. This marks the close of infancy.

9. Mocking. Some commentators translate the Hebrew word mes\acheq, KJV "mocking," as "playing," and conclude that Sarah's declaration in the following verse was the result of jealousy. They think she could not endure the thought of Ishmael's sharing in Abraham's inheritance. Others explain this text in the light of Paul's explanation that Ishmael was expelled from his father's home for persecuting Isaac (Gal. 4:29, 30).

The verb mes\acheq, "mocking," is from the same root word as Isaac, "to laugh." Here used in the intensive form, however, it expresses something more than simple laughter--rather, ridicule. Lot seemed to his sons-in-law "as one that mocked," or made fun of their good judgment; he seemed to be joking (Gen. 19:14). The same word is used of Joseph, who, Potiphar's wife said, had come "to mock us," that is, to make sport of her husband's generosity toward him (ch. 39:14-17). The revelry of the Israelites before the golden calf is also described by the same verb, translated rather inappropriately in the KJV as "to play" (Ex. 32:6). The Philistines called for blind Samson "to make sport" for them (Judges 16:25). The only instance in which the word is used in a favorable sense occurs in Gen. 26:8, where it describes Isaac's caressing of Rebekah. According to the majority of instances in which the intensive form of this verb is used, then, Ishmael was "always mocking," or taunting, Isaac.

Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac, and therefore about 17 when Isaac was weaned (see ch. 16:3; 21:5). He had no doubt ever considered himself the eldest son and heir of Abraham. The birth of Isaac, however, and the weaning feast made it apparent that Sarah's son was to replace him, and as a result his jealousy was aroused. Little wonder that Ishmael taunted Isaac on being the younger, and consequently ineligible to the rights and privileges of the birthright.

10. Cast out this bondwoman. Sarah's words, reflecting jealousy and contempt, hardly seem appropriate for one who had suggested Hagar's marriage to Abraham in the first place (ch. 16:2, 3). Sarah referred to Hagar as a slave and to Ishmael as the son of a slave. Of course, Sarah had the right to demand that the status of her own son be legally clarified, that no question might arise after Abraham's death. Sarah therefore called upon her husband to send Hagar away and to disown Ishmael.

11. Grievous in Abraham's sight. To Sarah, Hagar and Ishmael were intruders, the one a low-caste Egyptian, an alien slave, the other a half-breed youth who would always be causing trouble. Abraham, quite naturally, did not share these feelings. He did not question Isaac's prerogatives as the promised heir, but Ishmael was also his son. For years he had thought him to be the heir rather than Isaac. Ishmael was his own flesh and blood, and he loved this lad who had been his only son for 14 years. To Abraham, it seemed impossible to comply with Sarah's wish.

12. Hearken unto her voice. From a human point of view it seems strange that God should approve of Sarah's somewhat selfish request. Although God was ready to bless Ishmael (see chs. 16:10; 21:13), and did not directly censure Abraham on account of Hagar, yet He never recognized Abraham's marriage to her. To God, she was ever the "bondwoman," not his wife. Ishmael's incessant "mocking" (see on v. 9) made it apparent that he would continue to disturb the peace and harmony of the household during Abraham's lifetime, and that upon Abraham's death he would probably press his claim to the birthright by force. It was now clear that Ishmael could no longer remain in the home without danger to God's plan for Isaac. Abraham had not sought God's advice in taking Hagar, and that hasty act now made necessary the expulsion of a son whom he dearly loved. At the same time, God comforted Abraham with the assurance that Ishmael, as his offspring, would also share in some of the promise made to him and would become a great nation.

14. Bread, and a bottle. The word "bread" in Hebrew is a collective term for all kinds of food. The "bottle," a goat's skin, must have held sufficient water to last from one well to the next. Upon her previous flight Hagar seems to have set out for her home in Egypt (ch. 16:7), and perhaps intended to do so now. Abraham's generous nature and his love for Ishmael certainly led him to make adequate provision for their journey. It seems that an emergency arose later only because they had missed their way and were wandering aimlessly about in the wilderness until their water was spent. This is implied by the word "wandered," from a Hebrew verb that means "to err," "to wander," "to go astray" (see Ps. 119:176; Isa. 53:6). It was not in the purpose of God for Hagar and Ishmael to return to Egypt, for His promise concerning the boy could not be fulfilled there. The wandering in the desert was apparently a providence of God for (see Acts 17:26).

And the child. This phrase suggests that Hagar had to carry Ishmael as well as the food and water. The fact that Ishmael was now about 17 years old (see on Gen. 21:8, 9) makes it clear that Hagar could not have carried him. The text must therefore mean that Abraham placed some of the provisions upon Hagar's shoulder and some upon Ishmael's.

The expulsion of one of his sons must have meant intense suffering for Abraham (see v. 11). But, mindful of his own responsibility for the situation that had developed, he resigned himself to the revealed will of God in the matter. The fate of Hagar and Ishmael seems harsh in the extreme, but this they had made inevitable by their attitude toward Isaac. Had they been willing to accept a subordinate role, they might perhaps have remained in Abraham's home until Ishmael was grown. Then Ishmael might have gone forth, married, and with a share of his father's wealth. How often an ill-considered course of action means not only the forfeit of blessings it is our privilege to enjoy but needless suffering as well (see Jer. 5:25).

The wilderness of Beer-sheba. Beer-sheba, the major city of the northern Negeb, the semiarid southland, was the center of various caravan roads leading from trans-Jordan to the coast and from Palestine to Egypt. The wilderness was south of the city.

15. She cast the child. As noted previously, Ishmael was no longer an infant but a grown lad. The word translated "child" is sometimes rendered "young man" (see Gen. 4:23; 1 Kings 12:10). The word "cast," although seeming to suggest rough treatment, must be understood as in Matt. 15:30, where the sick were "cast" at Jesus' feet to be healed. This implies only that they were committed to His solicitous care. Hagar committed Ishmael to the shade of the tree, the only available means of relieving his pain. In translating the Hebrew "cast" into Greek, the LXX uses the same word as does Matthew. Though despairing of his life, the mother took care that he should at least breathe out his life in the shade; it was all she could do for him.

16. A good way off. Her leaving of Ishmael suggests that thirst had made him delirious. Her immediate presence could only add to her own suffering without alleviating his.

17. God heard the voice of the lad. The Hebrew word here translated "voice" may mean either audible or inarticulate words uttered in prayer or in despair, or may refer only to his groaning and heavy breathing. The same Hebrew word is also used to describe the roll of thunder, the rustling of leaves, the bleating of lambs, and the blast of a trumpet (see Ex. 20:18; 1 Sam. 15:14; 2 Sam. 5:24). Whatever it was, God heard, and sent His angel to Hagar with words of encouragement and a remedy for the lad's pain.

19. God opened her eyes. Hagar was directed to a well of water in the immediate vicinity, one that had been there all the time. Divine power did not produce clear water, but clear vision. The desert wells of Palestine were artificially enlarged holes in the ground where the water of natural springs collected, whose openings were concealed by stones to prevent stray animals from falling in. Hagar was simply unaware of the existence of this particular well until providentially directed to it.

20. Became an archer. Under the continued watchcare of God, Ishmael grew up to be a hunter, thus providing for his own and his mother's needs.

21. The wilderness of Paran. This wilderness region lies between the Gulf of ÔAqaba and the Gulf of Suez, to the south of Kadesh-barnea. Though Hagar probably revisited her native land to procure a wife for her son, she returned to the desert country of southern Canaan. God Himself probably directed her to the wilderness of Paran in order that there Ishmael might be free from the corruption of Egypt. The northern part of this region, furthermore, was included in the land promised to Abraham. Perhaps it was with this in mind that Hagar chose to make it their home.

22. At the time. This may refer to the events of the preceding chapter, to the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, or to the latter's marriage.

God is with thee. Having witnessed the blessing of heaven upon Abraham, first in Gerar and then at Beersheba, Abimelech considered it advantageous to conclude a covenant with him. Closer association with so prosperous a man might benefit him also. At first considering himself the superior of Abraham, Abimelech now recognized that Abraham was infinitely superior to him. For this purpose Abimelech and his army commander Phichol went to Beersheba to conclude a treaty with him. Phichol may be a Hebrew name meaning "the mouth of all," the one who as commander gave orders to Abimelech's army, or it may be a Philistine name of unknown derivation.

The fact that God is with a man cannot long remain unknown to others. The evident blessing of God upon His loyal representatives produces respect for them in the minds of those who witness their lives. About the humblest Christian is an atmosphere of dignity and power.

25. Abraham reproved Abimelech. Before concluding the proposed treaty, however, Abraham protested the unprovoked expropriation of one of his wells by Abimelech's men. Though not specifically so stated, the well was returned at this time to Abraham's ownership (vs. 28-30).

27. Made a covenant. Wherever he went, Abraham followed the sound policy of living at peace with his neighbors (see Jer. 29:7; Rom. 12:18). He had formed a league with Amorite chiefs, Mamre, Aner, and Eshcol, at Hebron (Gen. 14:13). He had placed the king of Sodom under obligation to him by his generosity (ch. 14:23). Now he was ready to conclude a treaty of friendship with a Philistine king. The sheep and oxen here mentioned were probably not a gift to Abimelech, but rather were the animals necessary to the ceremonial conclusion of the covenant (see on ch. 15:9-17). The verb here translated "made" is the same as in ch. 15:18, and means, literally, "to cut." It refers to the dividing of the covenant animals, between whose parts those participating must walk. This custom was common among Semitic peoples, and was practiced even in Jeremiah's time (Jer. 34:18, 19). Abraham and Abimelech must have followed it here.

28. Seven ewe lambs. These lambs were not used in connection with the ratification of the covenant. They were either a good-will gift, or payment for the well, which, although dug by Abraham, was apparently on Abimelech's territory. Abimelech's acceptance of the lambs was to "be a witness" (v. 30) to Abraham's rights at the well in question.

31. Beer-sheba. In memory of the pact of friendship, Abraham called the place Beersheba, meaning either the "well of swearing" or the "well of seven." It is not known whether the number seven entered into the ancient covenant ceremony. In ancient Hebrew the two words "seven" and "swearing," at least as written, were identical. That Abraham gave "seven" lambs to Abimelech as witnesses of his oath may point to the words "seven," shebaÔ, as having some connection with the act of swearing, shabaÔ. However, since this is the only Biblical occasion upon which a gift of seven animals was made in confirmation of an oath, we cannot be certain as to the validity of this suggestion.

Anciently, Beersheba was the southern-most city of the land of Canaan. The expression "from Dan even to Beer-sheba" (Judges 20:1; 2 Sam. 24:2; etc.) or "from Beer-sheba even to Dan" (1 Chron. 21:2) stood for the entire country. Beersheba has been inhabited without interruption since the days of Abraham, and has retained its ancient name to the present day. It belongs to the state of Israel and has grown vastly in a few decades, having in 1972 a population of about 84,000.

32. Land of the Philistines. The statement that Abimelech and Phichol "returned into the land of the Philistines" after concluding a treaty with Abraham at Beersheba implies that the area around this city was outside the recognized boundaries of Philistia. At the same time it was probably under the control of the prince of Gerar in Abraham's time; otherwise it is unlikely that the question over ownership of the well would have arisen.

This is the first Biblical mention of the "land of the Philistines." Most modern commentators have seen in this statement the historical mistake of a late author, claiming as they do that the Philistines did not enter Palestine prior to the late 13th century b.c., long after Abraham's time. There is, however, no reason to doubt the presence of Philistines in Palestine during the patriarchal period. They are mentioned in documents of the north Syrian coastal city of Ugarit before the 15th century b.c. That Egyptian sources mention the Philistines about the year 1200 B.C. for the first time does not prove their nonsettlement of Palestine prior to that time. It shows only that they did not play so prominent a role as they did later in the time of Ramses III, when they and other "peoples of the sea" were so numerous as to threaten for a time to overrun Egypt (see Ex. 13:17).

33. Abraham planted a grove. The word "grove," reminiscent of the idolatrous cult places of Palestine (Deut. 16:21; Judges 6:26; etc.), seems to imply that Abraham planted a similar sacred grove which he dedicated to the true God. But the translation "grove," from eshel, is erroneous. The word eshel, found in similar forms in southern Arabic, Egyptian, Assyrian, and Aramaic, denotes a variety of tamarisk, a shrublike tree native to semiarid regions like the Negeb. It is slow of growth but long of life. Abraham probably planted this particular tree for no other purpose than to serve as a memorial of the transaction concerning the well. Commemorative trees are often planted today.

Called there on the name of the Lord. As elsewhere, Abraham here conducted public worship (see Gen. 12:7, 8; 13:4, 18). The object of his worship was "the everlasting God," literally, "the God of eternity," in contrast to the heathen deities, which are but the creatures of those who worship them (Hosea 8:6) Abraham worshipped the everlasting Witness of treaties, the eternal Source of the blessings that attended him throughout life, and the immortal Father who never fails His children.

34. Sojourned in the Philistines' land. This seems to contradict the implication of v. 32 that Beersheba did not belong to the land of Philistia. Apparently, either (1) Philistia had no fixed boundary on its desert side, and Beersheba may have been claimed by Abimelech, or (2) Beersheba was situated on the border of Philistia, and Abraham must often have pastured his flocks across the border.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-14PP 146-147; SR 79-80

2, 3, 9-14PP 146

10 SR 79

12 PP 151

33 8T 270

Genesis Chapter 22

1 Abraham is tempted to offer Isaac. 3 He giveth proof of his faith and obedience. 11 The angel stayeth him. 13 Isaac is exchanged with a ram. 14 The place is called Jehovah-jireh. 15 Abraham is blessed again. 20 The generation of Nahor unto Rebekah.

1. After these things. About 17 tranquil years are passed over in silence. Isaac was now a young man of 20 (see on ch. 21:14; PP 147). It was, as well, 17 years since Abraham had received his last recorded message from God. Suddenly, there came a new revelation, proposing the greatest test that could come to a human being.

God did tempt Abraham. The KJV translators have rendered the Hebrew word nissah, "tempt," in various ways: (1) When one man tests or proves another. The queen of Sheba came to Solomon "to prove him with hard questions" designed to reveal whether his wisdom was as great as it was reputed to be (1 Kings 10:1). (2) When God tries, tests, or proves a man (Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 16; 13:3; 2 Chron. 32:31). (3) When a man puts God to the test by trying to compel Him to act in accordance with his own proposals. This is presumption, as distinct from faith (Ex. 17:2, 7; Num. 14:22; Isa. 7:12). Inasmuch as the word "tempt" is now generally used to imply evil intent, the word "test" would be preferable here. God never "tempts" any man (James 1:13).

Behold, here I am. This vision, which came to Abraham at night (PP 147), was the eighth occasion on which God spoke to Abraham (Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12). Previous experiences had taught Abraham to recognize God's voice immediately, and he was ready to answer. This brief introductory conversation consists of but two words in Hebrew, and in this respect differs from similar occasions in the past.

2. Take now thy son. If these words were spoken slowly, as is probable, Abraham must have felt, in sequence, pride, fear, and awe. Repetition was calculated by God to arouse parental affection and to prepare Abraham for the severe test soon to follow. In calling Isaac, Abraham's "only son," God implied that he alone was considered a legitimate heir to the promise. This contrasts with the expression of ch. 21:12, 13, where God calls Ishmael "the son of the bondwoman."

The land of Moriah. The name Moriah appears but twice in the Bible, here and in 2 Chron. 3:1. According to the latter text Solomon built his temple on Mt. Moriah, to the north of David's city and to the west of the Kidron valley. The land of Moriah must therefore have been the mountainous country round about Jerusalem. The name seems to have been rather uncommon.

Offer him. The sacrifice of human beings, particularly of infants, was common in ancient times. Both the Bible and archeology affirm that the Canaanites practiced such rites. The idea of sacrificing one's first-born to the deity was therefore nothing strange to Abraham. While God explicitly prohibited such sacrifices (Lev. 18:21), it is not certain that Abraham was clear as to this. Indeed, only on the assumption that he did not understand this divine ban can we explain his failure to protest God's command to offer up his son.

3. Early in the morning. Abraham seems to have been in the habit of rising early (see chs. 19:27; 21:14). He was a man of action, and now that God had spoken, his only thought was immediate obedience. Anyway, how could he sleep with the weight of this message upon his mind? How impossible it all seemed! What doubts must have tortured his mind! Not trusting himself should he presume to delay, and fearing also the possible opposition and interference of Sarah, he determined to set out immediately for the designated mountain.

In the supreme test of a long, eventful life Abraham obeyed without raising a single question, without offering a single objection, and without seeking human counsel. Where principle is involved, the mature Christian asks no more than a clear perception of duty. His cooperation springs from a heart overflowing with love and devotion. He lives as in the very presence of God, with no human considerations to dim his apprehension of truth and duty. Yet, upon this occasion, what a struggle must have taken place in the heart of the "friend of God," not as to whether he would obey, but rather for divine assurance that his senses and reason were not deceiving him.

Saddled his ass. The series of terse statements in this verse admirably reflect the calm deliberation and unflinching heroism with which the patriarch proceeded to carry out the divine command. His calm voice and steady hands in no way betrayed the inner emotion of a broken and bleeding heart. Everything needed for the long journey was quickly prepared in a matter-of-fact way. There was no trace of past moments of weakness. As a noble hero of faith, his training complete, Abraham responded immediately when called upon to meet his supreme hour of test. This was the climax of his spiritual experience. He serenely rose to a height never surpassed by mortal man, and qualified for the honor of being called "father of the faithful."

4. On the third day. Two days of travel brought the travelers--Abraham, Isaac, and two servants--into the land of Moriah. Two sleepless nights had been spent in prayer. Arising early on the morning of the third day, Abraham beheld the divinely appointed sign, a cloud of glory, indicating the mountain on which the sacrifice was to be made (PP 151).

5. Abide ye here. The solemn duty Abraham was about to perform seemed to him too sacred for other human eyes and ears. None but God could understand. For two days he had concealed his thoughts and emotions. Isaac was to be the first to know, and the only one to share with him this hour of passion and pathos.

I and the lad. Each of the three verbs of the sequence thus introduced contains the pronoun "we." The English translation does not reflect the prophetic faith implicit in the Hebrew. Literally, Abraham said to his two servants, "I and the youth, we will go yonder, and we will worship, and we will come again." Though he did not understand God's purpose, he did believe that God would raise Isaac from the dead (Heb. 11:19). Had not God promised, without qualification, that Isaac was to be his heir (Gen. 21:12)? Abraham did not anticipate being spared the gruesome act of slaying his own son, but believed that Isaac would be restored to him. Accordingly, he spoke in faith when he said, "We will come again." Only by faith was it possible not to expect to return alone, to report to the men that with his own hands he had taken the life of his son and offered him to God (see PP 151, 152). The height of his spiritual experience is evident, not only in his unwavering obedience, but also in his unflinching faith in God's unfailing promises.

6. They went. Father and son began the ascent in silence, Abraham in meditation and prayer, and Isaac pondering over his father's unwonted reticence as to the nature and purpose of their journey. Alone with his father, solitude invited Isaac to give expression to his bewilderment over the absence of a lamb.

Abraham's Journey to Mount Moriah

7. My father. This expression of endearment must have lacerated Abraham's heart. As used by Isaac, a well-bred young man of a cultured Semitic family, this form of address signified his desire to ask a question. No well-trained son would presume to ask questions or make statements in the presence of his parents without first receiving permission to do so. Abraham gave this permission by replying, "Here am I, my son."

Where is the lamb? This point-blank question expressed no more than innocent wonder. Nothing in the narrative suggests that Isaac in the least surmised that he was to substitute for the missing lamb. His question was asked in all simplicity of mind, without suspicion or undue inquisitiveness.

8. God will provide. Abraham's reply constitutes a prophetic utterance from the heights of heroic faith to which his soul had risen. By inspiration it pointed both to the ram of v. 13 and to the Lamb of God, which at the moment were equally beyond his ken. Except for the conviction that he was doing the will of God and that his "only son" would be restored to him, Abraham's agony at the thought of parting from Isaac would have been beyond endurance. Albeit, the boy's question must have pierced the father's heart. Would Isaac understand?

9. Abraham built an altar. Reaching the spot where in later centuries the Temple stood, father and son reared an altar. Salem, the city of Melchizedek, was scarcely more than a stone's throw to the south. But a little farther, to the northwest, was the hill later known as Golgotha.

Bound Isaac. When all was complete, and nothing remained save the placing of the sacrifice upon the altar, Abraham tremblingly told Isaac all that God had revealed to him, and probably added to that his own faith in Isaac's restoration. It is difficult to imagine the mingled feelings that must have surged through Isaac's breast--amazement, terror, submission, and finally faith and trust. If such were the will of God, he would count it an honor to yield his life in sacrifice. A young man of 20, he might easily have resisted; instead, he encouraged his father in the final moments preceding the climax. That Isaac understood and shared his father's faith was a noble tribute to the careful training he had received through childhood and youth. Isaac became thus a fitting type of the Son of God, who yielded to the will of His Father (Matt. 26:39). In each case the father gave up his only son.

10. Took the knife. Having laid the bound victim upon the wood, Abraham was ready for the last act, the slaying of his son and setting fire to the pile of wood. As a type of the perfect Lamb of God, Isaac offered no resistance and voiced no complaint (see Isa. 53:7).

11. The angel of the Lord called. Whereas in the past God had spoken directly to Abraham, He now sent His angel (see Acts 7:2; Gen. 12:1; 13:14; 15:1; 17:1; 18:1; 21:12; PP 152).

12. Lay not thine hand. The patriarch had amply demonstrated his faith and obedience and had fully satisfied the requirements of his God. Jehovah did not desire the death of Isaac; in fact, He was not interested in any sacrificial offerings as such. But He has ever desired the willing obedience of His servants (1 Sam. 15:22; Hosea 6:6). So far as the will and purpose of father and son could go, the sacrifice was complete. God accepted the devotion of their hearts as a gift far more acceptable in His sight, and took the will for the deed (Heb. 11:17). The heavenly voice also testifies to God's rejection of human sacrifices (see Deut. 12:31; 2 Kings 17:17; 2 Chron. 28:3; Jer. 19:5; Eze. 16:20, 21). The assertions of Bible critics to the effect that the Hebrews, as a part of their regular order of service, practiced the rite of human sacrifice, so common among the Canaanites and other peoples of antiquity, is without foundation. True, in periods of apostasy the Jews did practice this rite, but this was in direct violation of God's command (see Ps. 106:37, 38; Isa. 57:5; etc.).

13. Abraham went and took the ram. Discovering the ram and accepting its presence as a further token of the providence of God, Abraham did not need to await instructions from God as to what to do with it. Here was the lamb that Abraham had said God would provide (v. 8). The wood, the fire, and the knife had not been brought, nor the altar erected, in vain.

14. Jehovah-jireh. Remembering now his own prophetic words to Isaac, Abraham named the spot Jehovah-jireh, "Jehovah will provide." This name, Moses adds, gave birth to the proverb, "In the Mount of Jehovah it shall be seen [literally, "provided"]." The meaning of this proverb is somewhat obscure. The word here translated "seen" is the same as that rendered "provide" in v. 8. The proverb is obviously reminiscent of Abraham's expression of faith that in the amount divinely appointed, God Himself would provide a means of salvation. This proverb constituted an expression of the Messianic hope, whether or not such a meaning was entirely clear to those quoting it. Upon this sacred spot, in the holy of holies of Solomon's Temple, the Shekinah glory of God later took up its abode. Hard by this mount occurred the rejection by the Jewish leaders of the true Lamb of God.

15. The angel of the Lord. After the ram had been offered, the angel spoke again. Prior to the experience recorded in ch. 22 God had communicated with Abraham seven times (see on v. 1). This is the last recorded divine revelation to Abraham. God accepted his loyalty and obedience and reaffirmed the promises made so often in the past.

16. By myself have I sworn. The purpose of an oath is to provide confirmation of what has been stated. Men call upon God to witness their integrity. Since there is none higher than God (Heb. 6:13), He swears by Himself (see Isa. 45:23; Jer. 22:5; 49:13; etc.). In thus committing Himself, God, for man's sake, follows a custom familiar to men, to convince them of the dependability of His promises.

17. Possess the gate of his enemies. Here alone among the promises given to Abraham is reference made to the "enemies" over whom his seed should triumph. This is probably a prediction that his descendants would be victorious over their enemies in the future conquest of Canaan. It may include, as well, the triumph of truth over pagan religious systems, that is, the conversion of the heathen through the missionary labor of the spiritual children of Abraham.

20. It was told Abraham. Some unidentified messenger came to Beersheba with news from Abraham's brother Nahor in Haran. This news takes the form of a brief table of Nahor's descendants. It is included here by way of showing the descent of Rebekah, soon to become Isaac's wife.

Milcah. This daughter of Haran, who had married her uncle Nahor (ch. 11:29), had given birth to eight sons, named in the following verses. It is not implied that Milcah had but recently begun to bear children (see on ch. 11:30), but that many years had passed since Abraham last heard from Nahor's family.

21. Huz his firstborn. This name appears also in the list of Aram's sons (ch. 10:23). Two distinct individuals are indicated.

Buz his brother. With Dedan and Teman, Buz is mentioned as an Arabian tribe (Jer. 25:23). Elihu was a "Buzite" (Job 32:2, 6). The land of BaÆzu, in the Assyrian inscriptions of Esarhaddon, seems to have been the area inhabited by this tribe. Whether the tribe of Buz descended from Nahor's son Buz is uncertain.

Kemuel. Not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. There was, however, an Ephramite chieftain by this name at the time of the Exodus, and also a Levite of David's time (Num. 34:24).

The father of Aram. This grandson of Nahor is not the ancestor of the Aramaeans (see ch. 10:22). He may, however, have been named in honor of Aram the son of Shem.

23. Bethuel begat Rebekah. Nothing is known of the other sons of Nahor except Bethuel, his youngest. Bethuel is important as the father of Laban and Rebekah (see chs. 24:15, 24, 47, 50; 25:20; 28:2, 5). The name Bethuel, literally, "dwelling of God," may indicate that he was a pious man. The omission of Laban's name from this list suggests that he was not yet born.

24. Thahash, and Maachah. Of Tebah and Gaham nothing is known except their names. Thahash may have given his name to the Tachsi region of the Lebanon, mentioned in the Amarna Letters, and Maachah to a region at the foot of Hermon (see 2 Sam. 10:6, 8; 1 Chron. 19:7; etc.).

That three of Terah's descendants, Nahor, Ishmael, and Jacob, should each have 12 sons has been pronounced by critical scholars an artificially contrived symmetry. But the critics do not explain why important men like Abraham and Isaac did not have 12 sons also.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-19PP 147-155; SR 80-83

1, 2 PP 147

2 DA 468; PP 148; SR 80; 4T 144, 253

2-121T 454

3 4T 144, 253

3, 4 PP 151

3-63T 368

5-8PP 152

7 3T 368

7, 8 DA 112; PP 155; SR 82

8 DA 469

9 GC 18; PK 37; 3T 368

9, 10 PP 152

10, 11 3T 368

11, 12 PP 152; SR 82

12 DA 469; PP 155; 1T 351; 3T 368; 4T 18, 145

13 SR 83

13-18PP 153

15-18SR 83

16 1T 203

16-18GC 18; PK 37

18 AA 222; PK 368; PP 370

19 3T 368

Genesis Chapter 23

1 The age and death of Sarah. 3 The purchase of Machpelah, 19 where Sarah was buried.

1. The life of Sarah. As the mother of all believers (Isa. 51:2; 1 Peter 3:6) Sarah is the only woman whose age at death is mentioned in Scripture. Isaac was 37 years old at the time of her death (Gen. 17:1, 17; 21:5).

2. Kirjath-arba. Abraham had moved back to his former place of abode, near Hebron (chs. 13:18; 18:1). Having lived for almost 40 years in the land of the Philistines (chs. 20:1; 21:31-34; 22:19), he now returned to Canaan proper, a fact Moses specifically notes. Kirjath-arba (Joshua 14:15; 15:13; 21:11), meaning "city of Arba," was named for one of the giant Anakim, who apparently founded it. The name Hebron was given to the city at a later time.

