UP

Genesis 1-11

By Ronald W. Leigh, Ph.D.

Bible and Cross

Revised January 18, 2017
Copyright, © 2014 Ronald W. Leigh

Bible quotations are from the NIV unless otherwise noted

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part One — Introduction
A. Significance
B. The name "Genesis"
C. Author
D. Outline
E. Reiteration
F. Supposed similarities
Part Two — Genesis 1 - 2
A. Outline of 1:1 - 2:3
B. Creation and other philosophies
C. The structure of Genesis 1:1-2
D. Creation out of nothing
E. Heaven and earth
F. The days of creation
G. Kinds
H. Creation of man in God's image
I. Outline of 2:4-25
J. A helper suitable for man (2:18)
Part Three — Genesis 3
A. Outline of chapter 3
B. The significance of the fall
C. The serpent
D. Who sinned first?
E. Women teachers?
F. Note on 3:8, God "walking" in the garden
G. Both common and individual punishments
H. Depravity and the sin nature – the legacy of the fall 
I. Genesis 3:15, the "protoevangelion"? 
J. Genesis 3:20, Adam named his wife Eve 
K. Genesis 3:21, animal skins, the first sacrifice? 
L. The two named trees 
Part Four — Genesis 4 - 5
A. Cain's offering
B. Chronology, Adam to Noah
Part Five — Genesis 6 - 9
A. (under construction)
Part Six — Genesis 10
A. Table of nations – Genesis 10
Part Seven — Genesis 11
A. Chronology, Shem to Abram

Part One — Introduction

A.  Significance

The Old Testament deals mainly with Israel, God's nation chosen to bring honor to his name, to receive special blessings for herself, and to demonstrate God's goodness to all the other nations.  Israel began with the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, as recorded in Genesis 12 - 50.

But before Moses tells the story of the Patriarchs, he lays down a much broader foundation in the first 11 chapters of Genesis, dealing with the beginning of everything important to human beings.

Genesis 1-11 sets the stage by describing God, his created universe, and the fallenness of humankind. So before relating the personal story of national Israel, the Bible first tells the sad universal story of all humankind. As such, these chapters are far more than mere background to the pentateuchal story. They comprise some of the most profound truths of our faith. … The rest of the ancient Near East has nothing like Genesis 1-11. Since most modern readers already assume the oneness of the sovereign God and the significance of humanity, we usually fail to grasp the innovative contribution these chapters made as theological foundations for the rest of Scripture. As divine revelation, these chapters demolished the cherished beliefs of the day. The plurality of the gods and the insignificance of humanity were unquestioned assumptions in the ancient Near East. (Arnold, Bill T. and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey, Baker, 1999, p. 78)

B.  The name "Genesis"

The exact English word "genesis" is not found in the actual text of standard translations of any New or Old Testament book.

The title of the book, "Genesis" as we read it in our English bibles, comes from the Septuagint.  The Septuagint (LXX) is the translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek around 200 BC.  The first book in the LXX has the title γενεσις (genesis) which means "birth" or "origin."  The first words in the actual text of the LXX are εν αρχη (en archē) which means "beginning" or "in the beginning."  (These are the same two words used by John to begin his gospel.)

Genesis 1:1 Greek

In ancient Hebrew, the book of Genesis did not have a title per se, as the book was known by its opening word.  The Hebrew text begins with the word berēshith (as shown below) which means "beginning" or "in the beginning."

Genesis 1:1 Hebrew interlinear

This is the title typically found in a Hebrew copy of Genesis, or even in an English copy of the Old Testament such as the Tanakh (published by the Jewish Publication Society).

By the way, you can listen to Genesis 1 (or any O. T. chapter) read in Hebrew at torahclass.com/audio-bible-in-hebrew.

C.  Author

Who wrote Genesis?  The author does not identify himself within the book of Genesis.

1.  Moses wrote Genesis

Both Christian tradition and Jewish tradition have held that Moses was directly responsible for the writing of the book of Genesis (indeed, the entire Pentateuch, Genesis through Deuteronomy).  This took place perhaps some time around the exodus and the wilderness wanderings, which occurred in the late1400s BC.  There is no convincing evidence that any other name should be attached to the book, therefore we agree with the traditional view.

When we say "directly responsible" we have in mind two different types of activities.  First, Moses, guided by the Holy Spirit, personally wrote most or all of the book of Genesis.  Second, Moses, again guided by the Holy Spirit, may have compiled, redacted, or translated certain brief sections of Genesis from records that were previously recorded, perhaps by Moses, perhaps by someone else.  (Symbolic writing in both Mesopotamia and Egypt began at least 1500 years before the time of Moses.)  This could have been a process somewhat similar to that used by Luke (see Luke 1:1-4).

There are a number of references in other parts of the Bible which suggest Mosaic authorship for the Pentateuch.  (The obvious exception, of course, would be the last chapter of Deuteronomy, which tells of Moses' death.)  Since the Pentateuch is widely understood to be a unit, the implication is that Moses also wrote Genesis . 

… Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end …  (Deuteronomy 31:24)

For the phrase "from beginning to end," other translations have:

It seems clear that Moses should be considered the author of the entire Pentateuch.  Also see Exodus 17:14;  24:3-4;  2 Chronicles 25:4;  34:14;  Ezra 6:18;  Daniel 9:11;  Malachi 4:4;  Mark 7:10;  12:19;  Luke 20:37;  24:44;  John 1:45:  5:45-47;  7:19-23;  Romans 10:5 (compare Leviticus 18:5).

Also, the phrase "the Lord said to Moses" occurs more than a hundred times in Exodus through Deuteronomy.  We take those phrases as an historically accurate description of Moses' inspired authorship of the Pentateuch rather than as something added by a later writer or redactor to add weight to his late writings.

By the way, some look to Acts 15:1 as proof that Moses wrote Genesis, but in this passage Luke is quoting the words of the Judaizers.  This makes it reasonable only to claim that the Judaizers believed Moses taught circumcision (compare Genesis 17), but not necessarily that Moses wrote Genesis.

2.  Editorial updates

The above conclusion, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch including Genesis, leaves open the possibility that there were occasional editorial updates after Moses' time.  For example, as Deuteronomy 34 tells the story of Moses' death, it includes the phrases "to this day" (verse 6) and "Since then" (verse 10) indicating that a period of time had already passed after the death of Moses.

See also the name change from Laish to Dan mentioned in Judges 18:29, indicating that the reference to Dan in Genesis 14:14 was probably the work of a scribe at a later time intending to make the passage clear to his contemporaries.

Some see the reference to Israelite kings in Genesis 36:31 as another example of an editorial update since, at the time of the Pentateuch, Israel did not yet have any kings.  Even though this is a possible redaction, it must also be remembered that Moses wrote under inspiration, and was a mighty prophet (Deuteronomy 34:10-12).

Another passage which may represent an editorial update is the reference to the district of Rameses in Genesis 47:11.  Here is the note from the net.bible on this passage:

The use of this name may represent a modernization of the text for the understanding of the intended readers, substituting a later name for an earlier one. Alternatively, there may have been an earlier Rameses for which the region was named.  (net.bible.org, note on Genesis 47:11)

3.  Outdated JEDP theory

The old, widespread Documentary Hypothesis arose more from imagination than from sound scholarship.  This hypothesis was a long time in development, but was formalized by Julius Wellhausen during the late 1800s, along with other liberal theologians in Germany who had a low view of scripture.  Even though they did not have the documents to prove it, they thought they saw four different sources behind the book of Genesis.  In their view all these sources were written several hundred years after the time of Moses.

