CHAPTER 1*<\/p>\n
Creation (1:1\u20132:3)<\/p>\n
Be-re\u02beshit<\/p>\n
The story of Creation, or cosmology, that opens the Book of Genesis differs from all other such accounts that were current among the peoples of the ancient world. Its lack of interest in the realm of heaven and its economy of words in depicting primeval chaos are highly uncharacteristic of this genre of literature. The descriptions in Genesis deal solely with what lies beneath the celestial realm, and still the narration is marked by compactness, solemnity, and dignity.
\nThere is abundant evidence that other cosmologies once existed in Israel. Scattered allusions to be found in the prophetic, poetic, and wisdom literature of the Bible testify to a popular belief that prior to the onset of the creative process the powers of watery chaos had to be subdued by God. These mythical beings are variously designated Yam (Sea), Nahar (River), Leviathan (Coiled One), Rahab (Arrogant One), and Tannin (Dragon).1 There is no consensus in these fragments regarding the ultimate fate of these creatures. One version has them utterly destroyed by God; in another, the chaotic forces, personalized as monsters, are put under restraint by His power.
\nThese myths about a cosmic battle at the beginning of time appear in the Bible in fragmentary form, and the several allusions have to be pieced together to produce some kind of coherent unity. Still, the fact that these myths appear in literary compositions in ancient Israel indicates clearly that they had achieved wide currency over a long period of time. They have survived in the Bible solely as obscure, picturesque metaphors and exclusively in the language of poetry. Never are these creatures accorded divine attributes, nor is there anywhere a suggestion that their struggle against God could in any way have posed a challenge to His sovereign rule.
\nThis is of particular significance in light of the fact that one of the inherent characteristics of all other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies is the internecine strife of the gods. Polytheistic accounts of creation always begin with the predominance of the divinized powers of nature and then describe in detail a titanic struggle between the opposing forces. They inevitably regard the achievement of world order as the outgrowth of an overwhelming exhibition of power on the part of one god who then manages to impose his will upon all other gods.
\nThe early Israelite creation myths, with all their color and drama, must have been particularly attractive to the masses. But none became the regnant version. It was the austere account set forth in the first chapter of Genesis that won unrivaled authority. At first it could only have been the intellectual elite in ancient Israel, most likely the priestly and scholarly circles, who could have been capable of realizing and appreciating the compact forms of symbolization found in Genesis. It is they who would have cherished and nurtured this version until its symbols finally exerted a decisive impact upon the religious consciousness of the entire people of Israel.
\nThe mystery of divine creativity is, of course, ultimately unknowable. The Genesis narrative does not seek to make intelligible what is beyond human ken. To draw upon human language to explain that which is outside any model of human experience is inevitably to confront the inescapable limitations of any attempt to give verbal expression to this subject. For this reason alone, the narrative in its external form must reflect the time and place of its composition. Thus it directs us to take account of the characteristic modes of literary expression current in ancient Israel. It forces us to realize that a literalistic approach to the text must inevitably confuse idiom with idea, symbol with reality. The result would be to obscure the enduring meaning of that text.
\nThe biblical Creation narrative is a document of faith. It is a quest for meaning and a statement of a religious position. It enunciates the fundamental postulates of the religion of Israel, the central ideas and concepts that animate the whole of biblical literature. Its quintessential teaching is that the universe is wholly the purposeful product of divine intelligence, that is, of the one self-sufficient, self-existing God, who is a transcendent Being outside of nature and who is sovereign over space and time.
\nThis credo finds reiterated expression in the narrative in a number of ways, the first of which is the literary framework. The opening and closing lines epitomize the central idea: \u201cGod created.\u201d Then there is the literary structure, which presents the creative process with bilateral symmetry. The systematic progression from chaos to cosmos unfolds in an orderly and harmonious manner through a series of six successive and equal units of time. The series is divided into two parallel groups, each of which comprises four creative acts performed in three days. The third day in each group is distinguished by two productions. In each group the movement is from heaven to terrestrial water to dry land. Moreover, the arrangement is such that each creation in the first group furnishes the resource that is to be utilized by the corresponding creature in the second group. The chart below illustrates the schematization.
\nThe principle of order, deliberation, and direction is further inculcated by means of the progression from inorganic matter to the lowest forms of organic life to four categories of living creatures: fish and fowl, reptiles, the higher animals, and finally humankind. In addition, the entire narrative adheres to a uniform literary pattern. Each of the literary units begins with a declaration formula, \u201cGod said,\u201d followed by a command, a statement recording its fulfillment, a notice of divine approbation, and a closing formula, \u201cThere was evening and there was morning,\u201d with the accompanying numbered day.
\nFinally, the Narrator employs the device of number symbolism, the heptad, to emphasize the basic idea of design, completion, and perfection. The opening proclamation contains seven words; the description of primal chaos is set forth in twice seven words; the narrative\u2019s seven literary units feature seven times the formula for the effectuation of the divine will and the statement of divine approval; and the six days of creation culminate in the climactic seventh.
\nThis seven-day typology is widely attested in the ancient world. As early as the twenty-second century B.C.E., King Gudea of Lagash, in southern Mesopotamia, dedicated a temple with a seven-day feast. The literatures of Mesopotamia and Ugarit are replete with examples of seven-day units of time. Most common is a state of affairs that lasts for six days with a climactic change taking place on the seventh. While the Creation narrative conforms to this literary convention, it is unique in that a different action occurs each day, with no activity at all on the seventh.<\/p>\n
THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION<\/p>\n
Group I The Resource
\nGroup II The Utilizer
\nDay
\nCreative Act
\nDay
\nCreative Act
\n1
\nLight
\n4
\nThe luminaries
\n2
\nSky, leaving terrestrial waters
\n5
\nFish and fowl
\n3
\nDry land
\n6
\nLand creatures
\nVegetation
\nHumankind
\n(Lowest form of organic life)
\n(Highest form of organic life)<\/p>\n
1. When God begun to create This rendering of the Hebrew looks to verse 3 for the completion of the sentence. It takes verse 2 to be parenthetical, describing the state of things at the time when God first spoke. Support for understanding the text in this way comes from 2:4 and 5:1, both of which refer to Creation and begin with \u201cWhen.\u201d The Mesopotamian creation epic known as Enuma Elish also commences the same way. In fact, enuma means \u201cwhen.\u201d Apparently, this was a conventional opening style for cosmological narratives. As to the peculiar syntax of the Hebrew sentence\u2014a noun in the construct state (be-re\u02beshit) with a finite verb (bara\u02be)\u2014analogies may be found in Leviticus 14:46, Isaiah 29:1, and Hosea 1:2. This seems to be the way Rashi understood the text.
\nThe traditional English translation reads: \u201cIn the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\u201d This rendering construes the verse as an independent sentence complete in itself, a solemn declaration that serves as an epitomizing caption to the entire narrative. It takes the initial word be-re\u02beshit2 to mean \u201cat the beginning of time\u201d and thus makes a momentous assertion about the nature of God: that He is wholly outside of time, just as He is outside of space, both of which He proceeds to create. In other words, for the first time in the religious history of the Near East, God is conceived as being entirely free of temporal and spatial dimensions.
\nIn favor of the traditional English translation are the arguments that be-re\u02beshit does not have to be in the construct state and that the analogies of 2:4 and 5:1, as well as of Enuma Elish, are inexact. In each instance, the word translated \u201cwhen\u201d is literally \u201cin the day,\u201d which is not the case in this verse.<\/p>\n
God Unlike the pagan cosmologies, Genesis exhibits no interest in the question of God\u2019s origins. His existence prior to the world is taken as axiomatic and does not even require assertion, let alone proof. There is no definition of God or any mystical speculation about His nature. God\u2019s nature finds expression not in philosophical abstractions but through His acts and through the demands He makes on human beings.