Mourn for Sarah. Seemingly the only burial rite observed by Abraham. This probably refers to formal mourning--sitting on the ground and weeping in the presence of the dead. Mourning later developed into an elaborate ritual, including such ceremonies as rending the garments, shaving the head, wearing sackcloth, and covering the head with dust and ashes (2 Sam. 3:31; Job 1:20; 2:12).

3. Spake unto the sons of Heth. The inhabitants of the region are here called the sons of Heth, or Hittites (v. 10). During Abraham's first period of residence the Amorites had been in possession of Hebron (see on ch. 20:1). Critical objection to the presence of Hittites in southern Palestine at this early period is not confirmed by the latest archeological findings.

In fact it is in the light of the Hittite laws that some details connected with this story can best be explained. (See vs. 11, 17, and M. R. Lehmann in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 129 [Feb., 1953], pp. 15-18.

4. I am a stranger. Abraham's courteous approach to the Hittites, the "people of the land," is noteworthy (vs. 7, 12, 13). He frankly admitted his status as a sojourner and made no claim to any of the land by right (see Heb. 11:13). God had promised him all of Canaan. With hundreds of retainers he had defeated the allied expeditionary force from Mesopotamia (Gen. 14). These very Hittites recognized him as a "mighty prince" (ch. 23:6). Yet, in humility, Abraham did not present his neighbors with a demand; he requested permission to secure title to a piece of land, not by right, but as a favor and for a price.

A buryingplace. This is the first grave mentioned in Scripture. Cremation was practiced by many pagan nations of antiquity, but the Hebrews preferred interment. The desire to be buried on one's own land is common to people of all ages, races, and levels of culture.

6. Thou are a mighty prince. The Hittites replied obligingly to Abraham's request, reflecting his courtesy. Declining to accept his own appraisal of his status among them, "a stranger," they acknowledged him as a "mighty prince." Literally, "prince of God," which according to a familiar Hebrew idiom may legitimately be translated "mighty prince," as in the KJV. In Hebrew, similarly, the "great mountains" of Ps. 36:6 are literally the "mountains of God," and the "goodly cedars" of Ps. 80:10, the "cedars of God." In designating Abraham as "a mighty prince," the Hittites voiced their recognition of Abraham as a man whom God had favored.

None of us shall withhold. They heartily approved of Abraham's request. To begin with they offered to make their own burial grounds available to him--a truly courteous gesture.

7. Abraham stood up. Oriental courtesy, tact, and bargaining procedure are obvious in the arrangements between Abraham and the sons of Heth. Abraham expressed his appreciation by bowing, a common Oriental gesture of gratitude. Meeting no opposition to his rather vague suggestion, Abraham next advanced a concrete proposal.

8. Intreat for me. In typical Oriental fashion, Abraham did not direct his petition to Ephron himself, but requested the elders of the city to use their influence in securing the desired property. They were to be his go-betweens in conducting the transaction. Such a procedure would result in concluding the agreement with greater dispatch, and would also avoid misunderstandings that might otherwise arise. The good name of the entire community would ensure a fair deal, and would protect both Abraham and Ephron from criticism.

9. Machpelah. This name has been explained in various ways. Some have taken it as a proper name, others as descriptive of some peculiarity of the cave. It is from the root kaphal "to double," suggesting that it may have been a double cave, or perhaps one with two entrances. The first interpretation seems preferable. In this cave were deposited, successively, the remains of Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, Leah, and Jacob. (chs. 25:9; 49:31; 50:13). Rachel alone, of the great patriarchal family, was absent (ch. 35:19). Machpelah has been identified with two caves, one above the other, beneath a Mohammedan mosque on a slope near Hebron. Access was forbidden for centuries, but an exception was made in 1882 for the future George V of England and his brother. Since the first world war several Christians have had the opportunity of visiting the upper cave, which contains stone markers bearing the names of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Rebekah, and Leah. These slabs are supposed to mark their actual tombs, in the rock-hewn cave below. Whether this very ancient tradition agrees with the facts cannot be determined until scientific study is permitted in the lower cave.

11. The field give I thee. All such transactions were made at the city gate (see Gen. 34:20; Ruth 4:1). Ephron, who was obviously one of the nobility present, and was now mentioned by name, spoke. He offered Abraham the field containing the cave, ostensibly as an outright gift. This offer follows a good Eastern custom that has been kept alive in some places to the present day. Everyone knew, of course, that this offer was not meant seriously. Ephron was unwilling to sell the cave without the field.

The reason for Ephron's eagerness to sell the whole property and not simply part of it, lies in the Hittite laws (Nos. 46, 47), which allow a release of feudal service only if a whole field is sold, but not if it is disposed of in pieces. Hence, if Abraham had bought only the cave Ephron's tax burden would not have been lightened, whereas Abraham's eventual purchase of the whole property transferred Ephron's feudal obligations to the purchaser Abraham.

I will give thee money. Recognizing in Ephron's answer his willingness to let him have the cave if he would purchase the field containing it, Abraham bowed again in gratitude. He, of course, declined to accept Ephron's property as a gift, but asked the price by stating his desire to pay for it.

15. Four hundred shekels. About $116 (see on ch. 20:16). Ephron now named his price, implying that it was a mere trifle for a rich man like Abraham. Although the price appears most reasonable in terms of modern values, in the time of Abraham it must have seemed exorbitant. Babylonian records reveal that average fields were then sold at 4 shekels an acre, and the most fertile gardens at 40 shekels an acre. According to the Babylonian standard Abraham should have been able to buy a field of 100 acres for his money. Though we do not know how large Ephron's field was, Moses seems to leave the impression that Ephron took advantage of Abraham's predicament to make a good profit for himself. Otherwise Ephron would not have offered Abraham the field in addition to the cave (see on v. 11).

16. Abraham weighed. Desiring to avoid any feelings of enmity, Abraham as a Semite at the mercy of the Hittites, paid without question rather than bargain over the price. Then as now such a procedure was customary throughout the Orient, and Ephron undoubtedly expected Abraham to do accordingly. As a "mighty prince," a wealthy nomad chief, Abraham may have felt that bargaining was beneath his dignity, or, perhaps, he deliberately chose to avoid a reputation for sharp dealing. He paid in full on the spot, according to customary commercial standards, as the phrase, "current money with the merchant," indicates.

17. The field. Some stipulations of the contract, no doubt found in even greater detail in a written deed, are here given. Numerous such contracts of that time from Abraham's old home, Ur, and elsewhere in Mesopotamia, present a clear picture of the form of such a contract. Abraham's title deed no doubt contained an exact description of the property and its location, and listed the trees and other accessory items on it, in this case including the cave. If, for instance, the trees had not been specifically included, Ephron could have specifically included, Ephron could have claimed the harvest from them every year.

This is once more an interesting detail proving that Hittites were involved in the transaction, since the listing of the exact number of trees at each real estate sale is a characteristic trait in Hittite business documents.

Before Mamre. That is, "to the east of Mamre" (RSV).

19. Abraham buried Sarah. The cave was situated near Mamre, where Abraham had lived before the birth of Isaac. In sight of the grove that had been their home for so many years, where they had shared their joys and their sorrows, their disappointments and their hopes, Abraham laid his beloved wife to rest.

Before Mamre. The Hebrew expression here translated "before" is at times to be understood as "to the east of." In giving directions a Hebrew customarily thought of himself as facing the east, which was thus "before" him (see Zech. 14:8; Joel 2:20; Deut. 11:24). Mamre was not another name for Hebron, but was simply in that vicinity (see Gen. 13:18).

In the land of Canaan. To emphasize, as in v. 2, that Sarah found her last resting place in a piece of ground belonging to Abraham in the promised land of Canaan.

Ellen G. White Comments

7 ML 192

17-20PP 169

Genesis Chapter 24

1 Abraham sweareth his servant. 10 The servant's journey: 12 His prayer: 14 His sign. 15 Rebekah meeteth him, 18 fulfilleth his sign, 22 receiveth jewels, 23 sheweth her kindred, 25 and inviteth him home. 26 The servant blesseth God. 29 Laban entertaineth him. 34 The servant sheweth his message. 50 Laban and Bethuel approve it. 58 Rebekah consenteth to go. 62 Isaac meeteth her.

1. Abraham was old. The events narrated in this chapter took place 3 years after Sarah's death (ch. 23:1), since Sarah was 90 years old at the birth of Isaac, and Isaac was 40 at the time of his marriage with Rebekah (ch. 25:20). Abraham was about 140 years of age at the time (ch. 17:17).

2. Eldest servant. The most trusted servant of Abraham's house was Eliezer (PP 173), who half a century previously had been tentatively selected by Abraham as his prospective heir (ch. 15:2). He was now summoned by Abraham for a most important mission.

Thy hand under my thigh. This ancient ceremony accompanying a solemn oath is mentioned again only in ch. 47:29. In both instances the circumstances suggest a promise to deal faithfully after the death of the one to whom the promise was made, that is, with his posterity. The death of the one would not release the other from his oath. Explanations of the custom vary somewhat among commentators. As the source of posterity (see Gen. 35:11; 46:26; Ex. 1:5), the word "thigh" or "loins" (same word in the Hebrew) has been considered as pointing to Abraham's future descendants, in particular to Christ, the promised Seed. If so, the oath was, as it were, sworn by, in particular to Christ, the promised Seed. If so, the oath was, at it were, sworn by, or in the name of, the One that was to come. Other interpreters have considered the thigh as symbolic of lordship or authority, and the placing of the hand beneath it an oath of allegiance to a superior.

3. Take a wife. Although Abraham was to live another 35 years (cf. ch. 25:7, 20), he seems to have felt rather feeble at this time (v. 1). The authority given Eliezer in the selection of a wife implies a commendable submissiveness on the part of Isaac, who was already 40 years of age. In ancient times, as in the Orient today, parents selected marriage partners and made wedding arrangements for their children. This in no way implied that the wishes of the young people themselves were ignored (see vs. 58, 67; PP 171). The long delay in planning for Isaac's marriage was probably due to Abraham's desire to avoid taking a Canaanite wife for him, and to the fact that heretofore he had not found it convenient to arrange for one from Haran (see vs. 3-6). The death of Sarah had perhaps added a sense of urgency to the matter.

Of the Canaanites. Aware of the growing licentiousness and idolatry of the Canaanites, and of their impending doom, Abraham desired to preserve the purity of the promised seed. His own experience with Hagar, and the experiences of Lot and Ishmael, had taught him the danger of alliances with people of heathen background (PP 174). Furthermore, God had already forbidden intermarriage with the Canaanites, a prohibition later incorporated into the Mosaic legislation (Ex. 34:16; Deut. 7:3).

4. Unto my country. Not to Ur of the Chaldees but to Haran, both of which were in Mesopotamia. Though not free from idolatry, Abraham's relatives there preserved to some extent the knowledge and worship of the true God (see Gen. 31:19; Joshua 24:2; PP 171). Therefore a daughter-in-law from among them seemed far preferable to one form among the degraded Canaanites.

6. Bring not my son thither. Abraham solemnly charged Eliezer not to permit Isaac to go to Mesopotamia. He left that neither he nor his son was at liberty to return, even for a visit. This, together with his advanced age (v. 1), probably influenced him not to return in person to obtain a wife for his son.

7. He shall send his angel. This tender expression of confidence in divine guidance reveals Abraham's abiding conviction that he and his affairs were under the direction and protection of God. The same assurance of divine leadership given to Eliezer was afterward promised the people of Israel (Ex. 23:20) and the Christian church (Heb. 1:14).

8. Thou shalt be clear. In view of the of sacred and binding nature of his oath, Eliezer felt justifiable concern as to his responsibility in case no woman would return with him to Canaan. Abraham assured Eliezer that God, who had led thus far, could be counted on not to desert him now. Eliezer could set out confident in the successful conclusion of his mission. But if for any reason the contrary should prove true, he was to consider himself free from further obligation with respect to the oath, except that under no circumstance was Isaac to be permitted to go to Mesopotamia to seek a wife. Abraham no doubt feared that Isaac might be tempted to remain in Mesopotamia, and so thwart the divine purpose.

Eliezer's Journey, Beersheba to Haran, to Obtain a Wife for Isaac

10. Ten camels. On the use of domesticated camels in Abraham's time, see on ch. 12:16. Abraham left the entire planning and execution of this mission to the discretion of his trusted servant Eliezer. The statement that "all the goods of his master were in his hand" shows him to have been a man of experience and sound judgment. He had now been with Abraham for more than half a century (see chs. 15:2; 16:3).

Went to Mesopotamia. The Hebrew term here translated Mesopotamia is Aram-naharayim, literally, "Aram of the two rivers." This land, where the Mitanni flourished at the time of Moses, was called naharina by the Egyptians. It is in northern Mesopotamia between the upper Euphrates and Chabur rivers.

The city of Nahor. Until about 1930 this was thought to be only another name for Haran (see chs. 27:43; 28:10). However, cuneiform tablets of the 18th century b.c., brought to light in Mari, an Amorite city on the central Euphrates, mention Til-Nahiri, "the city of Nahor," as a town of the Haran region. The "city of Nahor" was therefore not Haran itself, but a separate settlement founded by Nahor and called after him (see on ch. 11:31).

11. The time that women go out. Nothing is said about the journey itself, which must have taken many days, and Moses continues the narrative when Eliezer reaches his destination. The caravan of ten camels had arrived at the well outside the town of Nahor, and they knelt down to rest and to await a drink. From remote antiquity it was the Oriental custom for women to draw water and to carry it home, in either jars or skins (Ex. 2:16; 1 Sam. 9:11). Eliezer considered such an occasion a good opportunity to observe the marriageable young women of the city and to decide upon a suitable wife for his master's son.

12. O Lord God. Brought up in the religion of his master and being himself a firm believer in the true God, Eliezer silently prayed for wisdom, guidance, and success. This praying servant is a cheering example of the fruits of Abraham's devoted care for the souls of his household (ch. 18:19). This, the first recorded prayer in the Bible, is expressive of childlike faith. Eliezer was well aware of the great responsibility which was his, of returning with a woman who would bring blessing and not a curse upon Abraham's house, one who would be a helpmeet for her husband rather than a contributor to his downfall. He therefore asked for a sign to guide him in his choice. Since it was no easy task to draw water sufficient for ten thirsty camels, the proposal posed a real test of character. Eliezer wished to be sure that the woman he would escort back to Abraham was naturally friendly, ready to help, and able to work.

15. Rebekah came. Not by accident but by providence, his prayer was answered before it had been completed. This was not the only occasion upon which God's answer came so promptly (Dan. 9:23; Isa. 65:24). He is always ready to hear a sincere prayer uttered in faith. The meaning of Rebekah's name is obscure. Concerning her relationship, see on Gen. 22:23.

Her pitcher upon her shoulder. It is the habit among some Eastern peoples to carry water jars on their heads, but Palestinian and Syrian women do so upon their shoulders.

16. Very fair. Moses acquaints his readers with Rebekah immediately upon her appearance in the narrative. Like Sarah (ch. 12:11) and Rachel (ch. 29:17), Rebekah was very attractive. Her virginity is also emphasized, by repetition. This was truly an important virtue for her who should become the mother of an entire nation.

She went down to the well. The well was a natural spring, as the Hebrew word Ôayin indicates. Springs were usually to be found in a wadi, the dry bed of a seasonal stream, whereas towns were built on mounds. People therefore of necessity went "down" to the source of water supply.

19. Water for thy camels also. Rebekah, who had been asked only for a drink of water for a weary traveler, immediately manifested her kindly disposition. Her offer to draw water for the camels was voluntary and not a requirement of custom. It demonstrated a genuine desire to help those who were in need of assistance. It should not be forgotten, however, that her kindness was utilized in the providence of God as evidence that He had chosen her to be Isaac's wife. Her offer could be the full answer to Eliezer's prayer only if it came as a natural reflection of character.

21. Wondering at her. Eliezer was so fascinated by Rebekah's unaffected willingness to be of help that he allowed her to draw water for his ten camels without so much as offering assistance (see Gen. 29:10; Ex. 2:17). He was startled by the precision and dispatch with which Providence had answered his prayer for guidance. Momentarily he hesitated; could it be true? Thus the disciples wondered when Peter, after his release from prison by an angel, stood suddenly before them. Though engaged in prayer for his safety, it was difficult for them, to accept the answer when it came (Acts 12:12-17).

22. A golden earring. This present, it should be noted, was not her dowry but a token of Eliezer's gratitude. Though suspecting that she was to become Isaac's wife, Eliezer did not as yet even know her name, much less her family relationship to Abraham. The word translated "earring," "jewel for the forehead," is from the Heb. nezem, a ring for the nose. Since ancient times Bedouin women have worn nose rings, either in the cartilage of one side or in the central wall of the nose (see Isa. 3:21; Eze. 16:11, 12). Among Bedouins the nose ring is still the customary engagement gift. The golden ring probably weighed about one fifth of an ounce, and the two golden bracelets 4 or 5 oz. At the current price for gold their combined value would be about $169. Little wonder that Laban was surprised (v. 30)!

25. Room to lodge in. Eliezer was convinced that the young woman whose acquaintance he had made in so remarkable a way was the one chosen by God to accompany him back to Canaan. Hospitality seems to have been the common practice at Rebekah's home; otherwise she would not have felt at liberty to invite a stranger to stay with them.

26. Bowed down his head. The faithful servant of Abraham was one of those happy individuals who not only pray for help but also express gratitude upon receiving it. He gave God the glory for the success that had attended his mission. Eliezer is a noteworthy example of the value of family worship. Abraham had never considered his religion to be merely a personal possession, but had lived it, taught it (ch. 18:19), and made his vast family participants in the requirements and privileges of the divine covenant (ch. 17:23). They had come to believe in the true God and to imitate Abraham's example of faithful devotion to Him. Eliezer's two prayers at the well of Nahor's city emphasize the value of missionary work in the home.

28. Her mother's house. Several explanations have been given to account for Rebekah's going to "her mother's house" rather than to her father's: (1) Her mother was head of the family. This cannot be correct, because the men of the family decided the question (vs. 31, 50-59). (2) Her father, Bethuel, was dead, and the person by that name in v. 50 was a younger brother. (3) In many Oriental countries the women have separate quarters, and Rebekah naturally went there first to tell of her experience. (4) The expression "mother's house" really means "grandmother's house," according to a common Semitic custom by which a grandmother may be called mother. Since Rebekah's grandmother Milcah is mentioned repeatedly (vs. 15, 24, 47), whereas her mother is not mentioned at all, the latter may have been dead. Thus Rebekah may have resided with her grandmother Milcah, who, being a widow, kept a separate household. The third suggestion appears to offer the best explanation.

29. Laban. The "blond one," probably Rebekah's younger brother (see on ch. 22:23). His somewhat inglorious character, evident later in his dealings with Jacob, is reflected in the fact that upon seeing the rich gifts his sister had received he ran out immediately to meet Eliezer.

31. Thou blessed of the Lord. Though an idolater (ch. 31:30), Laban also knew and cherished the worship of Jehovah (PP 171). Rebekah's account of her providential encounter with Eliezer at the well no doubt reminded the brothers of Abraham's divinely appointed migration to Canaan and reports of his success there.

33. I will not eat. Oriental politeness would normally postpone the transaction of business until after the meal (see Homer Odyssey. iii. 69). Eliezer, however, felt his errand to be so pressing that he could not pause even to eat so long as the matter continued to weigh upon his heart and its outcome remained uncertain. His diligence, here manifested, testifies to the fact that Abraham's trust in him was fully justified.

49. Tell me. After recounting the story of his master's prosperity, of the birth of Isaac, of his own oath to seek a wife for Isaac among his master's relatives, and of the providential way in which he had been led to Rebekah's home, Eliezer, with solemn earnestness, pressed for an immediate decision.

50. Proceedeth from the Lord. In harmony with normal Oriental custom, Laban and Bethuel must approve of Rebekah's proposed marriage to Isaac. Since the Lord had already decided the matter, however, they had no alternative but to concur. So far as they were concerned, Jehovah's decision was not subject to further debate on their part, and Eliezer was free to take Rebekah to Canaan.

52. Worshipped the Lord. This is Eliezer's third prayer during his brief stay at the city of Nahor (see vs. 12, 26). It seems that every incident of life was to him an occasion for prayer, either for guidance or for thanksgiving. Others can well trust a man who in his turn trusts God. How much more successful we would be in all our temporal affairs if we, like Eliezer, would recognize God in everything we do!

54. Send me away. Eliezer was impatient to complete his mission by reporting its success to Abraham, lest delay should become a cause of concern to him. As might be expected, Rebekah's relatives were disturbed at the thought of so sudden a separation from her. Their concern was for adequate time to prepare for her departure, and also that they might bid her an appropriate farewell. According to Oriental custom this would no doubt include several days of feasting and merrymaking.

56. Hinder me not. Eliezer's insistence and their consideration for Rebekah led Laban to put the decision up to her. Would she be willing to forgo the pleasure of a few more days in her girlhood home, in order to please her husband-to-be, and his father? Her ready and willing response reflects maturity of judgment, an unselfish spirit, and recognition that henceforth her first duty was to be toward her husband.

60. Be thou the mother. Rebekah's family invoked upon her the blessings promised by God to Abraham. A numerous posterity is still considered by Orientals to be the greatest of blessings, and was the main object of their wish for her. For the expressed desire that her seed should possess the gate of their enemies, see on ch. 22:17.

62. Isaac came from the way. As with the journey to Mesopotamia, nothing is said of the return trip to Canaan. Moses passes immediately to the scene of welcome to her future home. This event occurred at the well Hagar had named Lahai-roi (ch. 16:14), in the Negeb to the south of Beersheba (see on ch. 12:9). Since Sarah's death, which had occurred at Hebron (ch. 23:2), Abraham had apparently once more changed his place of abode.

63. Went out to meditate. The exact meaning of the Hebrew word sŒuach, translated "meditate" in the KJV (margin, "to pray") and the RSV, is not certain. The idea of meditation is found in the oldest non-Semitic versions of this text, the LXX and the Vulgate. The oldest Semitic versions, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Targum of Onkelos, render it "to pray." This was adopted by the great Hebrew grammarian Kimchi of the Middle Ages, the Reformer Luther, and certain other expositors. The fact that Rebekah became a comfort to Isaac while he was still mourning the death of his mother (v. 67) has led some commentators to explain the word sŒuach as meaning "to lament." The precise meaning of this word being as yet uncertain, it would seem best to accept for the time being that of the oldest available translations, as the KJV and RSV have done. Isaac may have been meditating upon, or praying for, Eliezer's safe return with his bride-to-be. He was, to be sure, anticipating their imminent return from Mesopotamia. His future happiness would depend in large measure upon the kind of wife Eliezer should bring back with him. Appropriate indeed it would be for Isaac to kneel and pray for the blessing of God upon his new home! Those husbands and wives whose union comes in answer to prayer will prove to be the greatest blessing to each other.

65. She took a vail. Rebekah was eager with anticipation to greet Isaac, but the custom of her country did not allow the groom to see his bride's face until the marriage had been concluded (see ch. 29:23, 25). Her modesty, furthermore, was revealed in yet another way. To meet her future husband for the first time she chose to descend from the camel to the ground.

66. Told Isaac. Although nothing is said of Abraham, he doubtless received his daughter-in-law in the most gracious manner and with many benedictions. The account of Eliezer's finding of Rebekah must have afforded him much satisfaction. It is easy to think of this occasion being solemnized by Abraham in a thanksgiving service.

67. Into his mother Sarah's tent. Perhaps that same day, or the day following, Isaac led Rebekah into his mother's tent. Empty for three years, it now became quarters for Rebekah and her maids. This implies that Rebekah took the important place of Sarah in the household of Abraham. Isaac's marriage ceremony itself probably consisted of a simple declaration, before witnesses, of his intention to take Rebekah as his wife (cf. Ruth 4:10-13).

And he loved her. Isaac had every reason to love Rebekah. She was not only most beautiful (v. 16) but of a kind, cheerful, and considerate disposition. She seems to have been, generally speaking, a paragon of feminine virtue (see Prov. 31:10-31; 1 Peter 3:1-6; Titus 2:3-5). Isaac's careful training and submissive spirit have already been noted (see on ch. 22:9). Their home must have been a very happy one.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-67PP 171-176; SR 84-86

2-9PP 172

10 PP 188

10-21PP 172

22-24, 26-51PP 173

35 CS 139

49-52SR 85

58 PP 173; SR 85

63-67PP 173

67 PP 175

Genesis Chapter 25

1 The sons of Abraham by Keturah. 5 The division of his goods. 7 His age, and death. 9 His burial. 12 The generations of Ishmael. 17 His age, and death. 19 Isaac prayeth for Rebekah, being barren. 22 The children strive in her womb. 24 The birth of Esau and Jacob. 27 Their difference. 29 Esau selleth his birthright.

1. Again Abraham took a wife. Though Abraham's loneliness following the death of Sarah had impressed upon him an awareness of his own advancing age (see on ch. 24:1), he still enjoyed remarkable physical and mental strength and lived for 38 years after her death. Isaac's marriage may have left Abraham even more lonely than before and led him to take another wife to make his last years happy ones. That this new wife, Keturah, meaning "incense," is called a concubine, like Hagar (v. 6), does not imply that he had married her while Sarah was still alive, though this is not impossible. The context conveys the impression that Abraham's marriage to Keturah occurred after Sarah's death.

2. She bare. Abraham was 137 years of age at the death of Sarah, and 140 at the marriage of Isaac. He who blessed the aged patriarch with a son at the century mark of life now granted him the joy of additional sons and daughters. Nothing could make the sunset hours of life brighter for the Oriental heart than to be surrounded by a large and happy family. With one exception the Keturah sons of Abraham, as far as can be identified, settled in Arabia. Like Ishmael, they migrated to the south and east of the Negeb.

Zimran. Possibly meaning "antelope," and tentatively identified with the Arabian town of Zambran, between Mecca and Medina.

Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian. Though nothing is known concerning the first two sons, other than their names, the tribe of Midian appears often, both in the Bible and in inscriptions. This tribe settled in the northern part of the Sinai peninsula and in northwestern Arabia across the Gulf of Aqaba. Moses later found refuge among them, in the house of Jethro, who worshiped the true God (Ex. 2:15; 3:1; 18:1-6). During the time of the Judges the Midianites repeatedly attacked the people of Israel (Judges 6 to 8).

Ishbak and Shuah. Ishbak may be identified with the people of Jasbuqu, mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions. Shuah seems to have been the ancestor of a tribe to which Bildad, one of Job's friends, belonged (Job 2:11; 8:1; etc.). If this is correct, the tribe of Shuah settled down in northern Mesopotamia instead of in Arabia with the other sons of Keturah. The cuneiform texts mention a land SuÆchu, south of Carchemish on the Euphrates.

3. Sheba, and Dedan. The descendants of Jokshan, Sheba, and Dedan, cannot be identified with the southern Arabic tribes of the same names, mentioned in ch. 10:7 as coming from Ham. It is inconceivable that Moses should have attributed the origin of these tribes to the Hamite Cush in one text and to the Shemite Abraham in another. Their identification is uncertain.

Asshurim. This tribe is mentioned in a Minaean inscription of northwestern Arabia. Of the other two Dedan tribes, the Letushim and Leummim, nothing is known.

4. The sons of Midian. Ephah, Midian's son, apparently gave his name to the Arabic tribe appearing in cuneiform inscriptions under the name ChajapaÆ. The other sons have not yet been identified.

6. Sent them away. Toward the close of his life Abraham appointed Isaac his legal heir (see ch. 15:4) and bequeathed to him most of his property. To the sons of Hagar and Keturah he gave token gifts. In view of Abraham's great wealth and hundreds of servants (see chs. 13:2; 14:14), he was in a position to give each of these seven sons a number of servants and some of his flocks without perceptibly diminishing Isaac's inheritance. Presumably, each son received sufficient for a good start in life. Sending these other sons "eastward" while he lived was a precaution against strife after his death, particularly in respect to the right Isaac to the land of Canaan.

8. Gave up the ghost. Literally, "he expired." The RSV translation, "breathed his last," is preferable (see v. 17; ch. 35:29).