The four imagined sources were called:

The supposition that there are different sources for Genesis is based on such things as the following:

  1. There are different words for God (Elohim, Yahweh) in different sections.  However, different words could easily be used by the same author to emphasize different aspects of God.  Those who hold the documentary theory assume the different words require different authors and thus different documents, perhaps in different time periods.  (By the way, this same phenomenon occurs in the Koran.)
  2. There are duplicate creation narratives.  For example, compare 1:1 - 2:3 and 2:4-25.  However, the second account is not really that much like the first.  Each account includes a lot of material that the other account omits.
  3. Each source supposedly reflects a different view of God.  However, this notion requires a lot of assumptions and imagination and does not come "straight" out of the text.

This documentary theory was quickly and successfully shown to be very unconvincing by conservative Bible scholars, but it still appears as "standard thinking" at many universities and in many publications.  For example, the Saint Joseph edition of the New American Bible (an officially approved translation and study Bible of the Roman Catholic church) promotes the JEDP view.

The grandeur of this historic sweep [the Pentateuch] is the result of a careful and complex joining of several historical traditions, or sources. These are primarily four: the so-called Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuteronomic strands that run through the Pentateuch. (They are conveniently abbreviated as J, E, P and D.) Each brings to the Torah its own characteristics, its own theological viewpoint … . … we do not conceive of him [Moses] as the author of the books in the modern sense. … Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, "the Lord said to Moses." … it was transmitted by word of mouth from generation to generation – until all was brought together in writing, about the sixth century B.C.  (Saint Joseph Edition of The New American Bible, Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1986, in the section entitled "The Pentateuch," p. 1-2)

As another example of the fact that the JEDP theory is still alive, consider the Yale lecture on Genesis found at oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-145/lecture-3.  In this lecture, Dr. Christine Hayes refers to contradictions between the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, as well as to the writers (plural) of Genesis, which is standard thinking for those who accept some form of the JEDP theory.  (Even though Hayes has what we would call a low view of scripture, she does emphasize the overall contrast between the Babylonian worldview and the biblical worldview.  Her lecture is very interesting and worth the 47 minutes.)

For more information concerning the JEDP theory and its weaknesses see the following (shortest listed first):

4.  Conclusion

Here is Jamieson's conclusion regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch.

There is the strongest reason, then, for believing that the Pentateuch, as it exists now, is substantially the same as it came from the hands of Moses. The appearance of a later hand, it is true, is traceable in the narrative of the death of Moses at the close of Deuteronomy, and some few interpolations, such as inserting the altered names of places, may have been made by Ezra, who revised and corrected the version of the ancient Scriptures. But, substantially, the Pentateuch is the genuine work of Moses, as many, who once impugned its claims to that character, and looked upon it as the production of a later age, have found themselves compelled, after a full and unprejudiced investigation of the subject, to proclaim their conviction that its authenticity is to be fully relied on.  (Robert Jamieson, Introduction to the Pentateuch, in the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary on the whole Bible)

 

D.  Outline

  1. God creates heaven and earth full of plants and animals, and creates man unique  (1:1 - 2:3)
  2. God creates man and places him in a garden  (2:4-17)
  3. God creates Eve for/from Adam  (2:18-25)
  4. The fall:  Eve and Adam tempted, sin, punished  (ch 3)
  5. Cain's offering rejected; he kills Abel and is punished  (4:1-16)
  6. Cain's descendants  (4:17-24)
  7. Adam to Noah  (4:25 - ch 5)
  8. A world-wide flood as both punishment and salvation  (ch 6-8)
  9. Post-flood instructions and the rainbow promise  (9:1-19)
  10. Noah gets drunk  (9:20-29)
  11. Descendants of Noah's three sons  and their dispersal  (ch 10)
  12. Tower of Babel and confusion of languages  (11:1-9)
  13. From Shem to Abram, whose family moves toward Canaan  (11:10-32)

E.  Reiteration

The story line in the first 11 chapters of Genesis is not strictly sequential.  Rather, there is considerable overlap between the various sections.  In several cases an event is summarized early, then in a later section that same event is expanded with greater detail.  If one event occurs before another event in the record, that does not automatically mean that that event occured before the other event in time, due to reiteration.  Perhaps the best example of this reiteration is in the first two chapters.

Other examples of reiteration include the following:

Of course, there is a general chronological flow.  Events described early in the record generally occur before events described late in the record.  However, there is also overlap as shown above.  Thus we can describe the first 11 chapters of Genesis as both chronological and topical.

The recapitulation described above may indicate that when Moses wrote Genesis he incorporated older written documents.  This is especially suggested by the presence of several sections beginning with the Hebrew word toledoth, which means generations, account, or genealogy.  This word occurs at 2:4:  5:1;  6:9:  10:1  11:10;  11:27 and elsewhere.  These older documents may have been written earlier by Moses himself, or handed down to Moses from previous generations.  (Some have speculated than Noah, Shem, and Terah could be possible authors of these previous documents.)

F.  Supposed similarities

Some of the themes and events found in the biblical creation and flood stories are also found in other ancient literature from Mesopotamia.  This literature has been found as broken clay tablets, written in cuneiform (wedge shaped indentations).

Were these ancient stories written and preserved because people groups other than the Hebrews passed along traditions learned from their original ancestors?  Idealistically, the existence of this literature may indicate how widely the ancient truths of divine creation and the flood were known.  More realistically, however, because of the basic differences between these ancient myths and the biblical accounts, and because of the nature of man, this literature serves better to illustrate how fully corrupted these oral traditions had become.

Below are three examples.  Although these writings may pre-date Moses and have a few similarities, we believe that it is completely unfounded to suggest that Moses simple borrowed his ideas from the cultures around him.  What Moses wrote he wrote in contrast to the mythology of the surrounding nations, and under divine inspiration.  Thus Genesis is the only inspired account of how these beginning events really happened.

1.  Enuma Elish

The Enuma Elish is a Babylonian religious poem primarily about Marduk and many other gods and their activities, and secondarily about the creation of the world and man.  It was discovered among the ruins of the Royal Library of Ashurbanipal (King of Assyria) in Nineveh around AD 1850, and published in 1875.  The poem occupies seven clay tablets and is slightly over 1000 lines in length, although significant portions are missing.  It was written by Babylonian priests perhaps as early as 1800 BC.  Although it is occasionally described as a Babylonian creation story, it devotes relatively little space to creation and a great deal of space to the exploits of Marduk, the high god of the Babylonian priests.

The words "Enuma Elish" appears at the very beginning of this document, meaning "when above."  It includes a version of creation which involves many gods.  After a great deal of jealous quarreling and intrigue among the gods (not unlike a modern soap opera), Marduk kills the evil Tiamat, splits her in half and uses one half of her body to form the earth and the other half to form the sky.  Marduk uses the blood of another god to create a savage called man, who must do hard labor for all the gods.  Out of gratitude, the other gods build the city of Babylon in honor of Marduk.

The Enuma Elish presents the following worldview.

Here are a few lines from the poem:

Tablet I
v. 1  When above the heaven had not (yet) been named,
v. 2  (And) below the earth had not (yet) been called by a name …
v. 6  And no pasture land had been formed (and) not (even) a reed marsh was to be seen …

Tablet IV
v. 93  Tiamat (and) Marduk, the wisest of the gods, advanced against one another …
v. 101  He shot off an arrow, and it tore her interior …
v. 103  When he had subdued her, he destroyed her life;
v. 104  He cast down her carcass (and) stood upon it. …
v. 137  He split her open … into two (parts);
v. 138  Half of her he set in place and formed the sky (therewith) as a roof. …
v. 144  And a great structure, its counterpart, he established, (namely,) Esharra [Earth]

With such obvious differences between the worldview of the Enuma Elish and the worldview of the Bible, it is surprising that anyone would suggest than Moses borrowed this poem and used it as the basis for his own creation story.  Nevertheless, that is what some have claimed.

