Text -- Genesis 1:26 (NET)

1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Gen 1:26-28

We have here the second part of the sixth day's work, the creation of man, which we are in a special manner concerned to take notice of. Observe, That man was made last of all the creatures, which was both an honour and a favour to him: an honour, for the creation was to advance from that which was less perfect, to that which was more so and a favour, for it was not fit he should be lodged in the palace designed for him, till it was completely fitted and furnished for his reception. Man, as soon as he was made, had the whole visible creation before him, both to contemplate, and to take the comfort of. That man's creation was a mere signal act of divine wisdom and power, than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto it had been said, Let there be light, and Let there be a firmament: but now the word of command is turned into a word of consultation, Let us make man - For whose sake the rest of the creatures were made. Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make, but is pleased so to express himself, as if he called a council to consider of the making of him; Let us make man - The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it, and concur in it; because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. That man was made in God's image, and after his likeness; two words to express the same thing. God's image upon man, consists,

In his nature, not that of his body, for God has not a body, but that of his soul. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent, immortal spirit, an active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of spirits, and the soul of the world. In his place and authority. Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is as it were God's representative on earth. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will, has in it more of God's image, than his government of the creatures. And chiefly in his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. He was upright, Ecc 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly, and there were no errors in his knowledge: his will complied readily and universally with the will of God; without reluctancy: his affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions: his thoughts were easily fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity or ungovernableness in them. And all the inferior powers were subject to the dictates of the superior. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning? How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace! That man was made male and female, and blessed with fruitfulness. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve: Adam first out of earth, and Eve out of his side. God made but one male and one female, that all the nations of men might know themselves to be made of one blood, descendants, from one common stock, and might thereby be induced to love one another. God having made them capable of transmitting the nature they had received, said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth - Here he gave them,

A large inheritance; replenish the earth, in which God has set man to be the servant of his providence, in the government of the inferior creatures, and as it were the intelligence of this orb; to be likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, and lastly, to be a probationer for a better state. A numerous lasting family to enjoy this inheritance; pronouncing a blessing upon them, in the virtue of which, their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth, and continue to the utmost period of time.

That God gave to man a dominion over the inferior creatures, over fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air - Though man provides for neither, he has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth - God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker.

JFB: Gen 1:26

God said, Let us make man--words which show the peculiar importance of the work to be done, the formation of a creature, who was to be God's representative, clothed with authority and rule as visible head and monarch of the world.

JFB: Gen 1:26

This was a peculiar distinction, the value attached to which appears in the words being twice mentioned. And in what did this image of God consist? Not in the erect form or features of man, not in his intellect, for the devil and his angels are, in this respect, far superior; not in his immortality, for he has not, like God, a past as well as a future eternity of being; but in the moral dispositions of his soul, commonly called original righteousness (Ecc 7:29). As the new creation is only a restoration of this image, the history of the one throws light on the other; and we are informed that it is renewed after the image of God in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24).

Clarke: Gen 1:26

And God said, Let us make man - It is evident that God intends to impress the mind of man with a sense of something extraordinary in the formation of his body and soul, when he introduces the account of his creation thus; Let Us make man. The word אדם Adam , which we translate man, is intended to designate the species of animal, as חיתו chaitho , marks the wild beasts that live in general a solitary life; בהמה behemah , domestic or gregarious animals; and רמש remes , all kinds of reptiles, from the largest snake to the microscopic eel. Though the same kind of organization may be found in man as appears in the lower animals, yet there is a variety and complication in the parts, a delicacy of structure, a nice arrangement, a judicious adaptation of the different members to their great offices and functions, a dignity of mien, and a perfection of the whole, which are sought for in vain in all other creatures. See Gen 3:22

Clarke: Gen 1:26

In our image, after our likeness - What is said above refers only to the body of man, what is here said refers to his soul. This was made in the image and likeness of God. Now, as the Divine Being is infinite, he is neither limited by parts, nor definable by passions; therefore he can have no corporeal image after which he made the body of man. The image and likeness must necessarily be intellectual; his mind, his soul, must have been formed after the nature and perfections of his God. The human mind is still endowed with most extraordinary capacities; it was more so when issuing out of the hands of its Creator. God was now producing a spirit, and a spirit, too, formed after the perfections of his own nature. God is the fountain whence this spirit issued, hence the stream must resemble the spring which produced it. God is holy, just, wise, good, and perfect; so must the soul be that sprang from him: there could be in it nothing impure, unjust, ignorant, evil, low, base, mean, or vile. It was created after the image of God; and that image, St. Paul tells us, consisted in righteousness, true holiness, and knowledge, Eph 4:24 Col 3:10. Hence man was wise in his mind, holy in his heart, and righteous in his actions. Were even the word of God silent on this subject, we could not infer less from the lights held out to us by reason and common sense. The text tells us he was the work of Elohim, the Divine Plurality, marked here more distinctly by the plural pronouns Us and Our; and to show that he was the masterpiece of God’ s creation, all the persons in the Godhead are represented as united in counsel and effort to produce this astonishing creature

Gregory Nyssen has very properly observed that the superiority of man to all other parts of creation is seen in this, that all other creatures are represented as the effect of God’ s word, but man is represented as the work of God, according to plan and consideration: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. See his Works, vol. i., p. 52, c. 3

Clarke: Gen 1:26

And let them have dominion - Hence we see that the dominion was not the image. God created man capable of governing the world, and when fitted for the office, he fixed him in it. We see God’ s tender care and parental solicitude for the comfort and well-being of this masterpiece of his workmanship, in creating the world previously to the creation of man. He prepared every thing for his subsistence, convenience, and pleasure, before he brought him into being; so that, comparing little with great things, the house was built, furnished, and amply stored, by the time the destined tenant was ready to occupy it

It has been supposed by some that God speaks here to the angels, when he says, Let us make man; but to make this a likely interpretation these persons must prove, 1. That angels were then created. 2. That angels could assist in a work of creation. 3. That angels were themselves made in the image and likeness of God. If they were not, it could not be said, in Our image, and it does not appear from any part in the sacred writings that any creature but man was made in the image of God. See Clarke’ s note on Psa 8:5.

Calvin: Gen 1:26

26.Let us make man ⁸³ Although the tense here used is the future, all must acknowledge that this is the language of one apparently deliberating. Hitherto God has been introduced simply as commanding; now, when he approaches the most excellent of all his works, he enters into consultation. God certainly might here command by his bare word what he wished to be done: but he chose to give this tribute to the excellency of man, that he would, in a manner, enter into consultation concerning his creation. This is the highest honor with which he has dignified us; to a due regard for which, Moses, by this mode of speaking would excite our minds. For God is not now first beginning to consider what form he will give to man, and with what endowments it would be fitting to adorn him, nor is he pausing as over a work of difficulty: but, just as we have before observed, that the creation of the world was distributed over six days, for our sake, to the end that our minds might the more easily be retained in the meditation of God’s works: so now, for the purpose of commending to our attention the dignity of our nature, he, in taking counsel concerning the creation of man, testifies that he is about to undertake something great and wonderful. Truly there are many things in this corrupted nature which may induce contempt; but if you rightly weigh all circumstances, man is, among other creatures a certain preeminent specimen of Divine wisdom, justice, and goodness, so that he is deservedly called by the ancients μικρίκοσμος , “a world in miniature.” But since the Lord needs no other counsellor, there can be no doubt that he consulted with himself. The Jews make themselves altogether ridiculous, in pretending that God held communication with the earth or with angels. ⁸⁴ The earth, forsooth, was a most excellent adviser! And to ascribe the least portion of a work so exquisite to angels, is a sacrilege to be held in abhorrence. Where, indeed, will they find that we were created after the image of the earth, or of angels? Does not Moses directly exclude all creatures in express terms, when he declares that Adam was created after the image of God? Others who deem themselves more acute, but are doubly infatuated, say that God spoke of himself in the plural number, according to the custom of princes. As if, in truth, that barbarous style of speaking, which has grown into use within a few past centuries, had, even then, prevailed in the world. But it is well that their canine wickedness has been joined with a stupidity so great, that they betray their folly to children. Christians, therefore, properly contend, from this testimony, that there exists a plurality of Persons in the Godhead. God summons no foreign counsellor; hence we infer that he finds within himself something distinct; as, in truth, his eternal wisdom and power reside within him. ⁸⁵

In our image, etc Interpreters do not agree concerning the meaning of these words. The greater part, and nearly all, conceive that the word image is to be distinguished from likeness. And the common distinction is, that image exists in the substance, likeness in the accidents of anything. They who would define the subject briefly, say that in the image are contained those endowments which God has conferred on human nature at large, while they expound likeness to mean gratuitous gifts. ⁸⁶ But Augustine, beyond all others, speculates with excessive refinement, for the purpose of fabricating a Trinity in man. For in laying hold of the three faculties of the soul enumerated by Aristotle, the intellect, the memory, and the will, he afterwards out of one Trinity derives many. If any reader, having leisure, wishes to enjoy such speculations, let him read the tenth and fourteenth books on the Trinity, also the eleventh book of the “City of God.” I acknowledge, indeed, that there is something in man which refers to the Fathers and the Son, and the Spirit: and I have no difficulty in admitting the above distinction of the faculties of the soul: although the simpler division into two parts, which is more used in Scripture, is better adapted to the sound doctrine of piety; but a definition of the image of God ought to rest on a firmer basis than such subtleties. As for myself, before I define the image of God, I would deny that it differs from his likeness. For when Moses afterwards repeats the same things he passes over the likeness, and contents himself with mentioning the image. Should any one take the exception, that he was merely studying brevity; I answer, ⁸⁷ that where he twice uses the word image, he makes no mention of the likeness. We also know that it was customary with the Hebrews to repeat the same thing in different words. besides, the phrase itself shows that the second term was added for the sake of explanation, ‘Let us make,’ he says, ‘man in our image, according to our likeness,’ that is, that he may be like God, or may represent the image of God. Lastly, in the fifth chapter, without making any mention of image, he puts likeness in its place, (Gen 5:1.) Although we have set aside all difference between the two words we have not yet ascertained what this image or likeness is. The Anthropomorphites were too gross in seeking this resemblance in the human body; let that reverie therefore remain entombed. Others proceed with a little more subtlety, who, though they do not imagine God to be corporeal, yet maintain that the image of God is in the body of man, because his admirable workmanship there shines brightly; but this opinion, as we shall see, is by no means consonant with Scripture. The exposition of Chrysostom is not more correct, who refers to the dominion which was given to man in order that he might, in a certain sense, act as God’s vicegerent in the government of the world. This truly is some portion, though very small, of the image of God. Since the image of God had been destroyed in us by the fall, we may judge from its restoration what it originally had been. Paul says that we are transformed into the image of God by the gospel. And, according to him, spiritual regeneration is nothing else than the restoration of the same image. (Col 3:10, and Eph 4:23.) That he made this image to consist in righteousness and true holiness, is by the figure synecdochee; ⁸⁸ for though this is the chief part, it is not the whole of God’s image. Therefore by this word the perfection of our whole nature is designated, as it appeared when Adam was endued with a right judgment, had affections in harmony with reason, had all his senses sound and well-regulated, and truly excelled in everything good. Thus the chief seat of the Divine image was in his mind and heart, where it was eminent: yet was there no part of him in which some scintillations of it did not shine forth. For there was an attempering in the several parts of the soul, which corresponded with their various offices. ⁸⁹ In the mind perfect intelligence flourished and reigned, uprightness attended as its companion, and all the senses were prepared and moulded for due obedience to reason; and in the body there was a suitable correspondence with this internal order. But now, although some obscure lineaments of that image are found remaining in us; yet are they so vitiated and maimed, that they may truly be said to be destroyed. For besides the deformity which everywhere appears unsightly, this evil also is added, that no part is free from the infection of sin.

In our image, after our likeness I do not scrupulously insist upon the particles ב , ( beth,) and כ , ( caph ⁹⁰) I know not whether there is anything solid in the opinion of some who hold that this is said, because the image of God was only shadowed forth in man till he should arrive at his perfection. The thing indeed is true; but I do not think that anything of the kind entered the mind of Moses. ⁹¹ It is also truly said that Christ is the only image of the Fathers but yet the words of Moses do not bear the interpretation that “in the image” means “in Christ.” It may also be added, that even man, though in a different respects is called the image of God. In which thing some of the Fathers are deceived who thought that they could defeat the Asians with this weapon that Christ alone is God’s, image. This further difficulty is also to be encountered, namely, why Paul should deny the woman to be the image of God, when Moses honors both, indiscriminately, with this title. The solution is short; Paul there alludes only to the domestic relation. He therefore restricts the image of God to government, in which the man has superiority over the wife and certainly he meant nothing more than that man is superior in the degree of honor. But here the question is respecting that glory of God which peculiarly shines forth in human nature, where the mind, the will, and all the senses, represent the Divine order.

And let them have dominion ⁹² Here he commemorates that part of dignity with which he decreed to honor man, namely, that he should have authority over all living creatures. He appointed man, it is true, lord of the world; but he expressly subjects the animals to him, because they having an inclination or instinct of their own, ⁹³ seem to be less under authority from without. The use of the plural number intimates that this authority was not given to Adam only, but to all his posterity as well as to him. And hence we infer what was the end for which all things were created; namely, that none of the conveniences and necessaries of life might be wanting to men. In the very order of the creation the paternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful, and even with an immense profusion of wealth, before he formed man. Thus man was rich before he was born. But if God had such care for us before we existed, he will by no means leave us destitute of food and of other necessaries of life, now that we are placed in the world. Yet, that he often keeps his hand as if closed is to be imputed to our sins.

Defender: Gen 1:26

God is, as it were, taking counsel here with Himself, not with angels, since man was to be made in the image of God, not of angels. "Our image," therefore, implies human likeness to the triune Godhead. Plants possess a body and animals possess a body and consciousness; man was not only to have a body (of the created "earth") and a consciousness (of the created "soul"), but man was also to possess a third created entity, the image of God, an eternal spirit capable of communion and fellowship with his Creator.

Defender: Gen 1:26

Man was not only created in God's spiritual image; he was also made in God's physical image. His body was specifically planned to be most suited for the divine fellowship (erect posture, upward-gazing countenance, facial expressions varying with emotional feelings, brain and tongue designed for articulate symbolic speech - none of which are shared by the animals). Furthermore, his body was designed to be like the body which God had planned from eternity that He Himself would one day assume (1Pe 1:20).

Defender: Gen 1:26

The "dominion" man was to exercise was to be over both "the earth" and also all the other living creatures on the earth. Such dominion obviously was under God as a stewardship, not as autonomous sovereign. Man was to care for the earth and its creatures, developing and utilizing the earth's resources, not to despoil and deplete them for selfish pleasure."

TSK: Gen 1:26

Let us : Gen 3:22, Gen 11:7; Job 35:10; Psa 100:3, Psa 149:2; Isa 64:8; Joh 5:17, Joh 14:23; 1Jo 5:7

man : In Hebrew, Adam ; probably so called either from the red earth of which he was formed, or from the blush or flesh-tint of the human countenance. caps1 tcaps0 he name is intended to designate the species.

in our : Gen 5:1, Gen 9:6; Ecc 7:29; Act 17:26, Act 17:28, Act 17:29; 1Co 11:7; 2Co 3:18, 2Co 4:4; Eph 4:24; Col 1:15, Col 3:10; Jam 3:9

have dominion : Gen 9:2, Gen 9:3, Gen 9:4; Job 5:23; Psa 8:4-8, Psa 104:20-24; Ecc 7:29; Jer 27:6; Act 17:20, Act 17:28, Act 17:29; 1Co 11:7; 2Co 3:18; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Heb 2:6-9; Jam 3:7, Jam 3:9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Gen 1:24-31

- VIII. The Sixth Day

24. בהמה b^e hēmâh , "cattle; dumb, tame beasts."

רמשׂ remeś , "creeping (small or low) animals."

חוּה chayâh , "living thing; animal."

חוּת־חארץ chayatô - chā'ārets , "wild beast."

26. אדם 'ādām , "man, mankind;""be red."A collective noun, having no plural number, and therefore denoting either an individual of the kind, or the kind or race itself. It is connected in etymology with אדמה 'ădāmâh , "the red soil,"from which the human body was formed Gen 2:7. It therefore marks the earthly aspect of man.

צלם tselem , "shade, image,"in visible outline.

דמוּת d^e mût , "likeness,"in any quality.

רדה rādâh "tread, rule."

This day corresponds with the third. In both the land is the sphere of operation. In both are performed two acts of creative power. In the third the land was clothed with vegetation: in the sixth it is peopled with the animal kingdom. First, the lower animals are called into being, and then, to crown all, man.

Gen 1:24, Gen 1:25

This branch of the animal world is divided into three parts. "Living breathing thing"is the general head under which all these are comprised. "Cattle"denotes the animals that dwell with man, especially those that bear burdens. The same term in the original, when there is no contrast, when in the plural number or with the specification of "the land,"the "field,"is used of wild beasts. "Creeping things"evidently denote the smaller animals, from which the cattle are distinguished as the large. The quality of creeping is, however, applied sometimes to denote the motion of the lower animals with the body in a prostrate posture, in opposition to the erect posture of man Psa 104:20. The "beast of the land"or the field signifies the wild rapacious animal that lives apart from man. The word חוּה chayâh , "beast or animal,"is the general term employed in these verses for the whole animal kind. It signifies wild animal with certainty only when it is accompanied by the qualifying term "land"or "field,"or the epithet "evil" רעה rā‛âh . From this division it appears that animals that prey on others were included in this latest creation. This is an extension of that law by which the organic living substances of the vegetable kingdom form the sustenance of the animal species. The execution of the divine mandate is then recorded, and the result inspected and approved.

Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27

Here we evidently enter upon a higher scale of being. This is indicated by the counsel or common resolve to create, which is now for the first time introduced into the narrative. When the Creator says, "Let us make man,"he calls attention to the work as one of pre-eminent importance. At the same time he sets it before himself as a thing undertaken with deliberate purpose. Moreover, in the former mandates of creation his words had regard to the thing itself that was summoned into being; as, "Let there be light;"or to some preexistent object that was physically connected with the new creature; as, "Let the land bring forth grass."But now the language of the fiat of creation ascends to the Creator himself: Let us make man. This intimates that the new being in its higher nature is associated not so much with any part of creation as with the Eternal Uncreated himself.

The plural form of the sentence raises the question, With whom took he counsel on this occasion? Was it with himself, and does he here simply use the plural of majesty? Such was not the usual style of monarchs in the ancient East. Pharaoh says, "I have dreamed a dream"Gen 41:15. Nebuchadnezzar, "I have dreamed"Dan 2:3. Darius the Mede, "I make a decree"Dan 6:26. Cyrus, "The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth"Ezr 1:2. Darius, "I make a decree"Ezr 5:8. We have no ground, therefore, for transferring it to the style of the heavenly King. Was it with certain other intelligent beings in existence before man that he took counsel? This supposition cannot be admitted; because the expression "let us make"is an invitation to create, which is an incommunicable attribute of the Eternal One, and because the phrases, "our image, our likeness,"when transferred into the third person of narrative, become "his image, the image of God,"and thus limit the pronouns to God himself. Does the plurality, then, point to a plurality of attributes in the divine nature? This cannot be, because a plurality of qualities exists in everything, without at all leading to the application of the plural number to the individual, and because such a plurality does not warrant the expression, "let us make."Only a plurality of persons can justify the phrase. Hence, we are forced to conclude that the plural pronoun indicates a plurality of persons or hypostases in the Divine Being.

\tx6300 Gen 1:26

Man. - Man is a new species, essentially different from all other kinds on earth. "In our image, after our likeness."He is to be allied to heaven as no other creature on earth is. He is to be related to the Eternal Being himself. This relation, however, is to be not in matter, but in form; not in essence, but in semblance. This precludes all pantheistic notions of the origin of man. "Image"is a word taken from sensible things, and denotes likeness in outward form, while the material may be different. "Likeness"is a more general term, indicating resemblance in any quality, external or internal. It is here explanatory of image, and seems to show that this term is to be taken in a figurative sense, to denote not a material but a spiritual conformity to God. The Eternal Being is essentially self-manifesting. The appearance he presents to an eye suited to contemplate him is his image. The union of attributes which constitute his spiritual nature is his character or likeness.

We gather from the present chapter that God is a spirit Gen 1:2, that he thinks, speaks, wills, and acts (Gen 1:3-4, etc.). Here, then, are the great points of conformity to God in man, namely, reason, speech, will, and power. By reason we apprehend concrete things in perception and consciousness, and cognize abstract truth, both metaphysical and moral. By speech we make certain easy and sensible acts of our own the signs of the various objects of our contemplative faculties to ourselves and others. By will we choose, determine, and resolve upon what is to be done. By power we act, either in giving expression to our concepts in words, or effect to our determinations in deeds. In the reason is evolved the distinction of good and evil Gen 1:4, Gen 1:31, which is in itself the approval of the former and the disapproval of the latter. In the will is unfolded that freedom of action which chooses the good and refuses the evil. In the spiritual being that exercises reason and will resides the power to act, which presupposes both these faculties - the reason as informing the will, and the will as directing the power. This is that form of God in which he has created man, and condescends to communicate with him.

And let them rule. - The relation of man to the creature is now stated. It is that of sovereignty. Those capacities of right thinking, right willing, and right acting, or of knowledge, holiness, and righteousness, in which man resembles God, qualify him for dominion, and constitute him lord of all creatures that are destitute of intellectual and moral endowments. Hence, wherever man enters he makes his sway to be felt. He contemplates the objects around him, marks their qualities and relations, conceives and resolves upon the end to be attained, and endeavors to make all things within his reach work together for its accomplishment. This is to rule on a limited scale. The field of his dominion is "the fish of the sea, the fowl of the skies, the cattle, the whole land, and everything that creepeth on the land."The order here is from the lowest to the highest. The fish, the fowl, are beneath the domestic cattle. These again are of less importance than the land, which man tills and renders fruitful in all that can gratify his appetite or his taste. The last and greatest victory of all is over the wild animals, which are included under the class of creepers that are prone in their posture, and move in a creeping attitude over the land. The primeval and prominent objects of human sway are here brought forward after the manner of Scripture. But there is not an object within the ken of man which he does not aim at making subservient to his purposes. He has made the sea his highway to the ends of the earth, the stars his pilots on the pathless ocean, the sun his bleacher and painter, the bowels of the earth the treasury from which he draws his precious and useful metals and much of his fuel, the steam his motive power, and the lightning his messenger. These are proofs of the evergrowing sway of man.

Gen 1:27

Created. - Man in his essential part, the image of God in him, was entirely a new creation. We discern here two stages in his creation. The general fact is stated in the first clause of the verse, and then the two particulars. "In the image of God created he him."This is the primary act, in which his relation to his Maker is made prominent. In this his original state he is actually one, as God in whose image he is made is one. "Male and female created he them."This is the second act or step in his formation. He is now no longer one, but two, - the male and the female. His adaptation to be the head of a race is hereby completed. This second stage in the existence of man is more circumstantially described hereafter Gen 2:21-25.

Gen 1:28

The divine blessing is now pronounced upon man. It differs from that of the lower animals chiefly in the element of supremacy. Power is presumed to belong to man’ s nature, according to the counsel of the Maker’ s will Gen 1:26. But without a special permission he cannot exercise any lawful authority. For the other creatures are as independent of him as he is of them. As creatures he and they are on an equal footing, and have no natural fight either over the other. Hence, it is necessary that he should receive from high heaven a formal charter of right over the things that were made for man. He is therefore authorized, by the word of the Creator, to exercise his power in subduing the earth and ruling over the animal kingdom. This is the meet sequel of his being created in the image of God. Being formed for dominion, the earth and its various products and inhabitants are assigned to him for the display of his powers. The subduing and ruling refer not to the mere supply of his natural needs, for which provision is made in the following verse, but to the accomplishment of his various purposes of science and beneficence, whether towards the inferior animals or his own race. It is the part of intellectual and moral reason to employ power for the ends of general no less than personal good. The sway of man ought to be beneficent.

Gen 1:29, Gen 1:30

Every herb bearing seed and tree bearing fruit is granted to man for his sustenance. With our habits it may seem a matter of course that each should at once appropriate what he needs of things at his hand. But in the beginning of existence it could not be so. Of two things proceeding from the same creative hand neither has any original or inherent right to interfere in any way whatever with the other. The absolute right to each lies in the Creator alone. The one, it is true, may need the other to support its life, as fruit is needful to man. And therefore the just Creator cannot make one creature dependent for subsistence on another without granting to it the use of that other. But this is a matter between Creator and creature, not by any means between creature and creature. Hence, it was necessary to the rightful adjustment of things, whenever a rational creature was ushered into the world, that the Creator should give an express permission to that creature to partake of the fruits of the earth. And in harmony with this view we shall hereafter find an exception made to this general grant Gen 2:17. Thus, we perceive, the necessity of this formal grant of the use of certain creatures to moral and responsible man lies deep in the nature of things. And the sacred writer here hands down to us from the mists of a hoary antiquity the primitive deed of conveyance, which lies at the foundation of the the common property of man in the earth, and all that it contains.