\nThe term for God used here and throughout the present account of Creation is \u02beelohim. This is not a personal name but the general Hebrew word for deity. It can even refer to pagan gods. Although plural in form, only rarely is it not constructed with a singular verb or adjective.3 The plural form may signify majesty or serve to intensify the basic idea. The preference for the use of \u02beelohim in this chapter, rather than the sacred divine name YHVH, may well be conditioned by theological considerations; the term \u02beelohim, connoting universalism and abstraction, is most appropriate for the transcendent God of Creation.<\/p>\n
create The Hebrew stem b-r-\u02be4 is used in the Bible exclusively of divine creativity. It signifies that the product is absolutely novel and unexampled, depends solely on God for its coming into existence, and is beyond the human capacity to reproduce. The verb always refers to the completed product, never to the material of which it is made. As Ibn Ezra observed, bara\u02be does not of itself denote the creation of something out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). This doctrine seems to have been first articulated in the late Second Temple work, 2 Maccabees: \u201cLook up to heaven and earth and see all that is therein, and know that God made them out of things that did not exist\u201d (7:28). However, the Genesis narrative does contain intimations of such a concept. Precisely because of the indispensable importance of preexisting matter in the pagan cosmologies, the very absence of such mention here is highly significant. This conclusion is reinforced by the idea of creation by divine fiat without reference to any inert matter being present. Also, the repeated biblical emphasis upon God as the exclusive Creator would seem to rule out the possibility of preexistent matter. Finally, if bara\u02be is used only of God\u2019s creation, it must be essentially distinct from human creation. The ultimate distinction would be creatio ex nihilo, which has no human parallel and is thus utterly beyond all human comprehension.<\/p>\n
heaven and earth The definite article in the Hebrew specifies the observable universe. The use here of a merism, the combination of opposites, expresses the totality of cosmic phenomena,5 for which there is no single word in biblical Hebrew. The subsequent usage of each term separately refers to the sky and the dry land in the more restricted and concrete sense. We are not told how the cosmos came into being, but other texts point to a tradition of its creation by means of divine fiat. Thus, Psalm 33:6 and 9 declare: \u201cBy the word of the LORD the heavens were made, \/ by the breath of His mouth, all their host \u2026 \/ For He spoke, and it was; \/ He commanded, and it endured.\u201d The postbiblical 2 Esdras 6:38 has the same notion: \u201cI said, O Lord, You have indeed spoken from the beginning of creation; on the first day You said: \u2018Let heaven and earth be made,\u2019 and Your word accomplished the work.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. Following the general comprehensive statement comes a detailed description of the primordial state of the world.<\/p>\n
unformed and void Hebrew tohu va-vohu. This compound phrase appears again in the Bible in Jeremiah\u2019s prophetic vision of the return of the primal chaos (Jer. 4:23\u201327), thus leaving no doubt that the phrase designates the initial chaotic state of the earth.6 That God should create disorganized matter, only to reduce it to order, presents no more of a problem than does His taking six days to complete creation instead of instantaneously producing a perfected universe. The quintessential point of the narrative is the idea of ordering that is the result of divine intent. It is a fundamental biblical teaching that the original, divinely ordained order in the physical world has its counterpart in the divinely ordained universal moral order to which the human race is subject.<\/p>\n
darkness Throughout the Bible darkness is often a symbol of evil, misfortune, death, and oblivion.7 Here it seems to be not just the absence of light but a distinct entity, the origin of which is left unclear. Isaiah 45:7, however, explicitly ascribes its existence to divine creation.<\/p>\n
the deep Hebrew tehom, the cosmic abyssal water that enveloped the earth. The text says nothing about how or when this watery mass came into existence. Proverbs 8:22\u201324 makes it one of God\u2019s creations. In many unrelated mythologies water is the primal element, a notion that most likely arose from its amorphous nature. To the ancients, this characteristic seemed to represent appropriately the state of affairs before chaos was reduced to order and things achieved stable form.
\nIt is instructive that tehom is treated as a Hebrew proper name; like all such names, it never appears with the definite article. Although not feminine in grammatical form, it is frequently employed with a feminine verb or adjective.8 At times it is personified. In Genesis 49:25 and Deuteronomy 33:13 it \u201ccouches below,\u201d and in Habakkuk 3:10, \u201cLoud roars the deep\u201d in panic at the wrathful approach of God. Lastly, tehom appears in Isaiah 51:10 in a mythic context. All these facts suggest that tehom may once have been the name of a mythical being much like the Mesopotamian Tiamat, the female dragonesque personification of the primordial salt-water ocean, representing the aggressive forces of primitive chaos that contended against the god of creativity. Here in Genesis, tehom is thoroughly demythologized.<\/p>\n
a wind from God Hebrew rua\u1e25 means \u201cwind, breath, spirit.\u201d \u201cWind\u201d is the most popular rendering of the word in ancient and medieval Jewish sources.9 As a physical phenomenon, wind conforms to the general picture of primal chaos evoked by this verse, except that, unlike darkness and water, it is not mentioned again in the Creation story. One possible explanation may be that wind reappears as the agent by means of which the water is separated\u2014that is, blown back\u2014as in Genesis 8:1 at the conclusion of the Flood and in Exodus 14:21 at the crossing of the Sea of Reeds. Wind often functions as a divine agent in the Bible. Another interpretation takes rua\u1e25 in the sense of God\u2019s creative, life-giving, sustaining energy. Still a third possibility lies in its use as a term heralding the arrival of God, expressing His immanence, or symbolizing His presence. The last two explanations connect the phrase with the following verse, thus alerting us to an imminent, dramatic development: God is about to transform the inert, disorganized matter, to affect it by His presence, to animate it with His spirit.<\/p>\n
sweeping The Hebrew stem r-\u1e25-f appears otherwise in Deuteronomy 32:11, where it describes an eagle hovering over its young, a meaning it also possesses in Ugaritic;10 but in Jeremiah 23:9 it refers to bones trembling or shaking. The basic idea of the stem is vibration, movement. Hitherto all is static, lifeless, immobile. Motion, which is the essential element in change, originates with God\u2019s dynamic presence.<\/p>\n
water This is either the cosmic ocean believed by the ancients to surround the earth or the same water referred to in verses 6, 7, 9, and 10, namely, the water covering the solid mass of earth. It is doubtful that the two were really differentiated in the Hebrew mind.<\/p>\n
THE FIRST GROUP (vv. 3\u201313)<\/p>\n
DAY ONE<\/p>\n
3. God said The divine word shatters the primal cosmic silence and signals the birth of a new cosmic order. Divine fiat is the first of the several modalities of creativity employed in this account. \u201cGod said\u201d means \u201cGod thought\u201d or \u201cGod willed.\u201d It signifies that the Creator is wholly independent of His creation. It implies effortlessness and absolute sovereignty over nature.<\/p>\n
Let there be The directive yehi, found again in verses 6 and 14, is reserved for the creation of celestial phenomena. Its usage here may be an allusion to the divine personal name YHVH.<\/p>\n
light The first creation by God\u2019s utterance is fittingly that which serves in the Bible as a symbol of life, joy, justice, and deliverance.11 The notion of light independent of the sun appears again in Isaiah 30:26 and Job 38:19\u201320. Most likely it derives from the simple observations that the sky is illuminated even on cloudy days when the sun is obscured and that brightness precedes the rising of the sun.
\nThe source of this supernal, nonsolar light of creation became a subject of rabbinic and mystical speculation. Genesis Rabba 3:4 expresses the view that this light is the effulgent splendor of the Divine Presence. Psalms 104:2, with its theme of creation, describes God as \u201cwrapped in a robe of light.\u201d<\/p>\n
and there was light God\u2019s commanding utterance possesses the inherent power of self-realization and is unchallengeable. The sevenfold repetition of the execution formula, \u201cand there was,\u201d emphasizes the distinction between the tension, resistance, and strife that are characteristic of ancient Near Eastern cosmologies and the fullness of divine power that we find here.<\/p>\n
4. God saw Not visual examination but perception. The formula of divine approbation, \u201cGod saw that [it] was good,\u201d affirms the consummate perfection of God\u2019s creation, an idea that has important consequences for the religion of Israel. Reality is imbued with God\u2019s goodness. The pagan notion of inherent, primordial evil is banished. Henceforth, evil is to be apprehended on the moral and not the mythological plane.<\/p>\n
God separated Separation, or rather differentiation, is the second modality of creation. Light, like darkness, is viewed as a discrete entity, a notion made explicit in Isaiah 45:7 and Job 38:19.<\/p>\n
5. God called According to the conceptions of the ancient Near East, possessing no name was equivalent to nonexistence. An Egyptian text describes precreation as the time \u201cwhen no name of anything had yet been named,\u201d and Enuma Elish similarly designates primeval chaos as the period \u201cwhen on high the heaven had not [yet] been named, and below the firm ground had not [yet] been given a name.\u201d Name-giving was thus associated with creation and, by extension, with domination, for the one who gives a name has power over the object. In the present narrative, day and night, the sky, and the earth and sea are all named by God.12 This is another way of expressing His absolute sovereignty over time and space, the latter in both its celestial and terrestrial dimensions. It should be noted that in Genesis name-giving finalizes the creative act but does not initiate it or cause it to come about.<\/p>\n
evening \u2026 morning Hebrew \u02bferev and boker mean, strictly speaking, the \u201csunset\u201d and the \u201cbreak of dawn,\u201d terms inappropriate before the creation of the sun on the fourth day. Here the two words, respectively, signify the end of the period of light, when divine creativity was suspended, and the renewal of light, when the creative process was resumed.