Gathered to his people. See on ch. 15:15.

9. Isaac and Ishmael buried him. As the chief heir of Abraham, Isaac is mentioned first. That Ishmael, Isaac's older half brother, participated in the last rites for their father is evidence of a reconciliation between them (see also ch. 35:29). The sons of Keturah are not mentioned, their distant habitat, perhaps, making it impossible for them to arrive in time for the funeral at Hebron.

11. Isaac dwelt by the well Lahai-roi. God honored Isaac as Abraham's heir, and repeated to him the promises and blessings vouchsafed to Abraham. For a time after Abraham's death Isaac continued to reside at Lahai-roi, where his father's last years had been spent and where he had met Rebekah for the first time (ch. 24:62). It was now 35 years since that memorable event in his life, and his own sons, Jacob and Esau, were 15 years of age (see v. 26).

12. The generations of Ishmael. A new section begins, in which Moses traces briefly the family and fortunes of Abraham's eldest son before proceeding with his main theme, the line of Isaac.

13. The names of the sons. That the sons of Ishmael gave their names to tribal divisions and geographical localities is clear from v. 16. Some are either mentioned again in the Bible or are found as place names in northern Arabia. The following can be identified:

Nebajoth; and Kedar. These are mentioned also together in Isa. 60:7. Kedar alone appears in several Bible passages, Isa. 21:16 and Eze. 27:21 designating his posterity as an Arabic tribe.

Adbeel. Mentioned elsewhere only 1 Chron. 1:29. This may be Idibi-il, mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions of the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III as a tribe near the border of Egypt.

14. Mishma. Identified with the Arabic tribe Isamme', of the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal.

Dumah. Probably a north Arabian oasis mentioned repeatedly in ancient texts. Its modern name is El Djouf.

Massa has been identified with a tribe of northern Arabia, called Mas'u in the cuneiform inscriptions of Mesopotamia.

15. Hadar. The best Hebrew manuscripts read Hadad, found in cuneiform inscriptions of Chudadu. In Hebrew the letters equivalent to "r" and "d" are very similar, and one may easily be mistaken for the other.

Tema. Mentioned also in Job 6:19; Isa. 21:14; and Jer. 25:23. This is the modern Teima in northwestern Arabia. In ancient times it was an important trade center, and became for some years the residence of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, father of Belshazzar.

Jetur, Naphish. Found in 1 Chron. 5:19 fighting the trans-Jordanian tribes of Gad, Manasseh, and Reuben. It is probable that the name Ituraea mentioned in Luke 3:1 as a region south of Mt. Hermon was derived from Jetur.

16. Castles. Literally, "encampments."

17. The life of Ishmael. Ishmael's long life was doubtless due to the vigor he inherited from his father, Abraham. On the expressions "gave up the ghost" and "was gathered unto his people" see respectively on v. 8 and ch. 15:15.

18. From Havilah unto Shur. The location of Havilah is uncertain (see on ch. 2:11). For this reason the eastern extent of the Ishmaelite dominion in Arabia cannot be determined. Its western border was Shur (chs. 16:7; 20:1), not far from the land of Egypt.

As thou goest toward Assyria. This does not mean that the Ishmaelite domain extended as far as Assyria, in Mesopotamia, but rather its extension in a general northerly direction. The Ishmaelites therefore bordered on Egypt in the west and Havilah to the southeast and extended some distance northward into the north Arabian Desert.

He died in the presence of all his brethren. Naphal, "to fall," here translated "died," may also mean "to encamp," as an army (Judges 7:12, 13), and "to divide," as an inheritance (Ps. 78:55). The expression, "He died in the presence of all his brethren," should be translated in harmony with the prediction of ch. 16:12, "he settled over against [close by] all his people" (RSV).

19. The generations of Isaac. Moses returns to the main theme of his narrative, the history of the chosen people. Some events described in the succeeding verses occurred during the lifetime of Abraham. Since Abraham lived to be 175 years of age (ch. 25:7), and was 100 at the birth of Isaac (ch. 21:5), he must have been 160 years old at the birth of Esau and Jacob (ch. 25:26), who were therefore 15 years old at his death. Ishmael's death, at the age of 137 (v. 17), occurred much later, when Jacob and Esau were 63. Ishmael was 14 years older than Isaac (ch. 16:16), and was therefore 74 years old when Isaac's two sons were born. Chronologically out of place, the new section finds its logical place here in the narrative because it is Moses' purpose to present Esau and Jacob's life story without a break.

20. The Syrian. "Syrian," more accurately, "Aramaean," according to the Hebrew. Bethuel, a grandson of Terah (ch. 22:20-23), was, like Abraham, a descendant of Shem's son Arphaxad (ch. 11:10-27) and not of Shem's son Aram, ancestor of the Aramaeans (see on ch. 10:22). He is called "Aramaean" here merely because Terah's family had settled in Aramaic territory, and was gradually absorbed by the Aramaeans. Moses refers to both Bethuel and Laban as Aramaeans.

Padan-aram. The location of "Padan-aram" is not clear. It occurs only in Genesis (chs. 28:2, 5-7; 31:18; etc.), and has been explained as designating a region that constituted part of Aram-naharayim (see on ch. 24:10). Again, it may refer to Haran, inasmuch as Padan and Haran have similar meanings in the Assyrian language.

21. Isaac intreated the Lord. Like his father, Isaac was to learn that children of the promise were not to be simply the fruit of nature, but manifestly the gift of grace as well. When Isaac and Rebekah had been married for 19 years (vs. 20, 26), and were still childless, Isaac made the matter a subject of prayer. He chose to rely upon the mercies of God rather than to trust his own clever devices, as had Abraham (ch. 16:3). His confidence in God was not exercised in vain, nor did he have long to wait before faith became fact.

22. The children struggled. Rebekah became apprehensive, both for her own and for her children's safety. Perplexed, she went to the Lord for an explanation. Various ancient and modern commentators notwithstanding, this does not necessarily imply the use of an intermediary, much less the need of one. Melchizedek, Abraham, and Isaac have been suggested as the ones to whom she may have gone. Most likely, she simply went to the Lord in prayer. Why should it seem strange for her to talk to God personally? He is no respecter of persons.

23. Two nations. An angel revealed to Rebekah something of the future of the two sons soon to be born (PP 177). Already, it seemed, they were struggling for the supremacy. The angel's prediction was fulfilled in the later history of Esau's and Jacob's descendants, the Edomites and the Israelites. These two brother nations were ever enemies, Israel usually proving to be the stronger of the two. David subjugated the Edomites (2 Sam. 8:14; 1 Kings 11:16), and King Amaziah later defeated them (2 Kings 14:7; 2 Chron. 25:11, 12). The Hasmonaean king John Hyrcanus I finally brought their independence to an end in the year 126 B.C., when he forced them to accept the rite of circumcision and the law of Moses, and to submit to a Jewish governor. God's insight into the respective characters of Esau and Jacob and His foresight into their future made possible His selection of Jacob as inheritor of the birthright and progenitor of Christ even before his birth (Rom. 8:29; 9:10-14).

25. Red. Heb. admoni, probably the root from which the name Edom was derived (see also v. 30). The same Hebrew word is used to describe David's appearance (1 Sam. 16:12; 17:42). It is similar in meaning to the Latin Rufus the name assigned to two men of NT times (Mark 15:21; Rom. 16:13). Esau's excessive growth of hair, known medically as hypertrichosis, already noticeable at birth, later became the most significant feature of his physical appearance.

They called his name Esau. Both parents agreed upon the appropriateness of this name. The context has led some scholars to suggest its derivation from an unknown root signifying "to be covered with hair." Its meaning, however, cannot be determined from available information.

26. His name was called Jacob. The Hebrew word for "heel," Ôaqeb, is related to the verb Ôaqab, "to take by the heel," figuratively, "to deceive." The personal name Jacob, meaning "he grasps the heel" or "he deceives," was therefore most appropriate. It was not only reminiscent of the incident at his birth, but prophetic of his character and destiny. On the age of Isaac at the time of the birth of his two sons, see on vs. 19-21.

27. Esau was a cunning hunter. As the two boys grew up a great difference in character became evident. Esau displayed a rough, capricious disposition, and reveled in the wild, adventurous life of field and forest (see ch. 27:3).

Jacob was a plain man. The Hebrew word tam, here translated "plain," suggests an amiable, pious, and cultured personality. The duties and responsibilities of settled family life, so monotonous and irritating to Esau, came naturally to Jacob, "a plain man, dwelling in tents." Whereas Esau never outgrew the physical and emotional restlessness of adolescence, Jacob developed the stability of character and soundness of judgment that should come with maturity.

28. Isaac loved Esau. Isaac's blind partiality for his first-born, irrespective of the son's character qualifications for family leadership, brought division into the family. As a result, wrong, misery, and injustice marked relations between the brothers and their posterity for centuries. Isaac's preference for Esau seems to have been based, in part at least, on his love for venison. The extent to which the patriarch let his love and his sense of justice and piety be controlled by his appetite is surprising and disappointing. His experience is, furthermore, a warning to us. To prefer one child above another inevitably creates jealousy, division, bitterness, and misery.

29. Sod pottage. The difference in character between the two brothers was soon apparent in a singular situation, one which proved to be a turning point in their lives. Jacob had cooked a meal of lentils (v. 34). Red lentils are to the present day a favorite food in Palestine, where they are prepared with onions, garlic, rice, and olive oil. Occasionally, meat is added also.

30. Feed me. The word translated "feed" occurs only in this passage, and means "to eat greedily" or "to devour."

Therefore was his name called Edom. From adom, "red." There is no discrepancy in ascribing his name both to his red complexion (v. 25) and to the color of the lentils. The name was thus doubly appropriate. The Arabs are still fond of giving surnames such as this to famous persons. The Edomites are mentioned more frequently in Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions than are the Israelites. In Egypt the name Edom appears as Idwm, and in cuneiform texts as UduÆmu.

31. Sell me this day thy birthright. Jacob knew of the angel's prophecy concerning himself and his brother, made prior to their birth (see v. 23; PP 178). Now he took advantage of what appeared to him to be a fair, though unusual, opportunity. Under the Mosaic legislation the privileges of the first-born were: (1) succession to the official authority of the father, (2) the inheritance of a double portion of the father's property, (3) the privilege of becoming the family priest (see Ex. 22:29; Num. 8:14-17; Deut. 21:17). To the descendants of Abraham the birthright also implied: (1) succession to the promise of the earthly Canaan and other covenant blessings, (2) the honor of being a progenitor of the promised Seed.

Jacob's proposal was unscrupulous and contemptible. It reveals, as well, a spirit of impatience, and a lack of confidence in the overruling providence of God, similar to that manifested by Abraham in his marriage to Hagar (Gen. 16:3). Jacob's conditions of sale were exacting, selfish, and base. The theory that the end justifies the means does not have the approval of Heaven (see Matt. 4:3, 4; DA 121, 122). God could not approve the act, but He did overrule it to the eventual accomplishment of His purpose.

32. At the point to die. The KJV leaves the impression that Esau meant, "I shall die of hunger if I do not get food immediately. In that case my birthright would be of no profit to me. It is therefore better for me to get food and live on without a birthright than to die now while I am in possession of it." Many commentators have followed this line of reasoning. Another explanation understands this expression to mean, "Earlier or later I must die anyway, and then it will not matter whether I possess the birthright or not." The latter interpretation seems more plausible in the light of the words of v. 34, that he "despised his birthright." Being indifferent about the blessings that were to be his, Esau regarded them lightly and was therefore unworthy of them (PP 181).

33. Swear to me. Jacob's conduct in this transaction is difficult to defend. His attitude and words reveal premeditation (PP 179). It is a dangerous and sometimes fatal mistake to anticipate and run ahead of Providence, which in due time and without human conniving will accomplish the divine purpose.

34. Despised his birthright. To Esau the only thing of value was the momentary satisfaction of appetite; future spiritual blessings seemed remote and unreal. In this he showed himself to be a "profane [irreligious] person" (Heb. 12:16), insensible to spiritual things. He cared for nothing but the gratification of sensual desire. Like the dumb brute, he based his decisions only on sense considerations of the moment. The extent to which a person is willing to sacrifice present desires for future good is an accurate measure of emotional and spiritual maturity. On this basis, only the Christian can ever become fully mature, for he alone is ready and willing to forfeit all this life has to offer in order that he may be accounted worthy of the life to come (see 2 Cor. 4:17, 18; Phil. 3:7-15; Acts 20:24; Luke 20:34, 35; Heb. 11:10). The trifling way in which Esau sold his birthright for a dish of lentils demonstrated his unfitness to become heir to the gracious promises of God. While Jacob's conduct cannot be condoned, that of Esau is deserving of the most severe condemnation. Jacob repented and was forgiven; Esau was beyond forgiveness, because his repentance consisted only of regret for the results of his rash act, not for the act itself (Heb. 12:16, 17; PP 181).

Ellen G. White Comments

19-34PP 177-179; SR 87

23 PP 181, 196; SR 88

28 PP 177

29-33CH 110

29-342T 38

32 PP 179

34 PP 179, 208

Genesis Chapter 26

1 Isaac because of famine went to Gerar. 2 God instructeth, and blesseth him. 7 He is reproved by Abimelech for denying his wife. 12 He groweth rich. 18 He diggeth Esek, Sitnah, and Rehoboth. 26 Abimelech maketh a covenant with him at Beer-sheba. 34 Esau's wives.

1. There was a famine. A famine similar to that which occurred in the time of Abraham (see ch. 12:10). The more fertile region of Gerar was not affected by drought, as was the semiarid Negeb. On the presence of Philistines in Canaan at this time, see on ch. 21:32. Whether Abimelech and Phichol (Gen. 26:26) are the same individuals as those mentioned in chs. 20:2 and 21:22, or simply titles meaning, respectively, "king" and "army commander," is not known, more probably the latter (see on chs. 20:2; 21:22).

2. The Lord appeared unto him. This is the first recorded divine revelation accorded Isaac. Several promises made earlier to Abraham were now repeated to Isaac (see chs. 12:3; 15:5; 22:17, 18).

5. Abraham obeyed. The obedience of the father is here given as the reason for the blessings that would come upon the son. It is also an implied promise that similar action on Isaac's part would bring similar results. James explains that Abraham's faith, for which he was rightly praised by Paul (Rom. 4:1-5), was perfected by his obedience (James 2:21-23). Neither trust nor obedience is complete without the other.

My voice. Whenever God spoke, Abraham always obeyed without delay (Gen. 12:1-4; 22:1-3).

My commandments. "Commandments" refers to precepts given by God (1 Sam. 13:13; 1 Kings 13:21), by a father (Prov. 4:1, 4; 6:20), by a king (1 Kings 2:43; 2 Kings 18:36), or by a teacher (Prov. 2:1; 7:1, 2). Such a precept, to walk perfectly before God, had been enjoined upon Abraham at the age of 99 (Gen. 17:1).

My statutes. This refers to divine laws, ceremonial (Ex. 13:10; Num. 9:14; etc.) as well as moral (Deut. 4:5, 8, 14; 6:24; etc.).

My laws. Ethical instructions as well as ceremonial and spiritual precepts (Job 22:22; Isa. 8:16, 20.)

This verse includes most of the Hebrew words that refer to divine laws or commandments. Abraham diligently observed them all, whether they came directly from God or whether they had been handed down from past generations. He purposed in his heart to obey God implicitly; where he failed, he approached God with the sacrifice of contrition upon the altar of his heart (see Heb. 7:25; 8:1-4). He left his native land, he offered his son, he carried out the rite of circumcision, he paid tithe. The same must certainly have been true with regard to phases of God's law not specifically mentioned in connection with his life story. God's own testimony, here given, makes it certain, for instance, that Abraham was faithful in Sabbath observance, as he was in other matters, such as tithe paying.

7. She is my sister. As Abraham had declared his wife to be his sister (chs. 12:11, 12; 20:2, 11), so also did Isaac; but the manner in which God protected Rebekah was very different from that in which Sarah was preserved. No one so much as touched her. This experience and one other (ch. 25:28) are the only recorded instances in the life of Isaac of deviation from strict rectitude. Ashamed of his own conduct, Abraham may not have warned Isaac by a narration of his own failures in this respect. More likely, however, Abraham had told Isaac but, as so often happens, Isaac had to learn the lesson for himself through bitter experience. How often the sins of parents are perpetuated in their children! But hereditary weaknesses never free the children from personal accountability for their own mistakes. (see Eze. 18:20).

12. An hundredfold. Although the patriarchs lived, generally speaking, a seminomadic life, their habits differed considerably from those of present-day Bedouins. The latter neither till the land nor own great herds and flocks as the patriarchs did. Although the Gerar valley is exceptionally fertile, a hundredfold increase in the yield of grain is about the maximum for Palestine, where it is normally thirtyfold to fiftyfold (see Matt. 13:23). The special blessing of God rested upon Isaac.

15. All the wells. Isaac's increased wealth and influence aroused the envy of the Philistines, and they sought to do him injury. The wells rendered useless by the Philistines, the king of Gerar had solemnly guaranteed to Abraham in perpetuity (see ch. 21:25-32). The accessibility of wells is most important in the southern desert country of Palestine, and without them a herdsman must seek pasture elsewhere.

17. Isaac departed thence. As was becoming a saint, Isaac did not strive, but moved his encampment to the east of the city, though still in the same valley from which Gerar took its name.

22. He removed from thence. A peace-loving man, Isaac did not wish to get into trouble over the wells his men dug, and moved on each time his rights were contested. The third new well seems to have been sufficiently far from the Philistines that they left him in peace there, for which reason he named it Rehoboth, "wide spaces." This spring has been identified with the present er-Ruchebeh, 20 mi. southwest of Beersheba in the Wadi Ruchebeh, which perpetuates today the name it received from Isaac.

23. He went up from thence. For some unexplained reason Isaac moved on northward after a time and settled at Beersheba, where Abraham once lived (chs. 21:33; 22:19). Here Jehovah appeared to Isaac by night and renewed the covenant promise.

26. Abimelech went to him. Upon the occasion of the former treaty Isaac was about three years of age (ch. 21:8, 22; see also on ch. 21:8). The second treaty came approximately 97 years later (chs. 25:26; 26:34). It is probable, therefore, that the Abimelech of ch. 26:26 is not the individual mentioned in ch. 21:22. When a man's ways are pleasing to God, even his enemies will be at peace with him (Prov. 16:7). The new king of Gerar now proposed a treaty that was in reality a renewal of the original treaty between Abraham and an earlier king of Gerar. In spite of the injustice Isaac had suffered at their hands, he, as a peace-loving man, was happy to conclude a new pact of friendship with Abimelech. One can only wonder how Isaac felt as Abimelech brazenly boasted of his own erstwhile fairness and honesty. The fact that there had been no violence when Abimelech's servants ruined several wells and robbed Isaac of at least two others was due solely to Isaac's peaceful retreat. Though Isaac could not forget these bitter experiences, he did not mention them. His was a great heart, a magnanimous spirit. Though not mentioned here, animals were presumably slaughtered and the usual ceremonies observed (see on ch. 21:27).

33. He called it Shebah. Isaac's servants informed him of their success in opening a new well that very day, and to it he gave the name of Shebah, meaning "oath," in commemoration of the treaty with Abimelech. The statement, "therefore the name of the city is called Beer-sheba," does not discredit the fact that Abraham had already given that very name to the place (ch. 21:31). There was now an added reason for perpetuating the name assigned the spot a century earlier. As the treaty between Abimelech and Isaac was but a renewal of that earlier treaty, so the name Shebah given by Isaac to the new well was a reaffirmation of the earlier name, Beersheba.

34. Esau was forty years old. To Isaac's difficulties with the Philistines a domestic cross was now added, one which caused him deep and lasting sorrow. Esau, who had already demonstrated his indifference toward religious principles, saw no reason for counseling with his parents in regard to the choice of a wife or for going to the trouble of arranging for one from among his relatives in Mesopotamia. When he was 40 years of age, and his father 100 (ch. 25:26), he married two Hittite women, simultaneously or nearly so. In so doing he openly defied the principles of parental guidance, of nonintermarriage with the heathen, and of monogamy.

The names of Esau's wives, as well as those of their fathers, are Semitic. Judith means "the praised one," Beeri, "my well," Bashemath, "fragrance," and Elon, "the strong one." These names suggest that the two Hittite families involved must have lived in Canaan for some time and had adopted the language of the Canaanites. On the presence of Hittites in southern Palestine at this early period, see on ch. 20:1.

35. Which were a grief of mind. These two women, as the Hebrew clearly indicates, became literally, "a bitterness of spirit" to Esau's parents. Their perverse and evil ways, their idolatrous religion, and their unspiritual and frivolous disposition brought heartache to Isaac and Rebekah. This sad world knows no greater grief than that which children can bring.

Ellen G. White Comments

3 1T 203

5 PP 140, 154, 363, 370; SR 146

24 2T 271

34, 35 PP 179

Genesis Chapter 27

1 Isaac sendeth Esau for venison. 6 Rebekah instructeth Jacob to obtain the blessing. 15 Jacob under the person of Esau obtaineth it. 30 Esau bringeth venison. 33 Isaac trembleth. 34 Esau complaineth, and by importunity obtaineth a blessing. 41 He threateneth Jacob. 42 Rebekah disappointeth it.

1. When Isaac was old. From the following considerations, Isaac must have been about 137 years of age when the incident narrated in this chapter took place. Esau was already married (v. 46). This occurred when Isaac was 100 years old (see chs. 26:34; 25:26). But, as will be seen, the events recorded here must have occurred at a much later time even than that. Jacob was 130 years old when he went down to Egypt (ch. 47:9), and his son Joseph 39. This is clear from the fact that the latter was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh (ch. 41:46), and that since that time 7 abundant and 2 lean years had passed (chs. 41:54; 45:6). These 9 years must be added to the 30, making Joseph 39 years of age. Jacob was consequently 91 years old when Joseph was born. This had taken place at the end of 14 years of Jacob's service in Laban's house (chs. 29:18, 27; 30:25); therefore Jacob was 77 years old when he fled to Haran. Since Jacob's flight probably followed soon after the events of this chapter, and since his father Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born (ch. 25:26), Isaac's age in ch. 27 must have been about 137 years. Isaac lived for another 43 years, to the ripe age of 180 (ch. 35:28).

4. That my soul may bless thee. Since his half brother Ishmael, 14 years his senior (chs. 16:16; 21:5), had died at the age of 137 years (ch. 25:17), his own increasing infirmities of age may have suggested the thought of approaching death. Without regard to God's instructions with reference to the two children before their birth, and without taking notice of Esau's barter of his birthright and his Canaanite marriages, Isaac apparently persisted in his preference for Esau. This preference being strengthened by his taste for game (ch. 25:28), it was natural that he should call for "venison" to celebrate the occasion.

5. Rebekah heard. What motives impelled her to this course of action? It seemed to her that God's choice of Jacob was about to be thwarted. Isaac's intention was clear, and it was contrary to God's revealed will. Apparently she concluded that neither reason nor argument would change his mind. Feeling that God desperately needed her help, Rebekah took matters into her own hands. She resorted to one wrong in the hope of righting another. To her the crisis seemed real and urgent. Isaac, supposing he was on his deathbed, had determined to transfer the birthright to Esau. By dispatching Esau to the field for game, he had initiated the process of transfer, which, when complete, would be irrevocable. What should she do? It was in her power to prevent what appeared to be an irrevocable wrong. This was her last chance to act, and should she let it slip, all hope would be gone. To refrain from action when it was in her power to remedy the situation, and simply trust God to work things out in His own good way and time, seemed impossible. By such a process of rationalization she sought to convince herself that any means to secure the desired end was justified. Was she not helping God to bring about His own clearly expressed purpose? And if in so doing she should commit sin, would God not be obliged to forgive her? When men set their hearts upon a course of action not in accord with the strictest standard of right, their foolish hearts grow dark. White looks black, and wrong looks right. And whenever what God has clearly said to be all wrong appears to be all right, the hypnotic power of the tempter is complete (Gen. 3:6; Rom. 1:21, 22; Isa. 5:20; Micah 3:2).

12. A curse upon me. Rebekah silenced Jacob's fear of the curse his father might pronounce on him should his deception be discovered; she would accept the curse herself. She was as set in her way as Isaac was in his. Bent upon securing that which seemed of supreme value, and which was about to elude her grasp, she would count the cost later--not now. For the present, only one thing mattered. She was so certain of the success of her stratagem as to have no fear whatever of the possibility of a curse.

14. He went. Jacob acceded to her plan and fetched the goats. These were not the common European variety, whose skins would be quite unsuitable for any such deception. They were the camel goats of the Orient, whose black, silklike hair was sometimes used as a substitute for human hair.

Jacob's objection makes it clear that he was not so much concerned with the wrong of the act as with the risk of discovery. Degenerate human nature is less concerned with sin than with its results. Only the Spirit of Christ can impart to man a contrite, repentant heart, bold to do right and willing to trust God for the results of such a course of action (see 2 Cor. 7:10; Micah 6:8). For years Jacob had schemed to obtain the coveted blessing, and now that it was about to slip from his grasp, but little persuasion on Rebekah's part was necessary to transform his hesitancy into active cooperation. His own unsanctified desires made him an easy victim to the wiles of the tempter.

19. I am Esau. The task of convincing his father was by no means easy or certain of success. Having announced his arrival, Jacob was confronted with several embarrassing questions. One deception after another was necessary to the accomplishment of his objective. He declared himself to be Esau and the kid's meat to be venison, and attributed his speedy return to the presumed blessing of God.

24. Art thou my very son Esau? Isaac's sense of touch must have been seriously affected by his infirmity or by his age. On the other hand, his sense of hearing was more acute, and made him suspicious of Jacob's voice. But the scent of field and forest upon Esau's garments (v. 15) seemed to confirm the touch of his son's hairy hands. Finally, the fragrant aroma of "savoury meat" (v. 9) whetted his appetite, and he dismissed his fears. He could not see; but touch, taste, and smell prevailed over hearing. The original mistake that had led to this deception was Isaac's own. Furthermore, he had deliberately gone forward with his plan to invest Esau with the birthright in the face of a divine command to the contrary, and God therefore permitted him to be deceived (see 1 Sam. 28:6; 1 Kings 14:1-6; Acts 5:1-11).

27. And blessed him. The blessing itself, as with all such pronouncements (see Gen. 49; Deut. 33), is in Hebrew poetic style. This consists of parallel clauses whose diction and grammar are peculiar to poetry. The scent of field and forest upon the clothing Jacob wore suggested to the patriarch's mind a picture of his son's future prosperity. Isaac seemed to see him in possession of the Promised Land and in the full enjoyment of its accompanying blessings. Special mention is made of the "dew of heaven" because in Eastern countries, where there is so little rain, the dew is indispensable to the growth of the fruits of the earth. It is often mentioned as a source of blessing (Deut. 33:13, 28; Hosea 14:5; Zech. 8:12).

29. Let people serve thee. Jacob was to be pre-eminent, not only over his brethren, in the wider sense of all his relatives, but over foreign peoples as well. This blessing envisions the concept of universal dominion, which was indeed God's original plan for Israel (see Deut. 4:6; 28:10; 2 Chron. 9:22, 23; Ps. 126:3; Zech. 2:11; 8:22, 23; 14:16; COL 289, 290).

32. Who art thou? Jacob had scarcely received the blessing and left his father when Esau returned. The shock must have been crushing to Isaac. But, he apparently saw in the incident the intervention of Providence and concluded that any further attempt on his part to act contrary to God's will would be futile. He knew he could not; therefore he would neither withdraw the blessing from Jacob nor seek to inflict a curse upon him. Isaac must have realized his own responsibility for the sad situation; why should he blame Jacob? As Esau had acted independently of his parents in the selection of a wife, so Isaac had acted independently of God in attempting to select his heir. Like Balaam, Isaac found himself powerless to turn away the blessing of God from one destined to receive it (see Num. 22:35; 23:8, 11, 12).