The whole vegetable world is assigned to the animals for food. In the terms of the original grant the herb bearing seed and the tree bearing fruit are especially allotted to man, because the grain and the fruit were edible by man without much preparation. As usual in Scripture the chief parts are put for the whole, and accordingly this specification of the ordinary and the obvious covers the general principle that whatever part of the vegetable kingdom is convertible into food by the ingenuity of man is free for his use. It is plain that a vegetable diet alone is expressly conceded to man in this original conveyance, and it is probable that this alone was designed for him in the state in which he was created. But we must bear in mind that he was constituted master of the animal as well as of the vegetable world; and we cannot positively affirm that his dominion did not involve the use of them for food.

Gen 1:30

The whole of the grasses and the green parts or leaves of the herbage are distributed among the inferior animals for food. Here, again, the common and prominent kind of sustenance only is specified. There are some animals that greedily devour the fruits of trees and the grain produced by the various herbs; and there are others that derive the most of their subsistence from preying on the smaller and weaker kinds of animals. Still, the main substance of the means of animal life, and the ultimate supply of the whole of it, are derived from the plant. Even this general statement is not to be received without exception, as there are certain lower descriptions of animals that derive sustenance even from the mineral world. But this brief narrative of things notes only the few palpable facts, leaving the details to the experience and judgment of the reader.

Gen 1:31

Here we have the general review and approval of everything God had made, at the close of the six days’ work of creation. Man, as well as other things, was very good when he came from his Maker’ s hand; but good as yet untried, and therefore good in capacity rather than in victory over temptation. It remains yet to be seen whether he will be good in act and habit.

This completes, then, the restoration of that order and fullness the absence of which is described in the second verse. The account of the six days’ work, therefore, is the counterpart of that verse. The six days fall into two threes, corresponding to each other in the course of events. The first and fourth days refer principally to the darkness on the face of the deep; the second and fifth to the disorder and emptiness of the aerial and aqueous elements; and the third and sixth to the similar condition of the land. Again, the first three days refer to a lower, the second three to a higher order of things. On the first the darkness on the face of the earth is removed; on the fourth that on the face of the sky. On the second the water is distributed above and below the expanse; on the fifth the living natives of these regions are called into being. On the third the plants rooted in the soil are made; on the sixth the animals that move freely over it are brought into existence.

This chapter shows the folly and sin of the worship of light, of sun, moon, or star, of air or water, of plant, of fish or fowl, of earth, of cattle, creeping thing or wild beast, or, finally, of man himself; as all these are but the creatures of the one Eternal Spirit, who, as the Creator of all, is alone to be worshipped by his intelligent creatures.

This chapter is also to be read with wonder and adoration by man; as he finds himself to be constituted lord of the earth, next in rank under the Creator of all, formed in the image of his Maker, and therefore capable not only of studying the works of nature, but of contemplating and reverently communing with the Author of nature.

In closing the interpretation of this chapter, it is proper to refer to certain first principles of hermeneutical science. First, that interpretation only is valid which is true to the meaning of the author. The very first rule on which the interpreter is bound to proceed is to assign to each word the meaning it commonly bore in the time of the writer. This is the prime key to the works of every ancient author, if we can only discover it. The next is to give a consistent meaning to the whole of that which was composed at one time or in one place by the author. The presumption is that there was a reasonable consistency of thought in his mind during one effort of composition. A third rule is to employ faithfully and discreetly whatever we can learn concerning the time, place, and other circumstances of the author to the elucidation of his meaning.

And, in the second place, the interpretation now given claims acceptance on the ground of its internal and external consistency with truth. First, It exhibits the consistency of the whole narrative in itself. It acknowledges the narrative character of the first verse. It assigns an essential significance to the words, "the heavens,"in that verse. It attributes to the second verse a prominent place and function in the arrangement of the record. It places the special creative work of the six days in due subordination to the absolute creation recorded in the first verse. It gathers information from the primitive meanings of the names that are given to certain objects, and notices the subsequent development of these meanings. It accounts for the manifestation of light on the first day, and of the luminaries of heaven on the fourth, and traces the orderly steps of a majestic climax throughout the narrative. It is in harmony with the usage of speech as far as it can be known to us at the present day. It assigns to the words "heavens,""earth,""expanse,""day,"no greater latitude of meaning than was then customary. It allows for the diversity of phraseology employed in describing the acts of creative power. It sedulously refrains from importing modern notions into the narrative.

Second, the narrative thus interpreted is in striking harmony with the dictates of reason and the axioms of philosophy concerning the essence of God and the nature of man. On this it is unnecessary to dwell.

Third, it is equally consistent with human science. It substantially accords with the present state of astronomical science. It recognizes, as far as can be expected, the relative importance of the heavens and the earth, the existence of the heavenly bodies from the beginning of time, the total and then the partial absence of light from the face of the deep, as the local result of physical causes. It allows, also, if it were necessary, between the original creation, recorded in the first verse, and the state of things described in the second, the interval of time required for the light of the most distant discoverable star to reach the earth. No such interval, however, could be absolutely necessary, as the Creator could as easily establish the luminous connection of the different orbs of heaven as summon into being the element of light itself.

Fourth, it is also in harmony with the elementary facts of geological knowledge. The land, as understood by the ancient author, may be limited to that portion of the earth’ s surface which was known to antediluvian man. The elevation of an extensive tract of land, the subsidence of the overlying waters into the comparative hollows, the clarifying of the atmosphere, the creation of a fresh supply of plants and animals on the newly-formed continent, compose a series of changes which meet the geologist again and again in prosecuting his researches into the bowels of the earth. What part of the land was submerged when the new soil emerged from the waters, how far the shock of the plutonic or volcanic forces may have been felt, whether the alteration of level extended to the whole solid crust of the earth, or only to a certain region surrounding the cradle of mankind, the record before us does not determine. It merely describes in a few graphic touches, that are strikingly true to nature, the last of those geologic changes which our globe has undergone.

Fifth, it is in keeping, as far as it goes, with the facts of botany, zoology, and ethnology.

Sixth, it agrees with the cosmogonies of all nations, so far as these are founded upon a genuine tradition and not upon the mere conjectures of a lively fancy.

Finally, it has the singular and superlative merit of drawing the diurnal scenes of that creation to which our race owes its origin in the simple language of common life, and presenting each transcendent change as it would appear to an ordinary spectator standing on the earth. It was thus sufficiently intelligible to primeval man, and remains to this day intelligible to us, as soon as we divest ourselves of the narrowing preconceptions of our modern civilization.

Poole: Gen 1:26

God had now prepared all things necessary for man’ s use and comfort. The plurals us and our afford an evident proof of a plurality of persons in the Godhead. It is plain from many other texts, as well as from the nature and reason of the thing, that God alone is man’ s Creator: the angels rejoiced at the work of creation, but only God wrought it, Job 38:4-7 . And it is no less plain from this text, and from divers other places, that man had more Creators than one person: see Job 35:10 Joh 1:2,3 , &c.; Heb 1:3 . And as other texts assure us that there is but one God, so this shows that there are more persons in the Godhead; nor can that seeming contradiction of one and more being in the Godhead be otherwise reconciled, than by acknowledging a plurality of persons in the unity of essence. It is pretended that God here speaks after the manner of princes, in the plural number, who use to say: We will

and require, or, It is our pleasure. But this is only the invention and practice of latter times, and no way agreeable to the simplicity, either of the first ages of the world, or of the Hebrew style. The kings of Israel used to speak of themselves in the singular number, 2Sa 3:28 1Ch 21:17 29:14 2Ch 2:6 . And so did the eastern monarchs too, yea, even in their decrees and orders, which now run in the plural number, as Ezr 6:8 , I (Darius) make a decree; Ezr 7:21 , I, even I Artaxerxes the king, do make a decree. Nor do I remember one example in Scripture to the contrary. It is therefore a rash and presumptuous attempt, without any warrant, to thrust the usages of modern style into the sacred Scripture. Besides, the Lord doth generally speak of himself in the singular number, some few places excepted, wherein the plural number is used for the signification of this mystery. Moreover, this device is utterly overthrown by comparing this text with Gen 3:22 :

The Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us. Therefore there are more persons than one in the Godhead. How many they are other texts plainly inform us, as we shall see in their proper places. And whereas he saith not now as he did before: Let the earth or waters

bring forth, but, Let us make this change of the phrase and manner of expression shows that man was, as the last, so the most perfect and the chief of the ways and works of God in this lower world.

After our likeness Image and likeness are two words noting the same thing, even exact likeness. For both of them are used of Adam, Gen 5:3 :

He begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and they are separately and indifferently used in the same sense, man being said to be made in the likeness of God, Gen 5:1 , and in the image of God, Gen 9:6 .

Quest. Wherein doth the image of God in man consist?

Answ 1. It is in the whole man, both in the blessedness of his estate, and in his dominion over the rest of the creatures.

2. It shines forth even in the body, in the majesty of man’ s countenance, and height of his stature, which is set towards heaven, when other creatures by their down-looks show the lowness and meanness of their nature, as even heathens have observed.

3. It principally consists and most eminently appears in man’ s soul.

1. In its nature and substance, as it is, like God, spiritual, invisible, immortal, &c.

2. In its powers and faculties, reason or understanding, and freedom in its choice and actions.

3. In the singular endowments wherewith God hath adorned it, as knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, in which St. Paul chiefly placeth this image, Eph 4:24 Col 3:10 .

The male and female are both comprehended in the word man, as is expressed, Gen 1:27 , together with their posterity.

Over the cattle by which he understands either,

1. Both tame and wild beasts, the same word being used here in a differing sense from what it hath Gen 1:25 , as is frequent in Scripture. Or,

2. Tame beasts, which are particularly mentioned, because they are more under man’ s dominion than the wild beasts, and more fitted for man’ s use and benefit, though the other be not excluded, but comprehended under the former, as the more famous kind, as is usual in Scriptures and other authors.

Over all the earth over all other creatures and productions of the earth, and over the earth itself, to manage it as they see fit for their own comfort and advantage.

Haydock: Gen 1:26

Let us make man to our image. This image of God in man, is not in the body, but in the soul; which is a spiritual substance, endued with understanding and free-will. God speaketh here in the plural number, to insinuate the plurality of persons in the Deity. (Challoner) ---

Some of the ancient Jews maintained that God here addressed his council, the Angels; but is it probable that he should communicate to them the title of Creator, and a perfect similitude with himself? (Calmet) ---

Man is possessed of many prerogatives above all other creatures of this visible world: his soul gives him a sort of equality with the Angels; and though his body be taken from the earth, like the brutes, yet even here the beautiful construction, the head erect and looking towards heaven, &c. makes St. Augustine observe, an air of majesty in the human body, which raises man above all terrestrial animals, and brings him in some measure near to the Divinity. As Jesus assumed our human nature, we may assert, that we bear a resemblance to God both in soul and body. Tertullian (de Resur. 5.) says, "Thus that slime, putting on already the image of Christ, who would come in the flesh, was not only the work of God, but also a pledge." (Haydock) See St. Bernard on Psalm xcix. (Worthington)

Gill: Gen 1:26

And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness,.... These words are directed not to the earth, out of which man was made, as consulting with it, and to be assisting in the formation of man, as Moses Gerundensis, and other Jewish writers ^f, which is wretchedly stupid; nor to the angels, as the Targum of Jonathan, Jarchi, and others, who are not of God's privy council, nor were concerned in any part of the creation, and much less in the more noble part of it: nor are the words spoken after the manner of kings, as Saadiah, using the plural number as expressive of honour and majesty; since such a way of speaking did not obtain very early, not even till the close of the Old Testament: but they are spoken by God the Father to the Son and Holy Ghost, who were each of them concerned in the creation of all things, and particularly of man: hence we read of divine Creators and Makers in the plural number, Job 35:10 and Philo the Jew acknowledges that these words declare a plurality, and are expressive of others, being co-workers with God in creation ^g: and man being the principal part of the creation, and for the sake of whom the world, and all things in it were made, and which being finished, he is introduced into it as into an house ready prepared and furnished for him; a consultation is held among the divine Persons about the formation of him; not because of any difficulty attending it, but as expressive of his honour and dignity; it being proposed he should be made not in the likeness of any of the creatures already made, but as near as could be in the likeness and image of God. The Jews sometimes say, that Adam and Eve were created in the likeness of the holy blessed God, and his Shechinah ^h; and they also speak ⁱ of Adam Kadmon the ancient Adam, as the cause of causes, of whom it is said, "I was as one brought up with him (or an artificer with him), Pro 8:30 and to this ancient Adam he said, "let us make man in our image, after our likeness": and again, "let us make man"; to whom did he say this? the cause of causes said to "`jod', he, `vau', he"; that is, to Jehovah, which is in the midst of the ten numerations. What are the ten numerations? "`aleph', he, `jod', he", that is, אהיה, "I am that I am, Exo 3:14 and he that says let us make, is Jehovah; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God: and three jods ייי testify concerning him, that there is none above him, nor any below him, but he is in the middle:

and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air; that is, to catch them, and eat them; though in the after grant of food to man, no mention as yet is made of any other meat than the herbs and fruits of the earth; yet what can this dominion over fish and fowl signify, unless it be a power to feed upon them? It may be observed, that the plural number is used, "let them", which shows that the name "man" is general in the preceding clause, and includes male and female, as we find by the following verse man was created:

and over the cattle, and over all the earth; over the tame creatures, either for food, or clothing, or carriage, or for all of them, some of them for one thing, and some for another; and over all the wild beasts of the earth, which seem to be meant by the phrase, "over all the earth"; that is, over all the beasts of the earth, as appears by comparing it with Gen 1:24 so as to keep them in awe, and keep them off from doing them any damage:

and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; to make use of it as should seem convenient for them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Gen 1:26

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

² tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (’adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1-11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ (אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5-7 and in 9:5-6.

³ tn The two prepositions translated “in” and “according to” have overlapping fields of meaning and in this context seem to be virtually equivalent. In 5:3 they are reversed with the two words. The word צֶלֶם (tselem, “image”) is used frequently of statues, models, and images – replicas (see D. J. A. Clines, “The Etymology of Hebrew selem,” JNSL 3 [1974]: 19-25). The word דְּמוּת (dÿmut, “likeness”) is an abstract noun; its verbal root means “to be like; to resemble.” In the Book of Genesis the two terms describe human beings who in some way reflect the form and the function of the creator. The form is more likely stressing the spiritual rather than the physical. The “image of God” would be the God-given mental and spiritual capacities that enable people to relate to God and to serve him by ruling over the created order as his earthly vice-regents.

sn In our image, after our likeness. Similar language is used in the instructions for building the tabernacle. Moses was told to make it “according to the pattern” he was shown on the mount (Exod 25:9, 10). Was he shown a form, a replica, of the spiritual sanctuary in the heavenly places? In any case, what was produced on earth functioned as the heavenly sanctuary does, but with limitations.

⁴ tn Following the cohortative (“let us make”), the prefixed verb form with vav (ו) conjunctive indicates purpose/result (see Gen 19:20; 34:23; 2 Sam 3:21). God’s purpose in giving humankind his image is that they might rule the created order on behalf of the heavenly king and his royal court. So the divine image, however it is defined, gives humankind the capacity and/or authority to rule over creation.

⁵ tc The MT reads “earth”; the Syriac reads “wild animals” (cf. NRSV).

⁶ tn Heb “creep” (also in v. 28).

Geneva Bible: Gen 1:26

And God said, ^{( s )} Let us make man in our ^{( t )} image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

^{( s )} God commanded the water and the earth to bring forth other creatures: but of man he says, "Let us make..." signifying that God takes counsel with his wisdom and virtue purposing to make an excellent work above all the rest of his creation.

^{( t )} This image and likeness of God in man is expounded in (Eph 4:24) where it is written that man was created after God in righteousness and true holiness meaning by these two words, all perfection, as wisdom, truth, innocency, power, etc.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Gen 1:1-31

1 God creates heaven and earth;

3 the light;

6 the firmament;

9 separates the dry land;

14 forms the sun, moon, and stars;

20 fishes and fowls;

24 cattle, wild beasts, and creeping things;

26 creates man in his own image, blesses him;

29 grants the fruits of the earth for food.

Maclaren: Gen 1:1-26

Genesis 1:1-26; 2:3

We are not to look to Genesis for a scientific cosmogony, and are not to be disturbed by physicists' criticisms on it as such. Its purpose is quite another, and far more important; namely, to imprint deep and ineffaceable the conviction that the one God created all things. Nor must it be forgotten that this vision of creation was given to people ignorant of natural science, and prong to fall back into surrounding idolatry. The comparison of the creation narratives in Genesis with the cuneiform tablets, with which they evidently are most closely connected, has for its most important result the demonstration of the infinite elevation above their monstrosities and puerility's, of this solemn, steadfast attribution of the creative act to the one God. Here we can only draw out in brief the main points which the narrative brings into prominence.

1. The Revelation Which It Gives Is The Truth,

Obscured to all other men when it was given, that one God in the beginning created the heaven and the earth.' That solemn utterance is the keynote of the whole. The rest but expands it. It was a challenge and a denial for all the beliefs of the nations, the truth of which Israel was the champion and missionary. It swept the heavens and earth clear of the crowd of gods, and showed the One enthroned above, and operative in, all things. We can scarcely estimate the grandeur, the emancipating power, the all-uniting force, of that utterance. It is a worn commonplace to us. It was a strange, thrilling novelty when it was written at the head of this narrative. Then it was in sharp opposition to beliefs that have long been dead to us; but it is still a protest against some living errors. Physical science has not spoken the final word when it has shown us how things came to be as they are. There remains the deeper question, What, or who, originated and guided the processes? And the only answer is the ancient declaration, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'

2. Teaching As To The Mode Of Creation.

The record is as emphatic and as unique in its teaching as to the mode of creation: God said … and it was so.' That lifts us above all the poor childish myths of the nations, some of them disgusting. many of them absurd, all of them unworthy. There was no other agency than the putting forth of the divine will. The speech of God is but a symbol of the flashing forth of His will. To us Christians the antique phrase suggests a fulness of meaning not inherent in it, for we have learned to believe that all things were made by Him' whose name is The Word of God'; but, apart from that, the representation here is sublime. He spake, and it was done'; that is the sign-manual of Deity.

3. The Completeness Of Creation Is Emphasized.

We note, not only the recurrent and it was so,' which declares the perfect correspondence of the result with the divine intention, but also the recurring' God saw that it was good.' His ideals are always realized. The divine artist never finds that the embodiment of His thought falls short of His thought.

What act is all its thought had been?What will but felt the fleshly screen?'

But He has no hindrances nor incompleteness in His creative work, and the very Sabbath rest with which the narrative closes symbolizes, not His need of repose, but His perfect accomplishment of His purpose. God ceases from His works because the works were finished,' and He saw that all was very good.

4. The Progressiveness Of The Creative Process Is Brought Into Strong Relief.

The work of the first four days is the preparation of the dwelling-place for the living creatures who are afterwards created to inhabit it. How far the details of these days' work coincide with the order as science has made it out, we are not careful to ask here. The primeval chaos, the separation of the waters above from the waters beneath, the emergence of the land, the beginning of vegetation there, the shining out of the sun as the dense mists cleared, all find confirmation even in modern theories of evolution. But the intention of the whole is much rather to teach that, though the simple utterance of the divine will was the agent of creation, the manner of it was not a sudden calling of the world, as men know it, into being, but majestic, slow advance by stages, each of which rested on the preceding. To apply the old distinction between justification and sanctification, creation was a work, not an act. The Divine Workman, who is always patient, worked slowly then as He does now. Not at a leap, but by deliberate steps, the divine ideal attains realization.

5. The Creation Of Living Creatures On The Fourth And Fifth Days.

The creation of living creatures on the fourth and fifth days is so arranged as to lead up to the creation of man as the climax. On the fifth day sea and air are peopled, and their denizens blessed,' for the equal divine love holds every living thing to its heart. On the sixth day the earth is replenished with living creatures. Then, last of all, comes man, the apex of creation. Obviously the purpose of the whole is to concentrate the light on man; and it is a matter of no importance whether the narrative is correct according to zoology, or not. What it says is that God made all the universe, that He prepared the earth for the delight of living creatures, that the happy birds that soar and sing, and the dumb creatures that move through the paths of the seas, and the beasts of the earth, are all His creating, and that man is linked to them, being made on the same day as the latter, and by the same word, but that between man and them all there is a gulf, since he is made in the divine image. That image implies personality, the consciousness of self, the power to say I,' as well as purity. The transition from the work of the first four days to that of creating living things must have had a break No theory has been able to bridge the chasm without admitting a divine act introducing the new element of life, and none has been able to bridge the gulf between the animal and human consciousness without admitting a divine act introducing the image of God' into the nature common to animal and man. Three facts as to humanity are thrown up into prominence: its possession of the image of God, the equality and eternal interdependence of the sexes, and the lordship over all creatures. Mark especially the remarkable wording of Gen. 1:27: created He him; male and female created He them.' So neither is the woman without the man, nor the man without the woman.' Each is maimed apart from the other. Both stand side by side, on one level before God. The germ of the most advanced' doctrines of the relations of the sexes is hidden here.

MHCC: Gen 1:26-28

Man was made last of all the creatures: this was both an honour and a favour to him. Yet man was made the same day that the beasts were; his body was made of the same earth with theirs; and while he is in the body, he inhabits the same earth with them. God forbid that by indulging the body, and the desires of it, we should make ourselves like the beasts that perish! Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him. God said, " Let us make man." Man, when he was made, was to glorify the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. It is the soul of man that especially bears God's image. Man was made upright, Ecc 7:29. His understanding saw Divine things clearly and truly; there were no errors or mistakes in his knowledge; his will consented at once, and in all things, to the will of God. His affections were all regular, and he had no bad appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents in having the image of God upon them. But how is this image of God upon man defaced! May the Lord renew it upon our souls by his grace!

Matthew Henry: Gen 1:26-28

We have here the second part of the sixth day's work, the creation of man, which we are, in a special manner, concerned to take notice of, that we may know ourselves. Observe,

I. That man was made last of all the creatures, that it might not be suspected that he had been, any way, a helper to God in the creation of the world: that question must be for ever humbling and mortifying to him, Where wast thou, or any of thy kind, when I laid the foundations of the earth? Job 38:4. Yet it was both an honour and a favour to him that he was made last: an honour, for the method of the creation was to advance from that which was less perfect to that which was more so; and a favour, for it was not fit he should be lodged in the palace designed for him till it was completely fitted up and furnished for his reception. Man, as soon as he was made, had the whole visible creation before him, both to contemplate and to take the comfort of. Man was made the same day that the beasts were, because his body was made of the same earth with theirs; and, while he is in the body, he inhabits the same earth with them. God forbid that by indulging the body and the desires of it we should make ourselves like the beasts that perish!

II. That man's creation was a more signal and immediate act of divine wisdom and power than that of the other creatures. The narrative of it is introduced with something of solemnity, and a manifest distinction from the rest. Hitherto, it had been said, "Let there be light,"and "Let there be a firmament,"and "Let the earth, or waters, bring forth"such a thing; but now the word of command is turned into a word of consultation, " Let us make man, for whose sake the rest of the creatures were made: this is a work we must take into our own hands."In the former he speaks as one having authority, in this as one having affection; for his delights were with the sons of men, Pro 8:31. It should seem as if this were the work which he longed to be at; as if he had said, "Having at last settled the preliminaries, let us now apply ourselves to the business, Let us make man. "Man was to be a creature different from all that had been hitherto made. Flesh and spirit, heaven and earth, must be put together in him, and he must be allied to both worlds. And therefore God himself not only undertakes to make him, but is pleased so to express himself as if he called a council to consider of the making of him: Let us make man. The three persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consult about it and concur in it, because man, when he was made, was to be dedicated and devoted to Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Into that great name we are, with good reason, baptized, for to that great name we owe our being. Let him rule man who said, Let us make man.

III. That man was made in God's image and after his likeness, two words to express the same thing and making each other the more expressive; image and likeness denote the likest image, the nearest resemblance of any of the visible creatures. Man was not made in the likeness of any creature that went before him, but in the likeness of his Creator; yet still between God and man there is an infinite distance. Christ only is the express image of God's person, as the Son of his Father, having the same nature. It is only some of God's honour that is put upon man, who is God's image only as the shadow in the glass, or the king's impress upon the coin. God's image upon man consists in these three things: - 1. In his nature and constitution, not those of his body (for God has not a body), but those of his soul. This honour indeed God has put upon the body of man, that the Word was made flesh, the Son of God was clothed with a body like ours and will shortly clothe ours with a glory like that of his. And this we may safely say, That he by whom God made the worlds, not only the great world, but man the little world, formed the human body, at the first, according to the platform he designed for himself in the fulness of time. But it is the soul, the great soul, of man, that does especially bear God's image. The soul is a spirit, an intelligent immortal spirit, an influencing active spirit, herein resembling God, the Father of Spirits, and the soul of the world. The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord. The soul of man, considered in its three noble faculties, understanding, will, and active power, is perhaps the brightest clearest looking-glass in nature, wherein to see God. 2. In his place and authority: Let us make man in our image, and let him have dominion. As he has the government of the inferior creatures, he is, as it were, God's representative, or viceroy, upon earth; they are not capable of fearing and serving God, therefore God has appointed them to fear and serve man. Yet his government of himself by the freedom of his will has in it more of God's image than his government of the creatures. 3. In his purity and rectitude. God's image upon man consists in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, Eph 4:24; Col 3:10. He was upright, Ecc 7:29. He had an habitual conformity of all his natural powers to the whole will of God. His understanding saw divine things clearly and truly, and there were no errors nor mistakes in his knowledge. His will complied readily and universally with the will of God, without reluctancy or resistance. His affections were all regular, and he had no inordinate appetites or passions. His thoughts were easily brought and fixed to the best subjects, and there was no vanity nor ungovernableness in them. All the inferior powers were subject to the dictates and directions of the superior, without any mutiny or rebellion. Thus holy, thus happy, were our first parents, in having the image of God upon them. And this honour, put upon man at first, is a good reason why we should not speak ill one of another (Jam 3:9), nor do ill one to another (Gen 9:6), and a good reason why we should not debase ourselves to the service of sin, and why we should devote ourselves to God's service. But how art thou fallen, O son of the morning! How is this image of God upon man defaced! How small are the remains of it, and how great the ruins of it! The Lord renew it upon our souls by his sanctifying grace!