\nAs Rashbam noted, the day is here seen to begin with the dawn. The same idea dictates the order of words in the oft used phrase \u201cday and night,\u201d13 and it underlies the regulations of Leviticus 7:15 and 22:30, which mark off the morning following the bringing of certain sacrifices as the time limit by which they may be eaten. This accords with the Egyptian practice of reckoning the day from one morning to the next. On the other hand, the Mesopotamian concept of the day as beginning at eventide also has its counterpart in the Bible in the phrase \u201cnight and day\u201d and in the observance of the Day of Atonement \u201cfrom evening to evening,\u201d as laid down in Leviticus 23:32. This is the system that governs the Jewish religious calendar, by which the Sabbath and festivals commence at sunset and terminate at the start of the following night.<\/p>\n
a first day Hebrew \u02bee\u1e25ad functions both as a cardinal number (\u201cone\u201d) and an ordinal number (\u201cfirst\u201d) in many texts.14<\/p>\n
DAY TWO<\/p>\n
6. an expanse The Hebrew noun rakia\u02bf is unparalleled in cognate languages. The verbal form is often used for hammering out metal or flattening out earth,15 which suggests a basic meaning of \u201cextending.\u201d It is unclear whether the vault of heaven was here viewed as a gigantic sheet of metal or as a solid layer of congealed ice. The latter interpretation might be inferred from Ezekiel 1:22, which is how Josephus understood it as well.<\/p>\n
water from water The purpose of the expanse is to create a void that separates what was taken to be the source of rain above from the water on earth.<\/p>\n
7. God made This verb \u02bf-s-h, used again in verses 16 and 25, simply means that the divine intention became a reality. It does not represent a tradition of creation by deed as opposed to word. This is clear from a passage like Psalms 33:6, which features God\u2019s creative word and deed with no perceptible difference between them: \u201cBy the word of the Lord the heavens were made (Heb. na\u02bfasu) \/ by the breath of His mouth, all their host.\u201d In the same way, several texts indiscriminately interchange \u201ccreate\u201d (b-r-\u02be) and \u201cmake\u201d (\u02bf-s-h), with God as the actor.16<\/p>\n
and it was so Henceforth this is the standard formula for expressing the execution of the divine command. It was only the brevity of God\u2019s initial utterance in verse 3 that permitted repetition of its content without stylistic clumsiness. Ibn Jana\u1e25 observed that the formula should follow verse 6 by analogy with verses 24\u201325. In fact, each occurrence immediately follows the divine speech, which is how it appears in the Septuagint version of the text. The formula ki tov, \u201cthat it was good,\u201d is omitted because rain has no value unless there is dry land to be fructified; the creative acts relating to water are not completed until the third day, the account of which appropriately records the formula twice.<\/p>\n
DAY THREE<\/p>\n
9. The two acts of this day are interconnected, the first being the prerequisite of the second.<\/p>\n
below the sky That is, the terrestrial waters.<\/p>\n
the dry land The terrain now visible to man.<\/p>\n
11. Let the earth sprout This creative act constitutes an exception to the norm that God\u2019s word directly effectuates the desired product. Here the earth is depicted as the mediating element, implying that God endows it with generative powers that He now activates by His utterance. The significance of this singularity is that the sources of power in what we call nature, which were personified and deified in the ancient world, are now emptied of sanctity. The productive forces of nature exist only by the will of one sovereign Creator and are not independent spiritual entities. There is no room in such a concept for the fertility cults that were features of ancient Near Eastern religions.<\/p>\n
vegetation Hebrew deshe\u02be is the generic term, which is subdivided into plants and fruit trees. A similar botanical classification is found in Leviticus 27:30. The function of these productions is revealed in verses 29\u201330.<\/p>\n
seed-bearing That is, endowed with the capacity for self-replication.<\/p>\n
of every kind That is, the various species that collectively make up the genus called deshe\u02be. That this is the meaning of Hebrew le-mino is clear from several texts.17<\/p>\n
THE SECOND GROUP (vv. 14\u201331)<\/p>\n
DAY FOUR<\/p>\n
14. Let there be lights This pronouncement corresponds to verse 3, \u201cLet there be light.\u201d The emergence of vegetation prior to the existence of the sun, the studied anonymity of these luminaries, and the unusually detailed description have the common purpose of emphasizing that sun, moon, and stars are not divinities, as they were universally thought to be; rather, they are simply the creations of God, who assigned them the function of regulating the life rhythms of the universe. With regard to the particulars, apart from the alternating cycle of day and night, there is some uncertainty as to interpretation.<\/p>\n
signs for the set times Hebrew \u02beotot and mo\u02bfadim are here treated as hendiadys, a single thought expressed by two words. The \u201cset times\u201d are then specified as \u201cthe days and the years.\u201d It is also possible to take \u02beotot as the general term meaning \u201ctime determinant,\u201d a gauge by which \u201cfixed times\u201d (mo\u02bfadim) such as new moons, festivals, and the like are determined, as well as the days and the years.<\/p>\n
15. to shine upon earth To focus their light downward, not upward upon heaven.18<\/p>\n
16. Here the general term \u201cluminaries\u201d is more precisely defined. Significantly, no particular role is assigned to the stars, which are not further discussed. This silence constitutes a tacit repudiation of astrology. Jeremiah 10:2 reads: \u201cThus said the LORD: \/ Do not learn to go the way of the nations, \/ And do not be dismayed by portents in the sky; \/ Let the nations be dismayed by them!\u201d<\/p>\n
DAY FIVE<\/p>\n
The process of Creation is now sufficiently advanced to sustain life, which is classified according to its habitat: creatures that colonize the waters and creatures that populate the sky.<\/p>\n
20. Let the waters bring forth swarms Water does not here possess inherent, independent generative powers as it does in the pagan mythologies. It produces marine life only in response to the divine command.<\/p>\n
living creatures Hebrew nefesh \u1e25ayyah means literally \u201canimate life,\u201d that which embodies the breath of life. It is distinct from plant life, which was not considered to be \u201cliving.\u201d It is unclear why the formula \u201cand it was so\u201d is omitted here. It appears in the Septuagint version.<\/p>\n
across the expanse of the sky Literally, \u201cover the face of,\u201d that is, from the viewpoint of an earth observer looking upward.<\/p>\n
21. God created This is the first use of bara\u02be after verse 1. Here it signifies that a new stage has been reached with the emergence of animate beings.<\/p>\n
the great sea monsters This specification expresses an unspoken antipagan polemic. Hebrew tannin appears in Canaanite myths from Ugarit, together with Leviathan, as the name of a primeval dragon-god who assisted Yam (Sea) in an elemental battle against Baal, the god of fertility. Fragments of this myth, in a transformed Israelite version, surface in several biblical poetic texts in which the forces of evil in this world are figuratively identified with Tannin (Dragon), the embodiment of the chaos that the Lord vanquished in primeval time.19 By emphasizing that \u201cGod created the great sea monsters\u201d late in the cosmogonic process, the narrative at once strips them of divinity.<\/p>\n
22. God blessed them Animate creation receives the gift of fertility. Plant life was not so blessed, both because it was thought to have been initially equipped with the capacity for self-reproducton by nonsexual means and because it is later to be cursed. The procreation of animate creatures, however, requires individual sexual activity, mating. This capacity for sexual reproduction is regarded as a divine blessing.<\/p>\n
DAY SIX<\/p>\n
The drama of Creation is moving toward its final act, the production of animate beings whose natural habitat is dry land. The unusual expansiveness of this section, the enhanced formula of approbation, and the exceptional use of the definite article with the day number indicate that the narrative is reaching its climax.
\nThe section is divided into two parts. Verses 24\u201325 describe the emergence of the animal kingdom, which is classified according to three categories: cattle, creeping things, and wild beasts. The drama then culminates in verses 26\u201330 with the creation of the human being.<\/p>\n
24. Let the earth bring forth It is uncertain whether the production of animals from earth is a reflex of the concept of \u201cmother earth\u201d or is simply a figurative way of expressing the natural environment of these creatures.<\/p>\n
25. The execution of the divine utterance reverses the order of verse 24 so as to juxtapose \u02beadamah, \u201cearth,\u201d to \u02beadam, \u201chuman being,\u201d in the next verse.<\/p>\n
creeping things A general term for creatures whose bodies appear to move close to the ground. Here it seems to encompass reptiles, creeping insects, and very small animals.