36. Is not he rightly named Jacob? As to the meaning of Jacob's name see on ch. 25:26. Esau complained bitterly that Jacob had now deceived him twice. True, he, Esau, had sold his birthright to Jacob; but now, too late, he recognized his folly. Jacob's taking advantage of him he now saw to be what it truly was--robbery.

38. But one blessing, my father? To be sure, God has unlimited blessings that He is ready to bestow with a lavish hand. Had Esau realized that his defective character disqualified him from receiving the blessing, and that it could be his only through a reversal of attitude, the blessings of God to Abraham and Isaac might have been his also (see Jer. 18:7-12). But it was not with this in mind that Esau spoke. He coveted the blessing without any intention of accepting the obligations that went with it. Like the elder son in the parable of the prodigal, he was jealously unwilling that favor should be shown his younger brother (Luke 15:29).

Esau lifted up his voice, and wept. In response to Esau's further entreaty, "Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?" Isaac repeated in substance the blessing pronounced upon Jacob, and told Esau that he could do nothing further for him. When even his father, his best friend, seemed to turn against him, Esau awoke, finally, to the awful realization of his utter rejection by God. His tears expressed sorrow for his loss, but not for the conduct which had made that loss inevitable. His tears were ineffectual because he was no longer capable of true repentance (see Heb. 12:17). Like an impassable chasm, his imperfect character stood between him and the realization of that which now seemed to him of incomparable value (see Jer. 8:20; Luke 16:26; COL 271).

39. His father answered. Moved by the pathetic lament of his beloved son Esau, Isaac complied with his impassioned appeal. Once more Isaac spoke, perhaps by inspiration, this time of the future lot of Esau. This pronouncement, however, is not called a "blessing." Actually it was a modified curse.

Thy dwelling. Literally, "Thy dwelling shall be [from, min] the fatness of the earth, and of [from] the dew of heaven." According to the KJV, Esau's "blessing" appears to be, substantially, a repetition of the temporal blessing given to Jacob. There are, to be sure, certain important variations, such as the omission of "plenty of corn and wine," and of the name of God.

The KJV translation is grammatically possible. However, the preposition "of," min, also means "way from." Isaac's meaning would then be, "Thy dwelling shall be away from the fatness of the earth, and away from the dew of heaven," meaning that in contrast to the land of Canaan, the home of the Edomites would be an infertile region. Such a rendering is not only in accord with the Hebrew construction but is decidedly more appropriate to the context and to the facts of history: (1) It is an apt description of the dreariness and desertlike character of Idumaea, the home of Esau's descendants. (2) It agrees with Isaac's statement that every blessing had already been bestowed upon Jacob and avoids having him reverse himself (vs. 33, 37). (3) It explains the play upon the words "fatness" and "dew," here descriptive of a state of affairs precisely the opposite to that declared to be the lot of Jacob (v. 28). This interpretation, it is true, treats the preposition min of v. 39 differently from that of v. 28. The different phraseology of the two verses, however, suggests that in v. 39 Isaac is making a clever play on words. The fact that Isaac here does not mention the name of God may indicate that this pronouncement was made on his own authority and not by inspiration--as was that addressed to Jacob.

40. By thy sword. The mode of life and occupation of the Edomites were well adapted to their country. This prediction found its fulfillment in the fierce and warlike disposition of the Edomites, who gained their sustenance by hunting and controlling forcefully the trade routes.

Serve thy brother. The promise to Esau envisioned a perpetual, and not altogether unsuccessful, struggle for freedom from Jacob. This was a repetition of the divine prediction made prior to their birth (ch. 25:23). The history of Edom is largely a reiteration of servitude to Israel, revolt from Israel, and reconquest by Israel. After a long period of independence to start with, the Edomites were defeated by Saul (1 Sam. 14:47) and later subjugated by David (2 Sam. 8:14). In spite of an attempted revolt under Solomon (1 Kings 11:14-22), they remained subject to the kingdom of Judah until the time of Joram, when they rebelled (2 Kings 8:20-22). They were subdued again by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7-10; 2 Chron. 25:11-14), and remained in subjection under Uzziah and Jotham (2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chron. 26:2). (The control of Elath, at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba, was tantamount to the control of all Edom.) It was not till the reign of Ahaz that the Edomites permanently shook off the yoke of the kings of Judah (2 Kings 16:6; 2 Chron. 28:16, 17). At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus, about 126 B.C., compelled to accept circumcision, and merged into the Jewish state (Josephus Antiquities xiii. 9. 1; xv. 7. 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, an Idumaean dynasty ruled Judea, with the blessing of Rome.

The predictions of Isaac concerning his two sons were thus accurately fulfilled (Heb. 11:20). The blessing upon each son constituted a prophecy. Though Isaac was deceived when he spoke concerning Jacob, what he said was nevertheless inspired, and Jacob remained blessed (Gen. 27:33). That this was so does not indicate divine approval upon the act of deception, for God is not dependent upon artifice to accomplish His will. God did not ordain the act of deception, He overruled it. The blessing came to Jacob, not because of deception, but in spite of it.

Parents and sons were all in the wrong, and each in his own way suffered as a result. The perpetrators of deception were forthwith and forever separated. Rebekah was obliged to send her beloved son forth from his father's house to a foreign land, never to see him again. Jacob suffered for his sin against brother and father by 20 years of exile, during which he was himself repeatedly deceived and disappointed. Furthermore, he went forth from home utterly destitute. Isaac, by the success of Jacob's stratagem, was chastened for persisting in his preference for Esau in spite of the revealed will of Jehovah. He was to be separated from the son he had passed by, and to have ever before him the ungodly example of the son he had cherished so blindly. For his contempt of God and religious things, Esau forfeited forever the privileges of family leadership due the first-born. And through all the counterplay of human plans and passions the purpose of God was accomplished.

41. The days of mourning. Esau's despair soon changed into mortal hatred for his brother, but out of respect for his father he decided to spare him the sorrow and shame of the intended act of fratricide. Thinking that his father's illness would end in early death, he postponed his planned act of murder. He could not know, of course, that his father would recover and live 43 years longer.

43. Flee thou to Laban. Perhaps Esau was generally popular among the retainers of Isaac. There were others who shared a knowledge of his plot. When Rebekah was informed by one of these of Esau's intention, she advised Jacob to go into voluntary exile for "some days," thinking that the vacillating disposition of Esau would bring a change of heart. Furthermore, by flight Jacob would be tacitly admitting his mistake and would leave Esau, apparently, in possession of his father's property at the time of Isaac's supposed imminent decease.

45. Why should I be deprived? If Esau should kill Jacob, then the latter's nearest relative was obliged by custom to kill Esau. Perhaps Esau reasoned that his own personal popularity in camp would protect him from such an eventuality, particularly after the death of his father.

46. I am weary. In order to obtain Isaac's consent to her plan without wounding his heart by telling him of Esau's murderous intentions, she based her proposal upon an entirely different and legitimate reason. Isaac readily consented, for he, like Rebekah, was grieved by Esau's wives (ch. 26:35).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-46PP 179-183; SR 88-89

1-4PP 179

6 SR 88

6-8, 30PP 180

31-34PP 181

34 SC 26

34-41CH 110

36 Ed 147; PP 181

41-43Ed 147; PP 183, 237; SR 89

Genesis Chapter 28

1 Isaac blesseth Jacob, and sendeth him to Padan-aram, 6 Esau marrieth Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael. 10 The vision of Jacob's ladder. 18 The stone of Beth-el. 20 Jacob's vow.

1. Isaac called Jacob. Assenting to Rebekah's proposal, Isaac took the initiative in sending Jacob to Padan-aram (see on ch. 25:20). Whether or not he knew of Esau's plot, Isaac doubtless realized that it would be wise for Jacob and Esau to be separated until tension at home should lessen.

4. The blessing of Abraham. The official family line was to be perpetuated through Jacob. Consequently, the blessings repeatedly promised to Abraham were now committed to Jacob (see chs. 17:2-8; 22:16-18). He left home burdened with guilt, but also with his father's blessing.

5. The Syrian. See on ch. 25:20. Moses deliberately places Jacob's name before that of Esau, inasmuch as Jacob is now in possession not only of the birthright but also of Abraham's blessing.

9. Then went Esau unto Ishmael. In the blessing of Jacob by Isaac and Jacob's commission to take a wife from among their relatives in Mesopotamia, Esau perceived the deep-rooted displeasure his parents felt toward his Hittite wives. No doubt with the intention of pleasing his parents, he went to fetch a wife from the family of his grandfather Abraham, as Jacob was instructed to do from the family of his maternal uncle, Laban. Mahalath, or Bashemath (ch. 36:3), whom he took to wife, was related to Isaac as Jacob's wife Rachel was to his mother Rebekah. Esau married his father's niece; Jacob, his mother's. Esau's going "unto Ishmael" must mean going "to the family of Ishmael," for Ishmael died about 14 years prior to this time (see on chs. 25:19; 27:1).

10. Jacob went out from Beer-sheba. Jacob set out in obedience to his mother's wish and his father's command (see Prov. 1:8). Although 77 years of age (see on Gen. 27:1), he still respected his parents and submitted to their authority. His filial example may well be emulated by every worthy son, wherever such conduct does not conflict with allegiance to God (Prov. 6:20; Mal. 1:6; Eph. 6:1-3).

Toward Haran. The famous city on the Balikh River in northern Mesopotamia was Jacob's destination. This was the region where Terah had settled after his migration from Ur (Gen. 11:31). Upon Eliezer's visit nearly a century earlier (PP 188), Bethuel's family, including Laban, were living at the "city of Nahor," which was not far from Haran (see on ch. 24:10). This indicates a move from Nahor's city to Haran after Rebekah left her parental home. Rebekah's advice to Jacob to go directly to Haran rather than to Nahor's city (ch. 27:43) shows that it was known in Beersheba that Laban's family had made this move.

11. A certain place. At the close of the second day Jacob reached the vicinity of the city of Luz (v. 19), some 50 mi. to the north of Beersheba. He chose not to spend the night within the city itself for fear of the Canaanites. Hatred for them, suggested by Josephus as the reason for Jacob's not entering the city, is probably of less importance (Antiquities i. 19. 1).

His pillows. Literally, "the region of his head" or "the place where the head is." Jacob therefore took a stone and put it "under his head" or "as a headrest." A pillow in our sense of the word seems to have been unknown to the ancients. In many Oriental lands people used headrests made of wood, clay, stone, or metal, and still do. Many ancient examples of these have been preserved in Egypt. Since they were all made of hard material, it was unnecessary for a traveler to carry a pillow with him. A smooth stone would suffice. It was therefore no hardship for Jacob to sleep with his head on a stone. The stone is mentioned here in anticipation of the use made of it later on in the narrative (v. 22).

12. He dreamed. As Jacob lay there, weary, lonely, and sad, his heart turned in prayer to God (PP 183). Such was the mental background of his dream. Only after two long days, during which he had opportunity to reflect upon his course of action and to realize his own helplessness, did God appear to him. In the providence of God, delay is often the means used to purify the soul and lead a man to cast himself without reserve upon God's mercy and grace (see DA 200, 380-382). The ladder was a visible symbol of the real and uninterrupted fellowship between God in heaven and His people upon earth. The angels ascend to present men's needs before God, and descend with promises of divine assistance and protection. The ladder appeared to rest upon the earth, where Jacob lay, alone, destitute, and forsaken by men. Above, in heaven, stood Jehovah. Proclaiming Himself to Jacob as the God of his fathers, He not only confirmed to him all the promises made to his fathers--the possession of Canaan, a numerous offspring, and blessing to all men (see chs. 12:2, 3; 13:14-17; 15:5, 7, 16; 17:2-6, 16; 17:8; 18:18; 22:17, 18; 26:3, 4, 24)--but vouchsafed to him protection on his journey and a safe return home. Since the fulfillment of this promise to Jacob was still afar off, God added the firm assurance, "I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of."

16. The Lord is in this place. Jacob's statement is not evidence, as some commentators suggest, that Jacob conceived of God as appearing only at certain consecrated places, and that he had chanced upon one of these. It is, rather, an expression of his surprise and joy upon finding that whereas he had imagined himself alone, he was in reality in the very company of God. Jacob's statement was, in a certain sense, a self-accusation. He admitted that lack of faith had occasioned his thoughts of discouragement. It was when he felt most forsaken that he found God nearer and more real to him than ever before.

17. How dreadful is this place! Those accorded the privilege of a revelation of God find in their hearts a sense of profound awe. To Isaiah came a conviction of guilt, so intense that he feared for his life (Isa. 6:5). A similar experience now brought to Jacob a keen realization of his unworthy and sinful state. But despite his alarm, he knew the place to be "the house of God," Beth-'Elohim, a house of peace and safety.

18. Took the stone. The stone that had been his pillow became a monument to commemorate the revelation he had received from God. He poured oil upon it to consecrate it as a memorial to the mercy there revealed to him (see Ex. 30:26-30). This "pillar" was in no sense made an object of worship. Pillar worship did exist among the Canaanites, but was strictly forbidden by God (see Lev. 26:1; Deut. 16:22). Later, however, the Israelites violated this divine prohibition, and set up pillars ("images") as cult objects (see 1 Kings 14:23; 2 Kings 18:4; 23:14; 2 Chron. 14:3; 31:1; Hosea 10:1, 2; Micah 5:13). This does not mean, however, that every pillar set up had such a significance, as the following examples show. Jacob erected another pillar to commemorate his treaty with Laban (Gen. 31:45), and still another served to mark the grave of Rachel (ch. 35:20). Absalom later erected one to perpetuate his memory (2 Sam. 18:18).

19. Beth-el. By translation, "House of God." This name was later applied to the nearby city, then known as Luz. That the name Bethel was at first applied only to the place where Jacob's memorial stood and not to Luz is apparent from Joshua 16:2, where the two places are clearly differentiated. In other passages, however, Bethel is used as the modern name of the ancient city of Luz (see Gen. 35:6; Joshua 18:13; Judges 1:23). This change of name was not made until the Israelites occupied the city. It retains this name today in its Arabic form, BeitéÆn.

20. Jacob vowed a vow. This is the first recorded vow. By taking a vow a man binds himself to do certain things in a specified way. Since the fulfillment of Jacob's vow depended upon God's power, and because it was made to God, it took the form of a prayer. It was not made in a mercenary spirit, but in gratitude, humility, and confidence.

If God. This expression in no way implies doubt in Jacob's mind as to whether God would fulfill His promises, or that Jacob was proposing terms to God. He took the Lord at His word. Since He had graciously promised to be with him and to bless him, he on his part would be faithful to God (see PP 187, 188). In profound appreciation, Jacob's thoughts turned to tangible ways in which his devotion might be expressed.

Bread to eat. Jacob, who had not hesitated to use the most despicable means in an endeavor to secure for himself the larger share of the inheritance, now humbly asked nothing more than protection, food, clothing, and a peaceful return to his father's house. He would be happy for the bare necessities of life. Gone was his desire for wealth, luxury, honor, and power. What a lesson in humility, and how thoroughly Jacob had learned it!

21. Then shall. He had thought of God as the God of his fathers. To be sure, he had long ago taken Jehovah to be his God. But whereas in the past he had depended to a great extent on the security of his father's home, circumstances had now made necessary a much more personal and real reliance upon God for all that he had casually taken for granted thus far through life. It was not a matter of coming to God for the first time, but of a more intimate, mature, and understanding fellowship with Him.

From this time forward Jacob gave evidence of loyalty of loyalty to God. He yielded himself to divine control and rendered God the homage of a grateful and loving heart. What progress he made during the 20 years between Bethel and Peniel! Grace reigned within, but there was conflict as well. His tendencies to evil remained active, and occasionally he yielded all too readily to them. But right principles steadily gained control of his life, and he returned to Canaan with mature trust in God. Under the patient discipline administered by God, he gained steadily in faith until, from the great crisis of his life at Mahanaim and Peniel, he emerged "a prince with God."

22. This stone. Jacob declared his intention to erect upon this spot an altar for the celebration of divine worship. This resolution he carried out several years after returning safely to the land of his birth (see ch. 35:1, 15).

The tenth. Abraham and Jacob both understood and practiced the payment of tithe (see ch. 14:20). Jacob's words imply that this had not been his habit in the past. Perhaps he had little to call his own. Perhaps his grasping spirit had led him to be careless in tithing what was his. However that may be, he vowed henceforth faithfully to pay a tenth, not to earn the favor of Heaven, but in humble and grateful recognition of the pardon and favor of God. He made his promise emphatic, saying, "I will surely give," literally, "giving I will give." In other words, he would keep on giving it. Judging by his future life of faithfulness and devotion to God, there is no reason to doubt that his vow was faithfully kept. That God blessed Jacob so abundantly in later years is evidence of faithfulness in this respect (see Mal. 3:8-11). He who for 77 years seems not to have been a faithful tithepayer left Canaan a poor fugitive, with nothing but a staff in his hand, but returned 20 years later with much cattle, flocks, servants, and a great family.

Every Christian may learn from Jacob's experience a vital lesson. In time of crisis and calamity he should consider whether heavenly blessings have perhaps been withheld because of unfaithfulness in tithe paying (see Haggai 1:6-11). Jacob's experience testifies that it is never too late to make a new start in this direction, not, to be sure, as a means of earning God's favor, but as a token of love and devotion to Him. The blessings of Heaven may then descend upon the sincere believer as they did in Jacob's case. The grand objective of all God's dealings with man is the development of a character that will reflect that of his Creator.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-22PP 183-188

2 PP 183

10-17MH 436

11, 12 PP 183

12 AA 153, 512; DA 206, 311; FE 86, 270; GC 19; ML 156; PP 568; 3T 64; 4T 465; 5T 539; 6T 93; 8T 130

12-14SC 22

13-15PP 184; 4T 466

16 MH 226; 4T 466; 7T 193

16, 17 Ed 243; GW 179; LS 311; PK 49

16-22PP 187

17 ML 286; MYP 265; PP 252; 5T 491; 6T 363

18 4T 466

20-224T 464

22 Ed 138; PP 188, 525; 3T 393

Genesis Chapter 29

1 Jacob cometh to the well of Haran. 9 He taketh acquaintance of Rachel. 13 Laban entertaineth him. 18 Jacob covenanteth for Rachel. 23 He is deceived with Leah. 28 He marrieth also Rachel, and serveth for her seven years more. 32 Leah beareth Reuben, 33 Simeon, 34 Levi, 35 and Judah.

1. Jacob went on his journey. Literally, "Jacob lifted up his feet and went." This implies cheerfulness and reflects the state of mind in which the experience of the preceding night had left him. Thus strengthened in spirit Jacob proceeded on his journey to "the land of the people of the east," which in this case refers to Upper Mesopotamia east of the Euphrates River. The term also included the upper Arabian Desert. In the Bible the peoples "of the east" are those dwelling in Mesopotamia or in the desert in its immediate vicinity. The Hebrews seem to have been content with approximate expressions of direction. "East" could mean any direction between northeast and southeast.

2. A well. After a journey of some 450 mi., which would require about 3 weeks, Jacob reached the vicinity of Haran (v. 4). The remark that the stone upon the well's mouth was large does not mean that the united strength of all the shepherds was required to roll it away, for Jacob did so alone (v. 10). It suggests, rather, an agreement among the shepherds to water their flocks together. The scene at the well is so thoroughly in harmony with the customs of the East, both ancient and modern, that the similarity of this narrative to the one described in ch. 24:11 is by no means strange. Moreover, this well was constructed differently from the one where Eliezer met Rebekah. There the water was drawn at once from an open well and poured into troughs placed ready for the cattle, as at most wells in the East today, whereas here the well was closed with a stone and no mention is made of the need of pitchers and troughs.

4. Whence be ye? Jacob's question implies that the well was not situated in the immediate neighborhood of Haran. Learning that they were from Haran, he inquired about "Laban the son [descendant] of Nahor." Laban was actually Nahor's grandson (ch. 24:15, 29). The shepherds, whose answers had thus far been brief, since Jacob was a stranger, spoke of the imminent arrival of Rachel. The name Rachel means "sheep" or "ewe."

9. Rachel came. Apparently it was not the custom for young women to be kept at home until the time of their marriage approached. Nor was it beneath the dignity of girls from wealthy families to carry water from the well, as Rebekah did, or to tend sheep, as Rachel did in this instance. Honest labor, far from being a discredit, is an honor to both high and low. Every son and daughter should learn that work is not humiliating, but that it is a privilege to contribute to the needs of the family.

11. Jacob kissed Rachel. The fact that Rachel did not resent Jacob's conduct as an undue liberty suggests that he had already made his identity known to her. The first words of v. 12 could as well be rendered "Jacob had told Rachel," a translation the Hebrew construction permits.

12. Her father's brother. As Lot is called Abraham's brother, though in reality his nephew (chs. 13:8; 14:14, 16), so Jacob refers to himself as Laban's brother. Apparently in cases where accuracy was not important the word "brother" was employed to indicate a close relative.

13. He told Laban. Laban now responded to the coming of a near relative much as he had upon the arrival of Eliezer 97 years previously (ch. 24:30, 31). The same cordiality and hospitality are again in evidence. "All these things" probably refers to what his mother had instructed him to say in order to attest his relationship, and in regard to the cause and objectives of his exile from home. Had he not told the truth, how could he have explained his apparent poverty? Why should he, the son of wealthy parents, reach Haran on foot and without either gifts or servants? How different had been the arrival of Abraham's servant in the long ago!

15. What shall thy wages be? Having been a guest in his uncle's home for one month (v. 14), during which he seems to have rendered himself useful to the household, Laban recognized in Jacob a valuable assistant. Of an obviously covetous disposition, Laban purposed to exploit Jacob's skill and diligence to his own advantage. But lest Jacob discern his motives, Laban carefully concealed his selfishness under the semblance of justice and kindness. To preclude all possible claims on the part of his nephew, he proposed to pay him as he would an ordinary servant.

17. Leah was tender eyed. The Hebrew word rak, here translated "tender" by the KJV, has usually been understood to mean "weak" or "dull." Ever since the LXX employed this translation most commentators and translators have followed it. The word rak also means "delicate," "gentle," "soft," and "flattering," and may perhaps mean that her eyes looked the precise opposite of what most commentators have thought. However, the fact that Jacob was not attracted to Leah would indicate more of a contrast between the two sisters than this latter suggestion implies. Perhaps Leah's eyes, and her personality as well, lacked the brilliance and lustrous warmth the Oriental admires. The RSV renders the word as "weak."

18. Seven years for Rachel. Jacob, deeply in love with Rachel, was immediately ready to come to terms with his uncle. Jacob's proposal was based partly on the fact that he was not in a position to pay the usual dowry and partly on his knowledge that the situation at home would make necessary a rather prolonged stay with Laban. Laban's assent is to be explained solely on the ground of greed, which became more apparent as time went on.

20. The love he had to her. Jacob gave evidence of his devoted affection for Rachel, not alone by his willingness to serve seven years for her, but even more by the spirit in which he worked for his avaricious uncle. Many as were the days that must pass before Rachel should become his bride, they were rendered happy by his love for her. The words used by Moses to express the depth of Jacob's love breathe pure affection and tender devotion.

21. Give me my wife. It is an interesting comment on Laban that Jacob found it necessary to remind him of the expiration of the seven years. A great marriage feast, probably lasting an entire week (v. 27), was prepared, according to the usual custom. Laban's deception of Jacob was possible because of the custom of veiling the bride and bringing her to the bridegroom "in the evening." Although girls usually had little choice in the selection of their husbands, Leah's consent was necessary to the success of this base proposal. She must herself have loved Jacob, to approve and cooperate in the plan to wrong both her sister and her future husband by marrying one who neither sought nor loved her.

Jacob's Wanderings in His Flight and Reconciliation with Esau

Laban's duplicity resulted in lifelong rivalry between the two sisters (see ch. 30:14-16).

24. Zilpah. Laban fulfilled an Oriental custom (see ch. 24:59) when he gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her personal attendant. The meaning of her name may be "short nose."

25. What is this? Next morning Jacob, the master deceiver, awoke to find himself the victim of deceit. Inexorable justice had repaid him double for his double-dealing. In self-defense Laban pleaded an imaginary requirement of local social custom. Had this actually been the custom in Haran, as it was in some other ancient countries, he should have told Jacob of it when the latter proposed working for Rachel. Jacob's vow to God at Bethel, however, and his longing for Rachel led him to stay by Laban rather than repudiate the marriage as he might have done.

27. Fulfil her week. Wedding feasts customarily lasted one week (see Judges 14:12), and Jacob was to have Rachel also at the close of Leah's marital festivities (Gen. 29:28-30). Laban was no doubt anxious to preserve his good name by keeping his fraud from the public eye, in view of the fact that all the men of the city were his guests at the celebration (see v. 22). His behavior reveals nothing but one mean motive after another. Though he attached little value to his daughter's affections and happiness, he had a keen appreciation of Jacob's qualities as a shepherd. Out of necessity Jacob agreed to the proposal. Laban thus received 14 years of service instead of 7, and at the same time relieved himself of liability to support Leah, who might otherwise have been difficult to marry off.

28. He gave him Rachel. It is plain that Jacob did not serve another seven years before Rachel became his wife. This occurred at the close of Leah's festal week. Jacob's act of bigamy must not be judged by a later provision in the Mosaic law that prohibited marriage with two sisters concurrently (Lev. 18:18). At the same time Jacob's double marriage cannot be justified on the ground that the blessing of God eventually made it the means of multiplying Jacob's seed and so fulfilling His promise. God simply overruled the errors of men; even these could not thwart His purpose (see Ps. 76:10). The bigamy that had been occasioned by Laban's deception and Jacob's affection brought friction and regret to the homes of both men. In this school of affliction Jacob learned that "the way of transgressors is hard" (Prov. 13:15). The jealousy and misery attending this marriage are a commentary on Moses' specific injunction against a man's marrying two sisters concurrently (Lev. 18:18).

Bilhah. As with Leah, a maid was also given Rachel. The meaning of her name may have been "terror," but this is uncertain.

30. He loved. Leah, a party to Laban's cruel fraud, was unsuccessful in winning her husband's affections. The result was a home where envy, jealousy, and contention prevailed. For years Jacob had worked and waited patiently for the day when he would have a happy home with his beloved Rachel, only to find himself burdened with two quarrelsome wives (see ch. 30:1, 2, 8, 15). How different had been the early years of the married life of his father Isaac, upon whose home no shadow of polygamy, with its baleful consequences, rested (ch. 24:67). The sad experience of Jacob shows the wisdom of Abraham in forbidding the return of Isaac to Mesopotamia (ch. 24:6).

31. Leah was hated. Taken together, vs. 20, 30, 31, and 34 clarify the meaning of the word here translated "hated." It need indicate nothing more than a less intense degree of love. The record of Jacob's relations with Leah proves that he did not "hate" her in the sense that word generally conveys to us today. He simply felt and showed less affection for her than he did for her sister. The statement, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Mal. 1:2, 3; Rom. 9:13), must be understood in the same way. God felt and manifested a greater degree of affection for Jacob and his posterity than He did for Esau and his descendants. God chose the one to be His special channel of blessing to the world in preference to the other, not on an arbitrary basis, but because of character (see Deut. 7:6-8).

He opened her womb. As Jehovah had visited Sarah Gen. 21:1) and had been entreated for Rebekah (ch. 25:21), He interposed now in favor of Leah. By blessing Leah with children, while Rachel was permitted to remain barren for a time, God sought to foster love in Jacob's heart for Leah. Thus a certain equality was established, for while Jacob loved Rachel for what she personally meant to him, he was led to appreciate Leah also.

32. Reuben. Each of the sons of Jacob received a name signifying his mother's thoughts and emotions at the time of his birth. In one way or another these names all reflect the rivalry of the two sisters. Each name is related in sound to certain key words in the accompanying statement made by the mother. Thus, the first syllable of Reuben, which means "see, a son," is from ra'ah, "to see," used in her remark, "the Lord hath looked upon my affliction." To Leah, her first child was evidence of Jehovah's compassion, and well might she expect him to be the means by which she could win Jacob's affection. In the first flush of maternal joy she was confident that Jacob's heart would now turn to her.

33. Simeon. The birth of Reuben, apparently, did not fully meet Leah's expectations with regard to Jacob. Her second son, born approximately a year later, she named Simeon, "hearing." Perhaps, at last, God had heard how much she was hated.