IV. That man was made male and female, and blessed with the blessing of fruitfulness and increase. God said, Let us make man, and immediately it follows, So God created man; he performed what he resolved. With us saying and doing are two things; but they are not so with God. He created him male and female, Adam and Eve - Adam first, out of earth, and Eve out of his side, ch. 2. It should seem that of the rest of the creatures God made many couples, but of man did not he make one? (Mal 2:15), though he had the residue of the Spirit, whence Christ gathers an argument against divorce, Mat 19:4, Mat 19:5. Our first father, Adam, was confined to one wife; and, if he had put her away, there was no other for him to marry, which plainly intimated that the bond of marriage was not to be dissolved at pleasure. Angels were not made male and female, for they were not to propagate their kind (Luk 20:34-36); but man was made so, that the nature might be propagated and the race continued. Fires and candles, the luminaries of this lower world, because they waste, and go out, have a power to light more; but it is not so with the lights of heaven: stars do not kindle stars. God made but one male and one female, that all the nations of men might know themselves to be made of one blood, descendants from one common stock, and might thereby be induced to love one another. God, having made them capable of transmitting the nature they had received, said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Here he gave them, 1. A large inheritance: Replenish the earth; it is this that is bestowed upon the children of men. They were made to dwell upon the face of all the earth, Act 17:26. This is the place in which God has set man to be the servant of his providence in the government of the inferior creatures, and, as it were, the intelligence of this orb; to be the receiver of God's bounty, which other creatures live upon, but do not know it; to be likewise the collector of his praises in this lower world, and to pay them into the exchequer above (Psa 145:10); and, lastly, to be a probationer for a better state. 2. A numerous lasting family, to enjoy this inheritance, pronouncing a blessing upon them, in virtue of which their posterity should extend to the utmost corners of the earth and continue to the utmost period of time. Fruitfulness and increase depend upon the blessing of God: Obed-edom had eight sons, for God blessed him, 1Ch 26:5. It is owing to this blessing, which God commanded at first, that the race of mankind is still in being, and that as one generation passeth away another cometh.

V. That God gave to man, when he had made him, a dominion over the inferior creatures, over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air. Though man provides for neither, he has power over both, much more over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, which are more under his care and within his reach. God designed hereby to put an honour upon man, that he might find himself the more strongly obliged to bring honour to his Maker. This dominion is very much diminished and lost by the fall; yet God's providence continues so much of it to the children of men as is necessary to the safety and support of their lives, and God's grace has given to the saints a new and better title to the creature than that which was forfeited by sin; for all is ours if we are Christ's, 1Co 3:22.

Keil-Delitzsch: Gen 1:24-31

The Sixth Day. - Sea and air are filled with living creatures; and the word of God now goes forth to the earth, to produce living beings after their kind. These are divided into three classes. בּהמה , cattle, from בהם , mutum , brutum esse , generally denotes the larger domesticated quadrupeds (e.g., Gen 47:18; Exo 13:12, etc.), but occasionally the larger land animals as a whole. רמשׂ ( the creeping ) embraces the smaller land animals, which move either without feet, or with feet that are scarcely perceptible, viz., reptiles, insects, and worms. In Gen 1:25 they are distinguished from the race of water reptiles by the term האדמה ארץ חיתו (the old form of the construct state, for הארץ חיּת ), the beast of the earth , i.e., the freely roving wild animals.

" After its kind: "this refers to all three classes of living creatures, each of which had its peculiar species; consequently in Gen 1:25, where the word of God is fulfilled, it is repeated with every class. This act of creation, too, like all that precede it, is shown by the divine word "good"to be in accordance with the will of God. But the blessing pronounced is omitted, the author hastening to the account of the creation of man, in which the work of creation culminated. The creation of man does not take place through a word addressed by God to the earth, but as the result of the divine decree, "We will make man in Our image, after our likeness," which proclaims at the very outset the distinction and pre-eminence of man above all the other creatures of the earth. The plural "We"was regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity: modern commentators, on the contrary, regard it either as pluralis majestatis ; or as an address by God to Himself, the subject and object being identical; or as communicative , an address to the spirits or angels who stand around the Deity and constitute His council. The last is Philo's explanation: διαλέγεται ὁ τῶν ὁ͂λων πατὴρ ταῖς ἑαυτο͂υ δυνάεσιν ( δυνάμεις = angels). But although such passages as 1Ki 22:19., Psa 89:8, and Dan 10, show that God, as King and Judge of the world, is surrounded by heavenly hosts, who stand around His throne and execute His commands, the last interpretation founders upon this rock: either it assumes without sufficient scriptural authority, and in fact in opposition to such distinct passages as Gen 2:7, Gen 2:22; Isa 40:13 seq., Gen 44:24, that the spirits took part in the creation of man; or it reduces the plural to an empty phrase, inasmuch as God is made to summon the angels to cooperate in the creation of man, and then, instead of employing them, is represented as carrying out the work alone. Moreover, this view is irreconcilable with the words "in our image, after our likeness;"since man was created in the image of God alone (Gen 1:27; Gen 5:1), and not in the image of either the angels, or God and the angels. A likeness to the angels cannot be inferred from Heb 2:7, or from Luk 20:36. Just as little ground is there for regarding the plural here and in other passages (Gen 3:22; Gen 11:7; Isa 6:8; Isa 41:22) as reflective, an appeal to self; since the singular is employed in such cases as these, even where God Himself is preparing for any particular work (cf. Gen 2:18; Psa 12:5; Isa 33:10). No other explanation is left, therefore, than to regard it as pluralis majestatis , - an interpretation which comprehends in its deepest and most intensive form (God speaking of Himself and with Himself in the plural number, not reverentiae causa, but with reference to the fullness of the divine powers and essences which He possesses) the truth that lies at the foundation of the trinitarian view, viz., that the potencies concentrated in the absolute Divine Being are something more than powers and attributes of God; that they are hypostases , which in the further course of the revelation of God in His kingdom appeared with more and more distinctness as persons of the Divine Being. On the words " in our image, after our likeness "modern commentators have correctly observed, that there is no foundation for the distinction drawn by the Greek, and after them by many of the Latin Fathers, between εἰκών ( imago ) and ὁμοίωσις ( similitudo ), the former of which they supposed to represent the physical aspect of the likeness to God, the latter the ethical; but that, on the contrary, the older Lutheran theologians were correct in stating that the two words are synonymous, and are merely combined to add intensity to the thought: "an image which is like Us"( Luther ); since it is no more possible to discover a sharp or well-defined distinction in the ordinary use of the words between צלם and דּמוּת , than between בּ and כּ . צלם , from צל , lit., a shadow, hence sketch, outline, differs no more from דּמוּת , likeness, portrait, copy, than the German words Umriss or Abriss (outline or sketch) from Bild or Abbild (likeness, copy). בּ and כּ are also equally interchangeable, as we may see from a comparison of this verse with Gen 5:1 and Gen 5:3. (Compare also Lev 6:4 with Lev 27:12, and for the use of בּ to denote a norm, or sample, Exo 25:40; Exo 30:32, Exo 30:37, etc.) There is more difficulty in deciding in what the likeness to God consisted. Certainly not in the bodily form, the upright position, or commanding aspect of the man, since God has no bodily form, and the man's body was formed from the dust of the ground; nor in the dominion of man over nature, for this is unquestionably ascribed to man simply as the consequence or effluence of his likeness to God. Man is the image of God by virtue of his spiritual nature. of the breath of God by which the being, formed from the dust of the earth, became a living soul.

(Note: "The breath of God became the soul of man; the soul of man therefore is nothing but the breath of God. The rest of the world exists through the word of God; man through His own peculiar breath. This breath is the seal and pledge of our relation to God, of our godlike dignity; whereas the breath breathed into the animals is nothing but the common breath, the life-wind of nature, which is moving everywhere, and only appears in the animal fixed and bound into a certain independence and individuality, so that the animal soul is nothing but a nature-soul individualized into certain, though still material spirituality."- Ziegler .)

The image of God consists, therefore, in the spiritual personality of man, though not merely in unity of self-consciousness and self-determination, or in the fact that man was created a consciously free Ego ; for personality is merely the basis and form of the divine likeness, not its real essence. This consists rather in the fact, that the man endowed with free self-conscious personality possesses, in his spiritual as well as corporeal nature, a creaturely copy of the holiness and blessedness of the divine life. This concrete essence of the divine likeness was shattered by sin; and it is only through Christ, the brightness of the glory of God and the expression of His essence (Heb 1:3), that our nature is transformed into the image of God again (Col 3:10; Eph 4:24).

" And they ( אדם , a generic term for men ) shall have dominion over the fish ,"etc. There is something striking in the introduction of the expression "and over all the earth," after the different races of animals have been mentioned, especially as the list of races appears to be proceeded with afterwards. If this appearance were actually the fact, it would be impossible to escape the conclusion that the text is faulty, and that חיּת has fallen out; so that the reading should be, "and over all the wild beasts of the earth," as the Syriac has it. But as the identity of "every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth "( הארץ ) with "every thing that creepeth upon the ground "( האדמה ) in Gen 1:25 is not absolutely certain; on the contrary, the change in expression indicates a difference of meaning; and as the Masoretic text is supported by the oldest critical authorities (lxx, Sam ., Onk .), the Syriac rendering must be dismissed as nothing more than a conjecture, and the Masoretic text be understood in the following manner. The author passes on from the cattle to the entire earth, and embraces all the animal creation in the expression, "every moving thing ( כל־הרמשׂ ) that moveth upon the earth,"just as in Gen 1:28, "every living thing הרמשׂת upon the earth."According to this, God determined to give to the man about to be created in His likeness the supremacy, not only over the animal world, but over the earth itself; and this agrees with the blessing in Gen 1:28, where the newly created man is exhorted to replenish the earth and subdue it; whereas, according to the conjecture of the Syriac, the subjugation of the earth by man would be omitted from the divine decree. - Gen 1:27. In the account of the accomplishment of the divine purpose the words swell into a jubilant song, so that we meet here for the first time with a parallelismus membrorum , the creation of man being celebrated in three parallel clauses. The distinction drawn between אתו (in the image of God created He him) and אתם (as man and woman created He them ) must not be overlooked. The word אתם , which indicates that God created the man and woman as two human beings, completely overthrows the idea that man was at first androgynous (cf. Gen 2:18.). By the blessing in Gen 1:28, God not only confers upon man the power to multiply and fill the earth, as upon the beasts in Gen 1:22, but also gives him dominion over the earth and every beast. In conclusion, the food of both man and beast is pointed out in Gen 1:29, Gen 1:30, exclusively from the vegetable kingdom. Man is to eat of "every seed-bearing herb on the face of all the earth, and every tree on which there are fruits containing seed," consequently of the productions of both field and tree, in other words, of corn and fruit; the animals are to eat of "every green herb," i.e., of vegetables or green plants, and grass.

From this it follows, that, according to the creative will of God, men were not to slaughter animals for food, nor were animals to prey upon one another; consequently, that the fact which now prevails universally in nature and the order of the world, the violent and often painful destruction of life, is not a primary law of nature, nor a divine institution founded in the creation itself, but entered the world along with death at the fall of man, and became a necessity of nature through the curse of sin. It was not till after the flood, that men received authority from God to employ the flesh of animals as well as the green herb as food (Gen 9:3); and the fact that, according to the biblical view, no carnivorous animals existed at the first, may be inferred from the prophetic announcements in Isa 11:6-8; Isa 65:25, where the cessation of sin and the complete transformation of the world into the kingdom of God are described as being accompanied by the cessation of slaughter and the eating of flesh, even in the case of the animal kingdom. With this the legends of the heathen world respecting the golden age of the past, and its return at the end of time, also correspond (cf. Gesenius on Isa 11:6-8). It is true that objections have been raised by natural historians to this testimony of Scripture, but without scientific ground. For although at the present time man is fitted by his teeth and alimentary canal for the combination of vegetable and animal food; and although the law of mutual destruction so thoroughly pervades the whole animal kingdom, that not only is the life of one sustained by the death of another, but "as the graminivorous animals check the overgrowth of the vegetable kingdom, so the excessive increase of the former is restricted by the beasts of prey, and of these again by the destructive implements of man;"and although, again, not only beasts of prey, but evident symptoms of disease are met with among the fossil remains of the aboriginal animals: all these facts furnish no proof that the human and animal races were originally constituted for death and destruction, or that disease and slaughter are older than the fall. For, to reply to the last objection first, geology has offered no conclusive evidence of its doctrine, that the fossil remains of beasts of prey and bones with marks of disease belong to a pre-Adamite period, but has merely inferred it from the hypothesis already mentioned of successive periods of creation. Again, as even in the present order of nature the excessive increase of the vegetable kingdom is restrained, not merely by the graminivorous animals, but also by the death of the plants themselves through the exhaustion of their vital powers; so the wisdom of the Creator could easily have set bounds to the excessive increase of the animal world, without requiring the help of huntsmen and beasts of prey, since many animals even now lose their lives by natural means, without being slain by men or eaten by beasts of prey. The teaching of Scripture, that death entered the world through sin, merely proves that the human race was created for eternal life, but by no means necessitates the assumption that the animals were also created for endless existence. As the earth produced them at the creative word of God, the different individuals and generations would also have passed away and returned to the bosom of the earth, without violent destruction by the claws of animals or the hand of man, as soon as they had fulfilled the purpose of their existence. The decay of animals is a law of nature established in the creation itself, and not a consequence of sin, or an effect of the death brought into the world by the sin of man. At the same time, it was so far involved in the effects of the fall, that the natural decay of the different animals was changed into a painful death or violent end. Although in the animal kingdom, as it at present exists, many varieties are so organized that they live exclusively upon the flesh of other animals, which they kill and devour; this by no means necessitates the conclusion, that the carnivorous beasts of prey were created after the fall, or the assumption that they were originally intended to feed upon flesh, and organized accordingly. If, in consequence of the curse pronounced upon the earth after the sin of man, who was appointed head and lord of nature, the whole creation was subjected to vanity and the bondage of corruption (Rom 8:20.); this subjection might have been accompanied by a change in the organization of the animals, though natural science, which is based upon the observation and combination of things empirically discovered, could neither demonstrate the fact nor explain the process. And if natural science cannot boast that in any one of its many branches it has discovered all the phenomena connected with the animal and human organism of the existing world, how could it pretend to determine or limit the changes through which this organism may have passed in the course of thousands of years?

The creation of man and his installation as ruler on the earth brought the creation of all earthly beings to a close (Gen 1:31). God saw His work, and behold it was all very good ; i.e., everything perfect in its kind, so that every creature might reach the goal appointed by the Creator, and accomplish the purpose of its existence. By the application of the term "good"to everything that God made, and the repetition of the word with the emphasis "very"at the close of the whole creation, the existence of anything evil in the creation of God is absolutely denied, and the hypothesis entirely refuted, that the six days' work merely subdued and fettered an ungodly, evil principle, which had already forced its way into it. The sixth day, as being the last, is distinguished above all the rest by the article - השּׁשּׁי יום " a day, the sixth "(Gesenius, §111, 2 a ).

Constable: Gen 1:1--11:27

I. PRIMEVAL EVENTS 1:1--11:26

Chapters 1-11 provide an introduction to the Book of Genesis, the Pentateuch, and the whole Bible.

"What we find in chaps. 1-11 is the divine initiation of blessing, which is compromised by human sin followed by gracious preservation of the promise: blessing-sin-grace."¹⁵

"His [Moses'] theological perspective can be summarized in two points. First, the author intends to draw a line connecting the God of the Fathers and the God of the Sinai covenant with the God who created the world. Second, the author intends to show that the call of the patriarchs and the Sinai covenant have as their ultimate goal the reestablishment of God's original purpose in Creation."¹⁶

"Evidently an interest in the way in which the world and humankind came into existence and in the history of the earliest times was characteristic of the ancient civilized world. At any rate, various origin stories' or creation myths' about the activities of a variety of creator-gods are still extant in what remains of the literatures of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. But the combination of such accounts with narratives about more recent times testifies to an additional motivation. The aim of such works was to give their readers--or to strengthen--a sense of national or ethnic identity, particularly at a time when there was for some reason a degree of uncertainty or hesitation about this. . . .

"The placing of Gen. 1-11 as a prologue to the main body of the work also afforded the opportunity to express certain distinctively Israelite articles of faith which it would have been more difficult to introduce into the later narratives, particularly with regard to the doctrine of God."¹⁷

"Gen 1-11 as we read it is a commentary, often highly critical, on ideas current in the ancient world about the natural and supernatural world. Both individual stories as well as the final completed work seem to be a polemic against many of the commonly received notions about the gods and man. But the clear polemical thrust of Gen 1-11 must not obscure the fact that at certain points biblical and extrabiblical thought are in clear agreement. Indeed Genesis and the ancient Near East probably have more in common with each other than either has with modern secular thought."¹⁸

Constable: Gen 1:1--2:4

A. The story of creation 1:1-2:3

God created the entire universe and then formed and filled it in six days. He brought order and fullness for humankind to enjoy and to rule over. He then blessed and set apart the seventh day as a memorial of His creative work.¹⁹ The God of Israel, the deliverer of His people, is the creator of all that exists.

". . . Gen 1:1-2:4a is clearly recognizable as a unit of historical narrative. It has an introduction (1:1), a body (1:2-2:3) and a conclusion (2:4a)."²⁰

"The creation account is theocentric, not creature centered. Its purpose is to glorify the Creator by magnifying him through the majesty of the created order. The passage is doxological as well as didactic, hymnic as well as history. God' is the grammatical subject of the first sentence (1:1) and continues as the thematic subject throughout the account."²¹

Constable: Gen 1:3-31

3. The six days of creation 1:3-31

Cosmic order consists of clearly demarcating the various elements of the universe. God divided light and darkness, waters and dry land, the world above from the world below. Likewise people should maintain the other divisions in the universe.⁵⁴ In three days God made the uninhabitable earth productive, and in three more days He filled the uninhabited earth with life.

Constable: Gen 1:24-31

The sixth day 1:24-31

1:24-25 "Cattle" probably refers to animals that man could tame and "beasts" to wild animals.

What happened to the dinosaurs? Conservative Bible interpreters generally believe they existed but became extinct before the Flood or probably after it.

"Before the Flood, dinosaurs and man lived together on our planet. Extinction of the great marine reptiles, along with the majority of all other types of sea creature, would have been caused by the violent upheavals of the Flood, many being buried and preserved as fossils."⁸⁰

1:26-27 "Us" is probably a plural of self-deliberation (cf. 11:7; Ps. 2:3), though possibly God was addressing His heavenly court (cf. Isa. 6:8). This word involves "in germ" the doctrine of the Trinity. However, we should not use it as a formal proof of the Trinity since this reference by itself does not prove that one God exists in three persons.⁸¹

"Although the Christian Trinity cannot be derived solely from the use of the plural, a plurality within the unity of the Godhead may be derived from the passage."⁸²

The theological controversy in Moses' day was not between trinitarianism and unitarianism but between one self-existent, sovereign, merciful God and many limited, capricious, often immoral gods.⁸³

"First, God's deliberation shows that he has decided to create man differently from any of the other creatures--in his image and likeness. God and man share a likeness that is not shared by other creatures. This apparently means that a relationship of close fellowship can exist between God and man that is unlike the relationship of God with the rest of his creation. What more important fact about God and man would be necessary if the covenant at Sinai were, in fact, to be a real relationship? Remove this and the covenant is unthinkable.

"Secondly, in Gen 1, man, the image bearer, is the object of God's blessing. According to the account of creation in Gen 1, the chief purpose of God in creating man is to bless him. The impact of this point on the remainder of the Pentateuch and the author's view of Sinai is clear: through Abraham, Israel and the covenant this blessing is to be restored to all mankind."⁸⁴

"Man" refers to mankind, not Adam (v. 27). "Them" indicates this generic significance. God created (cf. vv. 1, 2) mankind male and female. Adam was not androgynous (i.e., two individuals joined physically like Siamese twins) or bisexual (i.e., one individual possessing both male and female sexual organs). There is no basis for these bizarre ideas in the text.

"The image is found in the type of relationship that was designed to exist between male and female human beings, a relationship where the characteristics of each sex are valued and used to form a oneness in their identity and purpose. When God created human beings as male and female he formed them to exhibit a oneness in their relationship that would resemble the relationship of God and his heavenly court.

"By ruling as one, male and female fulfill the purpose of God for which they were created. United as one humanity, male and female are one with God and his heavenly court. And it is this unity between male and female, and between humanity and God, that is destroyed in the Fall described in Genesis 3."⁸⁵

As a husband and wife demonstrate oneness in their marriage they reflect the unity of the Godhead. Oneness means being in agreement with God's will and purposes. Oneness is essential for an orchestra, an athletic team, and a construction crew, as well as a family, to achieve a common purpose. Oneness in marriage is essential if husband and wife are to fulfill God's purposes for humankind. (Generally speaking women feel a marriage is working if they talk about it, but men feel it is working if they do not talk about it.)

God created man male and female as an expression of His own plurality: "Let us make man . . ." God's plurality anticipated man's plurality. The human relationship between man and woman thus reflects God's own relationship with Himself.⁸⁶

"Image" and "likeness" are essentially synonymous terms. Both indicate personality, moral, and spiritual qualities that God and man share (i.e., self-consciousness, God-consciousness, freedom, responsibility, speech, moral discernment, etc.) These distinguish humans from the animals. Some writers have called the image of God man's "spiritual personality."⁸⁷ In another sense man is the image of God (e.g., he rules and creates [procreates] as God does thus reflecting God).⁸⁸ The Fall marred but did not obliterate the image of God in man.

Does the image of God in man include his body?

"Most theologians have recognized that that [sic] we cannot interpret it [i.e., the phrase the image of God'] literally--that is, that man's physical being is in the image of God. Such an interpretation should be rejected for at least four reasons. In the first place, we are told elsewhere that God is a spirit (John 4:24; Isa. 31:3) and that he is ubiquitous (1 Kgs. 8:27). In the second place, a literal interpretation would leave us with all sorts of bizarre questions. If man's physical being is in the image of God we would immediately wonder what, if any organs, God possesses. Does he have sexual organs, and if so, which? Does he have the form of a man, or of a woman, or both? The very absurdity that God is a sexual being renders this interpretation highly unlikely. Thirdly, it seems unlikely that man's dignity above the rest of the animals (Gen. 9:5 f.; Jas. 3:7-9) is due to his slight physiological differences from them. Is it credible that animals may be killed but that man may not be killed because his stature is slightly different? Finally, a literal interpretation seems not only contradictory to the rest of Scripture, and unlikely, but also inappropriate, Gardener aptly observed: But our anatomy and physiology is demanded by our terrestrial habitat, and quite inappropriate to the one who inhabits eternity.' For these reasons, theologians have concluded that the statement in Genesis 1:26-28 must be metaphorical of man's spiritual or immaterial nature."⁸⁹

1:28 Note that God's blessing of man finds expression in terms of posterity that connotes the ideas of seed and life, two prominent themes as Genesis and the whole Bible unfold.⁹⁰

Interpreters have generally recognized the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" as commands to Adam and Eve (and later to Noah, 9:1) as the heads of the human race, not simply as individuals. That is, God has not charged every human being with begetting children. This seems clear from the fact that God has made many men and women incapable of reproducing.⁹¹ Consequently one should not appeal to this command as a support for the theory that God wants all people to bear as many children as they possibly can. This verse is a "cultural mandate," not an individual mandate.

"This command, like others in Scripture, carries with it an implicit promise that God will enable man to fulfill it."⁹²

Sexual union is God's ordained method of implementing His command to multiply descendants. Consequently sex is essentially good.

When God gave this command Adam and Eve were in an unfallen condition. Therefore the descendants they would produce would be godly. It is particularly a godly seed that God has charged the human race to raise up. Likewise He commanded Noah and his wife, who were both righteous, to be fruitful (9:1).

God did not make men or women emotionally, spiritually, or physically capable of raising children without a marriage partner. Consequently single parents struggle. As children observe both godly parents modeling a harmonious marriage they learn to appreciate their own sexual identity, the roles of husband and wife, and unconditional love. Unconditional love is necessary for a harmonious marriage.