\nThe absence of a blessing upon these categories of animals is striking. It may be that, whereas the natural habitat of fish and fowl allows for their proliferation without encroaching adversely upon man\u2019s environment, the proliferation of animals, especially the wild variety, constitutes a menace. This idea is actually expressed in Exodus 23:29 and Leviticus 26:22.<\/p>\n
26. The second section of the sixth day culminates the creative process. A human being is the pinnacle of Creation. This unique status is communicated in a variety of ways, not least by the simple fact that humankind is last in a manifestly ascending, gradational order. The creation of human life is an exception to the rule of creation by divine fiat, as signaled by the replacement of the simple impersonal Hebrew command (the jussive) with a personal, strongly expressed resolve (the cohortative). The divine intent and purpose are solemnly declared in advance, and the stereotyped formula \u201cand it was so\u201d gives way to a thrice-repeated avowal that God created the man, using the significant verb b-r-\u02be. Human beings are to enjoy a unique relationship to God, who communicates with them alone and who shares with them the custody and administration of the world.
\nAt the same time, the pairing of the creation of man in this verse with that of land animals, and their sharing in common a vegetarian diet, focuses attention on the dual nature of humankind, the creatureliness and earthiness as well as the Godlike qualities.
\nThe mysterious duality of man\u2014the awesome power at his command and the starkness of his utter insignificance as compared with God\u2014is the subject of the psalmist who, basing himself on the present narrative, exclaims: \u201cWhen I behold Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, \/ the moon and stars that You set in place, \/ what is man that You have been mindful of him, \/ mortal man that You have taken note of him, \/ that You have made him little less than divine, \/ and adorned him with glory and majesty; \/ You have made him master over Your handiwork, \/ laying the world at his feet\u201d (Pss. 8:4\u20137).<\/p>\n
Let us make The extraordinary use of the first person plural evokes the image of a heavenly court in which God is surrounded by His angelic host.20 Such a celestial scene is depicted in several biblical passages. This is the Israelite version of the polytheistic assemblies of the pantheon\u2014monotheized and depaganized. It is noteworthy that this plural form of divine address is employed in Genesis on two other occasions, both involving the fate of humanity: in 3:22, in connection with the expulsion from Eden; and in 11:7, in reference to the dispersal of the human race after the building of the Tower of Babel.<\/p>\n
man Hebrew \u02beadam is a generic term for humankind; it never appears in Hebrew in the feminine or plural. In the first five chapters of Genesis it is only rarely a proper name, Adam. The term encompasses both man and woman, as shown in verses 27\u201328 and 5:1\u20132, where it is construed with plural verbs and terminations.21<\/p>\n
in our image, after our likeness This unique combination of expressions, virtually identical in meaning, emphasizes the incomparable nature of human beings and their special relationship to God. The full import of these terms can be grasped only within the broader context of biblical literature and against the background of ancient Near Eastern analogues.
\nThe continuation of verse 26 establishes an evident connection between resemblance to God and sovereignty over the earth\u2019s resources, though it is not made clear whether man has power over nature as a result of his being like God or whether that power constitutes the very essence of the similarity. A parallel passage in 9:6\u20137 tells of God\u2019s renewed blessing on the human race after the Flood and declares murder to be the consummate crime precisely because \u201cin His image did God make man.\u201d In other words, the resemblance of man to God bespeaks the infinite worth of a human being and affirms the inviolability of the human person. The killing of any other creature, even wantonly, is not murder. Only a human being may be murdered. It would seem, then, that the phrase \u201cin the image of God\u201d conveys something about the nature of the human being as opposed to the animal kingdom; it also asserts human dominance over nature. But it is even more than this.
\nThe words used here to convey these ideas can be better understood in the light of a phenomenon registered in both Mesopotamia and Egypt, whereby the ruling monarch is described as \u201cthe image\u201d or \u201cthe likeness\u201d of a god. In Mesopotamia we find the following salutations: \u201cThe father of my lord the king is the very image of Bel (\u1e63alam bel) and the king, my lord, is the very image of Bel\u201d; \u201cThe king, lord of the lands, is the image of Shamash\u201d; \u201cO king of the inhabited world, you are the image of Marduk.\u201d In Egypt the same concept is expressed through the name Tutankhamen (Tutankh-amun), which means \u201cthe living image of (the god) Amun,\u201d and in the designation of Thutmose IV as \u201cthe likeness of Re.\u201d
\nWithout doubt, the terminology employed in Genesis 1:26 is derived from regal vocabulary, which serves to elevate the king above the ordinary run of men. In the Bible this idea has become democratized.22 All human beings are created \u201cin the image of God\u201d; each person bears the stamp of royalty. This was patently understood by the author of Psalm 8, cited above. His description of man in royal terms is his interpretation of the concept of the \u201cimage of God\u201d introduced in verse 26. It should be further pointed out that in Assyrian royal steles, the gods are generally depicted by their symbols: Ashshur by the winged disk, Shamash by the sun disk, and so forth. These depictions are called: \u201cthe image (\u1e63alam) of the great gods.\u201d In light of this, the characterization of man as \u201cin the image of God\u201d furnishes the added dimension of his being the symbol of God\u2019s presence on earth. While he is not divine, his very existence bears witness to the activity of God in the life of the world. This awareness inevitably entails an awesome responsibility and imposes a code of living that conforms with the consciousness of that fact.
\nIt should be added that the pairing of the terms tselem and demut, \u201cimage\u201d and \u201clikeness,\u201d is paralleled in a ninth-century B.C.E. Assyrian-Aramaic bilingual inscription on a statue at Tell Fekheriyeh in Syria. The two terms are used interchangeably and indiscriminately and obviously cannot be used as criteria for source differentiation.<\/p>\n
They shall rule The verbs used here and in verse 28 express the coercive power of the monarch, consonant with the explanation just given for \u201cthe image of God.\u201d This power, however, cannot include the license to exploit nature banefully, for the following reasons: the human race is not inherently sovereign, but enjoys its dominion solely by the grace of God. Furthermore, the model of kingship here presupposed is Israelite, according to which, the monarch does not possess unrestrained power and authority; the limits of his rule are carefully defined and circumscribed by divine law, so that kingship is to be exercised with responsibility and is subject to accountability. Moreover, man, the sovereign of nature, is conceived at this stage to be functioning within the context of a \u201cvery good\u201d world in which the interrelationships of organisms with their environment and with each other are entirely harmonious and mutually beneficial, an idyllic situation that is clearly illustrated in Isaiah\u2019s vision of the ideal future king (Isa. 11:1\u20139). Thus, despite the power given him, man still requires special divine sanction to partake of the earth\u2019s vegetation, and although he \u201crules\u201d the animal world, he is not here permitted to eat flesh (vv. 29\u201330; cf. 9:3\u20134).
\nThere is one other aspect to the divine charge to man. Contrary to the common beliefs of the ancient world that the forces of nature are divinities that may hold the human race in thralldom, our text declares man to be a free agent who has the God-given power to control nature.<\/p>\n
27. male and female He created them No such sexual differentiation is noted in regard to animals. Human sexuality is of a wholly different order from that of the beast. The next verse shows it to be a blessed gift of God woven into the fabric of life. As such, it cannot of itself be other than wholesome. By the same token, its abuse is treated in the Bible with particular severity. Its proper regulation is subsumed under the category of the holy, whereas sexual perversion is viewed with abhorrence as an affront to human dignity and as a desecration of the divine image in man.
\nThe definition of the human community contained in this verse is solemnly repeated in 5:1\u20132, an indication of its seminal importance. Both sexes are created on the sixth day by the hand of the one God; both are made \u201cin His image\u201d on a level of absolute equality before Him. Thus the concept of humanity needs both male and female for its proper articulation.
\nIt is noteworthy that the recurrent formula \u201cof every kind,\u201d hitherto encountered with the emergence of every living thing, is here omitted. There is only one human species. The notion of all humankind deriving from one common ancestry directly leads to the recognition of the unity of the human race, notwithstanding the infinite diversity of human culture. The sages of the Mishnah, in Sanhedrin 4:5, observed that mankind was created as a single unit in order to inculcate the idea that the destruction of a single life is tantamount to the destruction of the entire world and, conversely, the preservation of a single life is the preservation of the entire world. The sages further understood that God, in order to promote social harmony, intended that no person have claim to unique ancestry as a pretext for asserting superiority over others.<\/p>\n
28. God blessed them and God said to them The difference between the formulation here and God\u2019s blessing to the fish and fowl in verse 22 is subtle and meaningful. Here God directly addresses man and woman. The transcendent God of Creation transforms Himself into the immanent God, the personal God, who enters into unmediated communion with human beings.<\/p>\n
Be fertile and increase Some commentators have understood this blessing of fertility to encompass a religious duty of procreation as well.23 However, only in its repetition in 9:7, following the depopulation of the earth by the Flood, is it clearly prescriptive.24<\/p>\n
30. God makes provision for the sustenance of man and beast\u2014a reminder that man is still a creature totally dependent on the benevolence of God. The narrative presupposes a pristine state of vegetarianism. Isaiah\u2019s vision of the ideal future in 11:7 and 65:25 sees the carnivorous animals becoming herbivorous.<\/p>\n
very good A verdict on the totality of Creation, now completed.<\/p>\n
the sixth day The exceptional definite article here and with the seventh day points to the special character of these days within the scheme of Creation.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2*<\/p>\n
THE SEVENTH DAY (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
The ascending order of Creation, and the \u201csix-plus-one\u201d literary pattern that determines the presentation of the narrative, dictates that the seventh day be the momentous climax. Man is indeed the pinnacle of Creation, but central to the cosmogonic drama is the work of God, the solo performer. The account of Creation opened with a statement about God; it will now close with a statement about God. The seventh day is the Lord\u2019s Day, through which all the creativity of the preceding days achieves fulfillment. The threefold repetition of the day number indicates its paramount importance within the cosmic whole. The seventh day is in polar contrast to the other six days, which are filled with creative activity. Its distinctive character is the desistance from labor and its infusion with blessing and sanctity. This renders unnecessary the routine approbation formula. An integral part of the divinely ordained cosmic order, it cannot be abrogated by man. Its blessed and sacred character is a cosmic reality entirely independent of human effort.