… parallels between the Babylonian cosmological texts and the Old Testament have led many scholars to the conclusion that the biblical passages in question are founded upon Babylonian exemplars.  (Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis: The Story of Creation, 2nd ed., Phoenix, 1951, p. 82)

However, Heidel's own conclusion is much more realistic and scholarly:

I reject the idea that the biblical account gradually evolved out of the Babylonian; for that the differences are far too great and the similarities far too insignificant.  In the light of the differences, the resemblances fade away almost like the stars before the sun.  (op. cit., p. 138-139)

After summarizing the characteristics of both the Enuma Elish and the Genesis account of creation, Heidel notes that,

These exalted conceptions in the biblical account of creation give it a depth and dignity unparalleled in any cosmogony known to us from Babylonia or Assyria.  (op. cit., p. 140)

However, it may be incorrect to assume that the biblical account of creation is entirely separate from the Babylonian account.  It is very likely that the highly educated Moses purposely expressed portions of the biblical creation accounts with the conscious intent of highlighting the contrasts between the true (biblical) view and the mythological views of the surrounding nations.  This may well have been Moses' way of saying "you have heard that it was said … but I tell you" (compare Matthew 5:21).

2.  Epic of Atrahasis

This epic is housed in the British Museum (see photograph of tablet here).  It is older than Enuma Elish, dating from the early second millennium BC, before the time of Moses.  Its similarities reside merely in the fact that it touches upon the same subject as the Genesis creation account.  But its story line is drastically different – focusing on the source of human suffering.

In this myth man was created by having one god slay a rebel god, then a third god mixed the dead god's flesh and blood with clay.  Then 14 womb goddesses were fertilized with this mixture and gave birth to seven human pairs.  This resulted in man's nature being partly earthly and partly divine, although the divine part has no power of its own since it came from a dead god.  But the ghost of the dead god remained in each human, and it is this part of a human that exists after death in the Nether World.  During a person's life, he is powerless and must form an alliance with a god in order to achieve anything.

The god's original intent in creating man was to have man do the work that the gods used to have to do.  But man multiplied so quickly and made such a constant clamor that the god Enlil could not sleep.  After much trial and error on the part of Enlil, including having other gods cause a plague, then hold back the rain, he finally decided to cause a flood.  But this plot also failed because the god Enki warned Atrahasis, telling him to build a boat to save his family and all the animals.  In the end, the gods are able to hinder the grown of mankind by killing babies at birth and by inventing barren women.

The worldview presented in the Epic of Atrahasis is very similar to that presented in Enuma Elish.  Some scholars have assumed direct influence, as though Moses got his ideas from this epic.  However, any similarities with the biblical account of man's creation or the flood are mere surface similarities.

3.  The Gilgamesh Epic

This epic poem, which is over 3000 lines long (see photograph of one of the tablets here), was discovered about the same time and in the same place as the Enuma Elish.  Several versions of the epic have been discovered.  The central figure is a cruel, young king named Gilgamesh, who is part god and part man.  After the death of a comrade, he seeks out Utnapishtim, who is reported to have discovered the secret of immortality.  Utnapishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of his survival of a terrible flood.

This short flood story which Gilgamesh hears from Utnapishtim is the portion of the epic which some scholars have claimed is the origin of the Genesis flood narrative.  There are a number of detailed similarities

But there are also a number of major differences.  After a detailed analysis of the issues, Heidel offers this conclusion.

The available evidence proves nothing beyond the point that there is a genetic relationship between Genesis and the Babylonian versions.  The skeleton is the same in both cases, but the flesh and blood and, above all, the animating spirit are different.  It is here that we meet the most far-reaching divergencies between the Hebrew and the Mesopotamian stories.
    The main Babylonian flood legend, in particular, is "steeped in the silliest polytheism," to quote the words of Dillmann.  The gods are divided in their counsel, false to one another and to man; they flee in consternation to the highest heaven and cower like dogs in their distress; they quarrel and lie and gather over the sacrificer like a swarm of hungry flies! In the Babylonian accounts the moral or ethical motive is almost completely absent. …
    In the biblical story, on the other hand, the flood is sent by the one omnipotent God, who is just in all his dealings with the children of men, who punishes the impenitent sinner, even if it means the destruction of the world, but who saves the just with his powerful hand and in his own way. In Genesis the deluge is clearly and unmistakably a moral judgment, a forceful illustration of divine justice meting out stern punishment to a "faithless and perverse generation" but delivering the righteous.  (Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, Phoenix, 1949, p. 268-269)

Keil and Delitzsch agree:

If we pass on to the contents of our account of the creation, they differ as widely from all other cosmogonies as truth from fiction. Those of heathen nations are either hylozoistical, deducing the origin of life and living beings from some primeval matter; or pantheistical, regarding the whole world as emanating from a common divine substance; or mythological, tracing both gods and men to a chaos or world-egg. They do not even rise to the notion of a creation, much less to the knowledge of an almighty God, as the Creator of all things.
…
But if the biblical account of the creation has full claim to be regarded as historical truth, the question arises, whence it was obtained. The opinion that the Israelites drew it from the cosmogony of this or the other ancient people, and altered it according to their own religious ideas, will need no further refutation, after what we have said respecting the cosmogonies of other nations. Whence then did Israel obtain a pure knowledge of God, such as we cannot find in any heathen nation, or in the most celebrated of the wise men of antiquity, if not from divine revelation?  (Keil and Delitzsch, commentary on Genesis 1)

4.  A question

After considering these supposed parallels to the biblical creation and flood accounts, we pose this question:  Which would you rather defend, the Bible or the Babylonian stories?

Part Two — Genesis 1 - 2

A.  Outline of 1:1 - 2:3

  1. Heading/summary  1:1
  2. Original condition  1:2
  3. Six ways (aspects, "days") God originated and organized  1:3-31
    1. Light and dark  1:3-5
    2. Expanse and waters  1:6-8
    3. Seas, land, and vegitation  1:9-13
    4. Lights in the sky  1:14-19
    5. Fish and birds  1:20-23
    6. Living creatures, man (unique), food  1:24-31
  4. Completed condition and rest  2:1-3

B.  Creation and other philosophies

The biblical view of creation establishes a philosophical view of God that is unique among various other world philosophies.

C.  The structure of Genesis 1:1-2

NIV
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty,
   darkness was over the surface of the deep,
   and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

NASB
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was formless and void,
   and darkness was over the surface of the deep;
   and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

NET (net.bible.org)
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was without shape and empty,
   and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep,
   but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

In each of the above translations, verse 1 is a complete sentence and serves as a summary and heading for the following story of creation.  Verse 2 describes the condition of the matter after God created it, but before he organized that matter into the world as we observe it.  This does not require a catastrophe between verse 1 and 2.  Rather, it merely recognizes the fact that God's process of creation, besides initially creating all matter out of nothing, also involved taking that matter (which was formless, empty, and dark) and organizing it into our functioning world and universe.

It is also possible, as illustrated in the following translations, to find the main clause (actually 3 parallel clauses) in verse 2, with verse 1 functioning as an adverbial phrase answering the question "when?" for each of the three verbs in verse 2 ("was," "was," and "was hovering").  Thus the first phrase of Genesis 1:1 includes "when" in each of these translations.

Notice, however, that a definite majority of translations treat verse 1 as a main clause.

Those translations using "when" allow for the creation to start with material already present (of course, in a disorganized state), rather than starting with nothing.  This in turn could be taken to imply that matter is eternal.  (However, see the next section, "Creation out of nothing.")