"Rule and "subdue" imply a degree of sovereignty and control that God delegated to man over nature.⁹³

"The dominion which man enjoyed in the Garden of Eden was a direct consequence of the image of God in him."⁹⁴

For a married couple oneness in marriage is necessary to manage God's creation effectively.

"Our Christian proclamation of hope has antecedents in the theological soil of three divine programmatic expectations first heard in Genesis: (1) God will bless the human family with procreation and dominion (1:26-28); (2) he will achieve victory over mankind's enemy (3:15); and (3) he will bring about both through the offspring of Abraham (12:1-3)--namely, the one man Jesus Christ."⁹⁵

1:29-31 God gave man authority and responsibility to regulate nature and to advance civilization. Nature was to serve man, not vice versa. This does not give man the right to abuse nature, however.⁹⁶ Neither does it justify giving animals and plants the "rights" of human beings.

"Man is the climax of creation, and instead of man providing the gods with food, God provided the plants as food for man (1:29)."⁹⁷

Verse 29 suggests that man was originally a vegetarian. After the Flood, God told man that he could eat animals (9:3). The animals were evidently also herbivorous at first (v. 30).⁹⁸

Verses 27-31 are a general account of human creation. The more detailed account of the creation of Adam and Eve follows in 2:4-25. These two accounts do not necessarily reflect a two-document composition of the creation story, but they illustrate the writer's purpose. He wanted to emphasize the creation of humankind in the larger context of the cosmic creation.

There are three major viewpoints regarding the origin of man as recorded in 1:26-31; 2:7; and 2:21-25.

1. Evolution (both Darwinian and neo-Darwinian) asserts that all living organisms arose from a single, simple cell through a process that took millions of years. This first cell resulted from the accumulation of chemical and protein elements that came together because of unknown change factors over a long time period. This view contradicts Scripture, and it is not scientifically demonstrable.⁹⁹

2. Theistic evolution attempts to harmonize Scripture with scientific theories. It holds that God ordered and directed the evolutionary process. This view fails to explain specific statements in the text of Scripture; it accommodates the text to scientific theory. The major problem with this view is that it is not completely true to either science or Scripture but is inconsistent.¹⁰⁰

3. Special creation asserts that God produced the world and all life forms through a series of supernatural acts. Some special creationists believe He did this in a relatively brief period of time. Others, such as progressive creationists, believe the creation process took thousands of years. This view gives primacy to the text of Scripture and interprets it more literally, historically, and grammatically.¹⁰¹

Progressive creationism teaches that God created the universe in several acts of creation that time periods of indefinite duration separated from one another. The process of evolution was at work within these eras and accounts for the development of phyla, species, etc.¹⁰² The following quotation distinguishes theistic evolution from progressive creationism.

"I do not believe in theistic evolution. Theistic evolution means simply that God guided the evolutionary process so that it is not to be explained on a purely naturalistic basis. It assumes that all living things, including man, are biologically descended from a common ancestor. By contrast with theistic evolution, Scripture indicates that God made different basic kinds of beings and that all existing plants and animals are not descended from a common ancestor."¹⁰³

I do not believe that Scripture supports progressive creationism, as these notes will explain.

Guzik: Gen 1:1-31

Genesis 1 - The Account of God's Creation

A. Thoughts to begin with as we study the Bible: how do we approach the Bible?

1. We come to the Bible knowing there is a God.

a. The Bible does not make elaborate arguments for the existence of God. However, it does tell us how we can know God exists.

b. The Bible tells us we can know God exists because of what we see in creation.

i. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

ii. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

c. Though many seek to deny the effectiveness of the teleological argument for the existence of God (the understanding that there must be a purposeful intelligence Who created this world), it still remains unanswered by the atheist or the agnostic.

2. We come to the Bible believing it is the place where God has spoken to man, perfectly and comprehensively.

a. We believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

i. We can study God, but we can't put Him under a microscope. We can only confidently know about Him what He chooses to reveal to us. What He chooses to tell us is profitable and useful for us.

b. We believe the Bible must be understood literally, that is, as straightforward and true according to its literary context.

i. The Bible is much more than a book; it is a library of books, and books written in different literary forms. Some portions of the Bible give a historical account, others are poetic, and some are prophetic.

ii. We must understand the Bible literally according to its literary context. For example, when David wrote in Psalm 6:6 "All night I make my bed swim; I drench my couch with my tears," he used a poetic literary form. We understand he didn't literally mean he cried so much that he flooded his room and set his bed afloat.

iii. But when the Bible speaks in a historical narrative, we understand it as literal history, not as make-believe fables and myths meant only to tell a spiritual story.

iv. If we don't approach the Bible this way, then how will we approach it? Then it is all up to how anyone "feels" about the text. Though the teachings of Scripture may have infinite applications, they only have one true interpretation.

v. "The only proper way to interpret Genesis 1 is not to 'interpret' it at all. That is, we accept the fact that it was meant to say exactly what it says." (Morris)

c. We believe the Bible is not a book of science; yet where it touches science, it speaks the truth. After all, if the Bible is false in regard to science or other things that we can prove, then we cannot regard it as reliable in regard to spiritual matters that we cannot prove.

3. We come to the Bible knowing the copies we have in our hands are reliable duplicates (though not perfect duplicates) of the exact writings, which God perfectly inspired.

a. We can know this about the Old Testament by seeing the incredible care and reliability of the ancient Jewish scribes, demonstrated by the Dead Sea Scroll discoveries.

b. We can know this about the New Testament by knowing that because of earlier manuscripts, and a greater number of ancient manuscripts, the New Testament is by far the most reliable and exhaustively crosschecked ancient document we possess. Really, no more than one one-thousandth of the New Testament text is in question.

4. We come to the Bible knowing the unique importance of the Book of Genesis.

a. The Bible would be incomplete and perhaps incomprehensible without the Book of Genesis. It sets the stage for the entire drama of redemption, which unfolds in the rest of the book.

b. Almost all important doctrines and teachings have their foundation in the Book of Genesis: the doctrines of sin, redemption, justification, Jesus Christ, the personality and personhood of God, the kingdom of God, the fall, Israel, the promise of the Messiah, and more.

i. Genesis shows us the origins of the universe, order and complexity, the solar system, the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the origin of life, man, marriage, evil, language, government, culture, nations, religion. It is precisely because people have abandoned the truth of Genesis that society is in such disarray.

c. Genesis is important to the New Testament. There are at least 165 passages in Genesis either directly quoted or clearly referred to in the New Testament; many of these are quoted more than once, so there are at least 200 quotations or allusions to Genesis in the New Testament.

i. Jesus declared the importance of believing what Moses wrote: "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" (John 5:46-47) We can't say we believe in Jesus if we don't believe in the Book of Genesis.

d. "I beg and faithfully warn every pious Christian not to stumble at the simplicity of the language and stories that will often meet him there [in Genesis]. He should not doubt that, however simple they may seem, these are the very words, works, judgments, and deeds of the high majesty, power, and wisdom of God." (Luther, cited in Boice)

5. According to the New Testament, Moses wrote the Book of Genesis (Luke 24:27, Luke 24:44). We can surmise that he did this with help from actual written records from the past God had preserved. There are indicators of where these records begin and end. Note the phrasing of Genesis 2:4, 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10, 11:27, 25:12, 25:19, 36:1, 36:9, 37:2.

a. "Thus it is probable that the Book of Genesis was written originally by actual eyewitnesses of the events reported therein. Probably the original narratives were recorded on tables of stone or clay, in common practice of early times, and then handed down from father to son, finally coming into the possession of Moses. Moses perhaps selected the appropriate sections for compilation, inserted his own editorial additions and comments, and provided smooth transitions from one document to the next, with the final result being the Book of Genesis as we have received it." (Morris)

B. The first five days of creation.

1. The philosophical importance of knowing God as creator.

a. The philosopher Jean-Paul Sarte stated the essential problem of philosophy: there is something, instead of nothing. Why? Everything else in our life flows from the answer to this question.

i. If everything around us, including ourselves, is the result of random, meaningless occurrences apart from the work of a creating God, then it says something about who I am, and where I, and the whole universe, are going. Then the only dignity or honor we bestow upon men is pure sentimentality, because I don't have any more significance than an amoebae; then there is no greater law in the universe than survival of the fittest.

b. Some 100 years ago, there was a great German philosopher named Arthur Schopenhauer. By habit, he usually dressed like a vagrant, and one day he sat on a park bench in Berlin, deep in thought. His appearance made a policeman suspicious, so the policeman asked the philosopher "Who are you?" Schopenhauer answered, "I would to God I knew."

i. And the only way we can ever really find out who we are is from God. The best place to find out begins in Genesis.

c. There are many possible answers to the question of how everything came into being. Some say, once there was absolutely nothing, and now there is something. Others (including the Bible) say before there was anything created, there was a Personal Being.

d. One day, students in one of Albert Einstein's classes were saying they had decided there was no God. Einstein asked them how much of all the knowledge in the world they had among themselves collectively, as a class. The students discussed it for a while and decided they had 5% of all human knowledge among themselves. Einstein thought their estimate was a little generous, but he replied: "Is it possible God exists in the 95% you don't know?"

2. (1) A simple factual statement regarding God work as creator.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

a. God created: This summary statement will be detailed in the following verses, but the Bible simply and straightforwardly declares the world did not create itself or come about by chance. It was created by God, who, by definition, is eternal and has always been.

i. "It is no accident that God is the subject of the first sentence of the Bible, for this word dominates the whole chapter and catches the eye at every point of the page: it is used some thirty-five times in as many verses of the story." (Kidner)

ii. If you believe Genesis 1:1, you really have no problem believing the rest of the Bible.

b. God: This is the ancient Hebrew word Elohim. Grammatically it is a plural word used as if it were singular. The verbs and pronouns used with Elohim should be in the plural, but when Elohim refers to the LORD God the verbs and pronouns are in the singular.

i. Rabbi Simeon ben Joachi, commenting on the word Elohim: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." Clarke adds: "He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words."

ii. Leupold quoting Luther on Elohim: "But we have clear testimony that Moses aimed to indicate the Trinity or the three persons in the one divine nature."

c. God created the heavens: The simple fact of God's creation is even more amazing when we consider the greatness of God's universe.

i. A typical galaxy contains billions of individual stars; our galaxy alone (the Milky Way) contains 200 billion stars. Our galaxy is shaped like a giant spiral, rotating in space, with arms reaching out like a pinwheel, and our sun is one star on one arm of the pinwheel. It would take 250 million years for the pinwheel to make one full rotation. But this is only our galaxy; there are many other galaxies with many other shapes, including spirals, spherical clusters, and flat pancakes. The average distance between one galaxy and another is about 20 million trillion miles. Our closest galaxy is the Andromeda Galaxy, about 12 million trillion miles away.

ii. For every patch of sky the size of the moon, if you could look very deep, you would see about a million galaxies.

iii. But God did all this Himself: "Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand up together." (Isaiah 48:13)

iv. But God is bigger and greater than all His creation: Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, measured heaven with a span and calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? (Isaiah 40:12)

d. God created the heavens and the earth: If God created the heavens and the earth, then we must forever put away the idea that anything happens by chance. "Chance" merely describes the statistical probability of something happening. Chance itself can "do" nothing.

i. People who are otherwise intelligent often fall into this delusion. Jacques Monod, a biochemist, wrote: "Chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution."

ii. But assigning such power to "chance" is crazy. Chance has no power. For example, when a coin is flipped, the chance it will land "heads" is 50%; however, "chance" does not make it land heads. Whether or not it lands heads or tails is due to the strength with which the coin is flipped, the strength of air currents and air pressure as it flies through the air, where it is caught, and if it is flipped over once it is caught. Chance doesn't "do" anything but describe a probability.

iii. When Carl Sagan petitioned the federal government for a grant to search for intelligent life in outer space, how did he hope to find it? By using a super sensitive instrument to pick up radio signals from distant space. When he received those radio signals, he looked for order and pattern, which would demonstrate the signals were transmitted by intelligent life. In the same way, the order and pattern of the whole universe demonstrates that it was fashioned by intelligent life, not by "chance." Scientists detect "chance" in the radio signals constantly (in the form of unpatterned static), but it tells them nothing.

iv. Therefore, when someone says the universe or anything else came about by chance, they are extremely ignorant, superstitious, or just repeating a line they have heard before and have unthinkingly accepted.

e. God created: Inherent in the idea of God is that He is an intelligent designer. Only an intelligent designer could create a just-right universe, not "chance." Our universe is a just-right universe.

i. The universe has a just-right gravitational force.

· If it were larger, the stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and too unevenly to support life

· If it were smaller, the stars would remain so cool, nuclear fusion would never ignite, and there would be no heat and light

ii. The universe has a just-right speed of light.

· If it were larger, stars would send out too much light

· If it were smaller, stars would not send out enough light

iii. The universe has a just-right average distance between the stars.

· If it were larger, the heavy element density would be too thin for rocky planets to form, and there would only be gaseous planets

· If it were smaller, planetary orbits would become destabilized because of the gravitational pull from other stars

iv. The universe has a just-right polarity of the water molecule.

· If it were greater, the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too great for life to exist

· If it were smaller, the heat of fusion and vaporization would be too small for life's existence, liquid water would become too inferior a solvent for life chemistry to proceed, ice would not float, leading to a runaway freeze-up

v. We could conclude that there is no chance that such a universe could create itself, apart from an intelligent designer.

f. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth: This tells us that God used no pre-existing material to create the earth. The ancient Hebrew word bara (created) is specific. It means to create out of nothing, showing that that God created the world out of nothing, not out of Himself. God is separate from His creation. Unlike Eastern and pantheistic perceptions of god, the Bible teaches the universe could perish yet He would remain.

i. Men cannot "create" in the sense the term is used in Genesis 1:1. We can only "fashion" or "form" things out of existing material. The closest we come to creating is in reproducing ourselves sexually. This is perhaps one reason why Satan wants to pervert and destroy God's plan and standard for sexuality; it is deeply connected to our being made in the image of God.

ii. Ginzberg has a fascinating legend on how the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet all wanted to begin the Bible, but in the end, the letter "bet" was allowed, because he said, "O Lord of the world! May it be Thy will to create Thy world through me, seeing that all the dwellers of the world give praise daily unto Thee through me, as it is said, Blessed be the Lord forever. Amen, and Amen." So, the Hebrew Book of Genesis begins, "Bereshit God created the heaven and the earth."

3. The Bible's clear teaching of God's creation and the uncertainty of modern science.

a. Some scientists often act certain in their knowledge about the origin of the universe, but their constant "revolutionary discoveries" prove they are really just groping in the dark. Honest scientists, those not puffed up with a proud arrogance, will admit this.

b. Some scientists may be arrogant when it comes to what can be known of the universe, but we do not have to accept such arrogance. The constantly changing scene of science is illustrated in a sidebar to a science article in the Los Angeles Times titled, "The Big Bang and What Followed It":

In the beginning, there was light - but also quarks and electrons. The Big Bang spewed out energy that condensed into radiation and particles. The quarks joined into protons and careened wildly about in a hot, dense, glowing goop as opaque as a star.

Time (300,000 years or so) passed. Space expanded. Matter cooled. The electrons and protons, electrically irresistible to each other, merged into neutral hydrogen, and from this marriage, the first atoms were born. Space between atoms became as transparent as crystal - pretty much the way it looks today.

The rest, as they say, is history. Atoms merged to form dust clouds, which grew into stars and galaxies and clusters. Stars used up their nuclear fuel, collapsed and exploded in recurring cycles, fusing elements in the process.

Occasionally, a stable planet condensed around a second-generation star, where carbon-based life forms grew into, among other things, cosmologists, the better to contemplate it all.

c. In 1913, an astronomer in Arizona discovered stars appeared to be moving away from the earth at tremendous speeds, up to two million miles an hour. In 1919, another American astronomer named Edwin Hubble used this information to develop a theory of an expanding universe, which is the foundation of the "Big Bang" idea. Early on, other scientists discovered background radiation from all parts of the universe, which they suppose is the leftover "noise" from the first great explosion. But scientists are really not much closer at all to knowing anything about this instant beginning to the universe.

d. In fact, the more they find out, the more they discover how much they don't know. Astrophysicists are faced with another challenge: trying to figure out what "dark matter" is. Dark matter is a term scientists use to explain an enormous apparent excess of gravity in the universe. Dark matter may make up 99.9% of everything in the universe, but no one knows what it is. Though suggestions are offered, they are only suggestions. David O. Caldwell of the University of California at Santa Barbara says, "When it comes to dark matter, the only thing that we are convinced of at the moment is that it's there." But actually, scientists cannot even agree on that! Michael S. Turner, an astrophysics professor at the University of Chicago, said: "It's very humbling. The origin, composition, energy and mass of the most common matter in the entire universe is unknown."

e. This uncertainty is shown in a March 6, 1995, front-page article in the Los Angeles Times headlined, "Rethinking Cosmic Questions":

Ever since people first stood up amid the tall grasses and looked about the world in wonder, religion, mythology and science all have struggled to explain how the world came to be. But when it comes to creation stories, few can hold a candle to the tale cooked up by modern cosmologists.

Dialing back the cosmic clock about 15 billion years, they depict a time before time, a place before space existed. Out of nothing and nowhere, all the energy and matter in the universe exploded into existence in an event that came to be called . . . the Big Bang.

While masterfully spinning ideas out of faith and equations, cosmologists were pitifully short on data. They could not see or measure the phenomena they were trying to explain. "Twenty-five years ago, cosmology was very close to religion," said physicist Roberto Peccei of UCLA.

Experimental cosmologist Chris Stubbs of the University of Washington, "You've got these things that are ridiculously far away and ridiculously faint, and . . . you've got to make sense out of it."

"At times, I miss the old days when I could just work in my office and not worry that someone would disprove my theory in a few weeks" said Rocky Kold of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois.

"Many of us who have worked in this field for decades still worry that the whole house of cards is going to collapse," said Princeton cosmologist David Wilkinson.

Recent observations, for example, suggest that the universe is younger than its oldest stars - an enigma that has astronomers scrambling for explanations.

The biggest mystery, however, strikes even scientists as so astonishing as to be absurd: 99% of the universe, according to some estimates, is made of totally unfamiliar stuff. Commonly known as dark matter, it is actually mostly transparent; it neither shines nor casts a shadow. Whatever it is, it is not like us . . . According to some theories, it also is the glue that holds the universe together, and keeps it from expanding forever into endless space.

f. "The study of human origins seems to be a field in which each discovery raises the debate to a more sophisticated level of uncertainty." (Christopher Stringer of the Natural Museum of London)

4. One may doubt the ability of many modern scientists to answer the question of origins. But that does not automatically give us confidence to the answer in found in the Book of Genesis. Some believe that Genesis only records a "creation myth," meant only to show the greatness of God in poetic grandeur. Though there are poetic elements to the account, we believe it was still written to record a historical reality. Other Scriptures, in their approach to Genesis 1, demonstrate this.

a. Psalm 136 connects the Genesis account of creation with the rest of Israel's history in a seamless fabric. The creation account is not put in a category of "historical fiction."

b. Jesus quoted Genesis as if it were a purely historical record (Matthew 19:4-6 and 23:35).

c. C.S. Lewis wrote that when he heard a Biblical scholar say the Genesis creation account was a myth, he didn't want to know about the man's credentials as a Biblical scholar. He wanted to know how many myths the man had read. Myths were Lewis' business as a literary scholar, and he could see the Biblical account of creation was unlike mythical accounts.

d. It is true that Genesis was not written primarily as a scientific document. But if God gave us a truly scientific, detailed account of creation, written in scientific language, there would be no one who could understand it and no end to the length of such an account. Even if it were written in simple, 20th-century scientific language, it would have made no sense to all previous generations and no sense to future generations either.

e. It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter (Proverbs 25:2). Scientific inquiry is the glory of man; yet it must all be done with utmost humility, realizing God conceals these matters for man to search out.

5. God did all this in the beginning, yet there was much before the beginning.

a. God Himself was before the beginning: Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting (Psalm 93:2). Some are troubled by the questions, "Where did God come from?" and "Who created God?" The answer is found in the definition of God - that God is the uncreated Being, eternal, and without beginning or end.

i. This is demonstrated in several passages of Scripture. LORD, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. (Psalm 90:1-2)

ii. J. Edwin Orr used a memorable definition of God, which was thoroughly Biblical: God is the only infinite, eternal, and unchangable spirit, the perfect being in whom all things begin, and continue, and end.

b. God was in three Persons before the beginning, and the Persons shared a relationship of love and fellowship: "Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was . . . for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:5, 17:24)

c. Before the beginning, there was an eternal purpose in the heart of God (Ephesians 3:11) to gather together in one all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10). God's purpose was to "resolve" or "sum up" all things in Jesus, as if Jesus Himself were the answer to a great and complex problem God wrote out on the "blackboard" of the universe.

d. Before the beginning, God had a specific plan to fulfill this eternal purpose, with many different aspects revealed to us:

i. The mission of Jesus was foreordained before the foundation of the world: He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. (1 Peter 1:20)

ii. Eternal life was promised before time began: in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began. (Titus 1:2)

iii. The mystery of the gospel (the cross) was foreordained before the ages: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory. (1 Corinthians 2:7)

iv. The grace given unto us was given before the world began: who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. (2 Timothy 1:9)

v. Believers in Jesus Christ were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world: just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. (Ephesians 1:4)

e. At some time before the beginning, God created the angels, because they witnessed the creation of the heavens and the earth (Job 38:7).

6. (2) The state of the earth before God organized creation.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

a. The earth was without form, and void: Some translate the idea in this verse as the earth became without form and void. Their thinking is the earth was originally created not without form and void, but it became without form and void through the destructive work of Satan. However, this is not the plain grammatical sense of the ancient Hebrew.

i. Those who follow this idea look to Isaiah 45:18: For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there is no other." The idea is God here says He did not create the world in vain (the Hebrew word is the same as the word for void in Genesis 1:1).

ii. Based on these ideas, some have advanced what has been called the "Gap Theory." It is the idea that there was a long and indefinite chronological gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Most "Gap Theory" adherents use the theory to explain the fossil record, assigning old and extinct fossils to this indefinite gap.

iii. Whatever merit the gap theory may have, it cannot explain the extinction and fossilization of ancient animals. The Bible says plainly death came by Adam (Romans 5:12), and since fossils are the result of death, they could not have happened before Adam's time.

b. Darkness was on the face of the deep: This may describe a sense of resistance to the moving of the Holy Spirit on the earth. Some speculate this was because Satan was cast down to the earth (Isaiah 14:12; Ezekiel 28:16) and resisted God's plan, though his resistance was futile.

i. Leupold on the Spirit of God was hovering: "The verb . . . signifies a vibrant moving, a protective hovering . . . His was the preparatory work for leading over from the inorganic to the organic."

ii. "Any impression of Olympian detachment which the rest of the chapter might have conveyed is forestalled by the simile of the mother-bird 'hovering' (Moffatt) or fluttering by her brood. The verb reappears in Deuteronomy 32:11 to describe the eagle's movements in stirring its young into flight." (Kidner)

c. When God created the earth, He quite likely built an "old" earth, creating things in the midst of a time sequence, with age "built in."

i. For example, Adam was already of mature age when he was created; there was age "built in." Likewise, the trees in the Garden of Eden had rings in them, and there were undoubtedly canyons and sand beaches in Adam's world.

7. (3-5) The first day of creation: light is created and divided from the darkness.

Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

a. Let there be light: The first step from chaos to order is to bring light. This is also the way God works in our life.

i. Paul speaks about the light brought to us by the gospel: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake. For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:3-6)

b. Then God said: God did not have to fashion light with His hands. It was enough for God to merely speak the words, "Light be!" and there was light.

i. Because God created things by speaking them into existence, some have said we can operate on the same principle, speaking things into existence by faith.

ii. This is based on a wrong understanding of Hebrews 11:3 (by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God), which is taken to say God Himself used faith in creating the world. Instead, it says it is by faith we understand God created the world.

iii. Also, some have a wrong understanding of Mark 11:22 which is taken to literally mean "have God's faith" as if we are to have the same faith God has. But the words Jesus answered and said to them, "Have faith in God" cannot mean this, because faith, as Hebrews 11:1 tells us, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. What does God "hope" for? What does He not see? An omnipotent, omniscient Being certainly does not need faith. He is the object of faith.

c. There was light: Genesis tells us that light, day, and night each existed before the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day (Genesis 1:14-19). This shows us that light is more than a physical substance; it also has a supernatural aspect. In the new heavens and the new earth, there won't be any sun or moon. God Himself will be the light (Revelation 22:5).

ii. The darkness God sent upon the Egyptians (Exodus 10:21) had a tangible quality to it, far beyond what we usually think of as being associated with darkness; it could be felt. This demonstrates a certain supernatural element, which can be related to light and darkness.

d. So the evening and the morning were the first day: Many wonder if this was a literal day (in the sense we think of a day) or if it was a geological age. Some say that God created the world in six days, and others say He created it in six vast geological ages. Though there is disagreement among Christians on this, the most plain and simple meaning of the text is that He created in six days as we think of days.

i. "If the days were not days at all, would God have countenanced the word? Does He trade in inaccuracies, however edifying? The question hinges on the proper use of language." (Kidner)

ii. "There ought to be no need of refuting the idea that yom means period. Reputable dictionaries . . . know nothing of this notion. Hebrew dictionaries are our primary source of reliable information concerning Hebrew words." (Leupold)

8. (6-8) The second day of creation: God makes an atmospheric division.