\nThe human institution of the Sabbath does not appear in the narrative. Indeed, the Hebrew noun shabbat is absent, and we have only the verbal forms of the root. There are several possible reasons for the omission. First, the expression \u201cthe seventh day\u201d is required by the conventional, sequential style of the creation narrative in which numbered day follows numbered day in an ascending series. Further, the term shabbat connotes a fixed institution recurring with cyclic regularity. This would be inappropriate to the present context and, in general, inapplicable to God. Finally, as we read in Exodus 31:13, 16, and 17, the Sabbath is a distinctively Israelite ordinance, a token of the eternal covenant between God and Israel. Its enactment would be out of place before the arrival of Israel on the scene of history.
\nNevertheless, there cannot be any doubt that the text provides the unspoken foundation for the future institution of the Sabbath. Not only is the vocabulary of the present passage interwoven with other Pentateuchal references to the Sabbath,1 but the connection with Creation is made explicit in the first version of the Ten Commandments, given in Exodus 20:8\u201311. \u201cRemember the sabbath day and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God.\u2026 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth and sea, and all that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day \u2026 and hallowed it.\u201d The biblical institution of the weekly Sabbath is unparalleled in the ancient world. In fact, the concept of a seven-day week is unique to Israel, as is also, so far, the seven-day cosmogonic tradition. Both these phenomena are extraordinary in light of the widespread use of a seven-day unit of time, both as a literary convention and as an aspect of cultic observance in the ancient Near East. The wonderment is compounded by additional data. The other major units of time\u2014day, month, and year\u2014are uniformly based on the phases of the moon and the movement of the sun, and the calendars of the ancient world are rooted in the seasonal manifestations of nature. Remarkably, the Israelite week has no such linkage and is entirely independent of the movement of celestial bodies. The Sabbath thus underlines the fundamental idea of Israelite monotheism: that God is wholly outside of nature.
\nIt is still a moot point whether the noun shabbat is derived from the verb sh-b-t, \u201cto cease,\u201d or vice versa. Attempts have been made to connect it with the Babylonian-Assyrian calendrical term shapattu, which is described as \u016bm n\u016b\u1e25 libbi, \u201cthe day of the quieting of the heart (of the god),\u201d that is, the day when he is appeased. This day, however, is defined as the fifteenth of the month, the day of the full moon. It is not certain that every full moon was called shapattu, nor is it clear how the term would have been transferred to the Israelite cyclical seventh day freed of any lunar association. The etymology and exact meaning of that term still remain problematical. In fact, the likelihood exists that shapattu is itself a loan word in Akkadian. In addition, there is no evidence that the day entailed a cessation from labor. Whatever its etymology, the biblical Sabbath as an institution is unparalleled in the ancient world.<\/p>\n
1. all their array Hebrew tsava\u02be, in the sense used here, is strictly speaking applicable only to \u201cheaven\u201d; but, by the figure of speech known as zeugma, it is extended to apply to the \u201cearth\u201d as well.2<\/p>\n
2. On the seventh day This phrase caused embarrassment to ancient translators and commentators,3 for it seems to be out of harmony with the context, implying some divine activity also on this day. However, the preposition can easily mean \u201cby,\u201d and the verb can be taken as a pluperfect, \u201chad finished,\u201d or as a declarative, \u201cpronounced finished,\u201d just as \u201che declared it holy\u201d in verse 3.<\/p>\n
He ceased This is the primary meaning of sh-b-t; the idea of resting is secondary.4<\/p>\n
3. God blessed \u2026 declared it holy Unlike the blessings of verses 22 and 28, which are verbal, specific, material, and relate to living creatures, this blessing is undefined and pertains to time itself. The day becomes imbued with an extraordinary vital power that communicates itself in a beneficial way. That is why the routine day-formula is here omitted. God, through His creativity, has already established His sovereignty over space; the idea here is that He is sovereign over time as well. Through his weekly suspension of normal human activity, man imitates the divine pattern and reactualizes the original sacred time of God, thereby recovering the sacred dimension of existence. Paradoxically, he also thereby rediscovers his own very human dimension, his earthliness, for the Sabbath delimits man\u2019s autonomy, suspends for a while his creative freedom, and declares that on that one day each week nature is inviolable.<\/p>\n
holy This first use of the key biblical concept of holiness relates to time. This is in striking contrast to the Babylonian cosmology, which culminates in the erection of a temple to Marduk by the gods, thereby asserting the sanctification of space.<\/p>\n
all the work of creation that He had done This smooth English conceals a difficulty in the Hebrew, which literally translates \u201call His work that God created to do.\u201d Ibn Ezra and Radak understood the final verb as connoting \u201c[for man] to [continue to] do [thenceforth].\u201d Ibn Jana\u1e25 and Ramban connected the final verb with the preceding \u201cceased,\u201d thereby taking it to mean: \u201cHe ceased to perform all His creative work.\u201d5<\/p>\n
Eden and the Expulsion: The Human Condition (2:4\u20133:24)<\/p>\n
While God the Creator was the primary subject of the previous chapter, the focus of attention now shifts to humankind. This change in perspective and emphasis is signaled by the inversion of the regular sequence \u201cheaven and earth\u201d in the opening sentence. The almost unique expression \u201cearth and heaven\u201d suggests pride of place for terrestrial affairs. Information about the physical world is offered only to provide essential background for the understanding of the narrative, which seeks to explain the nature of man and the human condition.
\nChapter 2 is not another creation story. As such it would be singularly incomplete. In fact, it presupposes a knowledge of much of the preceding account of Creation. Many of the leading ideas in the earlier account are here reiterated, though the mode of presentation is different. Thus, in both narratives God is the sovereign Creator, and the world is the purposeful product of His will. To human beings, the crown of His Creation, God grants mastery over the animal kingdom. In chapter 1, this idea is formulated explicitly; in the present section it is inferred from the power of naming invested in man. Both accounts view man as a social creature. Both project the concept of a common ancestry for all humanity. The notion that the human race was originally vegetarian is implied in 2:16\u201317, as in 1:29. Finally, one of the most serious questions to which the present narrative addresses itself\u2014the origin of evil\u2014would be unintelligible without the fundamental postulate of the preceding cosmology, repeated there seven times: the essential goodness of the divine creation.
\nThe startling contrast between this vision of God\u2019s ideal world and the world of human experience requires explanation. How did the pristine harmony between God, man, and nature come to be disturbed? How are we to explain the harsh, hostile workings of nature, the recalcitrance of the soil to man\u2019s arduous labors? If God ordered man and woman to procreate, why then does woman suffer the pangs of childbirth in fulfilling God\u2019s will? If God created the human body, why does nudity in the presence of others instinctively evoke embarrassment? In short, how is the existence of evil to be accounted for?