34. Levi. The third of Leah's sons, born in rapid succession, was named Levi, "attachment," in the hope that this time her husband would truly become attached to her. In an Oriental harem it is the mother of the male child destined to become the heir who is most honored. Leah could not understand why Jacob did not turn his affections from her barren sister Rachel to her.

35. Judah. The birth of Leah's fourth son caused her to exclaim, "Now will I praise Jehovah," as if she knew by intuition that he was to be the ancestor of the kings of Israel, and of the Messiah. Thus she called him Judah, "the praised one." Leah's joy was complete.

Left bearing. Temporarily, that is. Jacob, in spite of himself, could not now help appreciating Leah as the mother of four sons, even though he did not love her so much as a wife. Lest Leah be unduly elated by her and good fortune, or forget that it was God who had blessed her, and lest Rachel be discouraged beyond measure, God again intervened. Perhaps a certain equilibrium of affection had been achieved.

Leah must have been a pious woman, a devoted wife, and a faithful mother. According to the Sacred Record she mentioned the name of Jehovah in connection with the birth of three of her first four sons. Although from an idolatrous family, she must have accepted the religion of her husband and become a sincere believer in Jehovah. In contrast, Rachel's conversion seems at first to have accomplished little more than a superficial change. While outwardly she too had accepted her husband's religion, her heart remained attached to the old family idols, or she may have taken them in an attempt to secure the family inheritance (ch. 31:19). Upon various occasions her conduct stands in sharp contrast to that of Leah, and seems to reflect a spirit far more selfish (see ch. 30:1-3, 8, 15). There can be no doubt that Leah's excellence of character as well as her sincerity and piety eventually brought a change in Jacob's attitude toward her (see chs. 31:4, 14; 49:31).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-30PP 188-190

1, 10-14PP 188

18 SR 89

18-20PP 188, 237

25-30PP 189, 237; SR 89

Genesis Chapter 30

1 Rachel, in grief for her barrenness, giveth Bilhah her maid unto Jacob. 5 She beareth Dan and Naphtali. 9 Leah giveth Zilpah her maid, who beareth Gad and Asher. 14 Reuben findeth mandrakes, with which Leah buyeth her husband of Rachel. 17 Leah beareth Issachar, Zebulun, and Dinah. 22 Rachel beareth Joseph. 25 Jacob desireth to depart. 27 Laban stayeth him on a new covenant. 37 Jacob's policy, whereby he became rich.

1. Give me children. Leah's success as a mother aroused Rachel's jealousy beyond the point of endurance. Now, envy is "rottenness of the bones" Prov. 14:30), and "jealousy is cruel as the grave" (S. of Sol. 8:6). Though Rachel enjoyed the greater share of her husband's affection, she could not be content so long as her sister surpassed her in what was, to an Oriental, most important of all the duties of a wife--motherhood. Sarah had been married at least 25 years when Isaac was born. Rebekah had vainly waited 20 years for a child, when she and Isaac turned to God in prayer. But waiting in the face of competition made Rachel jealously impatient relatively soon after her marriage, and in bitterness of spirit she censured Jacob.

2. Am I in God's stead? Jacob's passionate displeasure was naturally aroused by his favorite wife's unseemly words. He refused to take the blame for a situation only God could change. Rachel well knew that God alone could remove sterility (v. 6), but to this fact her jealousy of Leah appears for the moment to have blinded her. Jacob's reply also manifests a certain lack of spirituality. Why did he not suggest to his disappointed and embittered wife that they seek help in prayer, as his parents had done before he himself was born? Instead of doing this he assented to a proposal that was nothing more than a sinful expedient.

3. Behold my maid Bilhah. Rachel's proposal, which Jacob accepted and carried out, was as sinful as that of Sarah (ch. 16:2), but without Sarah's excuse, since there was now no question as to an heir for Jacob. If such a reason had, indeed, existed, it would not have justified the act, which even in the case of Abraham had been so clearly condemned.

She shall bear upon my knees. This statement has been considered by many commentators as a Hebrew idiom expressing adoption (see ch. 50:23). It is possible that the expression originated in an ancient Oriental custom, whereby, at the birth of a child that was to be adopted, the one adopting the child would receive it as his own. Rachel probably had one of these customs in mind and planned to receive the baby from birth as her own.

4. Jacob went in unto her. Jacob's laxity in marriage began with polygamy and ended in concubinage. Though God overruled this for the development of the seed of Israel, He did not thereby place His approval on such a custom.

6. Dan. Rachel, who had considered her sterility an injustice in view of Leah's fecundity, looked upon the birth of Dan as divine vindication of her conduct. She clearly stated, this conviction when she said, "God has judged me" or "has procured for me justice," for which reason she called him Dan, "judge." Her statement, "and hath also heard my voice," means either that she had prayed about the matter or that she considered Dan's birth as God's reply to her bitter complaints (v. 1).

8. Naphtali. After Dan's birth Jacob either considered Bilhah as one of his legitimate wives or followed a renewed suggestion of Rachel to procure another son for her by her maid. At the birth of Bilhah's second son, whom Rachel considered hers by proxy, she stated that she had "wrestled with Great wrestlings," literally, with "wrestlings of Elohim [God]," with her sister and had been successful. Hence she called him Naphtali, "my wrestling."

9. When Leah saw. Leah, accustomed to bearing a son each year, became impatient when it seemed she was to bear no more. That Rachel had obtained sons by her maid did not disturb Leah so long as there was prospect of her having sons of her own, but now she became the victim of envy, as her sister had been before. The means employed by Rachel to retain Jacob's favor made Leah jealous, and jealousy drove her to the employment of the same means Rachel had used. However, Leah seems to have been conscious that she was pursuing a device of her own heart, since she made no reference to God in her statements at the birth of Zilpah's two sons.

As for Jacob, it is surprising how easily he consented to the devious suggestions of his wives in order to increase their offspring. If he had felt some excuse for taking Bilhah in order to satisfy his beloved Rachel, who had no children of her own, by what excuse could he have quieted his conscience in regard to the proposal of Leah, who already had four sons? Having entered the path of wrongdoing, he seems neither to have seen the wrong of his conduct nor to have thought of its possible consequences. On the other hand, it must be admitted that in so doing he followed a common custom of his day. From the law code of Hammurabi and other cuneiform documents we know that such a practice was legally and socially acceptable, particularly when sterility prevented childbearing. The existence of this custom is probably the main reason that neither Abraham nor Jacob saw any great mistake in taking their servants as concubines.

11. Gad. The KJV translation of Leah's exclamation at the birth of Zilpah's son, "A troop cometh," is based on Jewish tradition of the post-Biblical era. Actually, the expression means, "in good fortune," as the LXX and Vulgate have it. Thus Leah called Zilpah's son, God, "good fortune."

13. Asher. Zilpah's second son was named Asher, "the happy one," or "bringer of happiness." She said literally, "to my happiness, for daughters call me happy," that is, as a mother of many children. In statements she made upon the birth of three of her own first four sons, Leah had recognized Jehovah (ch. 29:32, 33, 35). Now, with those born to her maid, she seems not to think of God. They were the successful and welcome result of her own clever devising.

14. Mandrakes. In Upper Mesopotamia the wheat harvest comes in May and June. The mandrake is an herb of the belladonna family with white and reddish blossoms. Its yellowish, odoriferous fruit is about the size and shape of a small apple. Today, as in ancient times, the fruit has been considered by people of the Near East as promoting fertility. Women of the Orient still make a philter of mandrakes, which was thought to stimulate sensual desire and to aid conception.

15. Is it a small matter? Rachel, apparently, desired the mandrakes as a means of removing her sterility. Leah was indignant at the very thought of parting with something that might increase her sister's prospects of securing more of Jacob's love than she already had. Rachel it seems, perhaps in contrast to Leah, had more faith in mandrakes than in God's power. Eventually, however, she learned to trust in God rather than in mandrakes (see Gen. 30:22; Ps. 127:3).

18. Issachar. "God hearkened unto Leah" (v. 17), to show that it was not from such natural means as mandrakes, but from God, the Author of life, that life comes. Leah thought she saw in the birth of her fifth son a divine reward for having given her maid to her husband, apparently considering the action that had sprung from jealousy an evidence of self-denial. The name Issachar contains the idea of "reward," but whether it means "there is a reward" or, according to a rabbinical tradition, "he bears a reward," is not certain. Note that it was Leah, not Moses, who saw in Issachar's birth a "reward" for sinful action.

20. Zebulun. In naming her sixth son Zebulun, "dwelling," Leah expressed her hope that now Jacob would prefer her to her barren sister. She was bidding for the first place in his affections, bidding for him to "dwell" with her in the honored relationship of first wife.

21. Dinah. The name means "vindication." She was not the only daughter of Jacob (chs. 37:35; 46:7) and is probably mentioned here in anticipation of the account of her misfortune in ch. 34. The word "afterwards" indicates that some time had passed since the birth of Zebulun. Dinah was Jacob's only daughter when he returned to Canaan (see on ch. 34:1).

22. God remembered Rachel. It seems that Rachel eventually took her problem to the Lord in prayer. Her petition was heard, and faith obtained what impatience and unbelief had heretofore prevented.

23. My reproach. In the Ancient Orient a barren woman was not pitied but despised, and childlessness was considered a shame and a curse. This explains why women like Rebekah, Rachel, and Hannah felt it so keenly when they found themselves without children. Among the Jews, barrenness was considered as justifying divorce, polygamy, or concubinage.

24. Joseph. Meaning either "he takes away," in allusion to the removal of her reproach, or "he shall add," in anticipation of another son whom she hoped God would add to this first one. The removal of the reproach implied this possibility.

25. It came to pass. Upon the birth of Joseph, Jacob sought Laban's permission to return to Canaan. According to vs. 25-28, it seems that Joseph was born at the end of Jacob's 14th year of service for Laban, 7 years after his marriage (see ch. 29:21-28). Whether the 11 sons Jacob now had were all born during the 7 years intervening between his marriage and the close of this 14 years of service with Laban, or whether some of them were born during the 6 remaining years of the 20 he spent there (ch. 31:38), is not entirely clear.

The order in which Jacob's sons are here listed does not necessarily represent the precise chronological order of their birth, but it seems to be based on their maternal parentage. Moses lists four for Leah, then two each for Bilhah, Zilpah, and again Leah, and one for Rachel--in these five groups. No two lists of Jacob's sons recorded in the OT give them in precisely the same order (see Gen. 46:8-25; 49:3-27; Ex. 1:1-4; Num. 1:5-15; 1 Chron. 2:1, 2; etc.), and therefore it is impossible to discover any consistent pattern of birth sequence.

It would seem more than passing strange for 11 sons and 1 daughter (Gen. 29:32 to 30:24) to have been during Jacob's first 7 years of married life, and none during the remaining 6 years he served with Laban. If, however, that be the case, then Leah bore seven children in seven years, with a distinct interval of time during which she bore no children (chs. 29:35; 30:9). If, during this interval, the four children of Bilhah and Zilpah were born in sequence, seven years would obviously be far too short. Except for the fact that Leah's six sons are separated into two groups, it might be thought that Moses' order here was based strictly on maternal parentage. Since this is obviously not the case, it would seem that the five groups are arranged in the order of the birth of the first son of each group, and that there is probably some overlapping between any two consecutive groups. This suggestion seems to accord best with the context and with known facts. Accordingly, the birth of Dan would be found to precede that of all the sons listed subsequent to him, but not necessarily to follow that of Judah. The same, in principle, would be true for Gad, Issachar, and Joseph. Close overlapping such as this would make possible the birth of the 11 sons within a 7-year period. But even if the principle of overlapping be accepted, there is no reason for requiring that all 11 be born during that 7 years; some may have come during the final 6 years of Jacob's sojourn with Laban. The latter possibility, in fact, seems more likely, for, even granting the possibility of overlapping during the seven years, the rapid succession in which the births must then have come would be extremely close even according to Oriental standards.

28. Appoint me thy wages. Inasmuch as the second period of seven years terminated about the time of Joseph's birth, Jacob requested Laban's permission to return to Canaan (v. 25). Laban, however, was ill-disposed to lose so valuable a man, and yet was at a loss for a stratagem by which to keep him longer. The fact that he invited Jacob to state his wages did not prevent him from changing them ten times during the six years (ch. 31:7). Back of Laban was the evil one, intent upon thwarting God's plan by preventing, if possible, Jacob's return to the Land of Promise.

31. If thou wilt do this thing. When Laban repeated his offer, evincing his seriousness in making it, Jacob proposed terms on which he would be willing to stay. His proposal was based on the fact that in the Near East goats, as a rule, are black or dark brown, rarely white or spotted with white, and that sheep are for the most part white, seldom black or speckled. Inasmuch as Jacob's proposal involved but a small part of Laban's flocks and herds, Laban hastened to approve of the plan (v. 34). Jacob offered, furthermore, to begin separating them "that day," so that Laban might be able to see just what the results were likely to be.

The further course of the narrative shows that more was involved in the agreement between Jacob and Laban. Either Moses chose to mention only the basic principle of the agreement, and so omitted the fact that the separation was to be repeated at regular intervals, or this point was not mentioned at first, but rather taken for granted by both parties. Either way, Jacob proceeded accordingly, to which even Laban, notwithstanding his frequent alterations in the contract, does not appear to have taken exception (ch. 31:7, 8, 41).

34. According to thy word. Laban cheerfully accepted the proposal, but did not leave Jacob to make the selection (vs. 34-36). He undertook that himself, probably to make certain that it was done according to his interpretation of the agreement. He then gave the off-color sheep and goats to his own sons (here mentioned for the first time) to tend, and left Jacob in charge of only the pure-color animals of the flock. Finally, Laban "set three days' journey betwixt himself and Jacob," namely, between the flock to be tended by himself through his sons and that to be tended by Jacob, in order to prevent breeding between the two flocks.

37. Jacob took him rods. The narrative of vs. 37-40 appears on the surface to contradict known laws of genetics, and is sometimes cited as proof that the Bible is unscientific. However, a careful study of the context and a comparison of the narrative with known facts relating to the laws of genetics reveals what took place and vindicates in a truly remarkable way the inspiration of the Scriptures. For a detailed, scientific discussion of the subject, see F. L. Marsh, Studies in Creationism, pp. 367-374.

Thinking to safeguard his own interests in the bargain proposed by Jacob, Laban immediately separated flocks and herds (v. 36), a fact which indicates that Laban also knew something of the laws of heredity. He placed all the off-color sheep, goats, and cattle under the care of his own sons, intending thereby to remove them from Jacob's charge and thus avoid the possibility of breeding these off-color characteristics back into what, visibly at least, was pure stock. What Laban did not know was that some of the apparently purebred animals might still carry recessive color characteristics that could be transmitted to their offspring. Laban thought he had outwitted Jacob by the shrewd device of separating the flocks.

Jacob, for his part, had no doubt been counting on selective breeding, concerning which he must have known at least as much as Laban did. This procedure would have been entirely legitimate according to a strict interpretation of the contract. The distinction Jacob made between strong and weak cattle (v. 41) is evidence that observation had taught him something of the laws of heredity. Now that Laban had separated all the off-color animals Jacob was probably at a loss to know what to do, for it is apparent that he know no more about the transmission of recessive characteristics than did Laban. Trusting to his own supposed cleverness and to the application of the ancient and still popular superstition that offspring may be marked in a way corresponding to sights or fears experienced by the mother during the prenatal period, he set up the procedure explained in these verses. Says F. L. Marsh:

"All marking of the offspring such as that which Jacob thought he was accomplishing in Laban's flocks, is completely impossible. ... In the placenta and umbilical cord, which constitute the only connection between the mother and the fetus, there are no nerves. ... Thus absolutely no mechanism exists whereby the mother can mark her offspring in the way that Jacob thought he was accomplishing the marking" (Studies in Creationism, pp. 368, 369. Italics in the original).

A further apparent difficulty lies in the fact that Jacob's method seems to have proved method eminently successful (v. 43; ch. 31:7-9). Lest Jacob, however, credit his own ingenuity and superstition, God revealed to him in a dream how the recessive, off-color characteristics were transmitted through apparently pure-color parents to their offspring (ch. 31:10-12). What the angel told Jacob in a dream could only apply to the flocks and herds under Jacob's care, for all off-color animals had previously been removed by Laban (ch. 30:35, 36). To the operation of this law of genetics God added His special blessing, for recessive characteristics would not normally show up in so marked a manner as is indicated in v. 43. In so doing, He may perhaps have utilized principles of genetics at present only imperfectly understood.

This revelation of a law of genetics not discovered and understood by scientists until a few decades ago attests the scientific accuracy and divine inspiration of the Scriptures. Professor Marsh closes his discussion of the subject by saying:

"The Scriptures teach that such markings among domestic stock are the result of hereditary factors in both parents working according to Mendelian principles and are not due to maternal impressions. A fair reading of the text thus shows that that incident in the Scriptures, which is so often cited as proof that the Bible is a book of fables, is in actuality one of the important reasons for believing that it is indeed an inspired volume" (ibid., p. 374. Italics in the original).

In passing, it may be observed that the Hebrew word translated "hazel" in the KJV should be rendered "almond," and the "chestnut tree" as "plane tree." The Oriental plane tree belongs to the maple family.

41. The stronger cattle. The ancient Jewish rabbis understood this passage as meaning that Jacob practiced his trick during the spring breeding season only, since the ancients considered animals conceived in the spring and born in the autumn stronger than those conceived in the autumn and born in the spring. Modern commentators are inclined, however, to apply it to the early- and late-born lambs of the same season, since early-spring lambs are more valuable than those born later in the season. According to this opinion, Jacob did not conduct his experiments with the second litter of cattle, because he knew they would be weaker, but with the early, stronger litter. Whatever method Jacob used, he did so to strengthen and increase his own flocks, obviously at the expense of weakening and diminishing Laban's.

43. The man increased exceedingly. The story of Jacob's relations with Laban is one in which cunning and skill are matched against avarice and foul play. Cunning, which applies superior knowledge, is often the weapon of the weak against the strong. Men who are grasping and treacherous but lacking in wisdom are often outwitted by men of equally devious but more clever ways. Justice was on Jacob's side. He was simply taking advantage of his new position to offset the disadvantage under which he had labored for 14 years. However, he was lacking in strict honesty and integrity. That openness and simplicity of character people expect to find in a righteous man were lacking. Jacob's plan was most successful, to be sure, but does not commend itself as one that a servant of Jehovah would be expected to follow. Jacob erred, furthermore, in relying more upon his own craft to secure the divine blessing promised him than upon the power and providence of God. For his part, Jacob, however, attributed his success to the power of God (ch. 31:9).

Ellen G. White Comments

25-27, 30PP 192

41 PP 237

43 PP 192

Genesis Chapter 31

1 Jacob upon displeasure departeth secretly. 19 Rachel stealeth her father's images. 22 Laban pursueth after him, 26 and complaineth of the wrong. 34 Rachel's policy to hide the images. 36 Jacob's complaint of Laban. 43 The covenant of Laban and Jacob at Galeed.

1. The words of Laban's sons. The claim of Laban's sons was obviously exaggerated, since Laban still had flocks when Jacob left him (v. 19). Laban's sons hinted that Jacob had secured his wealth by fraud, though they did not openly accuse him of that crime. They could not prove that he had in any way violated any provision of the agreement between him and their father, though they were sure he must have done so.

2. The countenance of Laban. What Jacob overheard was confirmed by what he observed in Laban's attitude. As a result of the fact that nothing Laban did seemed to hinder in the least Jacob's rapid increase in wealth, even the pretense of friendliness that had marked their relations in the past had now changed to overt antagonism. In the providence of God, Laban's attitude became the means of bringing about Jacob's return to the land of his birth. Jacob's conviction that the time had come to return to the land of his fathers was confirmed by a direct message from God.

4. Called Rachel and Leah. At some distance from home with the flocks, Jacob called his wives to the field for greater secrecy in planning their departure. Had this been done at home, members of Laban's household might have overheard their conversion and reported to Laban in time for him to return and prevent their leaving. Despite all their precautions, word reached Laban the third day (vs. 19, 22). It seems that some change had taken place in the supervision of the flocks and herds, for Jacob was now in charge of his own (see ch. 30:35, 36), or at least had access to them. Likely, it was Laban's absence, shearing his own sheep, that made possible Jacob's escape with all his property, an event that would obviously have been impossible otherwise (vs. 1, 29). Perhaps Jacob was simultaneously shearing his own sheep, and sent for his wives and all their belongings, to erect tents on the spot under the pretext of festivities usually held upon such occasions. Thus he prepared the way for a departure that would not arouse suspicion in advance.

7. Changed my wages. "Ten" may not have been meant literally. It was used, perhaps, simply as a round number to indicate very frequent change, much as we would say "a dozen times" (cf. Dan. 1:20). Laban apparently made repeated attempts to limit the original agreement by changing its provisions. That Jacob passed over in silence his own stratagem and attributed to God's blessing all that he secured by craft implies consciousness that the means employed were not completely honest.

9. God hath taken away. Jacob felt, perhaps, that had it not been God's will to bless him, his own efforts would not have succeeded. Therefore, and not without reason, he deemed it right to attribute his increased wealth to God's benevolent care. It is certain that he felt his own devices and the blessing of God not to be mutually exclusive.

11. Spake ... in a dream. It is uncertain whether this dream came separately from the brief revelation of v. 3, or whether it is a more complete account of that divine communication. Some commentators suggest that it came at the very beginning of Jacob's last six-year term of service. Some think that it was only an ordinary dream Jacob connected with the one he had received at Bethel, and now related in order to impress his wives. This view is untenable because of the biological accuracy of the information revealed in it, information which was contrary to Jacob's own superstitious beliefs (see on ch. 30:37-42).

14. Rachel and Leah answered. The fact that the two sisters were in perfect agreement in regard to their father's conduct, in spite of their own mutual jealousies, is clear evidence of the validity of their complaints. Laban's heartless cruelty and insatiable greed were obviously so pronounced that even his own daughters eventually rose in protest. They complained that in spite of being freeborn, legitimate children, no inheritance had been given them, and they had been sold like slaves. Apparently, all of Laban's property had been transferred to his sons, for his daughters received none of it.

16. All the riches. Rachel and Leah recognized the hand of God in their husband's remarkable prosperity. Regrettable as their alienation from their father may be, his severity and meanness made such a reaction understandable if not inevitable. On the other hand, they felt bound to their husband, the father of their children, in a close and tender union. Their lives and fortunes were now completely identified with his. For the first time the two sisters are presented as united in opinion. That Rachel had but recently become the mother of a son herself may have eased the tension and jealousy that had existed between them during the first years of their married life.

19. Laban went to shear his sheep. The RSV translation, "had gone," is preferable to that of the KJV, "went," for Laban had probably left home before Jacob called his wives to the field, and not after their decision to leave Haran. The fact that Rachel was able to steal her father's images suggests Laban's absence from home at the time of her own departure. Jacob knew that his father-in-law would be detained several days by the task of shearing his sheep and the festivities commonly connected with it (see 1 Sam. 25:4, 11; 2 Sam. 13:23), to which friends were often invited. Whether Jacob had not been invited, or had declined Laban's invitation, owing to the dissension existing between them, is uncertain. But it did afford him an excellent opportunity to escape unhindered.

Rachel had stolen the images. These "images," teraphim (see Judges 17:5; 18:14; etc.), were usually small (v. 34) human figurines, occasionally larger, often made of wood (1 Sam. 19:13-16). Near Eastern excavations have brought them to light in profuse numbers, made of wood, clay, and precious metals. Some represent male gods, but the majority are figurines of female deities 2 to 3 in. in length. They were used as household gods or were carried on the body as protective charms. Since most of them represent nude goddesses whose sexual features are accentuated, they were probably thought to promote fertility. This may be the reason Rachel especially cherished them. Cuneiform texts from Nuzi in Mesopotamia reveal that the household gods were inherited by adopted sons only when no actual sons were present at the father's death. If a man had sons, his gods could not go to his daughters. Rachel therefore had no right to her father's household gods, as Jacob frankly admitted (Gen. 31:32). Documents found at Nuzi, in Mesopotamia, indicate that in the patriarchal age the possession of the family's household gods, such as Laban had, guaranteed to their holder the title to his father's properties (ANET 219, 220). This was probably the chief reason why Laban was so eager to retrieve them (see vs. 30, 33-35).

20. Jacob stole away. Literally, he "deceived the heart of Laban the Aramaean," or he "outwitted Laban" (RSV). For the expression "the Syrian," meaning the Aramaean, see on ch. 25:20.

21. Passed over the river. The Euphrates, pre-eminently the river of Bible times (1 Kings 4:21; Ezra 4:10, 16). How Jacob succeeded in crossing the Euphrates with his flocks, particularly in the springtime (Gen. 31:19), is not known. There are, of course, fords at various places along the river in this vicinity. Jacob's immediate destination, Gilead, was the mountainous region south of the Yarmuk River. Gilead is mentioned here in view of the fact that Laban overtook him there. The name Gilead (Galeed) was given it by Jacob upon that occasion (v. 47). Its former name is unknown.

23. Pursued after him. Since Laban received word two or three days after Jacob's flight (v. 22), and overtook him after a pursuit of seven days, it appears that the two met nine or ten days after Jacob's departure from the vicinity of Haran. The mountains of Gilead lie more than 275 mi. from Haran, a distance that can be covered by fast camels in 7 days, the time required by Laban. But it would be impossible to drive the flocks and herds such a distance in that length of time, since they could cover no more than 9 or 10 mi. a day. Apparently Laban did not pursue the fugitives immediately upon receiving word of their flight. He knew that Jacob could make but slow progress (ch. 33:13, 14), and that he himself need therefore be in no haste. Since Rachel had taken her father's household gods, her departure must have been from Haran, where her father's home was situated (ch. 29:4, 5). The fact that Laban knew his idols had been stolen suggests that he must have returned home before pursuing Jacob. He may have finished the shearing of his sheep, concluded the accompanying festivities, and arranged for the care of the flocks Jacob had forsaken before leaving Haran. The time that elapsed between his receiving word of Jacob's flight and his own departure may easily have been 30 days or more.

24. God came to Laban. In a most unexpected way God fulfilled the promise given to Jacob 20 years earlier (ch. 28:15, 20, 21). It is unusual that God should have revealed Himself to an idolater thus in a dream. Laban, who had become acquainted with Abraham's religion through his grandfather Nahor, through Abraham's servant Eliezer (ch. 24:31, brGE 24:50>50), and more recently through his long association with his own nephew, recognized the true God as the speaker in his dream the night previous to his overtaking Jacob (v. 29).

Good or bad. This expression, literally "from good to bad," is proverbial (Gen. 24:50; 2 Sam. 13:22). Laban was not to compel Jacob to return, either by force or by making further attractive inducements.

27. Wherefore didst thou flee. Overtaking Jacob, Laban assumed the role of a good-natured but grievously wronged and deeply hurt father. Did Jacob not realize how easily Laban could compel him to return to Haran? That Laban was talking with him at all instead of treating him as he presumably deserved, Jacob owed solely to the intervention of the God of his fathers the previous night. But why should Jacob's ardent longing to return to his father lead him to steal his father-in-law's gods? This was Laban's only legitimate complaint, a polished shaft aimed to hit hard and well. Perhaps Jacob had urged his father-in-law to discard his heathen gods, pointing out that idols were of no avail, and to accept the true religion. And now it seemed that he himself must have gained so much confidence in Laban's family gods as to be unwilling to leave Haran without them! Or did Laban fear that Jacob was thereby attempting to secure the rest of his property (see on v. 19)?

32. Let him not live. In defense of his secret and hasty departure Jacob pleaded fear, an honest and forthright confession. As for the charge of theft, Jacob voluntarily submitted to the provisions of Mesopotamian law. This provided the death penalty for certain kinds of theft, including that of sacred objects (Code of Hammurabi, sec. 6).

Before our brethren. This was a reference to Laban's relatives (v. 23), Jacob's brothers by marriage.

33. The two maidservants' tents. This passage affords an interesting glimpse into the custom of the time whereby not only husbands and wives but each individual wife and concubine possessed a separate tent.