Regarding the verb "created" in verse 1, the net.bible has the following note:

The English verb "create" captures well the meaning of the Hebrew term in this context. The verb (bara') always describes the divine activity of fashioning something new, fresh, and perfect. The verb does not necessarily describe creation out of nothing (see, for example, v. 27, where it refers to the creation of man); it often stresses forming anew, reforming, renewing  (net.bible.org, note on Genesis 1:1)

And Smith has the following comment:

Creation, in its strict sense of producing something out of nothing, contains an idea so noble and elevated that naturally human language could only gradually rise up to it. It is quite possible, therefore, that the word bârâ, "he created," may originally have signified to hew stone or fell timber; but as a matter of fact it is a rare word, and employed chiefly or entirely in connection with the activity of God. As, moreover, "the heaven and the earth" can only mean the totality of all existent things, the idea of creating them out of nothing is contained in the very form of the sentence. Even in Genesis 1:21; Genesis 1:27, where the word may signify something less than creation ex nihilo, there is nevertheless a passage from inert matter to animate life, for which science knows no force, or process, or energy capable of its accomplishment.  (R. Payne Smith, Commentary on Genesis 1:1, in Ellicotts Commentary on the Whole Bible, p 11)

It has been suggested by some that verse 2 should be translated " … the earth became formless and empty …".  This would mean that the original creation was perfect, then a calamity ruined that creation.  Indeed, some who favor the translation "became" reason that there must be a calamity between verse 1 and 2 because God would certainly create everything perfect the first time.  In other words, they would say, God does not create in stages;  nothing that God creates needs fixing.  While this is a nice idea, it is not supported by scripture.  Remember the story of the blind man whom Jesus healed in two stages (Mark 8:22-25).  Note that the vast majority of standard translations read "was" rather than "became."  Also note the following very terse comment from some highly respected Old Testament commentators:

And the earth was (not became) waste and void.  (Keil and Delitzsch commentary on Genesis)

D.  Creation out of nothing

God did not take eternally pre-existing matter and fashion it into our world and universe.  Rather, he spoke everything into existence out of nothing.  Notice the wording, "and God said," followed by a description of what came into existence (verses 1, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26).  This is often referred to as creation "ex nihilo" (Latin, from nothing).

Notice also these other indications of creation ex nihilo.

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.  (Psalm 33:6)

The LORD brought me [wisdom] forth as the first of his works,, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began. When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water; before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.  (Proverbs 8:22-26)

… by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.  (Colossians 1:16-17)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  (John 1:1-3)

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.  (Hebrews 11:3)

There is no analogy to this fact in human experience.  All of our "creation" is merely rearranging.

 

This basic teaching, that God created everything out of nothing, has important implications.  First, God did not make the universe, the world, man, etc. out of pre-existing matter.  If he had, then either some other supernatural being created that matter earlier (the error of polytheism and of the ancient Mesopotamian myths), or matter is eternal.

Second, God existed complete before creation.  In other words, creation is not part of God, and God is not a part of creation.  God is transcendent.  Yet there is a sense in which God is also imminent (Acts 17:28), but this has to do more with God's availability to all men than with any identification of man with God.

E.  Heaven and earth

1.  Heaven and earth as the universe

Since we know a little about the vastness of the universe with all its galaxies, it is easy for us to think of the phrase "heaven and earth" as merely indicating a small part of the universe.  For the ancient Hebrews, however, this phrase must have indicated everything – all that can be seen whether you look up or down.

Is the phrase "heaven and earth" an indication that the Bible is outdated, not up to date scientifically?  See the paper "Integrating Science and Theology," especially the section entitled Biblical Writers and Incorrect Models – The Vaulted Heaven.

With this in mind it is interesting to note that the NIV translates Hebrews 1:2 and 11:3 using "universe" rather than "ages" or "worlds" like most other translations.  The net.bible.org notes on these two verses indicate that the word αιων (aiōn, age), which essentially refers to a period of time, came to refer to whatever exists during that period.

2.  Heaven and earth temporary

The present heaven and earth will eventually be replaced by a new heaven and earth.

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.  (Psalm 102:25-27)

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. (Matthew 24:35, compare Matthew 5:18)

By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.… But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. … That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.  (2 Peter 3:7-13)

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  (Revelation 21:1)

This leads us to consider the beginning and end of other things.

Who/what Beginning End
God No No
God's word(s)  Yes? No
Angels Yes No
Man's spirit Yes No
Man's body Yes Rebuilt / replaced
Heaven and earth Yes Rebuilt / replaced
Animals Yes Yes

How then do we understand Ecclesiastes 1:4, which says that "the earth remains forever"?  Is this a contradiction?  No – look at the context.  In this passage Solomon is focusing on man's life on the earth (in verse 3 he refers to man's labor "under the sun").  It is legitimate to call the earth permanent when compared to human generations on earth.  But it is also legitimate to call the earth temporary when compared with God and his word.

F.  The days of creation

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding the length of the six creative days in Genesis 1.  But this discussion often fails to take into account two things:  (1) the context of the six days and (2) the possibility that the record of the six days exhibits both chronological and topical features.

In an earlier section we mentioned that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are both chronological and topical.  The same thing is true of the six days of creation in Genesis 1.  See the paper Six Days of Creation: Six Aspects.

G.  Kinds

Each of the animals that God created is said to reproduce according to its "kinds" (Genesis 1:11-12, 21, 24-25).  For a discussion of this topic see the section entitled "Taxonomy and Genesis 'kinds'" in the paper Evolution.

H.  Creation of man in God's image

After Moses finishes his description of the creation of the world with its plants and animals, he describes the creation of man.  At this point in the record (1:26) there is a remarkable and sudden change in the way things are described.  Everything else has been described as reproducing "according to their kinds," but God will make man "in our image, in our likeness."  This is called the doctrine of the imago dei.  See the paper The Imago Dei.

This doctrine of the imago dei counters the error of animism.  Man was created in God's image, but the animals were not.  Thus trees do not have souls.  Animals do not have souls in the same sense that people have souls.  Man is unique.  He is even given the charge of ruling over the animals.

I.  Outline of 2:4-25

  1. God creates man from dust and places him in a lush garden/orchard  2:4-17
  2. God creates woman from man and Adam recognizes her humanity  2:18-25

J.  A helper suitable for man (2:18)

The NIV renders Genesis 2:18 as follows

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Many translations have similar wording, referring to the woman as man's "helper."  This wording could cause some people to think of woman as man's servant, and perhaps as inferior to man.  But it should be remembered that even God is referred to as "helper" in a number of passages (for example, Exodus 18:4;  Psalm 10:14;  27:9;  121:2)  See also John 14:16 which refers to the Holy Spirit as "Counselor" or "Helper" of the same kind as Jesus!  In this verse "another" is allos (another of the same kind) rather than heteros (another of a different kind).

Also consider Kaiser's comments regarding the meaning of "helper suitable for him" (‘ezer kenegdo).

… the customary translation of the two words ‘ezer kenegdo as "helper fitting him" is almost certainly wrong. … the noun ‘ezer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In many of the passages, it is used in parallelism to words which clearly denote strength or power. …[Kaiser then quotes Deuteronomy 33:26, 29; see also "strength" in Psalm 89:19] … Therefore I suggest that we translate Genesis 2:18 as "I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man." Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. … This line of reasoning which stresses full equality is continued in Genesis 2:23 where Adam says of Eve: "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man." The idiomatic sense of this phrase bone of my bones is a "very close relative," "one of us" or in effect "our equal." The woman was never meant to be an assistant or "helpmate" to the man.  (Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, InterVarsity Press, 1988, p. 24-26)

Part Three — Genesis 3

A.  Outline of chapter 3

  1. Satan's tempting lie  3:1-5
  2. Adam and Eve's sin  3:6-7
  3. God's inquiry  3:8-13
  4. God's punishment  3:14-19
    1. Of Satan  3:14-15
    2. Of Eve  3:16
    3. Of Adam  3:17-19
  5. God provision: clothing and exclusion  3:20-24

B.  The significance of the fall

The fall, the first sin of mankind as recorded in Genesis 3, carries great significance in biblical Christianity.  Biblical Christianity makes no sense without the fall.