\nThe biblical answer to this fundamental question, diametrically opposed to prevalent pagan conceptions, is that there is no inherent, primordial evil at work in the world. The source of evil is not metaphysical but moral. Evil is not transhistorical but humanly wrought. Human beings possess free will, but free will is beneficial only insofar as its exercise is in accordance with divine will. Free will and the need for restraint on the liberties of action inevitably generate temptation and the agony of choosing, which only man\u2019s self-mastery can resolve satisfactorily. The ensuing narrative demonstrates that abuse of the power of choice makes disaster inescapable.<\/p>\n
THE CREATION OF MAN (vv. 4\u20137)<\/p>\n
Whereas the previous chapter simply recorded without detail the creation of humankind, male and female, the creations of man and woman are now described separately.<\/p>\n
4. Such is the story The \u02beelleh toledot formula is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Book of Genesis.6 In each of its other ten occurrences, it introduces what follows, invariably in close connection with the name of a person already mentioned in the narrative. Its use indicates that a new and significant development is at hand. Deriving from the verb y-l-d, \u201cto give birth,\u201d the noun form would mean \u201cbegettings\u201d or \u201cgenerations,\u201d and in most instances it precedes genealogies that are sometimes interspersed with narrative material. In 25:19 and 37:2, where no family tree follows but only stories of subsequent events, the formula is used figuratively for \u201ca record of events.\u201d This is the meaning it bears in the present passage. In this sense, the entire verse may be understood as a unity referring to what follows. Further support for this interpretation lies in its parallel structure, not to mention its poetic chiasm, \u201cheaven and earth,\u201d \u201cearth and heaven.\u201d7<\/p>\n
the LORD God This combination of the personal divine name YHVH with the general term \u02beelohim appears twenty times in the present literary unit, but only once again in the Torah, in Exodus 9:30. It is exceedingly rare in the rest of the Bible. The repeated use here may be to establish that the absolutely transcendent God of Creation (\u02beelohim) is the same immanent, personal God (YHVH) who shows concern for the needs of human beings. Admittedly, however, the remarkable concentration of the combination of these divine names in this narrative and their virtual absence hereafter have not been satisfactorily explained.<\/p>\n
5. This passage is not a cosmogonic account but simply a description of the initial, barren state of the earth after the formation of dry land, which was briefly recorded in 1:9\u201310. The existence of both celestial and subterranean stores of water are presupposed here. The earth itself is still a desert. It lacks rain, verdure, and humankind.<\/p>\n
rain Rain is not conceived simply as a phenomenon of nature; it is a source of blessing to man from God.<\/p>\n
no man to till the soil Agriculture is considered to be the original vocation of man, whose bond to the earth is an essential part of his being.<\/p>\n
6. a flow The idea seems to be that the primordial, subterranean waters would rise to the surface to moisten the arid earth,8 thereby making it receptive to the growth and survival of vegetation and providing the raw material with the proper consistency for being molded into man.<\/p>\n
7. Nothing was said in 1:27 of the substance from which man was created. Here it is given as \u201cdust,\u201d a word that can be used synonymously with \u201cclay.\u201d9 The verb \u201cformed\u201d (Heb. va-yitser) is frequently used of the action of a potter (yotser), so that man\u2019s creation is portrayed in terms of God molding the clayey soil into shape and then animating it. This image is widespread in the ancient world. In Egyptian art the god Khnum is shown before a potter\u2019s wheel busily fashioning man, and in the Wisdom of Amen-em-opert (chap. 35), it is stated that \u201cman is clay and straw, and the god is his builder.\u201d Mesopotamian texts, in particular, repeatedly feature this notion. The same is found in the Greek myth about Prometheus, who created a man, and about Hephaestus, who molded the archetypal woman Pandora from earth.
\nThe poetic imagery evoked by the Genesis text is graphically explicit in the Book of Job: \u201cConsider that You fashioned me like clay\u201d (10:9); \u201cYou and I are the same before God; \/ I too was nipped from clay\u201d (33:6). The human body is a \u201chouse of clay,\u201d and human beings are described as \u201cthose who dwell in houses of clay, \/ Whose origin is dust\u201d (4:19).
\nHere in Genesis, the image simultaneously expresses both the glory and the insignificance of man. Man occupies a special place in the hierarchy of Creation and enjoys a unique relationship with God by virtue of his being the work of God\u2019s own hands and being directly animated by God\u2019s own breath. At the same time, he is but dust taken from the earth, mere clay in the hands of the divine Potter, who exercises absolute mastery over His Creation.<\/p>\n
man \u2026 earth Hebrew \u02beadnm \u2026 \u02beadamah. This word play, not given in chapter 1, once more expresses man\u2019s essential bond to the earth. An oft-cited equivalent is \u201chomo \u2026 humus.\u201d<\/p>\n
the breath of life The uniqueness of the Hebrew phrase nishmat \u1e25ayyim matches the singular nature of the human body, which, unlike the creatures of the animal world, is directly inspirited by God Himself.10<\/p>\n
THE GARDEN OF EDEN (vv. 8\u201317)<\/p>\n
Man\u2019s first domicile is a garden planted by God. The narrative is very sparing of detail about its nature and function. Other biblical references indicate that a more expansive, popular story about man\u2019s first home once circulated widely in Israel. A phrase like \u201cthe garden of the Lord,\u201d as well as the figurative use of \u201cEden\u201d or \u201cGarden of Eden\u201d as symbols of luscious vegetation, suggests a background not given here.11 Ezekiel 28:13; 31 testify to the one-time existence of a tale about a wondrous \u201cgarden of God,\u201d rich in a large variety of precious stones, beautifully wrought gold, and an assortment of trees.
\nAncient Near Eastern literature provides no parallel to our Eden narrative as a whole, but there are some suggestions of certain aspects of the biblical Eden. The Sumerian myth about Enki and Ninhursag tells of an idyllic island of Dilmun, now almost certainly identified with the modern island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf. It is a \u201cpure,\u201d \u201cclean,\u201d and \u201cbright\u201d land in which all nature is at peace, where beasts of prey and tame cattle live together in mutual amity. Sickness and old age are unknown. The Gilgamesh Epic likewise knows of a garden of jewels. It is significant that our Genesis account omits all mythological details, does not even employ the phrase \u201cgarden of God,\u201d and places gold and jewels in a natural setting.<\/p>\n
8. a garden The Greek version, the Septuagint, translated this word by par\u00e1deisos, a term that originated in the Old Persian pairi-daeza, meaning \u201can enclosed park, a pleasure ground.\u201d The translation was taken over by the Vulgate version and so passed from Latin into other European languages.12 Because Hebrew \u02bfeden was interpreted to mean \u201cpleasure,\u201d \u201cparadise\u201d took on an exclusively religious connotation as the place of reward for the righteous after death. Such a meaning for \u02bfeden is not found in the Hebrew Bible.<\/p>\n
in Eden Clearly, Eden designates a wider geographical location of which the garden was a part.13 The name has been derived from the Sumerian edinu, \u201ca plain,\u201d but an Aramaic-Akkadian bilingual inscription suggests that the real meaning is \u201cluxuriance.\u201d<\/p>\n
in the east Hebrew mi-kedem, here interpreted spatially, can also have a temporal meaning, \u201cin primeval times,\u201d and was so rendered in some ancient versions and exegesis.14 This would preclude the possibility that the garden was planted after the creation of man.<\/p>\n
9. The verse tells nothing about the greening of the earth in general, only about the garden, which is pictured as a tree park. This accords with the description of the \u201cgarden of God\u201d in Ezekiel 31:8\u20139. The idea is that man\u2019s food was ever ready at hand. The attractive, nutritious, and delectable qualities of the fruit are stressed with the next episode in mind. The human couple will not be able to plead deprivation as the excuse for eating the forbidden fruit.
\nThe two special trees are brought to our attention in a deliberately casual manner; their significance will become obvious later on. The \u201ctree of life\u201d is mentioned first, the \u201ctree of knowledge\u201d second. Only the first is given prominence in the garden, while the second gives the appearance of being an appendage to the verse. Yet as the narrative unfolds, the sequence is reversed. Only the \u201ctree of knowledge\u201d comes into focus, only its fruit is prohibited, only it is mentioned in the subsequent dialogues.
\nThis shift in emphasis signals another breach with the central pagan theme of man\u2019s quest for immortality, as illustrated, for example, in the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic and the Story of Adapa.15 It is not the mythical pursuit of eternal life but the relationship between God and man that is the primary concern here.<\/p>\n
the tree of life It is clear from 3:22 that the fruit of this tree was understood to bestow immortality upon the eater.16 What is uncertain is whether a single bite was thought to suffice or whether steady ingestion was needed to sustain a process of continuous rejuvenation. Either way, the text presupposes a belief that man, created from perishable matter, was mortal from the outset but that he had within his grasp the possibility of immortality. The \u201ctree of life\u201d is not included in the prohibition in verse 17.<\/p>\n
the tree of knowledge of good and bad The interpretation of this enigmatic designation, which is unparalleled anywhere outside the present narrative, hinges upon the definition of \u201cknowledge\u201d and the scope of \u201cgood and bad.\u201d Ibn Ezra, followed by many moderns, understood carnal knowledge to be intended since the first human experience after eating the forbidden fruit is the consciousness of nudity accompanied by shame; moreover, immediately after the expulsion from Eden it is said, \u201cNow the man knew his wife Eve.\u201d
\nAgainst this interpretation is the fact that at this stage woman is not yet created, that sexual differentiation is made by God Himself (cf. 1:27), that the institution of marriage is looked upon in verse 25 as part of the divinely ordained order, and that, according to 3:5, 22, \u201cknowledge of good and bad\u201d is a divine characteristic. Thus it will not do to take \u201cgood and bad\u201d as the human capacity for moral discernment. Aside from the difficulty of understanding why God should be opposed to this, there is the additional argument that a divine prohibition would be meaningless if man did not already possess this faculty. Indeed, from 3:3 it is clear that the woman knows the meaning of disobedience; that is, she is already alert to the difference between right and wrong, which can have no other meaning than obedience or otherwise.