34. The camel's furniture. To judge from its modern counterpart, a woman's riding saddle was probably made of wickerwork and resembled a basket or cradle. There was a carpet upon the floor, and it was protected against wind, rain, and sun by means of a canopy and curtains. Light was admitted by openings in the sides. In covering her theft by subtlety and deception Rachel proved herself a true daughter of Laban. How little an imprint had the religion of her husband made upon her character! To be sure, of course, he was hardly a paragon of virtue himself.

35. I cannot rise up. Oriental custom and politeness required children of every age and rank to rise up in the presence of their parents (Lev. 19:32; 1 Kings 2:19). Rachel's excuse was therefore hardly in order.

The custom of women. A periphrasis for the menses (cf. ch. 18:11), which under the later Mosaic legislation incurred ceremonial uncleanness (Lev. 15:19). That this particular statute was in force prior to the Mosaic law, at least among the Aramaeans, may be inferred from this passage. That Laban did not require Rachel to stand so that he might search "the camel's furniture" may have been due to fear of defilement.

Found not the images. Thrice repeated, this phrase emphasizes the thoroughness of Laban's search and Rachel's success in hiding the stolen objects.

36. Jacob was wroth. Laban knew that his family gods had disappeared when Jacob left; of this he was positive. In spite of the dream of the night before, it may be that he was still scheming to put Jacob on the defensive. The latter had voluntarily agreed to surrender to Laban anyone found guilty (v. 32). Perhaps Laban hoped to fix upon him responsibility for the deed, either directly or indirectly, and so pressed his case, if he might thereby yet secure Jacob's return. Laban seems to have been aware that guilt on Jacob's part would have removed him from the protecting hand of God. With the complete collapse of Laban's charges, Jacob, no longer on the defensive, now pressed his case against a meek and subdued Laban. His service for Laban was above criticism, a fact which even Laban himself did not presume to deny (v. 43).

39. Of my hand. Jacob had a legal basis for complaint against Laban, for charging him with the loss of animals to wild beasts and to thieves. This practice was contrary to the ancient laws of Mesopotamia, for, as the Code of Hammurabi (sec. 267) shows, a shepherd was to repay only such losses as were incurred through his own neglect.

42. The fear of Isaac. It seems strange that Jacob mentioned this in addition to the "God of Abraham," since both expressions apparently refer to the same Being. This may have been due to the fact that Abraham's religious experience was not nearly so real to him as that of his father Isaac. Abraham had long been dead, whereas Isaac was yet living and practicing "the fear" of God. It seems that here the word "fear" is used as an alternate name for Jehovah, and should be rendered "Fear," as in the RSV. The use of this expression here and in v. 53 suggests the deep impression made upon Jacob by the devotion with which Isaac practiced his religion.

Rebuked thee yesternight. Jacob pointed out that by the warning given Laban in the dream of the previous night, God had already pronounced sentence upon the matter at issue between them. Though he did not say so, Jacob may have read into the divine intervention on his behalf God's approval for all he had done to increase his possessions. Perhaps he reasoned that since on his own part he had only met cunning with cunning and deceit with deceit, Laban had no right to punish him or to expect compensation. Extenuation of Jacob's conduct may be found in the heartless treatment accorded him by his father-in-law, but the fact that God protected him against revenge did not vindicate his course of action (Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15).

43. These children. Laban tacitly acknowledged the truth of Jacob's words and admitted that he had no just ground for complaint. He could do nothing but accept the existing situation and the inevitable separation it entailed. Nevertheless, his haughty spirit broke forth once more as he laid claim to all of Jacob's possessions. Not one word of recognition or appreciation came from the lips of Laban for Jacob's 20 years of diligent labor. Instead, he assumed the role of a greathearted and noble benefactor, who would never think of treating his own kin with less than magnanimity.

44. Let us make a covenant. With this in mind, Laban proposed a formal treaty of friendship. This may have been prompted also by the fear that Jacob might seek reconciliation with Esau and return to take revenge (v. 52). It is not necessary to assume with some commentators that v. 44 is incomplete in its present form, and that the antecedent of "it" was either the proposed memorial, or God, whose presence was assumed. "It" may just as well refer to "the covenant," perhaps made up--as was common in Mesopotamia--in the form of a cuneiform tablet, sealed and signed by the two parties and their relatives.

45. A pillar. Jacob evinced his assent to Laban's proposal by proceeding at once to erect a stone memorial similar to the one at Bethel (ch. 28:18). Both groups joined, also, in gathering stones to be used as a table for the covenant meal.

47. Jacob called it Galeed. Both names, one Aramaic and the other Hebrew, have practically the same meaning, a "heap of witness." That the earliest known non-Biblical Aramaic inscriptions do not reach back to the time of Jacob, but date from a later period, does not prove the nonexistence of Aramaic in the 17th century b.c. The earliest non-Biblical evidence for the existence of such a language consists of certain Aramaic words found in the alphabetic cuneiform tablets of ancient Ugarit in Syria, dating from the 15th century b.c. Our Bible, therefore, contains the earliest attested Aramaic words known. Each of the two men gave to this memorial a name in his own language, the two being identical in meaning. Inasmuch as the region later became a possession of Israel, the Hebrew name Gilead (Galeed) was applied to it. This includes not only the vicinity of Mt. Gilead itself but all of the mountainous uplands east of the Jordan between the Yarmuk and Jabbok rivers.

49. Mizpah. The site also received another name, Mizpah, meaning "watchtower." It became, somewhat later, the site of a town that derived its name from the "pile of witness" erected by Laban and his relatives (Judges 10:17; 11:11, 29, 34). This town was at one time the residence of the judge Jephthah (Judges 11:34).

The Lord watch. That Laban called on Jehovah, the heavenly watchman, to protect his daughters, does not prove that he accepted Jehovah as the representative of his rights. With his tribal concept of deity, Laban was willing to concede the power of Jacob's God, at least in Canaan if not in Haran. What else could he do, particularly after the dream of the night before? Perhaps, also, he said this with the thought that Jehovah alone could bind the conscience of Jacob.

50. If thou salt afflict. In spite of his selfish disposition, Laban's paternal instinct made him jealous for the welfare of his daughters and solicitous of their future. This seems a little strange in the light of Laban's own conduct (v. 15); he himself had been the cause of Jacob's polygamy. But that, as it were, was all within the family. And if Jacob should take other wives, the affection and inheritance that would fall to his own daughters and to their children would thereby be diminished. Laban remained possessive to the very end.

51. This heap. Should either of them in the future think to take revenge upon the other, this monument was to be reminder of their pact of friendship. As upon this occasion hostile intent had been subdued, so in the future, memory of the event was to deter any possible punitive expedition. From Laban's point of view he was making a great sacrifice in permitting Jacob to escape unscathed, for Jacob's rapidly increasing wealth and power, together with a possible reconciliation with Esau, made any future prospect of overpowering Jacob dim indeed. Laban, it seems, was eager to impress Jacob with his own magnanimous spirit.

53. The God of their father. It is known from Joshua 24:2 and from the existence of idols in Laban's house (Gen. 31:30, 35), that Abraham's relatives in Mesopotamia worshiped other gods. This might seem to indicate that "the God of Nahor" could not be Jehovah. But it is known also that Nahor "cherished the knowledge and worship of the true God" (PP 171) along with his idolatry. The verb "judge" is in the plural, in seeming support of the view that Laban was speaking of two distinct gods. However, the LXX, the Peshitto, and the Vulgate render "judge" in the singular, recognizing the God of Abraham and the God of Nahor as one. It would seem that Laban was seeking to bring about unity between himself and Jacob, now that separation was inevitable, by calling attention to the fact that their grandfathers, Abraham and Nahor, and great-grandfather Terah worshiped the same God.

The fear of ... Isaac. See on v. 42. Perhaps Moses added this expression to make it clear that Jacob "sware" by Jehovah and not by any of the gods of Nahor.

54. Jacob offered sacrifice. It seems that only Jacob participated in the sacrificial rites he considered essential to the ratification of the covenant. Laban was only an observer, but took part again in the ceremonial feast Jacob prepared.

55. Kissed his sons and his daughters. It does not appear that Laban kissed Jacob on taking his final leave, as he had done upon meeting him the first time (ch. 29:13). Though Laban and Jacob parted reconciled to each other, and not as enemies, they were not exactly the best of friends.

And blessed them. Laban, whose better nature appears to have prevailed as a result of the covenant, or perhaps of the feast, or of the contemplated parting with his daughters, poured out his feelings in a farewell blessing upon them. Thus Laban disappears from the Scripture narrative. With this, all contact between the family in Canaan and relatives in Mesopotamia ceases.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-55PP 190-194

1, 2 PP 192

1-3SR 90

3 PP 193

4-7SR 90

7 PP 190

15 PP 189

19-23, 26, 27, 29PP 193

29 SR 91

38-40PP 190

39 SR 91

40 DA 479

41, 42 SR 91

42, 44 PP 193

44-46SR 92

49, 51-53PP 194; SR 92

Genesis Chapter 32

1 Jacob's vision at Mahanaim. 3 His message to Esau. 6 He is afraid of Esau's coming. 9 He prayeth for deliverance. 13 He sendeth a present to Esau. 24 He wrestleth with an angel at Peniel, where he is called Israel. 31 He halteth.

2. Mahanaim. Meaning "double camp," or "double host," in reference to two bands of angels, one advancing before him and one following behind. Their appearance must have reminded Jacob of the vision of the ladder at Bethel, on his flight from Canaan. Then, angels ascending and descending had represented to him the divine protection and assistance that were to be his upon his journey and during his sojourn in a foreign land. Now the angelic host again brought assurance of divine help, this time in anticipation of his dreaded meeting with Esau, and also as a renewal of the promise to bring him back in safety to his native land. Inasmuch as Jacob saw the angels while traveling, they cannot have appeared to him in a dream. The manner of revelation, however, is not clear.

A distinguished city was later founded near the place where the angels appeared (Joshua 13:26, 30; 21:38; 2 Sam. 2:8, 12, 29). Some have identified it with the present MachnaÆ, some 12 mi. northwest of Djerash, the ancient Gerasa.

4. My lord Esau. From Mahanaim, Jacob sent messengers to his brother, Esau. After Jacob's flight from Beersheba, Esau seems to have moved temporarily to the southeast, to the land of Seir, or Edom, whose original inhabitants, the Horites, he later dispossessed. The messengers were to draw a clear distinction between "my lord Esau" and "thy servant Jacob." Their task was to conciliate Esau, chiefly by emphasis on Jacob's humility--tacit admission of his wrong--and on the fact that Jacob relinquished all claims to the inheritance. By pointing out that he was returning with great wealth, Jacob was not boasting but rather making it clear to Esau that he returned with no desire to share in the patrimony. Being himself in the wrong, Jacob realized that the first step toward reconciliation must be made by him. With this in mind, he added to his message an expression of hope that Esau would forgive and accept him on friendly terms.

6. He cometh to meet thee. That Esau was attended by 400 armed followers is evidence that he had become a powerful chieftain. Perhaps he had already begun to live by the sword (ch. 27:40).

If Esau's enmity toward his brother had softened during the years, it seems that he never mentioned the fact to his parents, with the result that Rebekah had been unable to fulfill her promise of sending for Jacob (ch. 27:45). The latter's uncertainty as to his brother's state of mind, and anxiety occasioned by the report of the messengers, alarmed him in the extreme. Esau's reason for going to meet Jacob with such a company was, first, to impress Jacob with due respect for his superior power, second, to ensure a satisfactory understanding, and third, to use force if necessary to safeguard his own interests. He was prepared, in other words, for any eventuality.

7. He divided the people. Fearing the worst, Jacob divided his large family and numerous flocks into two camps. It is easy to blame Jacob for a lack of faith and trust in God. However, his considered behavior under such adverse circumstances is a demonstration of sound judgment. Completely defenseless, he would not even make a show of force.

9. God of my father Abraham. Remarkable for its simplicity and energy, this model prayer gives expression to all that is essential in such a petition: (1) True humility, (2) a recognition of God's mercy, (3) a plea for protection from imminent danger, (4) the repetition of past promises, (5) appreciation for past providences.

10. I passed over this Jordan. Jacob seems to have been close to the place where he had crossed the Jordan on his flight 20 years before. The striking contrast between his previous poverty and present prosperity he accepts as a token of God's blessing and the fulfillment of His promise at Bethel. Then he had crossed empty-handed, save for the blessing of his father and the promise of God. Now, 20 years later, he was returning to the land of his nativity with a large family and great possessions. Either of the "two bands" (v. 7) would have been sufficient to make him a prosperous man.

11. The mother with the children. Literally, "the mother upon the children." The picture is of a mother who casts herself upon her children to protect them with her own body from the killer. Jacob knew that if provoked, his brother would not hesitate to slay them one and all. He feared for the worst.

12. As the sand. This was the sense, though not the exact wording, of the Bethel promise (ch. 28:14), which had compared the number of Jacob's descendants to the dust of the ground. Before that, Abraham's promised seed had been compared to the dust of the earth (ch. 13:16), to the stars of heaven (ch. 15:5), and to the sand upon the seashore (ch. 22:17).

13. He lodged there. Although trusting in the Lord for protection, Jacob neglected no means of reconciliation with his brother. Pitching camp for the night in the place where he had received tidings of Esau's approach, he selected a respectable present consisting of more than 550 head of sheep and cattle. These he sent forward in several droves to meet Esau, as a "present" from his "servant" Jacob. The assortment of animals selected was representative of the usual possessions of a nomad (see Job 1:3; 42:12). The proportion of male to female animals was probably based on what experience had shown to be desirable for breeding purposes.

16. Every drove by themselves. The division of Jacob's gift of appeasement into several separate droves, which followed one another at intervals, was designed to have a cumulative effect and therefore be more impressive. Each drove was in itself a valuable gift.

23. Sent them over the brook. Earlier in the day Jacob had sent forward his gift to Esau. As night drew on he sent all that he had, family and possessions, over the Jabbok, desiring to spend the night alone in prayer. The Jabbok, today called Nahr ez-Zerqa, "the blue river," is an eastern tributary of the Jordan. Flowing through a deep canyon, it enters the larger stream some 25 mi. north of the Dead Sea.

24. Jacob was left alone. Jacob had remained on the northern bank of the river in order that he might be alone to seek God in prayer. In the present situation his usual cleverness was of no avail. God alone could be of help to mitigate Esau's anger and to save Jacob and his family.

There wrestled a man. That Jacob's antagonist was neither a human being nor an ordinary angel is to be inferred from the fact that Jacob spoke of Him as God (v. 30). The prophet Hosea also refers to Him both as God and as an Angel (Hosea 12:3, 4). This celestial visitor was none other than Christ (PP 197). Such an appearance of Christ in human form is neither strange nor unique (Gen. 18:1). On the "time of Jacob's trouble," see on Jer. 30:7.

25. The hollow of his thigh. The unknown wrestler used only the strength of a human being in his struggle with Jacob. Thinking his assailant a mortal enemy, Jacob fought as if for his life. But, as dawn approached, a single touch of more than human strength sufficed to cripple Jacob, and he became aware of the fact that his antagonist was more than human.

26. Let me go. The Angel sought to withdraw before daybreak, but gave no reason for wishing to do so. Commentators have suggested a desire on His part either to prevent others from witnessing the scene or perhaps to prevent Jacob from seeing Him.

I will not let thee go. The crippling touch and the divine voice had convinced Jacob that the One with whom he had thus wrestled for hours was a messenger from heaven. Having for hours sought desperately for divine help, Jacob felt he could not afford to let Him go without first receiving assurance of the pardon and protection for which he longed. This he asked as an outright gift, realizing that he had nothing to offer God in return. He proposed no bargain; his desperate situation was his only plea. The help he needed could come only from God. For the first time in his life he knew his own resources to be inadequate. From his birth, when he had caught his brother by the heel, to his last years in Haran, when he had outwitted his uncle Laban (Hosea 12:3, 4), Jacob had approached the solution of life's problems by questionable methods of his own devising. He was now a changed man. Whereas in the past he had relied upon his own wisdom and strength, he had now learned to trust wholly in God.

28. Thy name shall be called. The great spiritual change that had come over Jacob was now symbolized by a change of name indicating the nature of his new relationship to God. The names of Abram and Sarai had likewise been changed (see ch. 17:5, 15); and from that time forward the Scriptures always call them by their new names. But in the subsequent history of Jacob his old and new names are used more or less interchangeably. Jacob's new name, Israel, became the name of the nation that sprang from his body. For him, the change of name, like his change of character, was far more significant than that of his grandparents. It represented his transformation from a "deceiver" of men to a "victor of God." The new name, ostensibly a token of physical victory, was to be a perpetual reminder of the completed spiritual renovation that had taken place.

No more Jacob. For the meaning of the name Jacob as "heel catcher" or "deceiver," see on ch. 25:26.

But Israel. A combination of yisŒra[h], "he fights" or "he rules," from sŒarah, "to fight" or "to rule," and El, "God." Without the accompanying interpretation given by God Himself, the name might be translated "God fights" or "God rules." But the meaning as intended and explained by God is, "he fights with God," or "he prevails over God," or "he rules with God."

The honored name Israel was henceforth to memorialize this night of struggle. As applied to the descendants of Jacob, it implied the transformation of character God sought for in them and their destined role of ruling with God. The name was transferred first to his literal descendants and later to his spiritual posterity, who also were to be victors as he had been (John 1:47; Rom. 9:6).

Power with God and with men. Literally, "contended [sŒaritha, also from sŒarah] with God and with men." This obviously refers to Jacob's nocturnal wrestling with God and to his protracted struggles with Esau and Laban. From all these he had finally emerged victorious. This was particularly true of his experience the night before, from which he emerged a new man, a victor over deceit, dishonesty, and self-confidence. He was a changed man (see 1 Sam. 10:6, 9).

29. Thy name. Perhaps the knowledge that he had met the Lord and talked with Him face to face would either have frightened Jacob or led to such personal elation as to overshadow the far more important lesson he was to learn from this experience. The parting blessing of the Angel was to suffice.

30. Peniel. As Jacob had given the name Bethel to the place where he saw God in a dream (ch. 28:19), and Mahanaim to the spot where a host of angels appeared to him on the way (ch. 32:2), he now memorialized the spot of his personal encounter with God by a name meaning the "face of God." The fact that he had seen God face to face and yet lived was indeed a miracle (see Ex. 33:20; Judges 6:22; 13:22; Isa. 6:5).

My life is preserved. That is, "I am preserved, and shall be preserved." These words echo Jacob's new-found new-found faith. Whatever might befall him, so long as it be within the will of God, he was confident that a divine hand would preserve him from all evil. Even the things that seemed, at the time they occurred, to be against him, proved to be providential (ch. 42:36). Peniel was the turning point of Jacob's life.

31. Penuel. Some expositors have suggested that Penuel was the original name of the place, and that Jacob changed it by the alteration of one vowel to Peniel. More likely, however, Penuel is an old form of the same word. The name appears again in Judges 8:8, 9, 17; 1 Kings 12:25, and also in an Egyptian list of Palestinian city names. Its exact location has not been definitely determined. Some scholars have identified it with the Tulul edh-Dhahab, on the Jabbok, 7 mi. east of the Jordan. Others seek it somewhat farther to the east.

He halted. Like Paul, who centuries later bore a "thorn" in his flesh (2 Cor. 12:7), Jacob departed from the scene of the supreme experience of his life bearing a memorial of his conflict and victory there. Though physically lame, probably for the remainder of his life, in Jacob's unfettered soul he enjoyed the richest blessings of God. Every fight leaves its scars. Like Jacob, every faithful believer, in passing through his own Peniel experience, may expect to bear some reminder of his intense struggle against self, with its inherited tendencies and evil inclinations. Even our Lord Jesus Christ bears the signs of the fierce conflict through which He passed while on earth, and these He will continue to bear for all eternity. Ours will vanish and be forgotten (2 Cor. 4:17; Isa. 65:17). Whereas our scars are the result of our struggle against self, the nailprints in the hands of Christ came through conflict on our behalf with the powers of darkness.

32. The sinew which shrank. The meaning of the Hebrew word translated "shrank" is unknown. The rendering of the KJV is based on the LXX, enarkesen, "became feeble," "became numb," or "was dislocated." Perhaps it should be translated "hip," with the phrase reading, "the sinew of the hip." Orthodox Jews refrain from eating this portion of any animals used for food, but how this part of Jacob's anatomy came to be identified as the "sinew" that "shrank," is uncertain. Though not mentioned elsewhere in the OT, the Jewish Talmud definitely regards this custom as a law whose violation is to be punished with several stripes (Tract Cholin, Mishna, 7). Since Jews in ancient times did not distinguish clearly just what "sinew" was meant, it is understood today as applying to the interior cord and nerve of the hindquarter of animals killed for food.

The narrative of vs. 24-32 contains three points of special interest to every Jew. It explains why he is called an Israelite, and traces this name to a distant ancestor who wrestled with God that he might obtain it. It points with interest to an otherwise insignificant village, Peniel, where the event took place. Finally, it explains the origin of the custom of not eating the sinew designated, but rather of regarding it with awe.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-32PP 195-203; SR 92-99

2 PP 195; SR 92

4-7PP 196

6, 7 SR 92

8-12SR 93

9-11PP 196

10 SR 97

18, 19 PP 196

23 GC 616

24 EW 284; GC 157, 616; MB 25; SR 407

24, 25 PP 197; SR 94

24-28COL 175; PP 208

25 GC 617; MB 25, 97, 206

26 CSW 116; CT 498; DA 198; FE 232; GC 157, 617, 620; GW 255; MB 25, 206; MM 203; PP 197, 202; Te 243; 1T 144, 151; 4T 444, 537

26-28SR 95

28 FE 232; GC 617; MB 207; PP 198; 4T 528

28, 29 Ed 147

29, 30 SR 95

30 DA 107; GC 622; 4T 444

31 MB 97

Genesis Chapter 33

1 The kindness of Jacob and Esau at their meeting. 17 Jacob cometh to Succoth. 18 At Shalem he buyeth a field, and buildeth an altar called El-elohe-Israel.

He divided the children. The reason for this measure is not clear. Jacob either put Rachel and Joseph at the rear for reasons of security, or to introduce his favorite wife and her son to Esau last. Again, it may be that social custom prescribed such an arrangement. The previous division of the caravan into two camps (ch. 32:7, 8) may have been abandoned as unnecessary after his experience the preceding night (see on ch. 32:30). Or it may be that the "people" mentioned in ch. 32:7, 8 were the servants and shepherds and not his wives and children, whom he kept with himself. The immediate family would thus be joined to one of the two bands, or may have been separate from both.

3. Bowed himself. This Oriental custom is attested in the Amarna Letters of the 14th century b.c., in which Palestinian princes wrote an Egyptian king that they fell down before Pharaoh's feet, either "seven times," or "seven times and another seven times," or possibly "seven times seven times." Seven bows before a superior seem to have been considered a sign of perfect humility and unqualified submission. By this manifestation of deference, Jacob hoped to win the heart of his brother. It represented complete abandonment of any claim to special privileges previously secured by treachery.

4. Esau embraced him. At the sight of his twin brother, Esau was carried away by natural feelings of brotherly affection. Even if there had still been malice in Esau's heart, it was overcome by Jacob's humility. Realizing that he had nothing to fear from Jacob, he allowed free rein to the natural emotions of his heart.

5. Saw the women and the children. During the silent embrace of the long-separated brothers, Jacob's 4 wives and 12 children had come near.

8. All this drove. Though he knew quite well the purpose of the several droves (ch. 32:18), Esau nevertheless inquired concerning them. With obvious Oriental courtesy, he refused to accept them until urgently persuaded to do so. The "roving life" which so well suited his nature had procured for him such wealth and power that his own earthly possessions were no doubt equal to those of his brother. Esau was friendly enough toward Jacob, but there was nothing in his manner comparable to the humility of his brother. Jacob addressed Esau as "my lord," while Esau answered him as "my brother."

10. I have seen thy face. Esau's friendly greeting called to mind the divine promise so recently accorded Jacob, and in Esau's face he could read its gracious fulfillment. These words of Jacob reflect his profound gratitude for the obvious Presence that attended him on his way (see ch. 32:30). How happy the man who recognized Providence at his side day by day (Job 33:26; Ps. 11:7)!

11. My blessing. These words were well chosen and forceful. Can they have been an allusion to the blessing Jacob had snatched from Esau 20 years before? It was most important to Jacob that Esau accept his present, for in so doing Esau, according to the custom of the time, would express his acceptance of that which the present represented--the apology of Jacob. In the Orient a present received by a superior assures to the giver the friendship and assistance of the recipient. If it is rejected, he has everything to fear.

12. Let us go. Esau assumed that Jacob would proceed immediately to Hebron (ch. 35:27), the abode of their father Isaac, and proposed to accompany Jacob on his way. But Jacob politely declined both this offer and the escort later suggested. The latter was unnecessary; the former would mean an intolerably slow pace for Esau. This refusal did not spring from any feeling of distrust; the reasons given were no mere pretext. He needed no military guard, for he knew that he was defended by the hosts of God, and he could not travel as fast as Esau would want to go. Furthermore, he would be free to camp wherever he might choose and remain there until ready to move on. He would thus enjoy complete freedom of action.

14. Until I come. Not that Jacob intended to go directly to Seir, but rather an expression of his desire to see Esau again and to continue on friendly terms with him. Certainly this was not a willful deception for the purpose of getting rid of Esau. Jacob's destination was not the land of Seir, but Canaan, probably Hebron, where his father Isaac then lived. Thence he may have thought of paying Esau a visit, but whether he ever did so we do not know. The brothers next met, as friends, at their father's funeral (ch. 35:29).

17. Succoth. Meaning "booths" or "folds" made of twigs woven together. Succoth, in the valley of the Jordan (Joshua 13:27), was later allotted to the tribe of Gad. It has been tentatively identified with the hill DeirÔalla, near the mouth of the river Jabbok.

How long Jacob remained in Succoth is not known. The fact that he erected a "house," which none of the earlier patriarchs seem to have done, suggests that he must have lived there for several years. His reasons for doing so are likewise unknown to us. Good pasture and a sparse population may have influenced him in this decision. Commissioned by God to return to the land of his fathers (ch. 31:3), Jacob most likely found an early opportunity to visit his aged father. At that time he may also have paid a visit to his brother in Seir, as he had promised.

18. Jacob came to Shalem. In considering shalem a place name the KJV follows the LXX, the Vulgate, and other later versions. The word is, however, an adverb signifying "peacefully" or "safely," and is equivalent to the phrase "in peace" of ch. 28:21, to which it seems to be an allusion. What Jacob had requested as he made his vow at Bethel 20 years before was now fulfilled (PP 204). He had returned to the land of his nativity.

A city of Shechem. If shalem is taken as the name of a place, then Shechem would refer to the person of v. 19 and ch. 34:2, the son of Hamor the Hivite. But if shalem means "whole," or "safe and sound," the clause should be rendered, "Jacob came safely [safe and sound] to the city of Shechem." It is not necessary to assume that Shechem received its name from Shechem, the son of Hamor, since it was already in existence as a town in Abraham's time (ch. 12:6). An Egyptian inscription describes a military campaign against the city in the 19th century b.c. It is more likely that Shechem, the son of Hamor, was named after the city.

19. Shechem. Hamor is here referred to as Shechem's father in anticipation of subsequent events involving both of them. It was on the "parcel of a field" purchased from the Shechemites that Jacob dug the well where the memorable conversation took place between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4:6).

An hundred pieces of money. The qesŒitah is a monetary unit mentioned elsewhere only in Joshua 24:32 and Job 42:11. Apparently, it fell into disuse soon after the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, for it is never mentioned in the later books of the Bible. Some commentators have suggested that it may have had the value of ten shekels, but this is only a guess. Its value is unknown.

By this purchase Jacob demonstrated his faith in the promise that Canaan was to be his home. Appropriately, this piece of land later fell to the lot of the descendants of his favorite son, Joseph, whose bones were buried here (Joshua 24:32). According to tradition, this piece of land was on the plain that extends from the southeastern opening of the valley of Shechem. Here Jacob's well (John 4:6) is still pointed out, and Joseph's tomb a little to the north of it. The latter structure is of Mohammedan origin, as are the traditions concerning it.