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

a. Let there be a firmament: The idea of a firmament is of an expanse (NIV, NAS) or space (NLT). The waters of the land are separated from the water vapor in the sky.

b. The waters which were above the firmament: Here, the Bible recognizes the existence of water vapor in the sky. "The waters above the firmament thus probably constituted a vast blanket of water vapor above the troposphere and possibly above the stratosphere as well, in the high temperature region now known as the ionosphere, and extending far into space." (Morris) Such a vapor blanket would greatly change the ecology of the earth, and Henry Morris suggests several effects of a vapor blanket.

i. It would serve as a global greenhouse, maintaining an essentially uniformly pleasant temperature all over the world.

ii. Without great temperature variations, there would be no significant winds, and the water-rain cycle could not form. There would be no rain as we know it today.

iii. There would be lush, tropical-like vegetation, all over the world, fed not by rain, but by a rich evaporation and condensation cycle, resulting in heavy dew or ground-fog.

iv. The vapor blanket would filter out ultraviolet radiation, cosmic rays, and other destructive energies bombarding the planet. These are known to be the cause of mutations, which decrease human longevity. Human and animal life spans would be greatly increased.

v. A vapor blanket would provide the necessary reservoir for a potential worldwide flood.

9. (9-13) The third day of creation: the land is divided from the sea; plants and all types of vegetation are created.

Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.

a. Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together: The idea is that before this, the earth was covered with water. Now the waters are gathered together into one place, and dry land appears.

b. Let the earth bring forth grass: All this happened before the creation of the Sun (the fourth day of creation, Genesis 1:14-19). This means the plants must have had sufficient nourishment because of the light God had created before the sun and the moon.

i. Those who propose these days of creation were not literal days, but successive "ages" of slow, evolutionary development have a real problem here. It is hard to explain how plants and all vegetation could grow and thrive eons before the sun and the moon. No modern evolutionist would argue plant life is older than the sun or the moon, but this is what the Genesis record tells us.

ii. Many wonder how the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day when light (including day and night) was created on the first day. Many have suggested the problem is solved by saying these heavenly bodies were created on the first day, but were not specifically visible, or not finally formed, until the fourth. But Revelation tells us of a coming day when we won't need the sun, moon, and stars any longer (Revelation 21:23). There's no reason why God couldn't have started creation in the same way He will end it.

b. And it was so: This is the beginning of life on planet earth, directly created by God, not slowly evolving over millions of years.

i. Some scientists now say life on earth began when immense meteorites carrying amino acids impacted earth at a time when the sun was cooler and the earth was a watery ball covered with ice up to 1,000 feet thick. The idea is that a meteor hits the ice, breaks through, and "seeds" the water underneath with the building blocks of life, which assemble into an "organic soup." However the process was triggered, the scientists said life on earth began in "a geological instant." But by an instant, they mean 10 million years or less. It takes more faith to believe this than to believe in Genesis.

ii. The fossil evidence also demonstrates life exploded into existence on earth, instead of slowly evolving.

c. The earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed . . . and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself: The plants were created not as seeds, but as full-grown plants each bearing seeds. They were thus created as mature plants, having the "appearance" of age. The chicken really did come before the egg.

d. According to its kind: This phrase appears ten times in Genesis chapter 1. It means God allows variation within a kind, but something of one kind will never develop into something of another kind.

e. And God saw that it was good: God knows what is good. He is not some vague moral neutral. He knows what is good and organizes His creation to result in something good.

i. God does not call the earth good until it has become habitable, a place where man can live.

f. Let the earth bring forth . . . every herb that yields seed . . . the herb that yields seed according to its kind . . . And God saw that it was good: Some use this passage to justify the use of drugs (especially marijuana) because grass and every herb came forth at God's command. But certainly, not every herb is good for every purpose. Hemlock is natural, but not good.

i. In fact, the use of drugs in this manner is nowhere approved and is always condemned in the Bible. The wrong use of drugs is often associated with sorcery and the occult.

ii. Sorcery is universally condemned in the Bible (Exodus 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Revelation 21:8 and 22:15). In both the Old and New Testaments, the word sorcery was connected with the making and taking of drugs.

10. (14-19) The fourth day of creation: the sun, moon, and stars.

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

a. Let them be for signs and seasons: God made the sun and the moon - these lights in the firmament of the heavens to be for signs and seasons. Since the beginning, man has used God's provision of the sun, moon, and stars to mark and measure time and direction.

b. God set them in the firmament of the heavens: God knew exactly how far to set the sun from the earth. A few million miles more or less and life as we know it would be impossible.

i. The intricate balance of our ecosystem argues strongly for the existence of a Creator. We live in a very complex world.

ii. Ginzberg quotes a Jewish legend connecting the movement of the sun to the praise of God (as in Psalms 113:3, 50:1, and 148:3): "The progress of the sun in his circuit is an uninterrupted song of praise to God. And this song alone makes his motion possible. Therefore, when Joshua wanted to bid the sun stand still, he had to command him to be silent. His song of praise hushed, the sun stood still."

c. Let them be for signs and seasons: When God set the lights in the heavens to be for signs, it probably includes what we commonly call the zodiac, but was called by the ancient Hebrews the Mazzaroth (Job 38:31-32).

i. Significantly, the sequence of the zodiac is the same in every language and culture, even if the specific names of the constellations change. Also, we know the figures of the constellations suggested to us don't look like those things at all, and, they never did. Yet the names for the figures of the constellations are the same in all cultures. This points to a common, pre-Babel beginning for all these things, before the truth of the constellations was corrupted.

ii. Luke 1:70 and Acts 3:21 speak of holy prophets since the world began. These prophets may be the stars themselves. Psalm 147:4 and Isaiah 40:26 tell us God has the stars all numbered and God has a name for them all. Psalm 19:1-6 tells us the heavens contain a message from God.

iii. Astrology is a satanic corruption of God's original "message in the stars," a message outlining His plan of redemption. Because astrology is a corruption, it is to be avoided always by man (Isaiah 47:12-15).

d. He made the stars also: With all the other stars in our universe, we often wonder if there is life on other planets.

i. When you take into account all that is necessary for the sustenance of life as we know it, there are few planets able to support life. Taking into account factors such as our galaxy type, star location, star age, star mass, star color, distance from star, axis tilt, rotation period, surface gravity, tidal force, magnetic field, oxygen quantity in atmosphere, atmospheric pressure, and 20 other important factors, the probability of all 33 occurrences happening on any one planet is one in 10 to the 42 power. The total number of possible planets in the universe is 10 to the 22 power.

ii. The U.S. government spends $100 million a year looking for extraterrestrial intelligence. It might be wiser to spend the money cultivating intelligent life in Washington.

11. (20-23) The fifth day of creation: birds and sea creatures are created.

Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

a. Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures: We see the great variety of birds and sea creatures were created at the same time, not evolving slowly over millions of years. Even though plant life was created before animal life, animal life was not created out of plant life.

i. Among the diversity of animals, many share similar structures: birds, reptiles, mammals, and so forth. This argues at least as persuasively for a common Designer as it does for a common life source. All life did not come from the same primordial cell, but it did all come from the same Designer.

b. According to their kind: Again, all animal life is created according to its kind. God deliberately structured plenty of variation within a kind, but one "kind" does not become another.

i. For example, structure among dogs is diverse. The teacup poodle is very different from the Great Dane, but they are both dogs. However, they won't become mice, no matter how much breeding is done.

ii. Evolutionists often give convincing examples of microevolution, the variation of a kind within its kind, adapting to the environment. For example, the ratio of black to white peppered moths may increase when pollution makes it easier for dark moths to escape detection; or finches may develop different beaks in response to their distinctive environment. But the moths are still moths, and the finches are still finches. There has been no change outside of the kind. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.

12. Doesn't the fossil record show these creatures slowly evolved into existence, instead of suddenly appearing?

a. Most people are unaware that Darwin's strongest opponents were not clergymen, but fossil experts. Darwin admitted the state of the fossil evidence was "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," and because of the fossil evidence, "all the most eminent paleontologists . . . and all our greatest geologists . . . have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained" that the species do not change.

b. The fossil record is marked by two great principles: first, stasis, which means most species are unchanged in all their documented history. The way they look when they first appear in the fossil record is the way they look when last appearing in the fossil record. They have not changed. Second, sudden appearance, which means in any local area, a species does not arise gradually, but appears all at once and "fully formed."

i. Philip Johnson: "If evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind, the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution."

c. The Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous record of fossil deposits for what geologists say is five million years. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed a positive trail of evolution could be found. Instead, "the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Johnson)

i. Evolutionist Nile Eldredge writes: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life [in the fossil record] supports [the story of gradual evolution], all the while knowing that it does not." (Johnson)

d. Either evolution happened slowly, with each tiny change building on the last, over billions of years; or the changes came as quick leaps: something like a mouse coming out of a snake's egg.

i. The fossil record totally rejects the idea of millions of tiny changes; the quick leaps are a way of attributing miraculous power to "chance" or "nature" instead of God. While admiring the faith of those who believe in such hopeful monsters, it seems far more rational to believe in a wise, creating, designing God.

C. The sixth day of creation: the creation of man.

1. (24-25) God makes land animals.

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

a. Let the earth bring forth the living creature: On the fifth day of creation, God made birds and sea animals, but now God turns His creative attention towards land animals of various types.

b. God made the beast of the earth according to its kind: When we look at the infinite variety of the animal kingdom (both living and extinct), we must be impressed with God's creative power, as well as His sense of humor. Any Being who makes the giraffe, the platypus, and the peacock is a God of joy and humor.

i. To a peahen, the most attractive peacocks are the ones with the biggest fans, but the big fan on the tail makes it difficult to escape a predator. Therefore, the peahen rewards the peacock with the least chance of survival. This is a great problem for the idea of "survival of the fittest."

c. According to its kind: Again, this important phrase is emphasized. God allows tremendous variation within a kind, but one "kind" will never become another "kind."

2. (26) God plans to make man in His image.

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

a. Let Us make man in Our image: The use of the plural (Let Us . . . in Our image, according to Our likeness) is consistent with the idea that there is One God in three Persons, what we know as the Trinity.

i. Leupold does a good job showing that the plurality of let Us make cannot be merely the plurality of royalty, nor can it be God speaking with and to the angels. It is an indicator of the Trinity, though not clearly spelled out.

b. In Our image: An understanding of who man is begins with knowing we are made in the image of God. Man is different from every other order of created being because He has a created consistency with God.

i. This means there is an unbridgeable gap between human life and animal life. Though we are biologically similar to certain animals, we are distinct in our moral, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities.

ii. This means there is also an unbridgeable gap between human life and angelic life. Nowhere are we told the angels are made in the image of God. Angels cannot have the same kind of relationship of love and fellowship with God we can have.

iii. This means the incarnation was truly possible. God (in the Second Person of the Trinity) could really become man, because although deity and humanity are not the same, they are compatible.

iv. This means human life has intrinsic value, quite apart from the "quality of life" experienced by any individual, because human life is made in the image of God.

c. In Our image: There are several specific things in man that show him to be made in the image of God.

· Man alone has a natural countenance looking upward

· Man alone has such a variety of facial expressions

· Man alone has a sense of shame expressing itself in a blush

· Man alone speaks

· Man alone possesses personality, morality, and spirituality

d. In Our image: There are at least three aspects to the idea that we are made in the image of God.

· It means humans possess personality: knowledge, feelings, and a will. This sets man apart from all animals and plants

· It means humans possess morality: we are able to make moral judgments and have a conscience

· It means humans possess spirituality: man is made for communion with God. It is on the level of spirit we communicate with God

e. In Our image: This does not mean that God has a physical or human body. God is a Spirit (John 4:24). Though God does not have a physical body, He designed man so man's physical body could do many of the things God does: see, hear, smell, touch, speak, think, plan, and so forth.

i. "It will hardly be safe to say that the body of man is patterned after God, because God, being an incorporeal spirit, cannot have what we term a material body. Yet the body of man must at least be regarded as the fittest receptacle for the man's spirit and so must bear at least an analogy that is so close that God and His angels choose to appear in human form when they appear to men." (Leupold)

f. In Our image, according to Our likeness: The terms for image and likeness are slightly different. Image has more to do with appearance, and likeness has more to do with an abstract similarity, but they both essentially mean the same thing here in this context.

g. Let them have dominion: Before God ever created man He decreed man would have dominion over the earth. Man's pre-eminence of the created order and his ability to affect his environment is no accident; it is part of God's plan for man and the earth.

i. In this sense, it is sin if man does not use this dominion responsibly, in the sense of a proper regard for stewardship on this earth.

3. (27-31) God's creation of man and initial commission to Adam.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

a. So God created man in His own image: God created man according to His plan as described in Genesis 1:26. The concept of man being created in the image of God is repeated to give emphasis to the idea.

i. We are plainly told God created man fully formed, and created him in one day, not gradually over millions of years of progressive evolution. The idea that a slow, progressive evolution could produce a complex mechanism like the human body just doesn't hold up.

ii. It is said there would be at least 40 different stages of evolution required to form an eye. What possible benefit could there be for the first 39 stages? The mathematician D.S. Ulam argues it was highly improbable for the eye to evolve by the accumulation of small mutations, because the number of mutations must be so large and the time available was not nearly long enough for them to appear. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr commented: "Somehow or other by adjusting these figures we will come out all right. We are comforted by the fact that evolution has occurred." Johnson observes: "Darwinism to them was not a theory open to refutation but a fact to be accounted for." (Johnson)

iii. Darwin wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Professor Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist at the University of California at Berkley, listed a series of complex structures (from the hair of mammals to hemoglobin) he thought could not have been produced by thousands of years of small mutations. "The Darwinists met this fantastic suggestion with savage ridicule. As Goldschmidt put it, 'This time I was not only crazy but almost a criminal.' . . . To suppose that such a random event could reconstruct even a single complex organ like a liver or kidney is about as reasonable as to suppose that an improved watch can be designed by throwing an old one against the wall." (Johnson)

b. Male and female He created them: This should not be construed to mean Adam was originally some type of androgynous being, being both male and female. This passage of Genesis gives us an overview of God's creation of man, and Genesis 2 will explain how exactly God created male and female.

i. In our day, many say there is no real difference between men and women. This makes sense if we are the result of mindless evolution, but not it is true that male and female He created them. To God, the differences between men and women are not accidents. Since He created them, the differences are good and meaningful.

ii. Men are not women, and women are not men. One of the saddest signs of our culture's depravity is the amount and the degree of gender confusion today.

iii. It is vain to wonder if men or women are superior to the other. A man is absolutely superior at being a man. A woman is absolutely superior at being a woman. But when a man tries to be a woman or a woman tries to be a man, you have something inferior.

c. Then God blessed them: the first thing God did for man was to bless him. Without the goodness of God's blessing, human life would be not only unbearable, but also impossible.

d. Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion: God also gives man a job to do: fulfill God's intention of man's exercise of dominion over the earth. Inherent in this command is that man should be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Man cannot fulfill God's plan for him on the earth unless he populates it.

i. Additionally, God gave mankind a desire for sex, which would make the populating of the earth quick and likely.

ii. However, many have thought that being fruitful and multiplying was God's only or main purpose for sex, but this isn't the case. The primary reason God created sex was to contribute to the bonding of a one-flesh relationship.

iii. Animals have sexual relations only for reproduction, but human sexual response is different from animal sexual response in many ways. Human ovulation has no outward sign; humans have sex in private; humans have secondary sexual characteristics (only in humans do females develop breasts before the first birth). Only humans demonstrate a constant availability for and interest in sex, as opposed to a "heat" season in animals. In humans, the duration of the sexual interlude is longer and the intensity of the pleasure of sex is stronger, and only humans continue to have intercourse after the end of fertility. None of these specifically human dimensions of sex are required for reproduction, but all of them are useful for sex as a tool of bonding.

e. To you it shall be for food: God gave man dominion over the whole earth, but only vegetation is specifically mentioned as being for food. Seemingly, before the flood, the human race was vegetarian, but after the flood, man was given permission to eat the flesh of animals (Genesis 9:3).

f. God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good: God's final analysis of His work of creation is that it was very good. God was pleased with His creation, and so are we!

i. When God pronounced the creation good, He really meant it. At the time, it was entirely good; there was no death or decay on earth at all.

4. The fossil discoveries of our "human ancestors" such as Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, and Homo Erectus show that the search for our "human ancestors" has been one filled with dishonest science and wishful thinking.

a. Quoting Johnson: "The psychological atmosphere that surrounds the viewing of hominid fossils is uncannily reminiscent of the veneration of relics at a medieval shrine." In 1984, the American Museum of Natural History held an unprecedented showing of original fossils said to depict human evolution titled Ancestors.

b. From Johnson: "The 'priceless and fragile relics' were carried by anxious curators in first-class airplane seats and brought to the Museum in a VIP motorcade of limousines with police escort. Inside the Museum, the relics were placed behind bullet-proof glass to be admired by a select preview audience of anthropologists, who spoke in hushed voices because 'It was like discussing theology in a cathedral.' A sociologist observing this ritual of the anthropologist tribe remarked, 'Sounds like ancestor worship to me.' "

c. Solly Zuckerman is a committed evolutionist and one of Britain's most influential scientists. He also regards much of the fossil evidence for human evolution as nonsense. Zuckerman has subjected key fossils to years of biometric testing and declares that the idea that they walked and ran upright is flimsy wishful thinking. He remarked that the record of reckless speculation in the field of human origins "is so astonishing that it is legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all." (Johnson)

d. "The story of human descent from apes is not merely a scientific hypothesis; it is the secular equivalent of the story of Adam and Eve, and a matter of immense cultural importance. Propagating the story requires illustrations, museum exhibits, and television reenactments. It also requires a priesthood, in the form of thousands of researchers, teachers, and artists who provide realistic and imaginative detail and carry the story out to the general public . . .. The scientific priesthood that has authority to interpret the official creation story gains immense cultural influence thereby, which it might lose if the story were called into question. The experts therefore have a vested interest in protecting the story, and in imposing rules of reasoning that make it invulnerable. When critics ask, 'Is your theory really true?' we should not be satisfied to be answered that 'it is good science, as we define science'." (Johnson)

e. Evolutionists are not interested in testing if their theory is true. They simply believe once you ignore the creating hand of God, it is the only explanation available, so their job is to figure out how it works, not if it is true.

5. Why is evolution so universally believed today?

a. In the 1920's, a former substitute teacher in a Tennessee school volunteered to be the defendant in a case meant to challenge a state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the public schools. The teacher wasn't even sure he had taught evolution, but the trial went ahead.

b. Prosecuting the case was William Jennings Bryan, former Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, and a three-time Democratic candidate for President. Bryan believed in the Bible, but not literally. He thought the "days" of Genesis referred not to 24-hour days, but to historical ages of indefinite duration. Leading the defense was Clarence Darrow, a famous criminal lawyer and agnostic lecturer. Darrow maneuvered Bryan to take the stand as an expert witness on the Bible, and he humiliated Bryan in a devastating cross-examination. Once that purpose was accomplished, Darrow pleaded guilty on behalf of his client and paid a $100 fine.

c. The trial was therefore inconclusive, but the "Scopes Monkey Trial" was presented to the world by sarcastic journalist H.L. Mencken, Broadway, and Hollywood, and was a huge public relations triumph for Darwinism. People who believed in God's creation came to be thought of as fools and hicks, and evolution was given the veneer of respectability. Combine this with a strong anti-supernaturalism on the part of many scientists and educators, and today's acceptance of evolution is understandable.

d. The same attitude is used to squelch debate and questions about evolution today. "When outsiders question whether the theory of evolution is as secure as we have been led to believe, we are firmly told that such questions are out of order. The arguments among the experts are said to be about matters of detail, such as the precise time scale and the mechanism of evolutionary transformations. These disagreements are signs not of crisis but of healthy creative ferment within the field, and in any case there is no room for doubt whatever about something called the 'fact' of evolution." (Johnson)

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Bible Query: Gen 1:26

Q: In Gen 1:26 and 3:22, why is the word "us" is used for the One True God?

A: There are two possible answers.   1. The "us" refers to the One true God, but plural is the proper sense for a conversation among the Trinity.   2. The "royal we" was used of kings and gods for one person. As an example of this in the Mideastern religion if Islam, the Muslim Qur’an uses "us" and "we" when Allah is referring to himself. Muslims and non-Muslims can agree that use of the "royal we" in the Qur’an does not suggest Mohammed taught that Allah was multiple gods.   However, Philo the Jew (15/20 B.C. to 50 A.D.) interpreted this not as the royal "we", but that God used assistants in On the Creation chapter 24 no.75 p.11.   See When Critics Ask p.30-31, When Cultists Ask p.20-21, and Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.180-182 for this and other views.  

Bible Query: Gen 1:26

Q: Does Gen 1:26 mean that we should be educated to acquire divine perfections and the focus of divine blessings, as Bahai’s teach in Some Answered Questions p.8,9?

A: No, because Genesis 1:27 says that God did what He said in Genesis 1:26. When Adam and Eve were created, they were perfectly sinless before the fall, and they did not need education. While we are still in the image of God, Genesis 1:26-28 refers to what God already accomplished.  

Bible Query: Gen 1:26

Q: Does Gen 1:26 mean people are "little-gods" themselves, as Kenneth Hagin and some word-faith teachers say?

A: No. The word in Genesis is "like" not "is". Even word-faith teachers would agree that creatures like us were never to be worshipped. The bodies of Adam and Eve were given an immortality that could be forfeited, a righteousness that could be ruined, and a perfect love for God that could be thrown away like an old piece of fruit. See When Cultists Ask p.21-22 for more info and a partial enumeration of the ways we are not.  

Bible Query: Gen 1:26

Q: In Gen 1:26, was Adam a "superman" with ability a million times greater than ours, as Watchman Nee taught in The Latent Power of the Soul (1933 p.15)?

A: Scripture never taught this strange speculation. It also never taught that Adam was already like God in outward appearance, as Watchman Nee taught in the same book page 18. Unfortunately, people often try to add their own teaching to what God actually said. See The Berean Call April 1998 p.3 for more info.  

Bible Query: Gen 1:26

Q: In Gen 1:26, if we are created in God’s image, doesn’t that prove God (or at least the Father) has a man’s physical body? (Mormons mention this.)

A: Most would agree the Holy Spirit does not have a physical body and Jesus did not have a physical body at that time. If "us" is referring to a discussion with the Father, Son, and Spirit, then image cannot refer to a mere physical body. By the way, Genesis 9:6 shows that since the Fall, we still have God’s image. See When Cultists Ask p.22 for more info.

Bible Query: Gen 1:26-27

Q: In Gen 1:26-27, was this a conversation among the members of the Trinity, or created beings such as angels?

A: While angels might have overheard these words too, this was a conversation among the Trinity. Our creation was not the work of angels but of God in Trinity. The first Christian writer known to have observed this could not be angels was Justin Martyr (wrote about 138-165 A.D.) in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew chapter 62.  

Bible Query: Gen 1:26-27

Q: In Gen 1:26-27, since God made people higher than the angels, could God later make beings higher than humans?

A: Scripture does not say either way, and God is free to do whatever He wishes. However, Scripture says that believers are "sons of God" and we will "reign with Christ" and be "co-seated with Christ" (Ephesians 2:6). It is hard for a finite creature to be much higher than that.  

Critics Ask: Gen 1:26

GENESIS 1:26 —Why does the Bible use the plural “us” when God refers to Himself?

PROBLEM: Orthodox Christian and Jewish scholars maintain that God is one. In fact, the historic confession of the faith of Israel is taken from Deuteronomy 6:4 which says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is One!” However, if God is one, why does this verse in Genesis use the word “Us”?

SOLUTION: There have been several explanations offered throughout history. Some commentators have claimed that this is merely a case where God is addressing the angels. But this is unlikely since in verse 26 God says, “Let Us make man in Our image” while verse 27 makes it clear that “God created man in His own image; in the image of God ” and not in the image of the angels.

Others have claimed that the plural pronoun refers to the Trinity. It is clear from the NT (e.g., John 1:1 ) that the Son was involved in the creation of the heavens and the earth. Also, Genesis 1:2 indicates that the Holy Spirit was equally involved in the creation process. However, students of Hebrew grammar point out that the plural    pronoun “us” is simply required by the plural Hebrew noun elohim which is translated “God” (“Then God [ elohim , plural] said, `Let Us [plural] make man in Our [plural] image’ ”). Consequently, they claim that this statement should not be used to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, the Quran, which denies more than one person in God, uses “us” of God, demonstrating that the Near Eastern usage of “us” does not necessarily mean more than one person.