1.  The fall sets biblical Christianity apart

The fall also provides a basic point of contrast between Christianity and many other world religions and cults.  For example:

2.  A fall requires free choice

The very idea of a fall is dependent upon the idea of choice, that is, human freedom of will.  Even Calvin recognized this fact.

In his upright state, man possessed freedom of will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life. … Adam, therefore, might have stood if he chose, since it was only by his own will that he fell; but it was because his will was pliable in either direction, and he had not received constancy to persevere, that he so easily fell. Still he had a free choice of good and evil …. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Eerdmans 1957 edition, translated by Henry Beveridge, Book 1, Chap 15, Sec 8)

See the section entitled The Order, Using a Two-dimensional Diagram in the paper "The Order of Salvation and Divine Foreknowledge."

3.  Ways to deny the fall

The Neo-orthodox method of denying the fall is to take it out of real history and place it in "supra-history" or "primal history."  Thus, it is even denied that Adam and Eve were real human beings living in our kind of history, as the account in Genesis 3 indicates and as the genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 requires.

In biblical Christianity the fall is seen as an actual historical event, not merely as a myth or a principle.  There really was an original pair who received a specific command, a real temptation, a particular initial sinful act, and just consequences.  And this event was a one-time event historically, although in a sense it reappears early in the life of every human being who attains the age of accountability (see the paper The Age of Accountability).

Another closely related method of denying an original pair of humans and the fall is to postulate macro-evolution.  It is essential to recognize that the theory of evolution cancels not only the doctrine of the direct divine creation of mankind, but also cancels the fall.  So for the convinced evolutionist, his view of man is both too low, for he rejects the creation of man in God's image, and it is to high, for he rejects the fall.

4.  Wrong problem, wrong solution

Our society in general, and our educational system in particular, have neglected the fall.  And since they do not admit the most basic truth about the nature of man, they cannot produce an effective solution to the problems of society.

C.  The serpent

Genesis 3:1 states that the tempter is a "serpent," which is said to be more "crafty" (Hebrew 'arum, clever, shrewd, sly) than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.  (On the assumption that the serpent was one of those wild animals, we take verse 1 as indicating that the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal.)  Being crafty is not necessarily a sin in itself.  However craftiness can be used for evil ends (see 2 Corinthians 11:3).

The apostle John identifies this ancient serpent as the devil, or Satan.

The great dragon was hurled down – that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. (Revelation 12:9; compare 20:2.  See also Luke 10:18)

John also charactarizes the devil as

a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him (John 8:44)

Thus we have a fallen angel, Satan, using this wild animal as his "voice."  Satan's tactic is obvious, he questions the truth of God (3:1), then states an outright lie of his own (3:4).  Satan is true to his nature as described in John 8:44 quoted above.

D.  Who sinned first?

In Genesis 3:1-6 the serpent addresses Eve and has a conversation with her.  Adam is not mentioned until the end of verse 6.  The fact that Eve ate of the fruit is mentioned first, but did it occur first?  Or did both Adam and Eve eat at the same time?

These first six verses allow for a two step sequence (Eve eating, then Adam eating) but they do not require that two step sequence.  Verse 7 records that the eyes of both were opened, but again it does not specify whether this happened to Adam and Eve at the same time, or one after the other.  In addition, the replies of Adam and Eve after being confronted by God (verses 8 - 13) and God's statement that Adam listened to his wife (verse 17) all leave open the question of who sinned first.

We have already seen that the first two chapters of Genesis are highly abbreviated.  Here again in chapter 3 we are dealing with an abbreviated account.  This is made obvious by the fact that God reminds Adam that he listened to his wife (verse 17), but no such words of Eve are recorded.  Any abbreviated account leaves many questions unanswered, and we are tempted to fill in the details.  But we need to remember Paul's advice, "do not go beyond what is written"  (1 Corinthians 4:6).

Even though the Genesis account of the fall does not specify who sinned first, it may be best to think of Adam and Eve as eating the fruit at essentially the same time in light of Romans 5:12.

According to Romans 5:12 (compare v. 19) "sin entered the world through one man."  Even though the Greek word used for man in this passage (ανθρωπος, anthrōpos) can refer to man in the generic sense (either male or female), Paul does single out Adam in verse 14.  Is Paul explicitly saying that sin entered through Adam rather than Eve?  Probably not.  It would be inconsistent to claim that "man" is understood as contrasting Adam with Eve in the beginning of the verse, but not later in the same verse when it says that "death came to all men."  There are two other explanations that seem more likely.  One is that Paul considers Adam and Eve as a unit.  The other is that Paul regards the husband as the responsible party – a common notion in ancient Eastern thought.  No doubt, Paul is emphasizing that there is a single entry point of sin into the human race, just as he emphasizes a single solution to sin in the person of Jesus Christ.  In other words, Paul is not necessarily pressing the point that Adam sinned before Eve.

E.  Women teachers?

The fall of Adam and Eve is cited by Paul when he gives instructions regarding the role of women in the local church in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.  Below are a few comments on this passage.  (By the way, this passage does not say who sinned first, only who was created first and who was tempted.)

NIV NET Bible (net.bible.org) Comments
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. … a positive statement (… that a woman should learn). This was a radical and liberating departure from the Jewish view that women were not to learn the law. (NET Bible)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. Two approaches are possible.
(1) Paul is making a sharp distinction between two exclusive activities: teaching and exercising authority.  Thus he is saying that, absolutely, a woman in not allowed to teach.  He is also saying that, absolutely, a woman is not allowed to exercise authority over a man.
(2) Paul is lumping teaching and authority together, so he is actually saying that a woman is not to teach in such a way that she exercises authority over a man.  Thus Paul is not making an absolute prohibition of women teaching.
The second approach is preferred; see "Regarding verse 12" below.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. Based on a straightforward reading of Genesis 2:18-23.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. This phrase ["fully deceived"] uses a compound form of the same verb as in v. 14a: “deceived” vs. “deceived out, completely deceived.” The two verbs could be synonymous, but because of the close contrast in this context, it seems that a stronger meaning is intended for the second verb. (NET Bible)
(A. T. Robertson, in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, says that the above interpretation is possible, but not certain.)
15 But women will be saved through childbearing – if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control. This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret …. (NET Bible)
There is a shift to the plural here (Grk “if they continue”) … (NET Bible)
Not surprisingly, the KJV, ASV, ESV and NRSV represents the numbers of the verbs correctly by using "she" in the first clause and "they" in the second.  Surprisingly, the NEB does the same!

Regarding verse 12 — In some cases the English word or is used to highlight a contrast between two items.  In other cases, or marks a similarity between two items (see any standard dictionary).  This similarity often implies a contrast with something else in the context.  The Greek word translated "or" is ουδε (oude), which means "or" or "neither" or "nor."  It is frequently found in negative expressions where it is used in the second sense mentioned above – to mark similarity.  Thus it takes on a meaning closer to our English phrases "that is," or "in other words."  (See Romans 9:16;  1 Corinthians 2:6;  15:50;  Galatians 1:1;  4:14;  Philippians 2:16;  1 Thessalonians 2:3:  5:5;  etc.)

Describing the history of the word oude, Thayer comments:

… its oppositive force being lost, it serves to continue a negation.  (Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1962)

This is the meaning of "or" in 1 Timothy 2:12.  Thus, the two phrases "teach" and "exercise authority over a man" are not meant to be two distinct absolute categories, but refer to teaching so as to exercise authority over a man – something which is appropriate only for an elder in the church context.

The contrast in the context is at the end of the verse, "she must be silent."  A number of standard translations use "quiet" instead of "silent."  The reason is that the word hēsuchia (ησυχια) can mean either quietness or silence.  Thayer says that the word is

descriptive of the life of one who stays at home doing his own work, and does not officiously meddle with the affairs of others  (Thayer, op. cit.)