\nIt is more satisfactory, however, to understand \u201cgood and bad\u201d as undifferentiated parts of a totality, a merism meaning \u201ceverything.\u201d True, man and woman do not become endowed with omniscience after partaking of the fruit, but the text does seem to imply that their intellectual horizons are immeasurably expanded. Passages like 2 Samuel 14:17, 20 lend support to this interpretation. It should also be noted that \u201cgood and bad,\u201d exactly in the Hebrew form used here (tov vara\u02bf), occurs again only in Deuteronomy 1:39: \u201cMoreover, your little ones who you said would be carried off, your children who do not yet know good from bad \u2026\u201d There the context leaves no doubt that not to know good and bad means to be innocent, not to have attained the age of responsibility. In the present passage, then, it is best to understand \u201cknowledge of good and bad\u201d as the capacity to make independent judgments concerning human welfare.<\/p>\n
THE RIVERS OF PARADISE (VV. 10\u201314)<\/p>\n
The story of man is abruptly interrupted by a description of the geographical setting of the garden. This pause functions as a tension-building device, for the reader is left wondering about the role of the two special trees. The identical literary stratagem is employed in the story of Joseph, where the digression of chapter 38 heightens the reader\u2019s suspense at a critical moment in the development of the plot.
\nA single river \u201cissues from Eden.\u201d Its source appears to be outside the garden, which it irrigates as it passes through. Here, as in Genesis 13:10, which reflects this same tradition, the garden is made independent of the vagaries of seasonal rainfall. Somewhere beyond the confines of the garden the single river separates into four branches that probably represent the four quarters of the inhabited world. In other words, the river of Eden also nourishes the rest of the world with its life-giving waters. While the Tigris and the Euphrates are of course well known, the other two names defy positive identification. They may stand for another great river civilization corresponding to that of the Mesopotamian plain, perhaps the Nile Valley.<\/p>\n
11\u201312. Pishon is an unknown name.17 It is said to be a meandering river associated with \u201cthe land of Havilah.\u201d If this latter name is Hebrew, it means \u201csandy land.\u201d There are two biblical sites identified by the name Havilah, one within the Egyptian sphere of influence, the other in Arabia. Here the place is described as a source of gold and precious materials.
\nAs far as Egypt is concerned, its primary sources of bullion and jewels were the mines of Nubia, a region south of Egypt that corresponds roughly to present-day Nilotic Sudan. In fact, the name Nubia is derived from Egyptian nb, meaning \u201cgold.\u201d The term \u201cgood gold\u201d\u2014that is, high-grade ore\u2014was used in Egyptian commercial transactions. It is also possible that the mention of gold in connection with the river refers not to lode or vein mining but to alluvial gold and reflects the ancient method of washing gold-bearing sands and gravel deposited by streams and rivers.
\nThe description in verses 11\u201312 might also fit an Arabian location. In 10:29, Havilah is stated to be a \u201cbrother\u201d of Ophir, which is the name of a country celebrated for its gold. It is not absolutely certain, however, that Ophir was in Arabia.
\nBdellium is mentioned again only in Numbers 11:7, where it is assumed to be a well-known substance. From ancient times, opinion has been divided as to whether it was a precious stone or a much valued aromatic resin called bdellion by the Greeks and mentioned in Akkadian sources as budul\u1e2bu, which corresponds to Hebrew bdola\u1e25.18 This product was an important export of Nubia.<\/p>\n
lapis lazuli Hebrew shoham is an oft-mentioned precious stone;19 its exact identity is uncertain. Ezekiel 28:13 lists it among the gems found in the Garden of Eden.<\/p>\n
13. Gihon is the name of a spring in a valley outside of Jerusalem. The stem g-y-\u1e25 means \u201cto gush forth.\u201d20 No river of this name is otherwise known. The association with \u201cthe land of Cush\u201d complicates the identification because in 10:6\u201310 Cush is a \u201cbrother\u201d of Egypt and is also connected with South Arabia and with Mesopotamia. There also seems to be another Cush in Midian on the northeastern shore of the Gulf of Akaba.21 Generally in the Bible, Cush refers to Nubia. If this is the case here too, then Pishon and Gihon may be terms for the Blue Nile and the White Nile. These two rivers unite at Khartoum to form the mightiest river of Africa, which finally empties into the Mediterranean Sea.<\/p>\n
14. Tigris Hebrew \u1e25iddekel is mentioned again only in Daniel 10:4.22<\/p>\n
east of Asshur Hebrew kidmat means literally \u201cin front of,\u201d that is, eastward, from the vantage point of one facing the rising sun, which is the standard orientation in the Bible. \u201cAsshur\u201d may be either the city of Ashur, which lay west of the Tigris, or the larger region of Assyria, to which it gave its name. The parallel with \u201cthe land of Cush\u201d would favor the second possibility, but the Tigris actually bisects Assyria, so that here the city itself, not otherwise mentioned in Scripture, is more likely intended.<\/p>\n
Euphrates To an Israelite, this was the river par excellence and therefore required no topographical description.23<\/p>\n
THE PROHIBITION (VV. 15\u201317)<\/p>\n
15. The opening line of this section repeats the contents of verse 8. This resumptive repetition, or recapitulation after a digression, occurs again in 39:1 = 37:36 and in 43:24 = verse 17.<\/p>\n
to till it and tend it The man is not indigenous to the garden. He is fashioned elsewhere and finds himself in it solely by the grace of God. True, his needs are easily taken care of, but his life in the garden is not to be one of indolence. He has duties to perform. It is his responsibility to nurture and conserve the pristine perfection of the garden. This he must do by the labor of his hands. Yet, no strenuous exertion is required, for nature responds easily to his efforts.<\/p>\n
16\u201317. Just as in the Creation narrative of chapter 1, the human race is here assumed to have been originally vegetarian.<\/p>\n
you must not eat Unrestricted freedom does not exist. Man is called upon by God to exercise restraint and self-discipline in the gratification of his appetite. This prohibition is the paradigm for the future Torah legislation relating to the dietary laws.<\/p>\n
you shall die The threat of death would have been intelligible to the man only if he had witnessed the demise of animals and birds. Even without understanding the meaning of death, he would have inferred that disobedience incurs divine disapproval.