Still others have asserted that the plural is used as a figure of speech called a majestic plural. In this use, God is speaking to Himself in such a manner as to indicate that all of His majestic power and wisdom were involved in the creation of man. As has been noted, the plural pronoun “Us” corresponds to the plural Hebrew word elohim which is translated God. The fact that the name “God” is plural in Hebrew does not indicate that there is more than one God, or that this is actually a reference to God being a group of extraterrestrial astronauts. There are a great number of passages in the NT that refer to God with the singular Greek noun theos, which is also translated “God” ( Mark 13:19 ; John 1:1 ; Eph. 3:9 ; etc.). The plural nature of the Hebrew word is designed to give a fuller, more majestic sense to God’s name. It should be noted, however, that the NT clearly teaches that God is a Trinity ( Matt. 3:16-17 ; 2 Cor. 13:14 ; 1 Peter 1:2 ) and, although the doctrine of the Trinity is not fully developed in the OT, it is foreshadowed by many passages (cf. Ps. 110:1 ; Isa. 63:7 , 9-10 ; Prov. 30:4 ).   

Evidence: Gen 1:26

There is no contradiction between this verse and Gen 2:7 , as skeptics often maintain.

Gen 2:7 merely gives details of Gen 1:26.

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Genesis (Book Introduction)

GENESIS, the book of the origin or production of all things, consists of two parts: the first, comprehended in the first through eleventh chapters, gives a general history; the second, contained in the subsequent chapters, gives a special history. The two parts are essentially connected; the one, which sets out with an account of the descent of the human race from a single pair, the introduction of sin into the world, and the announcement of the scheme of divine mercy for repairing the ruins of the fall, was necessary to pave the way for relating the other, namely, the call of Abraham, and the selection of his posterity for carrying out the gracious purpose of God. An evident unity of method, therefore, pervades this book, and the information contained in it was of the greatest importance to the Hebrew people, as without it they could not have understood the frequent references made in their law to the purposes and promises of God regarding themselves. The arguments that have been already adduced as establishing the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch prove of course that Moses was the author of Genesis. The few passages on which the rationalists grounded their assertions that it was the composition of a later age have been successfully shown to warrant no such conclusion; the use of Egyptian words and the minute acquaintance with Egyptian life and manners, displayed in the history of Joseph, harmonize with the education of Moses, and whether he received his information by immediate revelation, from tradition, or from written documents, it comes to us as the authentic work of an author who wrote as he was inspired by the Holy Ghost (2Pe 1:21).

JFB: Genesis (Outline)

• THE CREATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. (Gen 1:1-2)
• THE FIRST DAY. (Gen 1:3-5)
• SECOND DAY. (Gen 1:6-8)
• THIRD DAY. (Gen 1:9-13)
• FOURTH DAY. (Gen 1:14-19)
• FIFTH DAY. The signs of animal life appeared in the waters and in the air. (Gen 1:20-23)
• SIXTH DAY. A farther advance was made by the creation of terrestrial animals, all the various species of which are included in three classes: (1) cattle, the herbivorous kind capable of labor or domestication. (Gen 1:24-31)
• THE NARRATIVE OF THE SIX DAYS' CREATION CONTINUED. The course of the narrative is improperly broken by the division of the chapter. (Gen 2:1)
• THE FIRST SABBATH. (Gen 2:2-7)
• THE GARDEN OF EDEN. ( Gen 8-17)
• THE MAKING OF WOMAN, AND INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE. (Gen 2:18-25)
• THE TEMPTATION. (Gen 3:1-5)
• THE FALL. (Gen 3:6-9)
• THE EXAMINATION. (Gen 3:10-13)
• THE SENTENCE. (Gen 3:14-24)
• BIRTH OF CAIN AND ABEL. (Gen. 4:1-26)
• GENEALOGY OF THE PATRIARCHS. (Gen. 5:1-32)
• WICKEDNESS OF THE WORLD. (Gen. 6:1-22)
• ENTRANCE INTO THE ARK. (Gen. 7:1-24)
• ASSUAGING OF THE WATERS. (Gen 8:1-14)
• DEPARTURE FROM THE ARK. (Gen 8:15-22)
• COVENANT. (Gen 9:1-7)
• RAINBOW. (Gen. 9:8-29)
• GENEALOGIES. (Gen. 10:1-32)
• CONFUSION OF TONGUES. (Gen. 11:1-32) the whole earth was of one language. The descendants of Noah, united by the strong bond of a common language, had not separated, and notwithstanding the divine command to replenish the earth, were unwilling to separate. The more pious and well-disposed would of course obey the divine will; but a numerous body, seemingly the aggressive horde mentioned (Gen 10:10), determined to please themselves by occupying the fairest region they came to.
• CALL TO ABRAM. (Gen. 12:1-20)
• RETURN FROM EGYPT. (Gen. 13:1-18)
• WAR. (Gen. 14:1-24)
• DIVINE ENCOURAGEMENT. (Gen. 15:1-21)
• BESTOWMENT OF HAGAR. (Gen. 16:1-16)
• RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. (Gen. 17:1-27)
• ENTERTAINMENT OF ANGELS. (Gen 18:1-8)
• REPROOF OF SARAH. An inquiry about his wife, so surprising in strangers, the subject of conversation, and the fulfilment of the fondly cherished promise within a specified time, showed Abraham that he had been entertaining more than ordinary travellers (Heb 13:2). (Gen 18:9-15)
• DISCLOSURE OF SODOM'S DOOM. (Gen 18:16-22)
• ABRAHAM'S INTERCESSION. (Gen 18:23-33)
• LOT'S ENTERTAINMENT. (Gen. 19:1-38)
• ABRAHAM'S DENIAL OF HIS WIFE. (Gen. 20:1-18)
• BIRTH OF ISAAC. (Gen 21:1-13)
• EXPULSION OF ISHMAEL. (Gen 21:14-21)
• COVENANT. (Gen 21:22-34)
• OFFERING ISAAC. (Gen. 22:1-19)
• AGE AND DEATH OF SARAH. (Gen 23:1-2)
• PURCHASE OF A BURYING-PLACE. (Gen. 23:3-20)
• A MARRIAGE COMMISSION. (Gen 24:1-9)
• THE JOURNEY. (Gen. 24:10-67)
• SONS OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:1-6)
• DEATH OF ABRAHAM. (Gen 25:7-11)
• DESCENDANTS OF ISHMAEL. Before passing to the line of the promised seed, the historian gives a brief notice of Ishmael, to show that the promises respecting that son of Abraham were fulfilled--first, in the greatness of his posterity (compare Gen 17:20); and, secondly, in their independence. (Gen 25:12-18)
• HISTORY OF ISAAC. (Gen 25:19-34)
• SOJOURN IN GERAR. (Gen. 26:1-35)
• INFIRMITY OF ISAAC. (Gen. 27:1-27)
• THE BLESSING. (Gen. 27:28-46)
• JACOB'S DEPARTURE. (Gen. 28:1-19)
• JACOB'S VOW. (Gen 28:20-22)
• THE WELL OF HARAN. (Gen. 29:1-35)
• DOMESTIC JEALOUSIES. (Gen. 30:1-24)
• JACOB'S COVENANT WITH LABAN. (Gen. 30:25-43)
• ENVY OF LABAN AND SONS. (Gen. 31:1-21)
• LABAN PURSUES JACOB--THEIR COVENANT AT GILEAD. (Gen. 31:22-55)
• VISION OF ANGELS. (Gen 32:1-2)
• MISSION TO ESAU. (Gen 32:3-32)
• KINDNESS OF JACOB AND ESAU. (Gen 33:1-11)
• THE PARTING. (Gen 33:12-20)
• THE DISHONOR OF DINAH. (Gen. 34:1-31) Though freed from foreign troubles, Jacob met with a great domestic calamity in the fall of his only daughter. According to JOSEPHUS, she had been attending a festival; but it is highly probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place and that she, being a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the ruler's son. There must have been time and opportunities of acquaintance to produce the strong attachment that Shechem had for her.
• REMOVAL TO BETHEL. (Gen 35:1-15)
• BIRTH OF BENJAMIN--DEATH OF RACHEL, &c. (Gen 35:16-27)
• DEATH OF ISAAC. (Gen 35:28-29)
• POSTERITY OF ESAU. (Gen. 36:1-43)
• PARENTAL PARTIALITY. (Gen 37:1-4)
• THE DREAMS OF JOSEPH. (Gen. 37:5-36)
• JUDAH AND FAMILY. (Gen. 38:1-30)
• JOSEPH IN POTIPHAR'S HOUSE. (Gen. 39:1-23)
• TWO STATE PRISONERS. (Gen 40:1-8)
• THE BUTLER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:9-15)
• THE BAKER'S DREAM. (Gen 40:16-23)
• PHARAOH'S DREAM. (Gen. 41:1-24)
• JOSEPH INTERPRETS PHARAOH'S DREAMS. (Gen 41:25-36)
• JOSEPH MADE RULER OF EGYPT. (Gen. 41:37-57)
• JOURNEY INTO EGYPT. (Gen. 42:1-38)
• PREPARATIONS FOR A SECOND JOURNEY TO EGYPT. (Gen 43:1-14)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen. 43:15-30)
• THE DINNER. (Gen 43:31-34)
• POLICY TO STAY HIS BRETHREN. (Gen. 44:1-34)
• JOSEPH MAKING HIMSELF KNOWN. (Gen. 45:1-28)
• SACRIFICE AT BEER-SHEBA. (Gen 46:1-4)
• IMMIGRATION TO EGYPT. (Gen. 46:5-27)
• ARRIVAL IN EGYPT. (Gen 46:28-34)
• JOSEPH'S PRESENTATION AT COURT. (Gen. 47:1-31)
• JOSEPH'S VISIT TO HIS SICK FATHER. (Gen. 48:1-22)
• PATRIARCHAL BLESSING. (Gen. 49:1-33)
• MOURNING FOR JACOB. (Gen. 50:1-26)

TSK: Genesis (Book Introduction)

The Book of Genesis is the most ancient record in the world; including the History of two grand and stupendous subjects, Creation and Providence; of each of which it presents a summary, but astonishingly minute and detailed accounts. From this Book, almost all the ancient philosophers, astronomers, chronologists, and historians have taken their respective data; and all the modern improvements and accurate discoveries in different arts and sciences, have only served to confirm the facts detailed by Moses, and to shew, that all the ancient writers on these subjects have approached, or receded from, truth and the phenomena of Nature, in exactly the same proportion as they have followed or receded from, the Mosaic history. The great fact of the deluge is fully confirmed by the fossilised remains in every quarter of the globe. Add to this, that general traditions of the deluge have been traced among the Egyptians, Chinese, Japanese, Hindoos, Burmans, ancient Goths and Druids, Mexicans, Peruvians, Brazilians, North American Indians, Greenlanders, Otaheiteans, Sandwich Islanders, and almost every nation under heaven; while the allegorical turgidity of these distorted traditions sufficiently distinguishes them from the unadorned simplicity of the Mosaic narrative. In fine, without this history the world would be in comparative darkness, not knowing whence it came, nor whither it goeth. In the first page, a child may learn more in an hour, than all the philosophers in the world learned without it in a thousand years. (The original publisher remembers these words addressed to him and other boys in the year 1780, by his excellent tutor, the later Rev. John Ryland, of Northampton.)

TSK: Genesis 1 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Gen 1:1, God creates heaven and earth; Gen 1:3, the light; Gen 1:6, the firmament; Gen 1:9, separates the dry land; Gen 1:14, forms the sun, moon, and stars; Gen 1:20, fishes and fowls; Gen 1:24, cattle, wild beasts, and creeping things; Gen 1:26, creates man in his own image, blesses him; Gen 1:29, grants the fruits of the earth for food.

MHCC: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Genesis is a name taken from the Greek, and signifies " the book of generation or production;" it is properly so called, as containing an account of the origin of all things. There is no other history so old. There is nothing in the most ancient book which exists that contradicts it; while many things recorded by the oldest heathen writers, or to be traced in the customs of different nations, confirm what is related in the book of Genesis.

MHCC: Genesis 1 (Chapter Introduction)

(Gen 1:1, Gen 1:2) God creates heaven and earth.

(Gen 1:3-5) The creation of light.

(Gen 1:6-13) God separates the earth from the waters, and makes it fruitful.

(Gen 1:14-19) God forms the sun, moon, and stars.

(Gen 1:20-25) Animals created.

(Gen 1:26-28) Man created in the image of God.

(Gen 1:29, Gen 1:30) Food appointed.

(Gen 1:31) The work of creation ended and approved.

Matthew Henry: Genesis (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Moses, Called Genesis

We have now before us the holy Bible, or book, for so bible signifies. We call it the book, by way of eminency; for it is incomparably the best book that ever was written, the book of books, shining like the sun in the firmament of learning, other valuable and useful books, like the moon and stars, borrowing their light from it. We call it the holy book, because it was written by holy men, and indited by the Holy Ghost; it is perfectly pure from all falsehood and corrupt intention; and the manifest tendency of it is to promote holiness among men. The great things of God's law and gospel are here written to us, that they might be reduced to a greater certainty, might spread further, remain longer, and be transmitted to distant places and ages more pure and entire than possibly they could be by report and tradition: and we shall have a great deal to answer for if these things which belong to our peace, being thus committed to us in black and white, be neglected by us as a strange and foreign thing, Hos 8:12. The scriptures, or writings of the several inspired penmen, from Moses down to St. John, in which divine light, like that of the morning, shone gradually (the sacred canon being now completed), are all put together in this blessed Bible, which, thanks be to God, we have in our hands, and they make as perfect a day as we are to expect on this side of heaven. Every part was good, but all together very good. This is the light that shines in a dark place (2Pe 1:19), and a dark place indeed the world would be without the Bible.

We have before us that part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament, containing the acts and monuments of the church from the creation almost to the coming of Christ in the flesh, which was about four thousand years - the truths then revealed, the laws then enacted, the devotions then paid, the prophecies then given, and the events which concerned that distinguished body, so far as God saw fit to preserve to us the knowledge of them. This is called a testament, or covenant ( diatheke ), because it was a settled declaration of the will of God concerning man in a federal way, and had its force from the designed death of the great testator, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Rev 8:8. It is called the Old Testament, with relation to the New, which does not cancel and supersede it, but crown and perfect it, by the bringing in of that better hope which was typified and foretold in it; the Old Testament still remains glorious, though the New far exceeds in glory, 2Co 3:9.

We have before us that part of the Old Testament which we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, that servant of the Lord who excelled all the other prophets, and typified the great prophet. In our Saviour's distribution of the books of the Old Testament into the law, the prophets, and the psalms, or Hagiographa , these are the law; for they contain not only the laws given to Israel, in the last four, but the laws given to Adam, to Noah, and to Abraham, in the first. These five books were, for aught we know, the first that ever were written; for we have not the least mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor till God bade Moses write (Exo 17:14); and some think Moses himself never learned to write till God set him his copy in the writing of the ten Commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant, and therefore best able to give us a satisfactory account of the most ancient things.

We have before us the first and longest of those five books, which we call Genesis, written, some think, when Moses was in Midian, for the instruction and comfort of his suffering brethren in Egypt: I rather think he wrote it in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God, where, probably, he received full and particular instructions for the writing of it. And, as he framed the tabernacle, so he did the more excellent and durable fabric of this book, exactly according to the pattern shown him in the mount, into which it is better to resolve the certainty of the things herein contained than into any tradition which possibly might be handed down from Adam to Methuselah, from him to Shem, from him to Abraham, and so to the family of Jacob. Genesis is a name borrowed from the Greek. It signifies the original, or generation: fitly is this book so called, for it is a history of originals - the creation of the world, the entrance of sin and death into it, the invention of arts, the rise of nations, and especially the planting of the church, and the state of it in its early days. It is also a history of generations - the generations of Adam, Noah, Abraham, etc., not endless, but useful genealogies. The beginning of the New Testament is called Genesis too (Mat 1:1), Biblos geneseos the book of the genesis, or generation, of Jesus Christ. Blessed be God for that Book which shows us our remedy, as this opens our wound. Lord, open our eyes, that we may see the wondrous things both of thy law and gospel!

Matthew Henry: Genesis 1 (Chapter Introduction)

The foundation of all religion being laid in our relation to God as our Creator, it was fit that the book of divine revelations which was intended to be the guide, support, and rule, of religion in the world, should begin, as it does, with a plain and full account of the creation of the world - in answer to that first enquiry of a good conscience, " Where is God my Maker?" (Job 35:10). Concerning this the pagan philosophers wretchedly blundered, and became vain in their imaginations, some asserting the world's eternity and self-existence, others ascribing it to a fortuitous concourse of atoms: thus " the world by wisdom knew not God," but took a great deal of pains to lose him. The holy scripture therefore, designing by revealed religion to maintain and improve natural religion, to repair the decays of it and supply the defects of it, since the fall, for the reviving of the precepts of the law of nature, lays down, at first, this principle of the unclouded light of nature, That this world was, in the beginning of time, created by a Being of infinite wisdom and power, who was himself before all time and all worlds. The entrance into God's word gives this light, Psa 119:130. The first verse of the Bible gives us a surer and better, a more satisfying and useful, knowledge of the origin of the universe, than all the volumes of the philosophers. The lively faith of humble Christians understands this matter better than the elevated fancy of the greatest wits, Heb 11:3.

We have three things in this chapter: - I. A general idea given us of the work of creation (Gen 1:1, Gen 1:2). II. A particular account of the several days' work, registered, as in a journal, distinctly and in order. The creation of the light the first day (Gen 1:3-5); of the firmament the second day (Gen 1:6-8); of the sea, the earth, and its fruits, the third day (Gen 1:9-13); of the lights of heaven the fourth day (Gen 1:14-19); of the fish and fowl the fifth day (Gen 1:20-23); of the beasts (Gen 1:24, Gen 1:25); of man (Gen 1:26-28); and of food for both the sixth day (Gen 1:29, Gen 1:30). III. The review and approbation of the whole work (Gen 1:31).

Constable: Genesis (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

Each book of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament, called the Torah [instruction] by the Jews) originally received its title in the Hebrew Bible from the first word or words in the book.¹ The Hebrew word translated "in the beginning" is beresit. The English title "Genesis," however, has come to us from the Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome (Liber Genesis). The Latin title came from the Septuagint translation (the Greek translation of the Old Testament made about 300 years before Christ). "Genesis" is a transliteration of the Greek word geneseos, the Greek word that translates the Hebrew toledot. This Hebrew word is the key word in identifying the structure of Genesis, and the translators have usually rendered it "account" or "generations" (2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9; 37:2).

Date

The events recorded date back to the creation of the world.

Many Christians believe the earth is millions of years old. They base this belief on the statements of scientists and understand Scripture in the light of these statements. Likewise, many Christians believe that the human race began hundreds of thousands of years ago for the same reason.

Most evangelicals who take the Scriptures seriously believe that the earth is not much older than 10, 000 years. They base this on the genealogies in Scripture (Gen. 5; 10; 11; et al.), which they understand to be "open" (i.e., not complete). Evangelicals usually hold to a more recent date for man's creation, also for the same reason.

A smaller group of evangelicals believes that the genealogies are either "closed" (i.e., complete) or very close to complete. This leads us to date the creation of the world and man about 6, 000 years ago.²

Liberal interpreters have placed the date of composition of Genesis much later than Moses' lifetime.

If one accepts Mosaic authorship, as most conservative evangelicals do, the date of composition of Genesis must be within Moses' lifetime (ca. 1525-1405 B.C.). This book was perhaps originally intended to encourage the Israelites to trust in their faithful, omnipotent God as they anticipated entrance into the Promised Land from Kadesh Barnea or from the Plains of Moab.³ Moses may have written it earlier to prepare them for the Exodus,⁴ but this seems less likely.

Writer

The authorship of the Pentateuch has been the subject of great controversy among professing Christians since Spinoza introduced "higher criticism" of the Bible in the seventeenth century. The "documentary hypothesis," which developed from his work, is that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as most scholars in Judaism and the church until that day believed. Instead, it was the product of several writers who lived much later than Moses. A redactor (editor) or redactors combined these several documents into the form we have now. These documents (J, E, D, P, and others) represent a Yahwistic tradition, an Elohistic tradition, a Deuteronomic tradition, a Priestly tradition, etc.⁵

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch is conclusive if one believes that Jesus Christ spoke the truth when He attributed authorship to Moses (Matt. 19:8; Mark 7:10; Luke 18:29-31; 20:37; 24:27; John 7:19). Jesus Christ did not specifically say that Moses wrote Genesis, but in our Lord's day the Jews regarded the Pentateuch (Torah) as a whole unit. They recognized Moses as the author of all five books. Consequently they would have understood what Jesus said about any of the five books of Moses as an endorsement of the Mosaic authorship of them all.⁶

Scope

The events recorded in Genesis stretch historically from Creation to Joseph's death, a period of at least 2500 years. The first part of the book (ch. 1-11) is not as easy to date precisely as the second part (ch. 12-50). The history of the patriarchs recorded in this second main division of the text covers a period of about 300 years.

The scope of the book progressively and consistently narrows. The selection of content included in Genesis points to the purpose of the divine author: to reveal the history of and basic principles involved in God's relationship with people.⁷

Purpose

Genesis provides the historical basis for the rest of the Bible and the Pentateuch, particularly the Abrahamic Covenant. Chapters 1-11 give historical background essential to understanding that covenant, and chapters 12-50 record the covenant and its initial outworking. The Abrahamic Covenant continues to be the basic arrangement by which God operates in dealing with humanity throughout the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible.

"The real theme of the Pentateuch is the selection of Israel from the nations and its consecration to the service of God and His Laws in a divinely appointed land. The central event in the development of this theme is the divine covenant with Abraham and its . . . promise to make his offspring into the people of God and to give them the land of Canaan as an everlasting inheritance."⁸

Genesis provides an indispensable prologue to the drama that unfolds in Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch. The first 11 chapters constitute a prologue to the prologue.

"Two opposite progressions appear in this prologue [chs. 1-11]: (a) God's orderly Creation with its climax in His blessing of man, and (b) the totally disintegrating work of sin with its two greatest curses being the Flood and the dispersion at Babel.⁹ The first progression demonstrates God's plan to bring about perfect order from the beginning in spite of what the reader may know of man's experience. The second progression demonstrates the great need of God's intervention to provide the solution for the corrupt human race."¹⁰

Theology

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

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

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

Message¹²

The message of the Bible might be the best place to begin our study of the Old Testament. What is the Bible all about? We could state it as follows: God desires to glorify Himself by blessing humankind.

The message of the Pentateuch (Torah) is that people can experience God's blessing by trusting Him (believing His word) and by obeying Him (following His initiative).

Genesis is in the Bible primarily to teach us this lesson. People can enjoy a personal relationship with God and thereby realize their own fulfillment as human beings only through trust in God and obedience to God. This is the message statement. Genesis reveals that God is faithful to His promises and powerful enough to bring them to fulfillment.

Genesis reveals that God originally intended people to have an immediate relationship with their Creator. Evidences for this are as follows.

1. God made man as a special creation (2:7).

2. He made man with special care (2:7).

3. He made man in His own image (1:26-27).

4. He regarded man as His son (1:28-30).

5. He consistently demonstrated concern for man's welfare (3:9).

God's immediate relationship with Adam was broken by the Fall (ch. 3). In the Fall man did two things.

1. He failed to trust God's goodness with his mind.

2. He rebelled against God's government with his will (3:6).

God then took the initiative to re-establish the relationship with man that He had created man to enjoy. He provided a covering for man's sin until He would finally remove it. This temporary covering came through the sacrificial system.

Throughout Genesis we see that people in general consistently failed to trust and obey God (e.g., in Noah's day, at Babel, in the patriarchal period).

Genesis also records what God has done to encourage people to trust and obey Him. It is only by living by these two principles that people can enjoy a relationship with God and realize all that God created them to experience.

On the one hand, Genesis reveals much about the person and work of God. This revelation helps us trust and obey Him. It is through His personal revelations to the main characters in Genesis that God revealed Himself initially (e.g., Adam and Eve, Noah, the patriarchs).

On the other hand, Genesis reveals much about the nature of man. Not only did God reveal the perversity of man, but He also identified positive examples of faith and obedience in the lives of the godly.

In Genesis we learn that faith in God is absolutely essential if we are to have fellowship with Him and realize our potential as human beings.

Faith is the law of life. If one lives by faith he flourishes, but if he does not, he fails. The four patriarchs are primarily examples of what faith is and how it manifests itself. In each of their lives we learn something new about faith.

Abraham's faith demonstrates unquestioning obedience. When God told him to do something, he did it. This is the most basic characteristic of faith. That is one reason why Abraham is "the father of the faithful." God revealed Himself nine times to Abraham and each time Abraham's response was unquestioning obedience.

Isaac's faith helps us see the quality of passive acceptance that characterizes true faith in God. This was his response to God's two revelations to him.

Jacob's story is one of conflict with God until he came to realize his own limitations. Then he trusted God. We can see his faith in his acknowledged dependence on God. God's seven revelations to him eventually led him to this position.

Joseph's life teaches us what God can do with a person who trusts Him consistently in the face of adversity. The outstanding characteristic of Joseph's life was his faithful loyalty to God. He believed God's two revelations to him in dreams even though God's will did not seem to be working out as he thought it would. Patient faith and its reward shine through the story of Joseph.

Faith, the key concept in Genesis, means trusting that what God has prescribed is indeed best for me and waiting for God to provide what He has promised. A person of faith is one who commits to acting on this basis even though he or she may not see how it is best.

The Pentateuch is all about God, man, and our relationship. In our study of it, we will be building a model to show how each new book builds on what has preceded. The key concept in Genesis is faith.