By the way, there is another Greek word (sigē, σιγη) Paul could have used if he meant speechlessness or absolute silence.

Archer comes to the same conclusion.  Regarding the two Greek words in verse 12, διδασκειν (didaskein, teach) and αυθεντειν (authentein, have authority over), he says that they

… seem to be intended as a combined concept and describe the function of the teaching elder or minister of the gospel, who instructs and exhorts a congregation …  (Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 411, italics added)

Consider several possible levels of activity for women in a church gathering:

Also consider the role of women found elsewhere in scripture, such as

When we put all the relevant passages together, it seems that the place to "draw the line" is between level 5 and 6.  Thus, if a woman teaches (even teaches men) with the approval of the elders she is not violating scripture. 

Regarding verse 14 — The NET Bible note indicates that when Paul says Adam was not deceived and Eve was, he is speaking in relative rather than absolute terms.  See also 2 Corinthians 11:3.

Below is John Wesley's comment on 1 Timothy 2:14.  Judge for yourself if, at various points, he goes beyond what is written.

The serpent deceived Eve: Eve did not deceive Adam, but persuaded him. "Thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife," Genesis 3:17 . The preceding verse showed why a woman should not "usurp authority over the man," this shows why she ought not "to teach." She is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives. The woman being deceived transgressed - "The serpent deceived" her, Genesis 3:13, and she transgressed.

Regarding verse 15 — The Amplified Bible (1987 ed.) has the following expanded rendering of this verse:

Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls' salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.

Does 1 Corinthians 14 apply everywhere today?

1 Corinthians 14:32-40 is often applied to this question of women's teaching/speaking in the church.

Some argue that Paul's statement, "women should remain silent," is universal because of the phrase "as in all the congregations of the saints" (14:33).  But that phrase may well attach to the previous two sentences (verses 32 and 33a) rather than what follows (see the wording in the NASB).  Three times before in the same book (4:17;  7:17 and 11:16) Paul uses similar phrases and they are attached to what goes before the phrase rather than what comes after it.  And what goes before is two general principles – prophets need to exercise self-control (verse 32), and God is a God of order and peace (verse 33a, repeated in verse 40).  These general principles are what applies to all the congregations of the saints.

The situation in the church at Corinth seems to have been more multifaceted and more severe than in other churches, making the Corinthian situation unique.  It included the following:

Not only was the church in Corinth unique in its spiritual problems, the city of Corinth itself was unique as a widely known center of immorality.  In Paul's time Corinth was a large and wealthy city, perhaps half a million people, and the capital of the Roman province of Achaia (Greece).  Among its many temples had been the temple of Aphrodite where up to 1000 "sacred prostitutes" served this evil goddess.  Even though that temple had been destroyed a century before Paul's time, the fertility rituals continued.  In stage plays Corinthians would typically walk on stage as drunks.  Even today, the word Corinthian is listed as synonymous with the words licentious and playboy.  Christian women in Corinth in Paul's day would have needed to be especially careful to dress and act so as to avoid being identified with the evil practices common in the city.

In addition, 14:32-40 comes right at the end of a long discussion of the use of tongues (foreign languages) in the church.  Thus Paul's statement about women remaining silent (verse 34) may refer specifically to speaking in tongues.

Thus there are three factors which make the Corinthian situation unique:

These unique factors lead to this conclusion:  It may not be wise to generalize and claim that Paul's specific corrective advice for the Corinthians must be followed by all churches then and now.

————————

The following sources provide helpful information on the role of women, especially in the church.

Geisler, Norman and Thomas Howe, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties (BakerBooks, 1992), article on 1 Timothy 2:12-14

Archer, Gleason L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan, 1982), article on 1 Timothy

F.  Note on 3:8, God "walking" in the garden

Here are two different translations of 3:8.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. (NIV)

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God moving about in the orchard at the breezy time of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard. (NET Bible, net.bible.org)

The NET Bible has this note regarding the word "walking":

… While a translation of "walking about" is possible, it assumes a theophany, the presence of the Lord God in a human form. This is more than the text asserts.

And this note regarding the phrase "cool of the day":

The expression is traditionally rendered "cool of the day," because the Hebrew word … can mean "wind." U. Cassuto (Genesis: From Adam to Noah, 152-54) concludes after lengthy discussion that the expression refers to afternoon when it became hot and the sun was beginning to decline. J. J. Niehaus (God at Sinai [SOTBT], 155-57) offers a different interpretation of the phrase, relating … yom, usually understood as "day" … to an Akkadian cognate umu ("storm") and translates the phrase "in the wind of the storm." If Niehaus is correct, then God is not pictured as taking an afternoon stroll through the orchard, but as coming in a powerful windstorm to confront the man and woman with their rebellion. In this case … "sound of the Lord" … may refer to God's thunderous roar, which typically accompanies his appearance in the storm to do battle or render judgment (e.g., see Ps 29).

G.  Both common and individual punishments

God's three individual punishments are as follows:

These three punishments are serious in themselves, but it must be remembered that the initial command stated a more basic punishment – "in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die" (2:16-17, compare 3:3).  This is a reference primarily to spiritual death, that is, becoming personally separated and alienated from God.  But it also includes the secondary result, physical death, which grows out of the primary result of spiritual death.  Adam and Eve lived physically hundreds of years after their first sin (Genesis 5:3-5).  Their physical death was delayed, but their spiritual death came immediately.  They were personally separated from God immediately, since Adam and Eve became guilty sinners while God remains holy (Deuteronomy 32:4;  Exodus 3:4-5;  Habakkuk 1:13;  Psalm 11:4-7).

Since the basic punishment is separation from a holy God, this punishment is common both to Adam and to Eve, and to Satan.  Redemption is possible for man, but not for Satan who is superior to man.

Did Adam and Eve repent and return to God?  Scripture does not answer this question.  However, some theologians have attempted an answer.  See the section below entitled "Genesis 3:20, Adam named his wife Eve."

H.  Depravity and the sin nature – the legacy of the fall

The effect of the fall on Adam and Eve is explicitly stated in Genesis 3.  Adam and Eve experienced both the common punishment of alienation from God and individual punishments, as mentioned in the previous section.  However, there is no explicit statement in Genesis 3 regarding the ongoing effect of the fall on the next generation or on us.

1.  Our sin nature and depravity

Of course, there is plenty of historical evidence of a spiritual/moral defect in mankind, beginning with Cain in Genesis 4 and continuing throughout the Old Testament.  But several questions remain.  For the answers to such questions we have to look outside Genesis.

Question 1 — Is the effect of the fall universal? — Yes

… there is no one who does not sin …  (1 Kings 8:46)

… no one living is righteous before you.  (Psalm 143:2)

There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.  (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.  (Psalm 14:2-3)

Question 2 — Is there any good left in man?  In other words, is man's depravity only partial? — No

Man's depravity is total.  The phrase "total depravity" is not meant to indicate that every individual person is as bad as he/she could be.  Rather, it means that each person's sin is constant and complete – it constantly controls his every intent or inclination and affects every aspect of our being.  We are slaves of sin and purposely engage in all sorts of evil.

The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. (Genesis 6:5, compare 8:21)

… Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes."  (Romans 3:9-18)

Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. (John 8:34)

… what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry  (1 Peter 4:3)

The fact that man's sin can be characterized as constant and complete slavery to all kinds of evil means that man's sin must be "built-in."  Man, after the fall, has a sin nature.  He is not just partially depraved, or occasionally depraved.  He is totally depraved.  (However, keep in mind that sin is not essential to being human, for Adam and Eve were fully human before the fall, without a sin nature.  And Christ became fully human without a sin nature.)

Question 3 — Is the effect of the fall permanent? — Yes, for many.  But No, for those who repent and place their faith in Jesus Christ.