20. An altar. Like his father Abraham, Jacob here erected his own first altar upon entering the land of Canaan (ch. 12:7). It was probably with that former altar in mind that Jacob selected this site.

El-elohe-Israel. It has been suggested that this name means "[dedicated] to the God of Israel," taking the first two letters of the Hebrew to be the preposition al, "to." Since ancient times, however, it has been interpreted, "The [mighty] God, [is] the God of Israel." This would set the altar apart as a memorial to the mercy and the prospering hand of the Lord in returning him safely to the land of his fathers after more than 20 years' absence.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-17PP 198

1-4SR 96

4 PP 198

11 SR 97

13, 14 MH 374

14 1T 388

16 PP 207

18-20PP 204

Genesis Chapter 34

1 Dinah is ravished by Shechem. 4 He sueth to marry her. 13 The sons of Jacob offer the condition of circumcision to the Shechemites. 20 Hamor and Shechem persuade them to accept it. 25 The sons of Jacob upon that advantage slay them, 27 and spoil their city. 30 Jacob reproveth Simeon and Levi.

1. Dinah. Dinah, as yet the only daughter of Jacob (PP 204), could not have been more than five or six years old when the family left Haran, since she was not born until after Leah's sixth son (ch. 30:21). She had possibly reached the age of 14 or 15 when the sordid event described in this chapter took place. It is apparent, therefore, that some eight or more years had passed since Jacob's return to Canaan (see on ch. 33:17). If the events narrated in chapters 34 to 37 are presented in chronological order, as they seem to be, Dinah cannot have been much older than 15 at the time, because Joseph, who was about the same age as Dinah (ch. 30:21-24), was only 17 when sold into slavery by his brothers (ch. 37:2). The fact that she went out unaccompanied would seem to indicate that she was still regarded at home as a child.

The daughters of the land. The Jewish historian Josephus mentions an old tradition to the effect that the Shechemites were engaged in festivities (Antiquities i. 21. 1), and that Dinah wanted to join the girls of Shechem in their round of pleasure. The language implies the paying of a friendly visit, possibly even that Dinah was in the habit of associating with the girls of Shechem.

There is ever great danger in idle association with people of the world. Dinah was curious to know the ways and customs of the surrounding people. This led to unguarded intimacy with them and ended in her disgrace. Her danger came from seeking to be free from parental control and supervision, and from disregarding the admonition to remain separate from idolaters and their evil habits. "Bad company ruins good morals" (1 Cor. 15:33, RSV). The inhabitants of Canaan were to the family of Jacob what the present world is to the Christian. What is called "seeing life" may prove, in many cases, to be flirting with death. Familiarity with sin blunts the senses and increases the danger of temptation.

2. Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite. The Hivites were a Canaanite tribe (see ch. 10:17). From what we know of Canaanite morals, Shechem's conduct was by no means unusual, and Dinah paid in full the penalty for her unwise independence in associating with wordly youth.

3. Spake kindly unto the damsel. Literally, "he spoke to the heart for the maiden," that is, he sought to console her for what had happened and to win her affections. It seems that although Dinah had intentionally gone to the city alone, she did not consent to all that happened there. She was now in the house of the Shechem, where she was found when Simeon and Levi sacked the city a few days later (v. 26).

5. Jacob heard. Information concerning Dinah's experience must have reached her father indirectly, since she herself remained in Shechem's house (v. 26).

Held his peace. Jacob's silence was probably due to a combination of sorrow, caution, and perplexity. He had learned to be prudent rather than to act upon impulse. The seriousness of the predicament was certain to affect the interests of the entire household, and called for united counsel and decision. To refuse the marriage proposal would be to incur the illwill of the Shechemites; to accept it would be an open violation of the principle of nonassociation with the heathen (see chs. 24:3, 6; 26:35). Yet Dinah was with Shechem, and how was he to secure her return? Had Jacob foreseen the tragic course of action some of his sons were to pursue upon learning of the affair, he would probably have taken things into his own hands and acted at once. As it was, however, he did better in thus "ruling his spirit" than did his sons when they took the city (Prov. 16:32).

7. The men were grieved. Literally, "made themselves furious." The second expression, "they were very wroth," reads literally, "it burned to them greatly." Their passionate anger was beyond control (cf. 1 Sam. 15:11; 2 Sam. 19:43). How the men must have felt can be understood from the fact that modern Arabs feel more dishonored by the seduction of a sister than by the infidelity of a wife. A man, they say, may divorce his wife, and she is then no longer his, but a sister or daughter ever remains a sister or daughter.

It was therefore proper that they should be grieved and only natural that they should be angry. Their own honor was bound up with that of their sister. They were not so much concerned, however, with the sin committed against God as with the shame that had come upon their family. In this attitude toward the affair lay the source of their great mistake in dealing with it (Gen. 49:7).

Wrought folly. "To work folly" became a standing phrase for crimes involving honor, especially for the sins of the flesh (Deut. 22:21; Judges 20:10; 2 Sam. 13:2; etc.), but for others also (Joshua 7:15).

In Israel. The name Israel is here applied for the first time to Jacob's household. Later it became the unusual designation for the nation. Some commentators, pointing out that the sons of Jacob were not called either Israel or Israelites until long afterward, think the phrase "in Israel" should be translated "against Israel." This is grammatically permissible, and would imply that the affair was a crime against Jacob, who had become Israel, "a prince of God."

8. Hamor communed. Hamor, Shechem's father, had come to ask Jacob for his daughter (v. 6), but since Jacob's sons reached home at the same time (v. 7), he spoke to them also. The father and brothers of a maiden were considered her legal guardians (see ch. 24:50).

9. Make ye marriages. The absence of any apology for Shechem's seduction of Dinah is no indication of her consent, but rather of the low moral standards of the Canaanite prince. He saw in such conduct no particular wrong, at least when his son was willing to marry the girl he had seduced.

10. Dwell with us. Hamor proposed a policy of intermarriage between Jacob's family and the Shechemites. He was ready, also, to make concessions in regard to the lease of land so that the newcomers might live, move about, and trade freely in the region. Various friendly overtures were made, both by the father as a politician, in favor of intermarriage between the families in general, and by the son as a lover, that he might obtain the girl. To their pagan minds, an exclusive policy in this respect was unthinkable. In the unbelieving spirit of the world they sought to break down what they considered a narrow attitude. The inducements they offered would, under similar circumstances, appeal to them, and all too often such prospects entice the professed people of God into bartering away their sacred scruples.

13. This sons of Jacob. Attractive as the offers of the prince of Shechem were, they were declined by Jacob's sons, who now took the initiative in discussing their sister's proposed marriage (see ch. 24:50). To accept the proposals would have been to violate the sacred principles of their call as a family and to sacrifice the promises of God for wordly gain.

15. In this will we consent. Their rejection of Hamor's proposal was right, to be sure, but their procedure was just as certainly wrong. In plotting murder under the protecting cloak of religious scruples, Jacob's sons were guilty of hypocrisy and cruelty. Their hypocrisy consisted in professing to accept the proposition of Hamor when they had no intention of doing so, on condition that the Shechemites accept the seal of God's holy covenant. They knew that if the Shechemites should submit to circumcision it would be a mere form on their part. Their proposal was, finally, conceived in a spirit of cruel revenge.

In later years submission to the rite of circumcision by a non-Jew was considered as indicating acceptance of the Jewish faith and as bringing its recipient under the bond of the covenant, that is, it legally made over a Gentile into a Jew (see Acts 15:5; Gal. 6:12). If acceptance of the sign of the covenant on the part of the Shechemites had meant conversion to the true God, then all objections to intermarriage would of course have disappeared.

20. The men of their city. The condition proposed by Jacob's sons seemed reasonable to the two suitors, and they were willing to submit forthwith to it. First, however, they went to the gate of Shechem, the place of public assembly, to lay the matter before the men of the town. Their graphic description of the wealth of Jacob and his family, and the advantages which they might anticipate from uniting with them, elicited ready assent to the plan. Generally, the common people can be counted on to follow the suggestions of strong-willed and popular leaders. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated. This was true when Jeroboam inaugurated the worship of the golden calves at Dan and Bethel. In fact, throughout the history of Israel the people tended to follow the lead of the king. Similarly, when Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed, many Corinthians were likewise converted to Christianity (Acts 18:8).

22. Only herein will the men consent. Prominence was given by Hamor to those considerations that were in early reality secondary, whereas the main point, circumcision, was mentioned incidentally as a trivial condition to which there could be no reasonable objection. The prospect of material gain is ever an effective avenue of approach to worldly-minded men. Any device that might conceivably add to their own wealth appears desirable (see Isa. 56:11). The men of Shechem felt that they were driving a clever bargain, and stood to gain much and exchange for something of no value or importance.

25. On the third day. Inflammation and fever usually set in on the third day. While the Shechemites were thus helpless, two of Dinah's older brothers set about their bloody work of revenge. This cruel massacre demonstrates how one sin leads on to another, like flames of fire spreading in a dry thicket (Isa. 9:18). Dissipation led to seduction, and seduction to revenge and murder (see James 1:15). The disgrace that had been brought upon one family made widows and orphans of the women and children of an entire city. Indirectly, this narrative testifies to the reliability of Moses as a historian. Himself a Levite, he does not spare the character of his progenitor.

26. Took Dinah. Perhaps Dinah had been detained by Shechem against her own will. On the other hand, his amorous overtures may have led her to remain willingly with him. To free Dinah from her by which it was accomplished were abductor was certainly honorable, but the means by which it was accomplished were despicable in the extreme. Like their ancestors on both sides of the family, the sons of Jacob manifested a strange admixture of religious zeal and carnal passion, of lofty and low craftiness.

30. Ye have troubled me. Jacob administered a stern rebuke for the impulsive deed, stressing the consequences of the crime for himself and his family. Emphasis on this aspect of the affair was calculated to impress his sons with the practical results of rash action. His last word concerning Simeon and Levi (ch. 49:5-7) are evidence of how deeply he abhorred their deed. His fear of reprisal was by no means groundless, and only the mercy of God averted the evil that might have come upon him and his house (ch. 35:5, 6). As for Simeon and Levi, they, like Reuben, forfeited the birthright they might otherwise have enjoyed. Again, warped character stood between men and the possibilities that might otherwise have been theirs.

31. Should he deal with our sister? But Jacob's sons did not see things as their father did. To them their reprisal seemed fully justified. They not only vindicated themselves but implied that their father was less concerned for his daughter than they had been for her as their sister. The word "harlot," zanah, signifying prostitution for hire, is here used for the first time in the Bible. This passage shows that prostitution was then existing in Palestine, and that it was considered a dishonorable profession.

This narrative forms a dark chapter in the history of the patriarchs. It teaches that a just cause for anger is not an excuse for rash action. Patience under injustice merits divine approval 1 Peter 2:19, 20; 3:17), for vengeance and retribution belong to God alone (Rom. 12:19). He alone has the wisdom to measure it out with justice and season it with mercy. Under certain circumstances anger may be fully justified, but it is to be directed against the sin rather than against the sinner. It has been stated that the only anger without sin is anger against sin (Eph. 4:26). Anger against one's fellow men disqualifies the angered person from exercising unbiased judgment (see Matt. 7:1, 2).

Ellen G. White Comments

1-31PP 204, 205, 237

1 PP 204

19 PP 238

30 PP 205

Genesis Chapter 35

1 God sendeth Jacob of to Beth-el. 2 He purgeth his house of idols. 6 He buildeth an altar at Beth-el. 8 Deborah dieth at Allon-bachuth. 9 God blesseth Jacob at Beth-el. 16 Rachel travaileth of Benjamin, and dieth in the way to Edar. 22 Reuben lieth with Bilhah. 23 The sons of Jacob. 27 Jacob cometh to Isaac at Hebron. 28 The age, death, and burial of Isaac.

1. Go up to Beth-el. Jacob feared that the treacherous massacre of the Shechemites by Simeon and Levi would lead to reprisals on the part of other Canaanite tribes in the vicinity. The aging patriarch seems to have reflected on the horrible deed and its expected consequences without knowing what to do or where to turn. In his perplexity God appeared once more and instructed him as to what course of action he should take to protect his family. How happy Jacob must have been for the assurance that the same divine arm that had shielded him against the anger of Laban and the enmity of Esau would continue to protect and preserve him.

2. Put away the strange gods. The prospect of meeting with God at Bethel led to a thorough work of reform. There was much to be done before Jacob and his household were ready to face the Lord (see Amos 4:12; 1 John 3:3). Out of consideration for his wives Jacob had tolerated the presence of idols in their tents. These strange gods probably included the teraphim Rachel had stolen from her father (Gen. 31:19), the images of his servants, and others which may have come into the possession of his sons with the spoils of Shechem.

Be clean, and change your garments. Since the directives issued by Jacob to the members of his household resemble so closely those later issued at Sinai (Ex. 19:10), it seems that Jacob acted either upon specific instructions from God or upon a procedure he had learned from his father. The outward cleansing of the body and the change to other garments symbolized the moral and spiritual purification of the mind and heart (see Isa. 64:6; 61:10). The service of God is not to be entered upon without due preparation (see Luke 14:28).

3. Let us arise. It seems that Jacob had found residence in the vicinity of Shechem so pleasant and satisfactory that he had delayed paying his vows made to God at Bethel (ch. 28:20-22). The situation resulting from the horrible crime of his sons had once more made him conscious of his need of closer fellowship with God and more careful obedience to His will. The move to Bethel was well calculated to remind him of his past life and to draw him and his family closer to God.

Who answered me. A clear reference to answered prayer. If the experience at Bethel is meant, Jacob must have prayed before he slept that night. If it refers to the experience at the Jabbok, it was the prayer recorded in ch. 32:9-12. The patriarchs were evidently familiar with power of prayer and probably exercised it at fixed times, in full confidence that God hears and answers the petitions of His faithful servants (see ch. 24:12, 26, 52, 63).

4. All their earrings. Not only were the actual idols delivered to Jacob for removal from the household, but also all their jewelry. These things would have been a barrier to acceptance with God at Bethel. Whether the earrings were simply ornaments, or amulets, as some commentators think, is not clear. The wisest procedure for any child of God is to follow the example of Jacob's wives and servants and put all such ornaments away (1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3).

The obedience of the members of Jacob's household in carrying out his directives is truly commendable. Apparently, they felt that the removal of the strange gods and all distracting ornaments was needed if God was to be sincerely worshiped. Later, an explicit law was given enjoining upon Israel as a nation the prohibition of other gods than Jehovah.

Hid them under the oak. The complete disposal of both images and ornaments was a wise procedure; otherwise they might again have become a source of temptation. For anyone who sincerely loves the Lord, the only wise course to follow is to separate completely from besetting temptations. All modern objects of idolatry, including ornaments worn to the glory of self rather than God, are best not even preserved as keepsakes. In an unexpected moment the temptation to use them again may prove too strong to resist.

Whether the oak under which Abraham once pitched his tent (ch. 12:6, Heb.), the one under whose shade Joshua afterward erected a memorial pillar (Joshua 24:26), the oak of the sorcerers (Judges 9:37, Heb.), and the oak of the pillar at Shechem (Judges 9:6, Heb.) all refer to the same tree, the one under which Jacob buried the images and earrings, is not known. It is not at all improbable, however, that these texts do refer to the same tree, one that must have been a landmark.

7. El-beth-el. The nearby Canaanite city, henceforth known among the Hebrews as Bethel, was then called Luz (see on ch. 28:19). The form in which the name here appears has ever posed a problem to translators and commentators. Some have rendered this passage, he "called the place of God Beth-el." Others have suggested that the first "El," God, may not have been in the original text, but represents a copyist's error. The fact that it is missing in the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac versions lends weight to this possibility. However, in view of the name of El-elohe-Israel, given to the altar erected at Shechem (ch. 33:20), it would not seem altogether strange to find Jacob naming the place of the altar near Luz, "God of Beth-el." By this he may have meant, "[Dedicated to] the God of Beth-el," that is, to the One who had appeared to him there on his flight to Haran. In calling Jacob to leave Padan-aram, God had identified Himself to Jacob as "the God of Beth-el" (ch. 31:13). It is most likely, therefore, that Jacob dedicated the altar with this in mind, in token of the fact that he had now reached the spot referred to by God in the command to return.

8. Deborah. Meaning "bee" (see ch. 24:59). She must have been greatly advanced in age. Jacob had been born 20 years after his mother's marriage and was now more than 100 years old. Since Deborah had left Padan-aram with Rebekah, she was now possibly 150 years of age. However, this would not have been considered extraordinary in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who died at the ages of 175, 180, and 147 years respectively.

That Deborah had become a member of Jacob's household may be accounted for by supposing that Rebekah had sent her to Haran, or that she had left the home of Isaac after Rebekah's death.

9. God appeared unto Jacob. This was a visible manifestation in contrast to the audible one at Shechem (v. 1). The word "again," with the additional clause, "when he came out of Padan-aram," implies an earlier revelation. This may be a reference to the first appearance of God to Jacob at Bethel in a dream. If so, the word "again" emphasizes the fact that Jacob received two divine manifestations at Bethel, one on his journey to Padan-aram and the second upon his return to the same spot. Support for this view lies in the fact that vs. 11 and 12 repeat the blessing first given to Jacob in his dream at Bethel (ch. 28:13, 14). It is also possible that the appearance of God to him at Peniel is considered by Moses as the first one of the two, which would make two visible revelations of God since his return from Padan-aram. Mention of the change of name from Jacob to Israel on both of these occasions favors the latter view.

10. Called his name Israel. In the previous appearance at Bethel, God had promised Jacob divine protection in the land of his exile and a safe return home, particularly in view of his call to succeed Isaac as progenitor of the chosen people and of the Messiah. This promise God had fulfilled, and Jacob therefore renewed his vow of faithfulness to God. On His part, God confirmed to him the name Israel, already bestowed at Peniel (ch. 32:28), and with it the promise of a numerous seed and possession of the land of Canaan. In form and substances this promise resembles that made to Abraham (ch. 17:6, 8) more than the previous one given Jacob at Bethel (ch. 28:13, 14). Toward the close of his life Jacob alluded to this second manifestation of God at Bethel (ch. 48:3, 4), which the prophet Hosea mentions in connection with his experience at Peniel (Hosea 12:4).

13. God went up. These words clearly suggest that this experience at Bethel was neither a vision nor a strong mental impression of the divine presence, but a real manifestation of God.

14. Jacob set up a pillar. Jacob perpetuated the memory of this divine appearance by erecting a memorial stone. The "pillar" erected some 25 or 30 years earlier had probably fallen down and disappeared. The setting up of pillars seems to have been a favorite practice of Jacob (chs. 28:18; 31:45; 35:20). Upon each "pillar" dedicated to God he either poured out a "drink offering" of wine or anointed it with (olive) oil, or both. According to the law of Moses the drink offering consisted of a fourth part of a hin of wine, equivalent to about 1 qt. (Ex. 29:40).

He poured oil thereon. As upon the previous occasion (Gen. 28:18). Jacob consecrated this stone by anointing it with oil, and confirmed the name of Bethel (v. 15).

16. They journeyed from Beth-el. It is not known how long Jacob remained at Bethel before continuing his journey southward. His departure from Bethel was not in contravention of the command to "dwell" there (v. 1), since that word does not necessarily denote a permanent abode (see Gen. 27:44; Lev. 14:8; 1 Sam. 20:19; etc.). He was to remain there at least long enough to erect the altar and to perform his vow. Having done so, Jacob proceeded to Mamre, where his father then abode.

Jacob's Journey to Join Esau

A little way. Ephrath was apparently another name for Bethlehem (v. 19), which was situated about 15 mi. south of Bethel. The exact meaning of the Hebrew phrase kibrath-ha'ares, "a little way," literally, "a kibrah of land," is uncertain. Kibrah is from kabar, which means "to be great," "to be much," "to be long." It is thought, however, that a kibrah was originally a definite Hebrew measure of distance, now of unknown value. It is clear from the LXX and the Vulgate that at the time of their translation the meaning of the phrase was already lost. Based on the meaning of the root word kabar, the RSV, "when they were still some distance from Ephrath," may come a bit closer than the KJV to the original meaning.

18. Ben-oni. The birth of Benjamin marked the fulfillment of Rachel's expressed wish in the naming of Joseph, that God would give her another son (see on ch. 30:24). As she lay dying in childbirth she named this son Ben-oni, "son of my pain" or "son of my misfortune." Under the circumstances, from her point of view, it was a most appropriate name.

Benjamin. Literally, "son of the right hand." Yamin, "right," connotes happiness and prosperity, and in Arabic, good fortune as well. A true optimist, Jacob felt that his youngest son should have a name expressing courage and hope, a name that would ever remind him of the joy that came to his heart at the birth of his 12th son rather than his sorrow at the loss of Rachel. The one compensated, in part, for the loss of the other.

Her soul was in departing. The idea that Moses here speaks of some immaterial but conscious part of Rachel, which presumably winged its flight to Paradise at the moment of her death, is without Scriptural foundation. To read such meaning into the text would set it at variance with many other specific statements of Scripture which plainly teach that consciousness ceases completely at death (see Ps. 146:4; Eccl. 9:5, 6, 10; etc.). One of the primary meanings of the word nephesh, "soul," is "life," as it is translated 119 times (Gen. 9:4, 5; Job 2:4, 6; etc.), or "breath," as it is rendered in Job 41:21. Genesis 9:5 speaks about the "blood of your lives [nephesh]," which makes it clear that the nephesh has blood, and that the blood is essential to its existence. The nephesh could not, therefore, possibly be an immaterial entity. In Gen. 1:20, 30 the brute creation is said to have a nephesh, "life." The possession of a nephesh, then, gives man nothing more than all forms of animal life possess. Certainly no one would wish to claim that at death the "souls" of amoebae, mollusks, and apes go flitting their way to heaven. In fact, in Eccl. 3:19 it is specifically stated that both animals and men have the same "breath," ruach, and that at death the same thing happens to both of them. According to Ps. 146:4 two things happen to a man when he dies:

(1) His "breath," ruach, leaves his body.

(2) "His thoughts perish." The text under consideration is a simple statement of the fact that Rachel, in her last moments of consciousness and with her last fleeting breath, gave her son the name Ben-oni.

She died. Rachel had cried to her husband, "Give me children, or else I die" (ch. 30:1). Now both came at once.

19. Ephrath, which is Beth-lehem. Ephrath, or Ephratah (ch. 48:7), was the original name of the town later called Bethlehem. Occasionally both names were used together, as in Micah 5:2. Ephratha was a name derived from aphar, a root meaning "to be light," "to be fleet," "to be fertile." Ephratha would thus mean "fertility," and as applied to the region of Bethlehem would imply the fertility of its soil. Bethlehem means "the house of bread." Thus the two names are closely related in meaning, for in a land of "fertility" it would be only natural to find an abundance of "bread" in the "house." It is possible that these two names, Ephrath and Bethlehem, are related to two members of early Hebrew families that settled in the vicinity of Hebron and Bethlehem. Caleb, of the tribe of Judah, married Ephrath, and one of their descendants in the fourth generation was named Bethlehem (see 1 Chron. 2:19, 51, 54).

20. Rachel's grave. The stone "pillar" that Jacob erected over Rachel's grave remained a famous landmark for centuries. It was still standing in the times of Moses and of Samuel (1 Sam. 10:2). The chapel Kubbet Rachil, "the grave of Rachel," a very short distance to the north of Bethlehem, may perhaps be located over or near Rachel's actual grave. The present building, of Moslem construction and but four centuries old, marks the traditional spot generally accepted by Moslems, Christians, and Jews.

21. The tower of Edar. Continuing southward, Jacob halted just beyond Migdal ÔEder, meaning "tower of the flock." Watchtowers were commonly erected for the convenience of shepherds in guarding their flocks and for protection against approaching enemies (2 Kings 18:8; 2 Chron. 26:10; 27:4). The site of this particular tower is uncertain.

22. Reuben went. Since Bilhah was the wife of Reuben's father, this was an act of incest. Under Mosaic law it was punishable by death (Lev. 18:8), and was greatly despised even by pagans (1 Cor. 5:1). Though Bilhah may not have been entirely innocent, Reuben was certainly guilty of a most heinous moral lapse.

Israel heard it. Following these words the Hebrew text has a gap which led the ancient Jewish rabbis to comment, "There is a hiatus in the verse." The LXX fills in the gap by adding, "and it appeared evil in his sight." This would seem to represent but inadequately the mingled shame and sorrow, indignation and horror, with which the wickedness of Jacob's eldest son must have filled him. More bitter and crushing was this last blow than even the death of Rachel or the ravishment of Dinah. Jacob's silence may be interpreted as the silence of devout resignation. But when the time came to pronounce a blessing on his sons, the dying Jacob felt that Reuben had by his crime forfeited the birthright, his position of temporal and spiritual leadership in the family (Gen. 49:4; 1 Chron. 5:1). The first was given to Judah, the second to Levi.

The sons of Jacob. Called afterward the 12 patriarchs (Acts 7:8), Jacob's sons became heads of numerous families or tribes, and the people that descended from them are called the 12 tribes (Acts 26:7; James 1:1). In ancient times the number 12 was often taken to mean completeness. Twelve princes came from Ishmael (Gen. 25:16). Twelve spies searched the land of Canaan. Our Lord chose 12 apostles. Although there were at times more or less than 12 tribes actually functioning, Scripture usually recognizes 12, omitting the name now of one, then of another, as can be observed on different occasions (see Deut. 33; Eze. 48; Rev. 7; etc.).

23. The sons of Leah. The children are here arranged according to their respective mothers, not in the order of their birth. Leah's sons appear first, inasmuch as she was first to give birth (chs. 29:32-35; 30:18-20); then follow the sons of Rachel (chs. 30:22-24; 35:18), the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's maid (ch. 30:4-8), and those of Zilpah (ch. 30:9-13).

26. Born to him in Padan-aram. All except Benjamin were born there. In summary style, Moses considers the interval of time between Jacob's departure from and return to the paternal abode as his sojourn "in Padan-aram."

27. Unto Isaac his father. Jacob's arrival at Mamre constituted the formal return to his father's house, where he now took up his abode as Isaac's heir. Mamre was in the immediate vicinity of Hebron, formerly Kirjath-arba (see chs. 13:18; 23:2). Isaac lived 23 years after Jacob's departure from Haran.

28. The days of Isaac. Jacob was 120 at the death of his father (ch. 25:26). Ten years later, at the age of 130 years, he stood before Pharaoh (ch. 47:9). At that time Joseph had been governor of Egypt for nine years (ch. 45:11). Jacob was therefore 121 years old when Joseph was promoted at the age of 30 (ch. 41:46), and 108 when Joseph was sold at the age of 17 (ch. 37:2). Consequently, Isaac was 168 years of age when Joseph was sold into slavery. Since this tragic event occurred while Jacob was living at Hebron with his aged father (ch. 37:14), Isaac witnessed the grief of Jacob and survived that event for a period of 12 years.

29. Isaac gave up the ghost. A better rendition of the Hebrew would be, "Isaac breathed his last," as in the RSV (see on ch. 25:8). It is generally agreed that the death of Isaac is mentioned here out of its chronological order, inasmuch as several of the events narrated in succeeding chapters, particularly chs. 37 and 38, must have happened during his lifetime (see on v. 28). His obituary is inserted in anticipation of his actual death, to avoid interrupting the history of Joseph. Isaac's death apparently came toward the close of Joseph's three years in prison.

Esau and Jacob buried him. Esau and Jacob had been fully reconciled now for about 23 years. It is not strange therefore to find Esau joining Jacob in the last rites for their honored father. Under similar circumstances Isaac and Ishmael had cooperated in the burial of Abraham (ch. 25:9). Isaac was pious and humbly submissive before God, amiable and generous toward his fellow men. In comparison with that of his son Jacob, his own character was by far the more excellent.