Constable: Genesis (Outline)

Outline

The structure of Genesis is very clear. The phrase "the generations of" (toledot in Hebrew, from yalad meaning "to bear, to generate") occurs ten times (really eleven times since 36:9 repeats 36:1), and in each case it introduces a new section of the book.¹³ The first part of Genesis is introductory and sets the scene for what follows. An outline of Genesis based on this structure is as follows.

1. Introduction 1:1-2:3

2. The generations of heaven and earth 2:4-4:26

3. The generations of Adam 5:1-6:8

4. The generations of Noah 6:9-9:29

5. The generations of the sons of Noah 10:1-11:9

6. The generations of Shem 11:10-26

7. The generations of Terah 11:27-25:11

8. The generations of Ishmael 25:12-18

9. The generations of Isaac 25:19-35:29

10. The generations of Esau 36:1-43

11. The generations of Jacob 37:1-50:26

A full expository outline designed to highlight the relative emphases of the book follows. We shall follow this outline in these notes as we seek to unpack the message of the book.

I. Primeval events 1:1-11:26

A. The story of creation 1:1-2:3

1. An initial statement of creation 1:1

2. Conditions at the time of creation 1:2

3. The six days of creation 1:3-31

4. The seventh day 2:1-3

B. What became of the creation 2:4-4:26

1. The garden of Eden 2:4-3:24

2. The murder of Abel 4:1-16

3. The spread of civilization and sin 4:17-26

C. What became of Adam 5:1-6:8

1. The effects of the curse on humanity ch. 5

2. God's sorrow over man's wickedness 6:1-8

D. What became of Noah 6:9-9:29

1. The Flood 6:9-8:22

2. The Noahic Covenant 9:1-17

3. The curse on Canaan 9:18-29

E. What became of Noah's sons 10:1-11:9

1. The table of nations ch. 10

2. The dispersion at Babel 11:1-9

F. What became of Shem 11:10-26

II. Patriarchal narratives 11:27-50:26

A. What became of Terah 11:27-25:11

1. Terah and Abraham's obedience 11:27-12:9

2. Abram in Egypt 12:10-20

3. Abram's separation from Lot ch. 13

4. Abram's military victory ch. 14

5. The Abrahamic covenant ch. 15

6. The birth of Ishmael ch. 16

7. The sign of circumcision ch. 17

8. Yahweh's visit to Abraham 18:1-15

9. Abraham's intercession for Lot 18:16-33

10. The destruction of Sodom ch. 19

11. Abraham's sojourn at Gerar ch. 20

12. The birth of Isaac 21:1-21

13. Abimelech's treaty with Abraham 21:22-34

14. The sacrifice of Isaac 22:1-19

15. The descendants of Nahor 22:20-24

16. The purchase of Sarah's tomb ch. 23

17. The choice of a bride for Isaac ch. 24

18. Abraham's death 25:1-11

B. What became of Ishmael 25:12-18

C. What became of Isaac 25:19-35:29

1. Isaac's twin sons 25:19-26

2. The sale of the birthright 25:27-34

3. Isaac and Abimelech 26:1-11

4. Isaac's wells 26:12-33

5. Jacob's deception for Isaac's blessing 26:34-28:9

6. Jacob's vision at Bethel 28:10-22

7. Jacob's marriages and Laban's deception 29:1-30

8. Jacob's mishandling of God's blessings 29:31-30:24

9. Jacob's new contract with Laban 30:25-43

10. Jacob's flight from Haran ch. 31

11. Jacob's attempt to appease Esau 32:1-21

12. Jacob at the Jabbok 32:22-32

13. Jacob's meeting with Esau and his return to Canaan ch. 33

14. The rape of Dinah and the revenge of Simeon and Levi ch. 34

15. Jacob's return to Bethel ch. 35

D. What became of Esau 36:1-37:1

E. What became of Jacob 37:2-50:26

1. God's choice of Joseph 37:2-11

2. The sale of Joseph into Egypt 37:12-36

3. Judah and Tamar ch. 38

4. Joseph in Potiphar's house ch. 39

5. The prisoners' dreams and Joseph's interpretations ch. 40

6. Pharaoh's dreams and Joseph's interpretation ch. 41

7. Joseph's brothers' first journey into Egypt ch. 42

8. Joseph's brothers' second journey into Egypt ch. 43

9. Joseph's last test and its results ch. 44

10. Joseph's reconciliation with his brothers 45:1-15

11. Israel's move to Egypt 45:16-46:30

12. Joseph's wise leadership 46:31-47:27

13. Jacob's worship in Egypt 47:28-48:22

14. Jacob's blessing of his sons 49:1-28

15. Deaths and a promise yet to be fulfilled 49:29-50:26¹⁴

Constable: Genesis

Bibliography

Aalders, Gerhard Charles. Genesis. The Bible Student's Commentary series. 2 vols. Translated by William Heynen. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Albright, William Foxwell. "Abram the Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpretation." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 163 (October 1961):36-54.

_____. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1963.

Alexander, John F. "Sabbath Rest." The Other Side 146 (November 1983):8-9.

Alexander, T. Desmond. "Genesis 22 and the Covenant of Circumcision." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25 (1983):17-22.

_____. "Lot's Hospitality: A Clue to His Righteousness." Journal of Biblical Literature 104:2 (June 1985):289-91.

Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1949.

_____. God Spake by Moses. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1951.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic, 1981.

Ancil, Ralph E. "Is Creation More than a Model of Origins?" Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 5:2 (Winter 1982):3-13.

Anderson, Bernhard W. "Creation and Ecology." American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 4:1 (January 1983):14-30.

Anderson, Don. Abraham: Delay Is Not Denial. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, Kingfisher Books, 1987.

Anderson, Gary. "The Interpretation of Genesis l:1 in the Targums." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52:1 (January 1990):21-29.

Anderson, J. Kerby and Harold G Coffin. Fossils in Focus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Andrews, Gini. Your Half of the Apple. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Aufenson-Vance, Deborah. "Lot's Wife Remembers." Adventist Review 163:8 (February 20, 1986):5.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Old Testament History and Recent Archaeology from Abraham to Moses." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:505 (January-March 1970):3-25.

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. "Sabbatical Typologies of Messianic Redemption." Journal for the Study of Judaism. 17:2 (December 1986):153-76.

Baldwin, Joyce G. The Message of Genesis 12-50. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

Ballard, Bruce W. "The Death Penalty: God's Timeless Standard for the Nations?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):471-87.

Bar-Deroma, H. "The River of Egypt (Nahal Mizraim)." Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 92 (1960):37-56.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 131-39. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Barr, James. "Why the World Was Created in 4004 B.C.: Archbishop Ussher and Biblical Chronology." Bulletin of John Rylands University Library of Manchester 67:2 (Spring 1985):575-608.

Barre, Lloyd M. "The Riddle of the Flood Chronology." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41 (June 1988):3-20.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1951.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Beit-Arieh, Itzhaq. "New Evidence on the Relations between Canaan and Egypt during the Proto-Dynastic Period." Israel Exploration Journal 34:1 (1984):20-23.

_____. "New Light on the Edomites." Biblical Archaeological Review. 14:2 (March-April 1988):28-41.

Ben-Tor, Amnon. "The Trade Relations of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:1 (February 1986):1-27.

Berg, S. B. The Book of Esther: Motifs, Themes, and Structure. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation series, 44. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Abraham and the Righteous of Sodom." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):119-32.

Blosser, Oliver R. "Was Nimrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King of Babylon?" It's About Time, June 1987, pp. 10-13.

Bock, Darrell L. "Interpreting the Bible--How Texts Speak to Us." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 76-105. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Boice, James M. Genesis. 2 vols. Ministry Resources Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982, 1985.

Briggs, Peter. "Testing the Factuality of the Conquest of Ai Narrative in the Book of Joshua." A paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Colorado Springs, Colo., Nov. 15, 2001.

Bright, John. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Broshi, Magen. "The Credibility of Josephus." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):379-84.

Brotzman, Ellis R. "Man and the Meaning of Nephesh." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):400-9.

Brueggemann, W. "From Dust to Kingship." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (1972):1-18.

_____. Genesis. Interpretation series. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge: University Press, 1928.

Busenitz, Irvin A. "Woman's Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):203-12.

Bush, George. Notes on Genesis. New York: Ivison, Phinney & Co., 1860; reprint ed., 2 vols., Minneapolis: James and Klock Publishing Co., 1976.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis. Translated by John King. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

_____. Genesis. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Campbell, Donald K. "Passing the Test." Kindred Spirit 9:2 (Summer 1985):9-10.

Cardona, Dwardu. "Jupiter--God of Abraham (Part III)." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):63-77.

Carmichael, Calum M. "Forbidden Mixtures." Vetus Testamentum 32:4 (1982):394-415.

Carnell, Edward John. An Introduction to Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1948.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II. From Noah to Abraham, Genesis VI:9--XI:32. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964.

Caylor, Duane K. "Capital Punishment, a different Christian perspective." Reformed Journal 36:7 (July 1986):10-12.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

Chalmers, Thomas. Posthumous Works of the Rev. Thomas Chalmers. Vol. 1: Daily Scripture Readings. Edinburgh: Sutherland and Knox, 1851.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Evidence from Genesis." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 35-54. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

"Cities of the Dead Sea Plain." Buried History. 18:3 (September 1982):35-48.

Clifford, Richard J. "Cosmogonies in the Ugaritic Texts and in the Bible." Orientalia 53:2 (1984):183-201.

Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament supplement series, no. 10. Sheffield, England: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1978.

Coats, George W. Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. Forms of Old Testament Literature series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Cooper, Robert M. "Capital Punishment: Helplessness and Power." Encounter 46:2 (Spring 1985):163-75.

Cottrell, Jack. "The Doctrine of Creation from Nothing." Seminary Review 29:4 (December 1983):157-74.

Cox, Raymond L. "What Made Abraham Laugh?" Eternity, November 1975, pp. 19-20.

Cryer, Frederick H. "The Interrelationships of Gen. 5, 32; 11, 10-11 and the Chronology of the Flood." Biblica 66:2 (1985):241-61.

Cummings, Violet M. Has Anybody Really Seen Noah's Ark? San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982.

Curtis, Edward M. "Structure, Style and Context as a Key to Interpreting Jacob's Encounter at Peniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:2 (June 1987):129-37.

Custance, Arthur C. Without Form and Void. Brockville, Ont.: By the author, or Doorway Papers, 1970.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. Revised ed. 5 vols. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947.

Davis, John J. "The Camel in Biblical Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp. 141-52. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. Paradise to Prison. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975.

Davis, M. Stephen. "Polygamy in the Ancient World." Biblical Illustrator 14:1 (Fall 1987):34-36.

_____. "Stories of the Fall in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):37-40.

de Chardin, Pierre Teilhard. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper and Row, 1959.

DeHaan, Martin Ralph. 508 Answers to Bible Questions. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1952.

Delitzsch, Franz. A New Commentary on Genesis. 6th ed. 2 vols. Translated by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888-89.

_____. A System of Biblical Psychology. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 2 vols. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Dever, William G. "Beersheba." Biblical Illustrator, Spring 1983, pp. 56-62.

Diakonoff, I. M. "Women in Old Babylonia Not Under Patriarchal Authority." Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 29:3 (October 1984):225-38.

Diamond, J. A. "The Deception of Jacob: A New Perspective on an Ancient Solution to the Problem." Vetus Testamentum 34:2 (1984):211-13.

Dickason, C. Fred. Angels, Elect and Evil. Chicago: Moody Press, 1975.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy. Chicago: Moody Press, 1981.

Dods, Marcus. The Book of Genesis. The Expositor's Bible series. New York: George H. Coran Co., n.d.

Dresner, Samuel. "Rachel and Leah: Sibling Tragedy or the Triumph of Piety and Compassion?" Bible Review 6:2 (April 1990):22-27, 40-42.

Driver, G. R. and John C. Miles, eds. and trans. The Babylonian Laws. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952-55.

Driver, S. R. Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1904.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.

Ellis, Peter F. The Yahwist: the Bible's First Theologian. London: G. Chapman, 1969.

Ellul, J. The Meaning of the City. Translated by D. Pardee. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970.

England, Donald. A Christian View of Origins. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Erdman, Charles R. The Book of Genesis. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1950.

Erlandsson, Seth. "Faith in the Old and New Testaments: Harmony or Disagreement?" Concordia Theological Quarterly 47:1 (January-March 1983):1-14.

Eslinger, L. "A Contextual Identification of the bene ha'elohim and benoth ha'adam in Genesis 6:1-4." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13 (1979):65-73.

Evans, Carl D. "The Patriarch Jacob--An Innocent Man.'" Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1985):32-37.

Exum, J. Cheryl. "The Mothers of Israel: The Patriarchal Narratives from a Feminist Perspective." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):60-67.

Exum, J. Cheryl and J. William Whedbee. "Isaac, Samson, and Saul: Reflections on the Comic and Tragic Visions." Semeia 32 (1884):5-40.

Family Life Conference. Little Rock, Ark.: Family Ministry, 1990.

Fawver, Jay D. and R. Larry Overstreet. "Moses and Preventive Medicine." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:587 (July-September 1990):270-85.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. "The Image of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):235-46.

Figart, Thomas O. A Biblical Perspective on the Race Problem. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Filby, Frederick A. Creation Revealed. Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963.

Finley, Thomas J. "Dimensions of the Hebrew Word for Create' (bara)." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:592 (October-December 1991):409-23.

Fishbane, Michael. "Composition and Structure in the Jacob Cycle (Gen. 25:19-35:22)." Journal of Jewish Studies 26:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1975):15-38.

_____. Text and Texture. New York: Schocken, 1979.

Fisher, Loren R. "Abraham and His Priest-King." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):264-70.

_____. "An Amarna Age Prodigal." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):113-22.

Foh, Susan T. "What Is the Woman's Desire?" Westminster Theological Journal 37:3 (Spring 1975):376-83.

_____. Women and the Word of God. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979.

Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art in Genesis. Assen, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975.

Foster, Harry. "Jacob. Walking with a Limp." Toward the Mark, September-October 1982, pp. 97-100.

Fouts, David M. "Peleg in Gen 10:25." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:1 (March 1998):17-21.

Frame, Randy. "The Strange Case of Steven Linscott." Christianity Today, February 4, 1983, pp. 42-45, 47.

Frankfort, Henri. Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York: Columbia University Press, 1948; reprint ed. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Harper Torchbooks, 1961.

Freedman, R. David. "A New Approach to the Nuzi Sistership Contract." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 2:2 (Summer 1970):77-85.

_____. "Put Your Hand Under My Thigh'--The Patriarchal Oath." Biblical Archaeology Review 2:2 (June 1976):3-4, 42.

_____. "Woman, A Power Equal to Man." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:1 (January-February 1983):56-58.

Friedman, Richard Elliott. "Deception for Deception." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):22-31, 68.

Gage, Warren. "The Eschatological Structure of Genesis." Paper written in Tubingen, W. Germany, November 18, 1979.

Gardener, R. F. R. Abortion: The Personal Dilemma. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Gardner, Joseph L., ed. Reader's Digest Atlas of the Bible. Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader's Digest Association, 1985.

Geisler, Normal L. "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):3-19.

Geller, Stephen A. "The Struggle at the Jabbok: the Uses of Enigma in a Biblical Narrative." Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 14 (1982):37-60.

Gish, Duane T. "Evolution--A Philosophy, Not a Science." Good News Broadcaster, March 1984, pp. 34-37.

Golka, Friedemann. "The Aetiologies in the Old Testament." Vetus Testamentum 26:4 (October 1976):410-28; and 27:1 (January 1977):36-47.

Gordon, Cyrus H. "Biblical Customs and the Nuzu Tablets." Biblical Archaeologist 3:1 (February 1940):1-12.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Gray, Elmer L. "Capital Punishment in the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):65-67.

Grayson, A. K., and J. Van Seters. "The Childless Wife in Assyria and the Stories of Genesis." Orientalia 44:4 (1975):485-86.

Green, William Henry. "Primeval Chronology." In Classical Evangelical Essays in Old Testament Interpretation, pp. 13-28. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Greenberg, Blu. "Marriage in the Jewish Tradition." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22:1 (Winter 1985):3-20.

Greenberg, M. "Another Look at Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim." Journal of Biblical Literature 81 (1962):239-48.

Greengus, Samuel. "Sisterhood Adoption at Nuzi and the Wife- Sister' in Genesis." Hebrew Union College Annual 46 (1975):5-31.

Gronbock, Jakob H. "Baal's Battle with Yam--A Canaanite Creation Fight." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (October 1985):27-44.

Guinness, Oz. The Dust of Death. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Ham, Kenneth A. The Lie: Evolution. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis and the Decay of the Nations. Florence, Ky.: Answers in Genesis, 1991.

Ham, Ken; Andrew Snelling; and Carl Wieland. The Answers Book. Revised ed. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1990.

Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

_____. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18-50. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Harbach, Robert C. Studies in the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids: Grandville Protestant Reformed Church, 1986.

Harrison, R. K. "From Adam to Noah: A Reconsideration of the Antediluvian Patriarchs' Ages." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):161-68.

Harrison, William K. "The Origin of Sin." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:517 (January-March 1973):58-61.

Hasel, Gerhard F. "The Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 19 (1981):61-78.

_____. "The Sabbath in the Pentateuch." In The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 21-43. Edited by Kenneth A. Strand. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1982.

Hawkins, Kerry L. "The Theology of the Flood." Seminary Review 34:2 (December 1988):69-88.

Hays, J. Daniel. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in Ancient History." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):270-80.

_____. "The Cushites: A Black Nation in the Bible." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:612 (October-December 1996):396-409.

Hayward, James L. and Donald E Casebolt. "The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11: A Statistical Study." Origins 9:2 (1982):75-81.

Heck, Joel D. "A History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:585 (January-March 1990):16-31.

_____. "Issachar: Slave or Freeman? (Gen. 49:14-15)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):385-96.

Heidel, Alexander. The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946.

Helyer, Larry R. "The Separation of Abram and Lot: Its Significance in the Patriarchal Narratives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):77-88.

Hendel, Ronald S. "When the Sons of God Cavorted with the Daughters of Men." Bible Review 3:2 (Summer 1987):8-13, 37.

Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch. 2 vols. Translated by J. E. Ryland. Edinburgh: John B. Lowe and T. & T. Clark, 1847.

_____. Egypt and the Books of Moses. Translated by R. D. C. Robbins. Andover, Mass.: Allen, Morrill and Wardwell, 1843.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. 6 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Hens-Piazza, Gina. "A Theology of Ecology: God's Image and the Natural World." Biblical Theology Bulletin 13:4 (October 1983):107-10.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: By the Author, Redencion Viva, P.O. Box 141167, 1981.

Hoehner, Harold W. "The Duration of the Egyptian Bondage." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):306-16.

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. "The Linguistic Origins of Teraphim." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):230-38.

Holt, L., Jr. and R McIntosh. Holt Pediatrics. 12th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.

Horbury, W. "Extirpation and excommunication." Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985):13-38.

Horn, Siegfried H. Biblical Archaeology: A Generation of Discovery. Washington: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1985.

Houtman, C. "What Did Jacob See In His Dream At Bethel?" Vetus Testamentum 27:3 (July 1977):337-51.

Howard, David M., Jr. "Sodom and Gomorrah Revisited." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27:4 (December 1984):385-400.

Howe, Frederic R. "The Age of the Earth: An Appraisal of Some Current Evangelical Positions." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:565 (January-March 1985):23-37; 566 (April-June 1985):114-29.

Howe, George. "Carbon-14 and Other Radioactive Dating Methods." Caldwell, Idaho: Bible-Science Association, 1970.

Humphreys, D. Russell. Starlight and Time. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Humphreys, W. L. Joseph and His Family: A Literary Study. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina, 1988.

Hunter, Alastair G. "Father Abraham: A Structural and Theological Study of the Yahwist's Presentation of the Abraham Material." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):3-27.

Hutchison, John C. "Darwin's Evolutionary Theory and 19th-Century Natural Theology." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):334-54.

Hyman, Ronald T. "Questions in the Joseph Story: The Effects and Their Implications for Teaching." Religious Education 79:3 (Summer 1984):437-55.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1939 ed. S.v. "Antedeluvian Patriarchs," by John D. Davis.

_____. S.v. "Raamses," by C. R. Conder.

Jackson, Thomas A. "Creation Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):20-25.

Jastrow, Robert. God and the Astronomers. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1978.

_____. Until the Sun Dies. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1977.

Jay, Nancy. "Sacrifice, Descent and the Patriarchs." Vetus Testamentum 38:1 (1988):52-70.

Jeske, John C. "The Gospel Adam and Eve Heard: Genesis 3:15." Wisconsin Lutheran Quarterly 81:3 (Summer 1984):182-84.

Johns, Warren H. "Strategies for Origins." Ministry, May 1981, pp. 26-28.

Johnson, Elliott E. "Premillennialism Introduced: Hermeneutics." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 15-34. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Jones, Peter. "Androgyny: The Pagan Sexual Ideal." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:3 (September 2000):443-69.

Jordan, James B. "Rebellion, Tyranny, and Dominion in the Book of Genesis." Christianity and Civilization 3 (Summer 1983):38-80.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Literary Form of Genesis 1-11." In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, pp. 48-65. Waco: Word Books, 1970.

_____. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

_____. "The Promised Land: A Biblical-Historical View." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:552 (October-December 1981):302-12.

_____. Toward an Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Karageorghis, Vassos. "Exploring Philistine Origins on the Island of Cyprus." Biblical Archaeology Review 10:2 (March-April 1984):16-28.

Kardimon, Samson. "Adoption As a Remedy For Infertility in the Period of the Patriarchs." Journal of Semitic Studies 3:2 (April 1958):123-26.

Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. The Pentateuch. 3 vols. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Key, Thomas. "Does the Canopy Theory Hold Water?" Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):223-25.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1967.

Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1966.

_____. The Bible In Its World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Event of the Exodus." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59 (1971):2-10.

_____. "The Old Testament in its Context 6." Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 64 (1972):2-10.

Klotz, John W. "A Creationist Environmental Ethic." Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:1 (June 1984):6-8.

_____. Genes, Genesis, and Evolution. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970.

_____. Modern Science in the Christian Life. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1961.

Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L Segraves. The Creation Explanation. Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975.

Labuschagne, Casper J. "The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch." Vetus Testamentum 32:3 (1982):268-96.

LaHaye, Tim F. and John D Morris. The Ark on Ararat. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1976.

Lane, David H. "Special Creation or Evolution: No Middle Ground." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):11-31.

_____. "Theological Problems with Theistic Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):155-74.

Lang, Bernhard. "Afterlife: Ancient Israel's Changing Vision of the World Beyond." Bible Review 4:1 (February 1988):12-23.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 1: Genesis-Leviticus, by John Peter Lange and Frederic Gardiner. Translated by Tayler Lewis, A. Gosman, and Charles M. Mead.

Larkin, Clarence. The Spirit World. Philadelphia: By the Author, 1921.

Larsson, Gerhard. "The Chronology of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the MT and LXX." Journal of Biblical Literature 102:3 (September 1983):401-9.

LaSor, William Sanford. "Biblical Creationism." Asbury Theological Journal 42:2 (1987):7-20.

Lawlor, John I. "The Test of Abraham: Genesis 22:1-19." Grace Theological Journal 1:1 (Spring 1980):19-35.

Lazenby, Henry F. "The Image of God: Masculine, Feminine, or Neuter?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30:1 (March 1987):63-70.

Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1942.

Lewis, Clive Staples. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1958.

Lewis, Jack P. "Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition." Biblical Archaeologist 47:4 (December 1984):224-39.

_____. "The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96.

L'Heureux, Conrad. "The Ugaritic and Biblical Rephaim." Harvard Theological Review 67 (1974):265-74.

Livingston, G. Herbert. The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Loewen, Jacob A. "The Names of God in the Old Testament." The Bible Translator 35:2 (April 1984):201-7.

Longacre, R. E. Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1989.

Love, Vicky. Childless Is Not Less. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984.

Lowenthal, E. I. The Joseph Narrative in Genesis. New York: Ktav, 1973.

Lucas, Ernest. "Miracles and natural laws." Christian ARENA 38:3 (September 1985):7-10.

Luke, K. "Esau's Marriage." Indian Theological Studies 25:2 (June 1988):171-90.

_____. "Two Birth Narratives in Genesis." Indian Theological Studies 17:2 (June 1980):154-80.

Luther, Martin. Luther's Commentary on Genesis. 2 vols. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958.

_____. Luther's Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. Vol. 7: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 38-44. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1965.

MacKenzie, Roderick A. F. "The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955):277-86.

Mafico, T. J. "The Crucial Question Concerning the Justice of God." Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42 (March 1983):11-16.

Malcolm, David. "The Seven-Day Cycle." Creation Ex Nihilo 9:2 (March 1987):32-35.

Mann, Thomas. "Jacob Takes a Bride." Bible Review 2:1 (Spring 1986):52-59.

_____. Joseph and His Brothers. New York: Knopf, 1948.

March, Frank Lewis. Studies in Creationism. Washington: Review and Herald, 1950.

Martin, Jobe. The Evolution of a Creationist. Revised ed. Rockwall, Tex.: Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1996.

Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26. New American Commentary series. N.c.: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996.

Mathewson, Steven D. "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35.