… to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God ….  (John 1:12)

Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved …  (Act 16:31)

…we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ …  (Romans 5:1)

Even Romans 5:12-21, the well known passage about inherited sin (discussed in the next section), mentions those who receive the gift of righteousness.

… if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.  (Romans 5:17)

2.  How sin is passed on to all people

Our sin nature and depravity, as discussed in the previous section, is clearly taught in scripture.  However, the issue of how sin is passed on to all people, discussed in this section, is largely speculation.  And much of that speculation has to do with the exact meaning of a very key passage in Romans 5.

12 … sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned – 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. 15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. 18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. 20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  (Romans 5:12-21)

Notice that the above passage does not spell out the exact method or mechanism by which sin is passed on to all people.  The real point of the passage is the contrast between the very bad "accomplishment" of Adam, and the very good accomplishment of Christ, emphasized repeatedly in verses 15-19.  Obviously the passage is not intended to spell out the method of transfer of sin, guilt, and death, but to highlight the sharp contrast between the trespass of Adam and the gift of Christ.

Adam's very bad trespass verses Christ's very good gift
many died 15 overflow of God's grace
judgment and condemnation 16 justification
death reigned 17 reign in life
condemnation for all men 18 justification that brings life for all men
many made sinners 19 many made righteous

Nevertheless we will briefly explore the question of how sin is transmitted to all people, which is very closely related to the more basic question of how each person's soul comes into being.  On this latter issue there are many views, but we will mention only two.

Keep in mind that scripture does not explicitly state either of these views.

With the above two views of the origin of the soul in mind, we will deal with three selected theories regarding the transmission of Adam's sin to all his descendants.

Theory 1 — Immediate creationism with probation.  Since each soul is created directly by God (and is therefore morally and spiritually good) there is no possible transmission of sin directly from God.  Each person's soul is individually created neutral and put on probation similar to Adam's probation.  This theory has difficulty explaining why everyone, without exception, falls into sin.

Theory 2 — Traducianism with involvement by representation.  Adam was our representative, and thus in God's mind Adam's sin and guilt is assigned (imputed) to the rest of mankind.  This theory has difficulty explaining why Adam was technically a representative (since representatives are selected by the people they represent).  It also has difficulty explaining why one person should be found guilty for his fathers sins, in light of Ezekiel 18:20.

Theory 3 — Traducianism with seminal involvement.  Since we were present in Adam seminally, God considers that the whole human race sinned in Adam.  (This follows the same line of reasoning found in Hebrews 7:9-10 where Levi is said to have been involved in paying tithes to Melchizedek because he was in the loins of Abraham when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.)  By the way, some theologians hold this view because they think it corresponds nicely with the fact that Jesus, who had no earthly father, was sinless.  This theory has difficulty explaining why only Adam's sins are transmitted, and not all the sins of the complete line of our fathers, grandfathers, etc.

Again, keep in mind that scripture does not explicitly state any of these theories.

Various forms of theories 2 and 3 are taught by many conservative theologians.  For example:

In the sight of God his [Adam's] sin was the sin of all his descendants, so that they are born as sinners, that is in a state of guilt and in a polluted condition.  (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Eerdmans, 1939, p. 251)

… man sinned in Adam and is, therefore, guilty before he commits personal sin …  (Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans,1949, p. 261)

All died because all sinned in and through Adam, the representative or federal head of the human race. … we were there, and not merely as spectators, but as guilty participants.  (John Stott, Romans: God's Good News for the World, InterVarsity Press, 1995, p. 152-153, italics in original)

God counted Adam's guilt as belonging to us ….  (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, 1994, p. 495)

Erickson has a similar (but somewhat more cautious) view:

We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. … There must be some conscious and voluntary decision on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus there is no condemnation until one reaches the age of responsibility.  (Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 2nd ed., Baker Academic, 2001, p. 210)

Notice that Erickson speaks both of received guilt and of "conditional imputation" (conditioned upon our actions rather than Adam's).  This appears to be a contradiction.

It seems safest to conclude that scripture does not explicitly support any of these theories.

One passage that is often used to support theories 2 and 3 is Psalm 51:5 ("sinful from the time my mother conceived me").  But this passage must be compared with passages such as Psalm 58:3 (where sin starts at birth) and Genesis 8:21 (where sin starts at childhood or youth).  These passages are not contradictory.  Rather than pinpointing the exact time of the start of our sin problem, they are merely emphasizing that we are sinners our entire lives.

Also, keep in mind the explicit teaching in scripture that each person is accountable for his own sins, not for the sin of his parents, nor for the sin of his ultimate grandparent, Adam.

The son will not share the guilt of the father  (Ezekiel 18:20)

… each of us will give an account of himself to God.  (Romans 14:12, italics added)

These passages appear to contradict statements such as those by Berkhof, Thiessen, Stott, and Grudem quoted earlier.

Also, keep in mind the explicit teaching in scripture regarding an age of accountability (as mentioned by Erickson).  There is a time of innocence early in life when sins are not counted against the individual.  See the paper The Age of Accountability.  If there is such a time of innocence early in life, it seems logical that it would extend back not just to the time of birth, but to the time of conception.

3.  Romans 5:12, a key verse?

Romans 5:12, 15-19 (quoted above) is an important passage in this discussion and has been debated at great length, especially the final phrase of verse 12, "because all sinned."  Here are a few thoughts about this phrase.

Regarding the word "sinned."  In the Romans 5 passage the only reason given to explain why death came to all men is "because all sinned" (verse 12).  Grudem, Erickson, Culver, and many others attempt to make the point that the Greek verb for "sinned" is aorist tense, active voice, indicative mood.  They claim that this supports the representative or seminal view by establishing that everyone sinned in Adam.  By focusing only on this one verb they leave the strong impression that the other verbs, the entrance of sin and the coming of death happened during human history because much earlier everyone sinned in Adam.  However, there are three subject-verb combinations in verse 12:

In the Greek, all three of these verbs are in the exact same tense, voice, and mood.  All three actions, being aorist indicative, happened in the past, but the aorist indicates only the type of action, which is referred to as simple or unified event (called "punctiliar" action).  The Greek does not indicate that any one of these three actions came before the others.

Of course, it is still possible to claim that all three actions happened immediately, in Adam, when he sinned.  However, this is only one interpretation that can possibly fit the passage; it is not required by the grammar of the passage.

A second interpretation that fits the passage equally well is that sin entered when Adam sinned, then in subsequent generations death spread to all because all sinned individually.  This second interpretation harmonizes more easily with the two doctrines of individual accountability and age of accountability mentioned earlier.

If this second interpretation is adopted, however, a question still remains regarding why some infants die even though they are not accountable and therefore not guilty.  A possible answer to this question may lie in the distinction between physical death and spiritual death.  Physical death is passed on to everyone because eveyone is physically a member of the human race.  Spiritual death (being guilty and thus alienated from God) is based on the individual's personal sin.

Regarding the word "because."  Romans 5:12 uses the word "because" which is a translation of the Greek phrase εφ ω (eph hō, literally "for that" or "inasmuch as").  The NET bible (net.bible.org) has this note listing three major possible meanings of this phrase.

(1) the phrase can be taken as a relative clause in which the pronoun refers to Adam, “death spread to all people in whom [Adam] all sinned.” (2) The phrase can be taken with consecutive (resultative) force, meaning “death spread to all people with the result that all sinned.” (3) Others take the phrase as causal in force: “death spread to all people because all sinned.”

The second and third options listed above harmonize best with the two explicit biblical teaching mentioned above, that is, with individual accountability and with the age of accountability.  Also note that most standard translations use the third option, "because all sinned."