Ellen G. White Comments

1-29PP 205-207

1-4PP 205

5 PP 499

8, 14, 18-20PP 206

22 PP 206, 238

27, 29 PP 207

Genesis Chapter 36

1 Esau's three wives. 6 His removing to mount Seir. 9 His sons. 15 The dukes which descended of his sons. 20 The sons and dukes of Seir. 24 Anah findeth mules. 31 The kings of Edom. 40 The dukes that descended of Esau.

1. The generations of Esau. This chapter consists essentially of a number of name lists dealing with the descendants of Esau and of Seir the Horite, whose families had intermarried. The first verse is the title given by Moses to the collection as a whole.

2. Esau took his wives. The names of Esau's three wives as here given differ from those of the previous list (chs. 26:34; 28:9). In one instance the father's name and nationality vary also.

ch 26:34

Judith, daughter of Beeri the Hittite

Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite

ch. 36:2

Aholibamah, daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite

Adah, daughter Elon the Hittite

ch. 28:9

Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth

ch. 36:3

Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth

Differences between the two lists are easily accounted for. (1) In harmony with an ancient Oriental custom still followed by the Arabs, a man may be known by different surnames at successive periods of his life, each name being based on some important experience or event. Abram, for instance, became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, Jacob became Israel, and Esau became Edom (chs. 17:5, 15; 35:10; 25:30). As a rule women received new names at marriage, a custom that would account for the differences in the names of two of Esau's wives. (2) In the case of Judith and Aholibamah, the name of the wife, together with that of her father and his nationality, differs. As a rule childless wives are not mentioned in genealogical lists. It is therefore to be inferred that Judith died childless and Esau married a Hivite woman in her stead (cf. ch. 34:2). Aholibamah means "tent of the high place," Anah, "answering," Adah, "ornament." The name Zibeon may possibly be related to the Hebrew word for hyena, but since he was a Hivite, his name may not have been Semitic at all. For the meanings of the other names, see the references as li

4. Adah bare. Five sons (see 1 Chron. 1:35) were born to Esau in Canaan by his three wives named in Gen 36:2, 3. The names are distinctly Semitic and reveal, in part, that Esau still clung in some degree to the religion of his fathers. Eliphaz the name also of one of Job's friends (Job 2:11; etc.), may mean "strength of God." Reuel, meaning "friend of God," was also one of the names of Moses' father-in-law (Ex. 2:18). The meaning of Jeush, though somewhat obscure, may be "whom Jehovah hastens." The same name was afterward given by King Rehoboam to one of his sons (2 Chron. 11:19). Jaalam may mean either "whom Jehovah hides" or "he ascends." Korah means "baldness." A Levite by this name became the father of a famous family of singers (see Ps. 42-49, title).

6. Esau took his wives. After subduing the Horites and occupying their territory, the land of Seir, Esau moved his family there and made it his permanent home (see Deut. 2:12, 22). It seems that he did so voluntarily, perhaps on the suggestion of Isaac, since he was either already settled there or at least subduing the region when Jacob returned (Gen. 32:3; 33:14-16). Isaac may have planned that Esau inherit his property, and Jacob the title to the Promised Land, as an arrangement for bringing Jacob home from Haran. After Jacob and Esau had settled their differences near the river Jabbok, this arrangement proved mutually satisfactory.

Into the country. Inasmuch as the words "into the country" or "into the land," without an explanation as to what land or country is meant, seem a bit unusual, it may be that the name "Seir" or "Edom" (cf. Gen. 36:16) has been lost from the text. Some versions read, "into the land of Seir." On the other hand, the following phrase may express all that Moses intended to say. The two phrases together would then read, "into a land away from his brother Jacob," as in the RSV.

9. The generations of Esau. Through his sons and grandsons, listed in vs. 10-14, Esau became the father of the Edomite nation, whose home was the hill country of Seir. In the cases of Adah and Bashemath, who bore only one son each, the tribes were founded, not by the sons, but by the grandsons; but in Aholibamah's case her three sons were considered the founders.

11. Teman. The name later given to a locality in Idumaea (Jer. 49:20), and borne by one of Job's friends (Job 2:11).

Omar, Zepho, and Gatam, and Kenaz. Nothing is known about these grandsons of Esau through Adah.

12. Timna. Timna was a sister of Lotan the Horite (v. 22); hence, it is apparent that the family of Esau intermarried with the Horites. This may have provided the sons of Esau with a pretext for seizing Horite land and expelling its ancient inhabitants (Deut. 2:12).

Amalek. Ancestor of the Amalekites, who attacked the Israelites at Horeb on their way out of Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16). Mention of "the country of the Amalekites" in Gen. 14:7 does not necessarily imply their existence in Abraham's time, but may refer simply to the region inhabited by them when the book of Genesis was written. Balaam's expression "first of the nations" (Num. 24:20) does not represent Amalek as the aboriginal or oldest tribe, but simply as the first heathen tribe to attack Israel, or perhaps the strongest or most warlike of the desert tribes. Had there been an Amalek--and Amalekites--previous to Edom, considering their important role in opposition to Israel at the time of Moses, we might reasonably expect to find him giving their genealogy, as he does of all others of equal importance to Israel.

At a very early period the Amalekites separated from the other tribes of Edom and formed an independent people, whose home was in the Negeb, in the vicinity of Kadesh (ch. 14:7; Num. 13:29; 14:43, 45). As a nomadic tribe, however, they roamed over the northern portion of Arabia Petraea, from Havilah to Shur on the border of Egypt (1 Sam. 15:3, 7; 27:8). One branch of the tribe even penetrated to the heart of Canaan, so that a range of hills in what later became the inheritance of Ephraim bore the name "mount of the Amalekites" (Judges 12:15; 5:14). Those who settled in Arabia seem also, in the course of time, to have separated into several branches, for Amalekite hordes sometimes joined the Midianites and the "children of the east" (Judges 6:3; 7:12), and at other times the Ammonites (Judges 3:13), on invasions into the land of Israel. They were defeated at various times by Saul (1 Sam. 14:48; 15:2-9) and by David (1 Sam. 27:8; 30:1-20; 2 Sam. 8:12), and were finally exterminated by Hezekiah (1 Chron. 4:42, 43).

13. Nahath, and Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. Nothing is known concerning these grandsons of Esau.

15. The dukes. The Hebrew word aluph, more accurately "prince" or "chief," was apparently the title taken by Edomite and Horite tribal leaders. Since the related word eleph means "thousand," some scholars have understood aluph to be a military title meaning "captain of a thousand" (see Jer. 13:21). In postexilic Hebrew the term came to be applied to Jewish chiefs or governors (Zech. 9:7; 12:5). The names of these "dukes" are not primarily place names as some commentators have suggested. They are, rather, the three sons and ten grandsons of Esau already mentioned in Gen. 36:9-14. In both lists (vs. 9-14 and 15-19) Korah appears as a son of Esau (vs. 14 and 18). In the second list (v. 16) Korah appears also as a grandson of Esau (a son of Eliphaz), but not in the first list (v. 11). Otherwise, the two lists are comparable. Korah's name is not found in v. 15 of the Samaritan Pentateuch, which had a separate existence after the Babylonian exile, but does appear in the LXX, produced in the 3d century b.c. The fact that Korah is not listed as one of the grandsons of Esau in 1 Chron. 1:36, but is listed as a son (v. 35), confirms the accuracy of the first list of Gen. 36. It appears, therefore, that a copyist's error has occurred in connection with the Hebrew of Gen. 36:16.

20. The sons of Seir. The original inhabitants of the land, the Horites, were not cave dwellers as some earlier commentators suggested. Until comparatively recent times it was thought that the word translated "Horite" was derived from chor, "cave," or "hole." Horite would thus mean "cave man." In recent years, however, the Hurrians (Horites), known not only to the Bible writers but also to Egyptian (Charu), Hittite (Charri), and Mesopotamian (Churru) scribes, have been rediscovered as a nation. They were scattered far and wide wife over the ancient East during the second millennium b.c. The Mitannian kingdom of the upper Euphrates region was ruled by Hurrians in the time of Moses. Their language has recently been deciphered, and considerable is now known about Hurrian culture and history.

In the early part of the second millennium b.c. Hurrians must have taken possession of Mt. Seir, where they first appear in the Bible as a people (ch. 14:6). Later, they were partly exterminated and partly subjugated by the descendants of Esau (Deut. 2:12, 22). Seven sons of Seir, the "Horite," or Hurrian, are listed once as tribal princes, and again as "dukes." Seir's grandsons and two granddaughters, Timna (v. 22) and Aholibamah (v. 25), are also named. Timna was probably the same as the concubine of Eliphaz (v. 12), and Aholibamah was the second wife of Esau (see v. 2).

24. Anah that found the mules. Moses supposes that the event here recorded was well known. We, however, know nothing more about the story than this verse tells. The meaning of the word yemin, translated "mules," is uncertain. This KJV rendering follows an old Jewish tradition. Jerome, however, translated it in the Vulgate as "hot springs," and some commentators concur in thinking that Moses here refers to the discovery of hot sulphur springs. Three such springs are known in the general region, one in the Wadi Zerqa MaÔin, another in the Wadi el-Ahsa to the southeast of the Dead Sea, and a third in the Wadi Hamad between Kerak and the Dead Sea.

29. The dukes. This list repeats the names of Seir's sons, already given in vs. 20, 21. On the title "duke," see on v. 15.

31. Before there reigned any king. This reference to kings of Israel has been pointed to as evidence of post-Mosaic authorship, or at least as a later interpolation from 1 Chron. 1:43. This conclusion is not necessary. It should be remembered that kings had been promised to Jacob, as Moses knew (Gen. 35:11). This promise had not been fulfilled in the time of Moses, whereas Esau's house had already attained a high degree of political organization. It is therefore entirely consistent that Moses, in whose time eight kings had already reigned over Edom, make this remark.

The difficulty of finding room for 7 "dukes," all grandsons of Esau (vs. 15-19), 8 kings (vs. 32-39), and 11 additional "dukes" (vs. 40-43) during the time between Esau and Moses, disappears if it be assumed that the kings and dukes were contemporary with one another. This is supported by a comparison of Ex. 15:15 with Num. 20:14. In the latter, Moses negotiated with a king of Edom for permission to pass through his land, but in the former the "dukes" of Edom are mentioned as trembling on account of the miraculous passage of Israel through the Red Sea. Furthermore, it is not necessary to assume that the 11 "dukes" of vs. 40-43 ruled consecutively. Since it is stated that they were dukes "according to their families, after their places," all, or at least several of them, may have lived in different places at the same time. It is therefore necessary only to find room for 8 successive kings between Esau and Moses, a period of more than 200 years. This would allow an average of 25 years each as compared with 10 years for the kings of Israel and 17 for those of Judah.

It is apparent that the Edomite monarchy was not hereditary, since in no case did a son succeed his father. It was, rather, elective, with the kings chosen, perhaps, by the "dukes." This would be similar to the situation in the Holy Roman Empire, where each emperor was elected by the princes and electors of the realm. Of the eight kings named, none is known from other sources. Although some of the names, such as Hadad (1 Kings 11:14), recur later, none refer to the individuals here mentioned. A few of the cities mentioned in connection with the kings can be identified, as follows:

33. Bozrah. A noted city that seems to have been the Edomite capital for a considerable period of time (see Isa. 34:6; 63:1; Jer. 49:13, 22; Amos 1:12). It was on the site of the present village El Buseira about 25 mi. southeast of the Dead Sea.

34. Temani. This region in northern Idumaea, with its city Teman, has not yet been identified. Jerome preserved a tradition to the effect that it lay only 5 mi. from Petra.

37. Rehoboth. Some scholars have identified this with Rehoboth-Ir in Assyria (ch. 10:11), which cannot possibly be correct. Others have located it elsewhere on the Euphrates, inasmuch as the Bible usually designates the Euphrates as "the river." If this were true, the Edomite king Saul must then have been a foreigner. It is more likely that Rehoboth was either the Idumaean Robotha, whose location is uncertain, or Er Ruheibeh, 23 mi. southwest of Beersheba in a valley near El ÔAréÆsh. In the latter case "the river" would refer to the brook on which the city lay.

39. Hadar. Hadar, the last of the eight kings of Edom listed by Moses, was probably the one with whom he dealt to secure permission for passing through his land (Num. 20:14). That Hadar's wife's name and the names of his wife's mother and grandmother are given suggests that Moses was intimately acquainted with him. In contrast to that of the other seven kings, the death of Hadar, recorded in 1 Chron. 1:51, is not mentioned here. This constitutes additional evidence that he was still alive at the time Moses wrote Genesis.

40. The names. Not of localities, as some have suggested, but of individuals, perhaps of local chieftains contemporary with Hadar, in the time of Moses.

Ellen G. White Comments

6-8PP 207

Genesis Chapter 37

2 Joseph is hated of his brethren. 5 His two dreams. 13 Jacob sendeth him to visit his brethren. 18 His brethren conspire his death. 21 Reuben saveth him. 26 They sell him to the Ishmeelites. 31 His father, deceived by the bloody coat, mourneth for him. 36 He is sold to Potiphar in Egypt.

1. Jacob dwelt in the land. This statement introduces the period after Isaac's death. Jacob was now heir to the blessings and promises that accompanied the patriarchal succession.

2. The generations of Jacob. Here opens a new section (see chs. 5:1; 6:9; etc.). Although the name of Jacob alone is mentioned in this title, the history of his family is clearly implied, as the following chapters show. During his lifetime whatever experiences came to members of his family are considered part of his family record.

Joseph, being seventeen. The events about to be described took place some 11 years after Jacob's return from Haran, when he had reached the age of 108 years (see ch. 30:25 and on ch. 27:1).

With the sons of Bilhah. Joseph was more closely associated with the sons of Bilhah and Zilphah, who stood nearer to him in age, and who were perhaps less haughty than those of Leah. It may be that Bilhah, who had been his mother Rachel's maid, cared for Joseph after Rachel's death.

Their evil report. Joseph either reported what he had observed personally or repeated what he had heard about his brothers. This marks the beginning of the bitter hatred that his brothers felt toward him. Joseph was actuated by high ideals, and his sensitive conscience rebelled against the evil deeds of his brothers. His report of these things to Jacob was doubtless with the thought that his father's influence might lead them to change their ways, lest dishonor come to the family name as it had in the massacre of the Shechemites.

3. Israel loved Joseph. Jacob found particular satisfaction in the companionship of Joseph, whose amiability and ideals made him so different from his brothers. Since Jacob had been 91 years old at the birth of Joseph, and Benjamin was not born till a number of years later, he considered Joseph "the son of his old age."

A coat of many colours. Jacob's preferential treatment of Joseph reached a climax in the special coat, or tunic, he made for him. The meaning of the word passim, "of many colors," is uncertain. It is used also in 2 Sam. 13:18, 19 to describe the dress of Tamar, the daughter of King David. The LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac rendering, "colorfully dyed," forms the basis of the translation found in most modern Bibles. A painting on the wall of a nobleman's tomb at Beni Hasan in Egypt, dating from the time of Abraham, depicts a group of Asiatic men, women, and children, of whom some wore nothing but two-colored loincloths, and some, tunics that reached to the knee but left one shoulder bare. Some of these were of plain white material, but others had blue and red designs. The chief's garment was especially colorful, and is distinguished from the others by a beautiful design woven into the fabric. The tunic Jacob gave to Joseph may have resembled this one. As pointed out here, however, the word passim is of uncertain origin. If, as seems probable, it is the plural of pas, "extremity," it would refer to the hands and the feet. In Dan. 5:5, 24, pas is the word translated "part." Accordingly, then, Joseph's coat, or tunic, would be one with long sleeves, and one which also reached to his feet. Such a garment would not be suitable to wear while working, and was, furthermore, the kind worn by children of noble rank. The RSV reads, "a long robe with sleeves." The Hebrew grammatical construction suggests the idea that Jacob not only made one such coat for Joseph but "used to make" them for him. In either case this coat excited the suspicion that Jacob intended to pass by this older children and bestow the birthright upon Joseph. Little wonder that his brothers all hated him (PP 209)!

4. They hated him. Jacob's fondness for Joseph was natural, perhaps, since he saw in him not only the child of his beloved Rachel but also an excellence of character which stood in marked contrast to the notorious lives of some of his other sons. Many parents who find themselves in Jacob's position, drawn to one child more than to another, at least put forth the effort to conceal the preference, which in their inmost hearts they probably feel is wholly justified. But with inordinate and obvious partiality, Jacob made evident his preference for Rachel's son by presenting him with an expensive and princely garment. As expected, such a mark of esteem was distasteful to his other sons and, had it not been for Joseph's fundamentally sound character, might have been injurious to Joseph himself.

5. Joseph dreamed a dream. The coat implied Jacob's intention of making Rachel's older son his heir; now, Joseph's dream was taken as an expression of his own intentions in the matter. They hated him, not only because of the dream, but also for his boldness in telling them about it (v. 8). Though it is not stated that Joseph's dreams were of God (chs. 20:3-7; 28:12-15), the subsequent history of his life makes it virtually certain that this was so, and that they were not the reflection of any personal ambition on his part. Joseph's dream shows that Jacob did not limit his pursuits to cattle and sheep raising, but was also engaged in agriculture, as his father Isaac had been before him (ch. 26:12). Such activity had been implied in Isaac's paternal blessing (ch. 27:28).

9. Another dream. If Joseph's first dream had pointed only to supremacy over his brothers, the second extended it to the entire family. That Joseph should have related this dream to his brothers, after seeing how they had reacted to the first one, reveals a decided immaturity of judgment. This dream could only intensify their envy and hatred. Joseph, however, seems to have felt a certain satisfaction in telling his dreams and watching his brothers' envy and anger. Jacob, who was present upon this occasion, administered him a sharp rebuke, partly, perhaps, in surprise, and partly to disavow any collusion on his own part. Though Jacob disapproved of the narration of the dream, he could not avoid being impressed by the way in which it reflected his own thoughts.

Some have questioned the divine origin of the second dream, inasmuch as it seems to have met but partial fulfillment. Neither Rachel nor Leah lived to see the rulership of Joseph's in Egypt (chs. 35:19; 49:31). It is sufficient to note that even Jacob did not take every detail of the dream thus literally, since Joseph's mother was already dead at the time (v. 10). Jacob apparently understood the dream as representative of Joseph's supremacy in a general sense.

12. His brethren went. The sons of Jacob seem to have made rather long annual migrations from one pastureland to another, as is often necessary even today. Shechem lies 60 road mi. north of Hebron, and Dothan (v. 17) another 16 mi. to the northwest of Shechem. Use of the northern pasturelands implies that the season was summer or early fall. The dry season began in April and lasted till October (see v. 24). The reason for pasturing the flocks at Shechem may have been the fact that Jacob's family owned property there, secured partly by purchase (ch. 33:19) and perhaps partly by conquest (ch. 34:27). Jacob's sons seem to have felt that they had nothing to fear from the surrounding population (ch. 35:5), who had never taken revenge for their massacre of the Shechemites.

13. I will send thee unto them. Jacob was apparently unaware of how keenly his sons hated Joseph, a fact they had been at pains to hide from him. This is evident not only from the fact that he sent Joseph alone to visit them but also from his reaction to their story of this disappearance. He seems never for a moment to have suspected foul play on their part. Jacob's concern for his sons was probably due not alone to their long absence but also to fear that fellow countrymen of the Shechemites may have either taken revenge for the massacre or hindered them in the pasturing of their flocks.

17. Let us go to Dothan. Lying about 12 mi. north of Samaria, in the direction of Esdraelon, Dothan was situated on the great caravan road from the north to Egypt. It lay in an oblong plain containing one of the best grazing areas of Canaan, and was therefore well chosen by Jacob's sons. It still bears its ancient name, DoÆtaÆn. In the time of Elisha it was the scene of a great miracle (see 2 Kings 6:13-19).

20. Let us slay him. To men who had slain the males of a whole city, the murder of a single individual could hardly seem a grievous sin. Hatred had developed in their hearts to the point that they were ready to kill their own brother in cold blood. They were far from home and its restraining influences. The "pit" into which they intended to cast his body was one of the cisterns common in Palestine. The story they proposed to tell their father would be entirely credible, for Palestine was a wild country during the second millennium b.c., and lions, bears, and other animals roamed at will (see Judges 14:5; 1 Sam. 17:34).

21. Reuben heard it. Though Reuben had been far from perfect himself (see ch. 35:22), his heart was not so hard as theirs. As the eldest son, he felt a special responsibility for his younger brother, and determined, if possible, to save him from them. The would-be murderers were content, for the moment, to follow Reuben's suggestion. Weak and vacillating though he was (ch. 49:4), Reuben appears to have been the only one of Joseph's brothers in whom the natural affection of a brother was not completely lost. Though he lacked the courage to resist openly their stronger wills, he at least made a timid attempt to save Joseph's life. Reuben's plan was commendable as far as it went, but it failed because of his lack of determination and vigilance.

24. Cast him into a pit. Adding insult to injury, they stripped Joseph and threw him into a dry cistern nearby. It seems that cistern were often put to such a use (see Jer. 38:6). The thought that he would die a painful death by starvation apparently satisfied their vindictiveness, and they paid no heed to his piteous appeals (ch. 42:21, 22).

25. Sat down to eat. Perhaps with a secret feeling of satisfaction, if not of exultation, and with infinite indifference, the heartless brothers sat down to eat.

A company of Ishmeelites. The word translated "company" in the KJV means a band of travelers, especially of merchants, and may therefore appropriately be translated "caravan." The Arabs, descending from Ishmael, occupied the desert regions of Arabia east of Egypt and northward in the general direction of Assyria. Biblical and secular records reveal that the Arabs carried on a flourishing trade with Egypt. That some of Ishmael's descendants had already become a trading people is not surprising, for it was now about 180 years since Ishmael's birth, and his family had no doubt grown rapidly.

From Gilead. Inasmuch as Dothan lay on a major trade route, it was only natural that caravans should pass by from time to time. The route from Gilead in Transjordan crossed the Jordan in the neighborhood of Beth-shan, at the eastern end of the Esdraelon valley, followed the valley to Jenin, then turned south to cross the Carmel range. Passing through the plain of Dothan, it continued southward by way of Er Ramle and Gaza toward Egypt.

Spicery. The word translated "spicery" is understood by some to be tragacanth gum, which is obtained from bushes of the genus Astragalus. It has also been identified with the dried red blossoms of the naqawa plant, or the resin of the cistus, or rockrose. Whatever the origin of the "spicery," or gum, it was probably used either as an ingredient of incense or as a cosmetic.

Balm. The Hebrew word translated "balm" probably refers to the gum of the mastic tree and the terebinth.

Myrrh. The meaning of the word thus translated is uncertain. It is usually understood to refer to labdanum, an aromatic gum exuded by the leaves of the cistus, or to what is known today as myrrh. Others think it to be the resinous bark of the mastic tree.

26. Judah said. Judah saw in the appearance of the Ishmaelite caravan a means for permanently disposing of Joseph without taking his life. This would effectively eliminate him from further competition in the contest for the birthright. The brothers reasoned, no doubt, that Joseph had done little to increase the family fortune, and they saw no reason why he should fall heir to the wealth their hands had produced. Judah's proposal proved to be a most welcome one to all the brothers, who by now, after reflecting upon their original impulse to kill Joseph, found themselves somewhat reluctant to lay their own hands upon him.

28. Merchantmen. The traders are called "Ishmeelites" in vs. 25, 27, and 28, and "Midianites" in vs. 28 and 36. This has been explained by assuming that both groups were represented in the caravan, or that the two names were used synonymously in common parlance. In either case, only one caravan was involved in the transaction (see PP 211).

Twenty pieces of silver. The price paid for Joseph, 20 pieces or shekels of silver, was much less than the average price of a slave. According to Ex. 21:32, this price seems to have been 30 shekels, in all probability the retail price of the Ishmaelites expected to receive for Joseph in Egypt. Naturally, they would pay less for him. Twenty shekels would be approximately 8 oz. (228 gr.) of silver (see on ch. 20:16).

The selling of Joseph was an overt violation of the principle that no man has the right to subject another to involuntary servitude (cf. Lev. 25:39-43). It demonstrates clearly the extent of moral perversion that had taken place in the hearts of Joseph's brothers. Those who sold Joseph demonstrated thereby that they had utterly lost all natural affection. Joseph's sale into slavery is the first recorded example in the Bible of such a transaction.

Slave dealers have imitated but seldom surpassed the cruelty of which Joseph's brothers were guilty, for it was not simply a fellow creature they sold, but their own brother. Nevertheless, divine Providence overruled the evil designs of these calloushearted men. The coming of the caravan at this precise time was Heaven's appointed means of saving Joseph from their malicious plot on his life, and the saving of his life became, in turn, the means by which their lives were saved (ch. 45:4, 5).

Though Joseph could not know at the time, Providence was guiding his footsteps. How often life's darkest roads lead to its brightest prospects! Let us ever be willing to follow on wherever God may lead (see Rom. 8:28, 35-39).

29. Reuben returned. The whole transaction took place in Reuben's absence and without his knowledge. Having persuaded his brothers to consent to cast Joseph alive into a pit, he had left them before Joseph arrived, lest they should discern his intention to restore Joseph to his father (PP 211). The rending of one's clothing was an ancient custom expressive of grief and sorrow (see Gen. 37:34; 44:13; 2 Sam. 13:31; 2 Kings 18:37; Job 1:20).

30. The child is not. Reuben's helpless outcry revealed his secret intention to save Joseph. Now he was at a loss to know how he, as the eldest, was to give an account to Jacob for the disappearance of Joseph.

Reuben's intentions were commendable and his plan well laid; nevertheless he failed. Eventually, however, the day came when Reuben's brothers were forced to listen to his vivid reproof for this evil hour and its hideous deed (ch. 42:22). Joseph was to be delivered, but not by Reuben. The dross must be purged from his life through suffering (cf. Heb. 2:10) ere he might enjoy the honor for which Heaven destined him. In the providence of God, the cross must often precede the crown, and affliction become the lot of individuals in order that many may benefit and that the gracious purpose of God may finally prevail.

31. They took Joseph's coat. Though Reuben was beside himself with grief and perplexity, his ruthless and unrelenting brothers were at no loss for a plan. Apparently, however, they had neither the brazen boldness to carry through their scheme in person nor the courage to witness their father's first outburst of grief. Hence they arranged for another, probably a slave, who knew nothing more of the matter than what he was told, and so could not reveal their dark secret, to carry the bloody coat to Jacob in Hebron.

33. Rent in pieces. Jacob's sons had not only besmeared the coat with blood but had also doubtless torn it to shreds to make the evidence of Joseph's misfortune more vivid and their story more credible. All too eloquently the rent coat bore its mute testimony to the fate that had presumably overtaken the youth. The object that once symbolized Jacob's unwise favoritism for Joseph now came to represent the undoing of both father and son.

34. Mourned for his son. Convinced of Joseph's death by the undeniable evidence presented, Jacob entered upon a period of mourning, according to the custom of ancient times. His ordinary garments rent, he dressed in sackcloth, the usual garb of mourners (2 Sam. 3:31; Neh. 9:1; Esther 4:1). This was a coarse, thick haircloth, of which corn sacks were also made. In Gen. 42:25 the same word is translated "sack." In cases of extreme mental distress the "sackcloth" was worn next to the skin (1 Kings 21:27).

35. Rose up to comfort him. When Jacob had mourned for Joseph longer than was customary, and his intense grief seemed unassuaged, his children became concerned. The callous criminals became tender comforters, and the would-be murderers sought to mollify the grief they had cruelly brought upon their father.

It is apparent that Jacob had other daughters besides Dinah, unless daughters-in-law- are meant here (cf. Ruth 1:11, 12). Since Hebrew terms designating family relationships are often used in a more general sense than is true today, it is often uncertain what the words "son," "daughter," etc., really mean. It seems clear from Gen. 46:7, however, that these were Jacob's own "daughters."

The grave. She'ol. This word is peculiar to Hebrew, is not found in any related Semitic language, and is of unknown origin. It is invariably used to designate the place to which the dead go.

36. The Midianites sold him. On the interchangeable use of the terms "Midianites" and Ishmeelites here and in vs. 25, 27, and 28, see on v. 28.