Mattingly, Gerald L. "The Early Bronze Age Sites of Central and Southern Moab." Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin 23 (Spring 1984):69-98.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. James. Revised 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1913; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1977.

McGee, J. Vernon. Ruth: The Romance of Redemption. 1943. Reprint ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1981.

McIlwain, William J., Jr. "My Ways Are Not Your Ways." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):92-100.

McKenzie, Brian Alexander. "Jacob's Blessing of Pharaoh: An Interpretation of Gen 46:31-47:26." Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983):386-99.

Mehlman, Bernard. "Genesis 31:19-39: An Interpretation." Journal of Reform Judaism 29:3 (Summer 1982):33-36.

Mendelsohn, I. "On the Preferential Status of the Eldest Son." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 156 (December 1959):38-40.

Mennen, Doug. "How the Wise Man Overcomes Temptation." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):83-91.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Ebla and Biblical Historical Inerrancy." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:550 (October-December 1983):302-21.

_____. "Fixed Dates in Patriarchal Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):241-51.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):3-22.

_____. "Rashi, Nicholas de Lyra, and Christian Exegesis." Westminster Theological Journal 38:1 (Fall 1975):66-79.

_____. "A Theology of the Pentateuch." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 7-87. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Milgrom, Jacob. Numbers. JPS Torah Commentary series. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990.

_____. "Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982):169-76.

Millikin, Jimmy A. "The Origin of Death." Mid-America Theological Journal 7:2 (Winter 1983):17-22.

Mills, M. S. "A Comparison of the Genesis and Lukan Genealogies (The Case for Cainan)." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1978.

Mills, Watson E. "Sons of God: The Roman View." Biblical Illustrator, Fall 1983, pp. 37-39.

Miscall, Peter D. "The Jacob and Joseph Stories as Analogies." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):28-40.

_____. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Chico, Ca: Scholars Press, 1983.

Mixter, Russell Lowell, ed. Evolution and Christian Thought Today. 1st ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

_____. "A Letter to President Edman, March 26, 1962." Bulletin of Wheaton College, May 1962, pp. 4-5.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the Author: P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morganstern, J. "The Book of the Covenant, Part III--The Huqqim." Hebrew Union College Annual 8-9 (1931-32):1-150.

Morris, Henry M. "Biblical Catastrophism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:498 (April-June 1968):107-15.

_____. "Biblical Creationism and Modern Science." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):20-28.

_____. "The Gap Theory." Creation Ex Nihilo. 10:1 (December 1987-February 1988):35-37.

_____. The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976.

_____. "Looking At the Original Kinds." Creation Ex Nihilo 10:4 (November 1988):15-16.

_____. Science, Scripture and the Young Earth. El Cajon, Calif.: Institute for Creation Research, 1983.

Morris, John D. The Young Earth. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Wages of Sin. London: Tyndale Press, 1954.

Morrison, Martha A. "The Jacob and Laban Narrative in Light of Near Eastern Sources." Biblical Archaeologist 46:3 (Summer 1983):155-62.

Morrow, Lance. "In the Beginning: God and Science." Time 113 (Feb. 5, 1979), 149-50.

Morton, Glenn R. "The Carbon Problem." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:4 (March 1984):212-19.

Muffs, Yochanan. "Abraham the Noble Warrior: Patriarchal Politics and Laws of War in Ancient Israel." Journal of Jewish Studies 33:1-2 (Spring-Autumn 1982):81-107.

Muilenburg, James. "The Birth of Benjamin." Journal of Biblical Literature 75 (1956):194-201.

Mulzac, Kenneth. "Genesis 9:1-7: Its Theological Connections with the Creation Motif." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):65-77.

Myers, Ellen. "God's Sabbath Rest--Man's Created Destiny." Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly 7:3 (Spring 1985):11-14.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Amorites," by A. R. Millard.

_____. S.v. "Mining and Metals," by A. Stuart.

_____. S.v. "Rephaim," by T. C. Mitchell.

New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, 1970 ed. S.v. "Chronology."

Newman, Robert C. and Herman J Eckelmann. Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Nichol, Francis David, ed. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary. 7 vols. Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Assoc., 1953-57.

Nicol, George G. "Genesis XXIX. 32 and XXXV. 22a: Reuben's Reversal." Journal of Theological Studies 31:2 (October 1980):536-39.

Noble, C. S. and J. J Naughton. "Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating." Science 162 (Oct. 11, 1968):265-67.

O'Brien, J. Randall. "Flood Stories of the Ancient Near East." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):60-65.

Olson, Everett C. "The Role of Paleontology in the Formulation of Evolutionary Thought." Bioscience 16:1 (January 1966):37-40.

Pappas, Harry S. "Deception as Patriarchal Self-Defense in a Foreign Land: A Form Critical Study of the Wife-Sister Stories in Genesis." Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29:1 (Spring 1984):35-50.

Parker, Gary. Creation Facts of Life. Green Forest, Ark.: Master Books, 1994.

Parker, Joseph. The People's Bible. Vol. 1: The Book of Genesis. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Publishers, 1890.

"The Patriarchs' Wives as Sisters--Is the Anchor Bible Wrong?" Biblical Archaeology Review 1:3 (September 1975):22-26.

Patten, Donald W. "The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:509 (January-March 1971):36-49.

Patterson, Richard D. "The Old Testament Use of an Archetype: The Trickster." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:3 (September 1999):385-94

Pember, George Hawkins. Earth's Earliest Ages and Their Connection with Modern Spiritualism and Theosophy. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., n.d.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Peterson, Everett H. "Prehistory and the Tower of Babel." Creation Research Society Quarterly 19:2 (September 1982):87-90.

Pettinato, Giovanni. "The Royal Archives of Tell Mardekh-Ebla." Biblical Archaeologist 39 (May 1976):44-52.

Pfeiffer, Charles F. Ras Shamra and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel's Criminal Law. Oxford: Blackwell, 1970.

_____. "Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-Exilic Israel." Vetus Testamentum 23:3 (July 1973):349-61.

Pieters, Albertus. Old Testament History. Vol. 1: Notes on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Pink, Arthur W. Gleanings in Genesis. 1922; reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.

Polzin, Robert. "The Ancestress of Israel in Danger' in Danger." Semeia 3 (1975):81-98.

Poverello, Robert M. "The Angels at Sodom and Genesis Rabbah: A Study in Midrash." Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):61-62.

Pritchard, James B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

"The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law." Buried History 5:4 (December 1969):106-14.

Pun, Pattle P. T. "A Theology of Progressive Creationism." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 39:1 (March 1987):9-19.

Rabinowitz, Isaac. "Sarah's Wish (Gen. XXI 6-7)." Vetus Testamentum 29 (July 1979):362-63.

Ramm, Bernard. The Christian View of Science and Scripture. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Ramsey, George W. "Is Name-Giving an Act of Domination in Genesis 2:23 and Elsewhere?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 50:1 (January 1988):24-35.

Ray, J. D. "Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol." Vetus Testamentum 36:3 (July 1986):355-61.

Rendall, Ted S. "Using the Creation Account for Maximum Spiritual Profit." Prairie Overcomer 60:8 (September 1987):3-5, 22.

Rendsburg, Gary A. "Notes on Genesis XXXV." Vetus Testamentum 34:3 (July 1984):361-65.

Rice, Stanley. "Botanical and Ecological Objections to a Preflood Water Canopy." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37:4 (December 1985):225-29.

Rimmer, Harry. Modern Science and the Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Robertson, O. Palmer. "Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham' (Gen 9:20-27)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:2 (June 1998):177-88.

Robinson, Haddon. Leadership 3:1 (Winter 1982), p. 104.

Robinson, Robert B. "Literary Functions of the Genealogies of Genesis." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 48 (October 1986):595-608.

Roehrs, Walter R. "Divine Covenants: Their Structure and Function." Concordia Journal 14:1 (January 1988):7-27.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Covenant with Abraham and Its Historical Setting." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:507 (July-September 1970):241-56.

Rooker, Mark F. "Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):316-23; and 596 (October-December 1992):411-27.

Ross, Allan P. Creation and Blessing. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.

_____. "The Curse of Canaan." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:547 (July-September 1980):223-40.

_____. "The Daughters of Lot and the Daughter-in-Law of Judah: Hubris or Faith in the Struggle for Women's Rights." Exegesis and Exposition. 2:1 (Summer 1987):71-82.

_____. "The Dispersion of the Nations in Genesis 11:1-9." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):119-38.

_____. "Genesis." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 15-101. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. "Jacob at the Jabbok, Israel at Peniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):338-54.

_____. "Jacob's Vision: The Founding of Bethel." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:567 (July-September 1985):224-37.

_____. "Noah--'This One Shall Comfort Us.'" Exegesis and Exposition. 3:1 (Fall 1988):71-82.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Content." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:549 (January-March 1981):22-34.

_____. "The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Structure." Bibliotheca Sacra 137:548 (October-December 1980):340-53.

Ross, Hugh N. Creation and Time: A Biblical and Scientific Perspective on the Creation-Date Controversy. Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994.

Roth, Ariel A. "Evidences for a Worldwide Flood." Ministry, May 1984, pp. 12-13.

Roth, Wolfgang M. W. "The Wooing of Rebekah: A Tradition-Critical Study of Genesis 24." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34 (1972):177-87.

Rowley, Harold H. "Recent Discovery and the Patriarchal Age." In The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Revised. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965.

Ruble, Richard L. "The Doctrine of Dreams." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:500 (October-December 1968):360-64.

Ryrie, Charles C. "The Bible and Evolution." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:493 (January-March 1967):66-78.

_____. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

_____. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

_____. "The Doctrine of Capital Punishment." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:515 (July-September 1972):211-17.

_____. You Mean the Bible Teaches That . . . Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Sailhamer, John H. "Exegetical Notes: Genesis 1:1-2:4a." Trinity Journal 5 NS:1 (Spring 1984):73-82.

_____. "Genesis." In Genesis-Numbers. Vol. 2 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990.

_____. "The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44:1 (March 2001):5-23.

_____. "The Mosaic Law and the Theology of the Pentateuch." Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991):241-61.

_____. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Salkin, Jeffrey K. "Dinah, The Torah's Forgotten Woman," Judaism 35:3 (Summer 1986):284-89.

Samuel, Maurice. Certain People of the Book. New York: Knopf, 1955.

_____. "Joseph--The Brilliant Failure." Bible Review 2:1 (Summer 1986):38-51, 68.

Sarna, Nahum M. "Abraham in History." Biblical Archaeology Review 3 (December 1977):5-9.

_____. Understanding Genesis. 1st ed. Heritage of Biblical Israel series, no. 1. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966.

Sasson, J. "The Tower of Babel' As a Clue to the Redactional Structuring of the Primeval History [Gen 1-11:9]." In The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon, pp. 211-19. Edited by Gary Rendsburg, et al. New York: Ktav, 1980.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Sauer, Erich E. The King of the Earth. Translated by Michael Bolister. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Scalise, Pamela J. "The Significance of Curses and Blessings." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):57-59.

Schaeffer, Edith. "What Is My Mess of Pottage?" Christianity Today 19:12 (March 14, 1975):50-51.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Genesis in Time and Space. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1972.

Schaub, R. Thomas and Walter E Rast. "Preliminary Report of the 1981 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 254 (Spring 1984):35-60.

Schneider, Hermann. "Did the Universe Start Out Structured?" Creation Research Society Quarterly 21:3 (December 1984):119-23.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seaver, William L. "A Statistical Analysis of the Genesis Life- Spans." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:2 (September 1983):80-87.

Seebass, Horst. "The Joseph Story, Genesis 48 and the Canonical Process." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):29-43.

Segal, Moses Hirsch. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967.

Selman, M. J. "The Social Environment of the Patriarchs." Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976):114-36.

Shapiro, Marc. "The Silence of Joseph." Journal of Reform Judaism 36:1 (Winter 1989):13-17.

Sharp, Donald B. "In Defense of Rebecca." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10:4 (October 1980):164-68.

Shea, William H. "Literary Structural Parallels between Genesis 1 and 2." Origins 16:2(1989):49-68.

Shehadeh, Imad N. "Contrasts between Eastern and Western Culture." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):3-12.

Shelley, Marshall. "The Death Penalty: Two Sides of a Growing Issue." Christianity Today, March 2, 1984, pp. 14-17.

Shepperson, Vance L. "Jacob's Journey: From Narcissism toward Wholeness." Journal of Psychology and Theology 12:3 (1984):178-87.

Sherlock, Charles. "Creationism, Creation and Scripture." Interchange 35 (1984):17-32.

Simons, J. The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1959.

Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1930.

Slusher, Harold S. Critique of Radiometric Dating. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1973.

Smith, Gary V. "The Concept of God/the Gods as King in the Ancient Near East and the Bible." Trinity Journal 3:NS (1982):18-38.

Smith, William Robertson. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. 3rd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Speiser, Ephraim A., ed. Genesis. 1st ed. Translated by E. A. Speiser. Anchor Bible series, no. 1. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964.

_____. "I Know Not the Day of My Death.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955):252-65.

Sprinkle, Joe M. "Old Testament Perspectives on Divorce and Remarriage." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:4 (December 1997):529-50.

Stahr, James A. "The Death Penalty." Interest, March 1984, pp. 2-3.

Sterchi, David A. "Does Genesis 1 Provide a Chronological Sequence?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):529-36.

Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Stevens, R. Paul. "Family Feud." His 42:3 (December 1981):18-20.

Stigers, Harold G. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

Strickling, James E. "The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues." Kronos 8:1 (Fall 1982):53-62.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sutherland, Dixon. "The Organization of the Abraham Promise Narratives." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 95:3 (1983):337-43.

Tabick, Jacqueline. "The Snake in the Grass: The Problems of Interpreting a Symbol in the Hebrew Bible and Rabbinic Writings." Religion 16 (April 1986):155-67.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke. 1980. S.v. "dor," by Robert D. Culver, 1:186-87.

Thiselton, A. C. "The Supposed Power of Words in the Biblical Writings." Journal of Theological Studies NS25:2 (October 1972):283-99.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Genesis. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Thompson, Henry. O. "The Biblical Ammonites." Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter 1982):1-14.

Throntveit, Mark. "Are the Events in the Genesis Account Set Forth in Chronological Order? No." In The Genesis Debate, pp. 36-55. Edited by Ronald F. Youngblood. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1986.

Thurman, L. Duane. How to Think About Evolution & Other Bible-Science Controversies. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Townsend, Jeffrey L. "Fulfillment of the Land Promise in the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:568 (October-December 1985):320-37.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel" Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216.

_____. "Two Old Testament Stories (Gen. 32:23-32 and Judg. 10:1-5; 12:7-15) and their Hittite Analogies." Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:1 (January-March 1983):321-26.

Ukleja, P. Michael. "Homosexuality and the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:559 (July-September 1983):259-66.

Van Bebber, Mark; and Paul S Taylor. Creation and Time: A Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross. Second ed. Mesa, Ariz.: Eden Communications, 1995.

Van Seters, John. "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near East Customs: A Reexamination." Harvard Theological Review 62:4 (October 1969):377-95.

_____. "The Problem of Childlessness in Near Eastern Law and the Patriarchs of Israel." Journal of Biblical Literature 87 (1968):401-408.

Vawter, Bruce. On Genesis: A New Reading. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis. Translated by John H. Marks. Revised ed. The Old Testament Library series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Vos, Gerhardus. Biblical Theology, Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954.

Vos, Howard F. Genesis. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Walsh, J. T. "Genesis 2:4b-3:24: A Synchronic Approach." Journal of Biblical Literature 96 (1977):161-77.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

_____. "The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):25-36; 526 (April-June 1975):136-144; 527 (July-September 1975):216-228; 528 (October-December 1975):327-342; 133:529 (January-March 1976):28-41.

_____. Creation and Chaos. Portland, Oreg.: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1974.

_____. "Reflections from the Old Testament on Abortion." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:1 (Winter 1976):3-13.

Walvoord, John F. "The New Covenant." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 186-200. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Warfield, B. B. "On the Antiquity and the Unity of the Human Race." Princeton Theological Review 9:1 (January 1911):1-25.

Wcela, Emil A. "The Abraham Stories, History and Faith." Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (October 1970):176-81.

Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Weir, C. J. Mullo, "The Alleged Hurrian Wife-Sister Motif in Genesis." Transactions of the Glasgow University Oriental Society 2:22 (1967-68):14-25.

Weisman, Z. "National Consciousness in the Patriarchal Promises." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (February 1985):55-73.

Wenham, Gordon J. "The Coherence of the Flood Narrative." Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):336-48.

_____. Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1987.

_____. Genesis 15-50. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1994.

_____. "The Symbolism of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15: A Response to G. F. Hasel, JSOT 19 (1981):61-78." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1982):134-37.

Wenham, John W. "Christ's View of Scripture." In Inerrancy, pp. 3-36. Edited by Norman L. Geisler. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980.

West, Stuart A. "The Nuzi Tablets." Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):65-73.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1-11: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.

_____. Genesis 12-36: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985.

_____. Genesis 37-50: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986.

_____. "Promises to the Patriarchs." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible Supplement Volume, pp. 690-93. Edited by George Arthur Buttrick. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

Whitcomb, John C., Jr. The Early Earth. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

_____. Esther: The Triumph of God's Sovereignty. Everyman's Bible Commentary series; Chicago: Moody Press, 1979.

Whitcomb, John C., and Donald B DeYoung. Review of The Waters Above: Earth's Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy, by Joseph C. Dillow. Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):123-32.

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M Morris. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1968.

White, Hugh C. "The Divine Oath in Genesis." Journal of Biblical Literature 92:2 (June 1973):165-79.

_____. "The Joseph Story: A Narrative that Consumes' Its Content." Semeia 31 (1985):49-69.

Whybray, R. Norman. Introduction to the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Williams, John. "Joseph's Wardrobe." Harvester 64:7 (July 1985):19, 21.

Willis, David L. "Creation and/or Evolution." Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 29:2 (June 1977):68-72.

Wilson, R. R. Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977.

Wiseman, Donald J. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part I: Abraham the Hebrew." Bibliotheca Sacra 134:534 (April-June 1977):123-30.

_____. "Abraham in History and Tradition. Part II: Abraham the Prince." Bibliotheca Sacra 134-535 (July-September 1977):228-37.

Witmer, John A. "The Doctrine of Miracles." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):126-34.

Wonderly, Daniel E. God's Time-Records in Ancient Sediments. Flint, Mich.: Crystal Press, 1977.

Wood, Bryant G. "Journey Down the Jabbok." Bible and Spade, Spring 1978, pp. 57-64.

Wood, Leon. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woodmorappe, John. "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils." Creation Research Society Quarterly 20:3 (December 1983):133-85.

Woudstra, Martin H. "The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance." Calvin Theological Journal 5:2 (1970):184-89.

Wright, Chris. "Corruption and Dishonesty: An Old Testament Perspective." TRACI Journal 29 (April-September 1985):4-20.

_____. "Intercession or Irritation?" Third Way, February 1983, pp. 18-19.

Wright, David F. "Woman Before and After the Fall: a comparison of Luther's and Calvin's interpretation of Genesis 1-3." Churchman 98:2 (1984):126-35.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Anthropomorphism in Ancient Religion." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):29-44.

_____. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):24-152.

Young, Davis A. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. Creation and the Flood. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977.

Young, Edward J. Genesis 3. London: Banner of Truth, 1966.

_____. In the Beginning. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976.

_____. Studies in Genesis One. International Library of Philosophy and Theology series in Biblical and Theological Studies. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1973.

Youngblood, Clark. "Wells." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):41-49.

Zimmerli, Walther. "Abraham." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 6 (1978):49-60.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 1975 ed. S.v. "River of Egypt," by Bruce K. Waltke.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Genesis (Book Introduction)

THE BOOK OF GENESIS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Hebrews now entitle all the Five Books of Moses, from the initial words, which originally were written like one continued word or verse; but the Septuagint have preferred to give the titles the most memorable occurrences of each work. On this occasion, the Creation of all things out of nothing, strikes us with peculiar force. We find a refutation of all the heathenish mythology, and of the world's eternity, which Aristotle endeavoured to establish. We behold the short reign of innocence, and the origin of sin and misery, the dispersion of nations, and the providence of God watching over his chosen people, till the death of Joseph, about the year of the world 2369 (Usher) 2399 (Salien and Tirinus), the year before Christ 1631. We shall witness the same care in the other Books of Scripture, and adore his wisdom and goodness in preserving to himself faithful witnesses, and a true Holy Catholic Church, in all ages, even when the greatest corruption seemed to overspread the land. (Haydock)

----------------------------------------

This Book is so called from its treating of the Generation, that is, of the Creation and the beginning of the world. The Hebrews call it Bereshith, from the word with which it begins. It contains not only the History of the Creation of the World, but also an account of its progress during the space of 2369 years, that is, until the death of Joseph.

Gill: Genesis (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS

This book, in the Hebrew copies of the Bible, and by the Jewish writers, is generally called Bereshith, which signifies "in the beginning", being the first word of it; as the other four books of Moses are also called from their initial words. In the Syriac and Arabic versions, the title of this book is "The Book of the Creation", because it begins with an account of the creation of all things; and is such an account, and so good an one, as is not to be met with anywhere else: the Greek version calls it Genesis, and so we and other versions from thence; and that because it treats of the generation of all things, of the heavens, and the earth, and all that are in them, and of the genealogy of men: it treats of the first men, of the patriarchs before the flood, and after it to the times of Joseph. It is called the "first" book of Moses, because there are four more that follow; the name the Jewish Rabbins give to the whole is חמשה חומשי תורה, "the five fifths of the law", to which the Greek word "pentateuch" answers; by which we commonly call these books, they being but one volume, consisting of five parts, of which this is the first. And that they were all written by Moses is generally believed by Jews and Christians. Some atheistical persons have suggested the contrary; our countryman Hobbes ^a would have it, that these books are called his, not from his being the author of them, but from his being the subject of them; not because they were written by him, but because they treat of him: but certain it is that Moses both wrote them, and was read, as he was in the Jewish synagogues, every sabbath day, which can relate to no other writings but these, Joh 1:45. And Spinosa, catching at some doubts raised by Aben Ezra on Deu 1:1 concerning some passages which seemed to him to have been added by another hand, forms objections against Moses being the author of the book of Genesis; which are sufficiently answered by Carpzovius ^b. Nor can Ezra be the author of the Pentateuch, as Spinosa suspects; since it is plain these writings were in being before his time, in the times of Josiah, Amaziah, yea, of David, and also of Joshua, 2Ch 34:14 nay, they are even referred to in the book of Ezra as the writings of Moses, Ezr 3:2 to which may be added, in proof of the same, Deu 31:9. Nor are there any other writings of his authentic; what are ascribed to him, as the Analepsis of Moses, his Apocalypse, and his Last Will and Testament, are apocryphal. That this book of Genesis particularly was written by him, is evident from the testimony of Philip, and even of our Lord Jesus Christ, who both testify that he wrote concerning the Messiah, Joh 1:45 as he did in this book, where he speaks of him as the seed of the woman that should break the serpent's head; as the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed; and as the Shiloh, to whom the gathering of the people should be, Gen 3:15. Nor is there any reason to believe that he wrote this book from the annals of the patriarchs, since it does not appear, nor is it very probable, that they had any; nor from traditions delivered down from one to another, from father to son, which is more probable, considering the length of the lives of the patriarchs: but yet such a variety of particulars respecting times, places, persons, their genealogies and circumstances, so nicely and exactly given, can scarcely be thought to be the fruit of memory; and much less is it to be imagined that he was assisted in it by Gabriel, when he lived in solitude in Midian: but it is best of all to ascribe it to divine inspiration, as all Scripture is by the apostle, 2Ti 3:16 for who else but God could have informed him of the creation, and the manner and order in which every creature was brought into being, with a multitude of things recorded in this book? the design of which is to lead men into the knowledge and worship of the one true God, the Creator of all things, and of the origin of mankind, the fall of our first parents, and their posterity in them; and to point at the means and method of the recovery of man by the Messiah, the promised seed; and to give an account of the state and case of the church of God, in the times of the patriarchs, both before and after the flood, from Adam, in the line of Seth, to Noah; and from Noah to the times of Joseph, in whose death it ends: and, according to Usher ^c, it contains an history of two thousand, three hundred, and sixty nine years.

Gill: Genesis 1 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS 1

This chapter contains an account of the creation of the universe, and all things in it; asserts the creation of the heaven and earth in general, and describes the state and condition of the earth in its first production, Gen 1:1 and then proceeds to declare the work of each of the six days of creation, and to give an account of light, its separation from darkness and the names of both, the work of the first day, Gen 1:3 of the firmament, its use and name, the work of the second day, Gen 1:6 of the appearance of the earth, and the production of grass, herbs, and trees in the earth, the work of the third day, Gen 1:9 of the sun, moon, and stars, their situation, and use, the work of the fourth day, Gen 1:14 of the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea, the work of the fifth day, Gen 1:19 of all kinds of cattle, and beasts, and creeping things, Gen 1:24 and then of man, created male and female, after the image of God, having a grant of dominion over the rest of the creatures, the fruit of divine consultation, Gen 1:26 and of a provision of food for man and beast, Gen 1:29. And the chapter is concluded with a survey God took of all his works, and his approbation of them; all which were the work of the sixth day, and closes the account of the creation in that space of time, Gen 1:31.