4.  Conclusion

This transmission of sin and guilt to all mankind is often described by theologians as "imputation," using the same term that is used to refer to God's assigning Christ's righteousness to believers.  Remember that imputation is something that happens in the mind of God, and can be understood as God reckoning or attributing a certain status or condition to mankind.  Thus there is no actual physical or psychological thing that is "passed along" and one wonders if the notion of transmission, or passing along, is even appropriate to the discussion.

If that is so, the real question becomes a question about God.  Let's make the question personal. When did God assign me the status of sinner?  When I personally sinned?  Or when Adam sinned?  And, if the latter is the case, why?

About the only thing we can say is that there is an unfailing universal tendency to sin.  This is our sin nature.  The details regarding exactly how this nature is passed along (if it is passed along at all), are not clearly spelled out in scripture.  But why God thinks about us the way he does, at least his intent, is explained:

For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.  (Romans 11:32)

I.  Genesis 3:15, the "protoevangelion"?

Is Genesis 3:15 really the first announcement of the gospel, the "protoevangelion"?  See the paper Salvation Then and Now, in the section entitled How Much did the Early Believers Understand, especially the sub-section entitled "Genesis 3:15."

J.  Genesis 3:20, Adam named his wife Eve

When Eve was created, Adam said,

… she shall be called "woman," for she was taken out of man  (Genesis 2:23)

But in Genesis 3:20 Adam gives this woman, his wife, the name Eve.  Some commentators see a great deal of spiritual significance in this name.  Below is Horton's comment on this verse.

Up to this time Adam's wife was simply called the woman. Now Adam gave her the name Eve (Hebrew, chawwah, "life"). A change of name indicates a change in nature, character, or relationship. As "woman" she was potentially already the mother of all her descendants who would be physically alive. The only death they had known at this point was spiritual death. Thus, "living" here must mean spiritually alive. That is, she placed her faith in God and in His promise of Gen. 3:15, and was restored to spiritual life. Then she encouraged Adam to place his faith in the promise. Then he declared his faith in God's promise by giving his wife the new name, Eve.  (Stanley Horton, The Complete Biblical Library, The Old Testament Study Bible, Genesis, World Library Press, comment on Genesis 3:20)

Judge for yourself whether Horton is going beyond the scriptural evidence.

K.  Genesis 3:21, animal skins, the first sacrifice?

God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.  Was this the first blood sacrifice?

It may be that hidden behind this verse there lies some hint of the divine origin of sacrifice. Either by some direct but unrecorded command, or perhaps by divinely inspired convictions wrought within him, Adam may have been led to offer the life of an animal in sacrifice, the skins of which he and his wife were guided to use as coverings for their shame. It is impossible, however, to dogmatize either as to the manner in which the Lord 'made coats of skins' or as to whether this passage does in any way provide an account of the origin of the principle of sacrifice.  (E. F. Kevan, Commentary on Genesis in The New Bible Commentary, 2nd ed., Eerdmans, 1954)

Those who claim to clearly see the first blood sacrifice in Genesis 3:21 are actually reading later revelation (from Job, Abraham, and Moses) back into this passage.  The passage itself says nothing about offerings, blood, or sacrifices.

Keil and Delitzsch see this provision of clothes as, in part, a foundation for sacrifices.

By selecting the skins of beasts for the clothing of the first men, and therefore causing the death or slaughter of beasts for that purpose, He showed them how they might use the sovereignty they possessed over the animals for their own good, and even sacrifice animal life for the preservation of human; so that this act of God laid the foundation for the sacrifices, even if the first clothing did not prefigure our ultimate "clothing upon" (2 Corinthians 5:4), nor the coats of skins the robe of righteousness.  (Keil and Delitzsch, commentary on Genesis 3:21)

L.  The two named trees

The garden of Eden contained two named trees (named in the sense that they were identified or singled out).

Thiessen makes this interesting comment about these two trees:

… God set before man two good things: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and not one good thing and one bad thing. He forbade the partaking of one tree, not because it was bad, but because He would make a simple test of man's obedience to His will.  (Henry C. Thiessen, Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdmans,1949, p. 254)

Both of these trees appear to be actual, physical trees.  At the same time, they are also symbolic, with their symbolic references made obvious by their names, that is, good/evil, and life.  (In a broader sense, a "tree of life" is used as a symbol of wisdom, righteousness, and eternal life in both Proverbs and Revelation.)

There are some, however, who suggest that these two trees are merely symbolic, that neither tree was a physical, individual tree found in a particular location.  Now, if these trees were merely symbolic, then it seems that the entire fall must be symbolic.  But this cannot be, for Paul thought of the fall as an actual historical event, just as historical as the life and death of Christ (Romans 5:12-19, see also 1 Timothy 2:14;  2 Corinthians 11:3).

Were Adam and Eve aware of the tree of life?  Certainly the tree of life was included in the general statements "any tree in the garden" (2:16) and "the trees in the garden" (3:2).  But it is possible that the tree of life had not been singled out and named until after the temptation.  The Genesis account does not give us any explicit help on this question.

Is it possible that Adam and Eve, before the fall, had already (knowingly or unknowingly) eaten of the tree of life?  In this case the expulsion from the garden might be seen as a way of keeping man from continuing to eat of the tree of life.  However, the wording "reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life" (3:22) seems to suggest that the activity of eating from the tree of life would have been a new activity for man, and it was that new activity which God intended to prohibit by excluding man from the garden.

Part Four — Genesis 4 - 5

A.  Cain's Offering

Some find the story of the rejection of Cain's offering, recorded in Genesis 4:2-7, troubling.

… Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.  (Genesis 4:2-5)

Abel brought an animal offering, but Cain's offered "the fruits of the soil."  Why was God displeased?  After all, there is no record of God telling Cain, or anyone else at this early stage, what constituted an acceptable offering.  However, consider these two observations.

First, all of these early records are extremely abbreviated.  No doubt, there is a great deal more that could have been recorded about everything that takes place in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.  And the same is true for this brief story of Cain and his offering.  To suggest that God was unfair because he did not tell Cain what sort of offering to bring is an obvious argument from silence.  It would be more reasonable to conclude that, since God held Cain accountable for a particular sort of offering, Cain must have known what God expected.  The principle that guilt is based on knowledge is clearly taught by both Jesus and Paul.

If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. (John 15:22)

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34)

… where there is no law there is no transgression. (Romans 4:15)

… sin is not taken into account when there is no law. (Romans 5:13)

Second, notice that the approval and disapproval are focused, not merely on the offering, but on the person as well as the offering.  What the Lord looked upon was "Abel and his offering" and "Cain and his offering."  Throughout scripture we find that the Lord looks upon the heart, and that the heart is more important than the offering.

I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.  (Hosea 6:6)

To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.  (Mark 12:33, compare Isaiah 1:11-17)

God does not judge by external appearance …  (Galatians 2:6, compare Hebrews 10:8)

And the writer of Hebrews makes it clear that God must have been looking at Cain's heart and at Abel's heart when he made his judgment, for the real issue was faith.

By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.  (Hebrews 11:4)

God, who everywhere in scripture is lauded as righteous and just, certainly would not have treated Cain unfairly.

B.  Chronology, Adam to Noah

Regarding the chronology from Adam to Noah, see the section entitled From Adam to Abraham, Genesis 5 and 11 in the paper "Chronology of Biblical Events."


Part Five — Genesis 6 - 9

A.  (under construction)

Part Six — Genesis 10

A.  Table of Nations – Genesis 10

This map of the table of nations (from searchingthescriptures.net) locates some of the people groups mentioned in Genesis 10.  You will find a great deal of variation between this map and other maps of the table of nations, so take this information as tentative.

Part Seven — Genesis 11

A.  Chronology, Shem to Abram

Regarding the chronology from Shem to Abram, see the section entitled From Adam to Abraham, Genesis 5 and 11 in the paper "Chronology of Biblical Events."