\nAs noted in the Comment to verse 9, man was mortal from the beginning. Logically, therefore, the transgression should incur immediate capital punishment, not mortality as opposed to immortality. But man and woman did not die at once, and it is not stated that God rescinded the death penalty. For these reasons, \u201cyou shall die\u201d24 must here mean being deprived of the possibility of rejuvenation by means of the \u201ctree of life,\u201d as existed hitherto\u2014in other words, inevitable expulsion from the garden.<\/p>\n
THE CREATION OF WOMAN (vv. 18\u201324)<\/p>\n
Curiously, the extant literature of the ancient Near East has preserved no other account of the creation of primordial woman. The present narrative is therefore unique. Moreover, whereas the creation of man is told briefly, in a single verse, the creation of woman is described in six verses. This detail is extraordinary in light of the generally nondescriptive character of the biblical narrative and as such is indicative of the importance accorded this event. With the appearance of woman, Creation is complete.<\/p>\n
18. It is not good The emphatic negative contrasts with the verdict of 1:31 that everything was \u201cvery good,\u201d this after the creation of male and female. The idea here is that man is recognized to be a social being. Celibacy is undesirable. Genesis Rabba 17:2 expresses this point as follows: \u201cWhoever has no wife exists without goodness, without a helpmate, without joy, without blessing, without atonement \u2026 without well-being, without a full life; \u2026 indeed, such a one reduces the representation of the divine image [on earth].\u201d<\/p>\n
I will make This divine declaration of intent balances that preceding the creation of the man in 1:26. It is God who takes the initiative to provide the wife for Adam.<\/p>\n
a fitting helper Literally, \u201ca helper corresponding to him.\u201d25 This term cannot be demeaning because Hebrew \u02bfezer,26 employed here to describe the intended role of the woman, is often used of God in His relation to man.<\/p>\n
19. As noted above, the dominant theme of this section, to which all else is subordinated, is man and the human condition. The narrative now focuses on humankind\u2019s mastery over the animals. Mention of their creation is therefore made incidentally, not for its own sake, and is no indication of sequential order in regard to the creation of man.<\/p>\n
and all the birds of the sky Another example of zeugma, as in 2:1. The birds were actually created out of the water and the animals out of the earth, according to 1:21, 24. The apparent contradiction between the two accounts is resolved by the Talmud in \u1e24ullin 27b, with the assumption that the origin of fowl life was alluvial mud.<\/p>\n
and brought them to the man In chapter 1 God bestows names only on the cosmic phenomena connected with time and space. Here He assigns to man the role of naming terrestrial animates, which, as explained in the Comment to 1:5, is another way of expressing the bestowal of authority and dominion over them, the idea contained in 1:28.<\/p>\n
20. The Bible offers no speculation about the origin of language, only a theory about the diversity of languages, which is presented in chapter 11. Here the first man is assumed to have been initially endowed with the faculty of speech, with a level of intellect capable of differentiating between one creature and another and with the linguistic ability to coin an appropriate name for each.<\/p>\n
Adam The Hebrew vocalization le-\u02beadam makes the word a proper name for the first time,27 probably because the narrative now speaks of the man as a personality rather than an archetypal human.<\/p>\n
no fitting helper was found The review of the subhuman creation makes the man conscious of his own uniqueness, of his inability to integrate himself into that whole biological order or feel direct kinship with the other animate beings. At the same time, by observing the otherwise universal complementary pairing of male and female, he becomes aware of his own exceptional status and of his solitariness.<\/p>\n
21. God empathizes with man\u2019s loneliness.<\/p>\n
a deep sleep Hebrew tardemah is used of abnormally heavy sleep,28 divinely induced. It has here the dual function of rendering the man insensible to the pain of the surgery and oblivious to God at work.<\/p>\n
one of his ribs The mystery of the intimacy between husband and wife and the indispensable role that the woman ideally plays in the life of man are symbolically described in terms of her creation out of his body. The rib taken from man\u2019s side thus connotes physical union and signifies that she is his companion and partner, ever at his side.
\nThis correspondence between the part of the body and the role of the one identified with it is found in both Mesopotamian and Greek literatures. In the former, Ea, the god of wisdom, is described as \u201cthe ear of [the god] Ninurta\u201d because the ear was regarded as the seat of intelligence. In Greek mythology, Athena, goddess of wisdom, sprang from the forehead of Zeus, the seat of the brain; and Aphrodite, goddess of love, generation, and fertility, is said to have sprung from the foam in the sea that collected about the severed male organ of the god Uranus.<\/p>\n
22. The LORD God fashioned Literally, \u201cbuilt,\u201d the only use of this verb in the Creation narratives. It certainly harks back to ancient Near Eastern poetic traditions, in which it is widely used for the action of the deity in creating mankind.29 At the same time, it well fits Hebrew tsela\u02bf, \u201crib,\u201d which frequently appears as an architectonic term in building texts. In a word play, Genesis Rabba 18:1 connects the present use of b-n-h, \u201cto build,\u201d with b-y-n, \u201cto discern,\u201d indicating that \u201cwoman was endowed with intelligence surpassing that of man.\u201d<\/p>\n
He brought her to the man As noted in a midrash, the image may well be that of God playing the role of the attendant who leads the bride to the groom. Without doubt, the verse conveys the idea that the institution of marriage is established by God Himself.30<\/p>\n
23. Man\u2019s first recorded speech is a cry of ecstatic elation at seeing the woman.<\/p>\n
This one at last In contrast to the animals.<\/p>\n
shall be called Woman Insofar as the power of naming implies authority, the text voices the social reality of the ancient Near East. Yet the terminology used here differs from that employed in verse 20 for naming the animals. Here the man gives her a generic, not a personal, name, and that designation is understood to be derived from his own, which means he acknowledges woman to be his equal. Moreover, in naming her \u02beishah, he simultaneously names himself. Hitherto he is consistently called \u02beadam; he now calls himself \u02beish for the first time. Thus he discovers his own manhood and fulfillment only when he faces the woman, the human being who is to be his partner in life.<\/p>\n
Woman \u2026 man Hebrew \u02beishah \u2026 \u02beish, though actually derived from distinct and unrelated stems, are here associated through folk etymology by virtue of assonance. The corresponding tacit word play for the man was noted in the Comment to verse 7.<\/p>\n
24. Hence Hebrew \u02bfal ken is not part of the narration, but it introduces an etiological observation on the part of the Narrator;31 that is, the origin of an existing custom or institution is assigned to some specific event in the past. In this case, some interrelated and fundamental aspects of the marital relationship are traced to God\u2019s original creative act and seen as part of the divinely ordained natural order. The fashioning of the woman from the man\u2019s body explains why his bond to his wife takes precedence over his ties to his parents. It accounts for the mystery of physical love and the intense emotional involvement of male and female, as well as for their commonality of interests, goals, and ideals.<\/p>\n
clings \u2026 one flesh There is a seeming contradiction here since Hebrew d-v-k, \u201cto cling,\u201d essentially expresses the idea of two distinct entities becoming attached to one another while preserving their separate identities. To become \u201cone flesh\u201d refers to the physical aspects of marriage, as though the separated elements seek one another for reunification. The underlying meaning of the paradox is clear, if it is noted that the verb d-v-k is often used to describe human yearning for and devotion to God.32 Sexual relations between husband and wife do not rise above the level of animality unless they be informed by and imbued with spiritual, emotional, and mental affinity.<\/p>\n
25. This verse forms the transition to the next episode by means of a word play on \u201cnaked\u201d (Heb. \u02bfarom, pl. \u02bfarummim) and \u201cshrewd\u201d (Heb. \u02bfarum). It also conveys an anticipatory hint at what is related in 3:7.<\/p>\n
they felt no shame The Hebrew expresses mutuality. So long as the harmony with God remained undisturbed, the pristine innocence and dignity of sexuality was not despoiled.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3*<\/p>\n
The work of God\u2019s Creation has been termed \u201cvery good\u201d; the idyllic life of man and woman in the Garden of Eden has been described. How did evil come into existence? Evil is seen to be the inevitable result of human violation of God\u2019s law. Human beings are free moral agents; hence, they must bear the consequences of their actions.<\/p>\n
THE TRANSGRESSION (vv. 1\u20137)<\/p>\n
1. the serpent The serpent has always been a creature of mystery. With its venomous bite, it can inflict sudden and unexpected death. It shows no limbs, yet it is gracefully and silently agile. Its glassy eyes\u2014lidless, unblinking, strangely lustrous\u2014have a fixed and penetrating stare. Its longevity and the regular, recurrent sloughing of its skin impart an aura of youthfulness, vitality, and rejuvenation. Small wonder that the snake simultaneously aroused fascination and revulsion, awe and dread. Throughout the ancient world, it was endowed with divine or semidivine qualities; it was venerated as an emblem of health, fertility, immortality, occult wisdom, and chaotic evil; and it was often worshipped. The serpent played a significant role in the mythology, the religious symbolism, and the cults of the ancient Near East. As noted in the Introduction to Genesis 1, biblical poetic texts such as Isaiah 27:1 demonstrate that there once existed in Israel popular compositions in which the serpent, a monster representing primeval chaos, challenged, to its own ruin, God\u2019s creative endeavors.1
\nThis background is essential for an understanding of the demythologizing that takes place in the present narrative. Here the serpent is introduced simply as one of \u201cthe creatures that the LORD God had made.\u201d In the wording of the curse imposed on it in verse 14, the phrase \u201call the days of your life\u201d underlines its mortal nature. Of the three parties to the transgression, the serpent alone is summarily sentenced without prior interrogation\u2014a token of God\u2019s withering disdain for it. Further, the voluble creature does not utter a word\u2014a sure sign of its impotence in the presence of the Deity. In sum, the serpent is here reduced to an insignificant, demythologized stature. It possesses no occult powers. It is not demonic, only extraordinarily shrewd. Its role is to lay before the woman the enticing nature of evil and to fan her desire for it. The serpent is not the personification of evil; in fact, its identification with Satan is not encountered before the first century B.C.E., when it appears for the first time in the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon 2:24.<\/p>\n
the shrewdest The serpent\u2019s cunning reveals itself in the way it frames the question, in its knowledge of the divine proscription, in its claim to be able to probe God\u2019s mind and intent, and in the selection of its victim.<\/p>\n
to the woman She, rather than her husband, is approached because she has not received the prohibition directly from God. She is therefore the more vulnerable of the two, the more susceptible to the serpent\u2019s insidious verbal manipulation.<\/p>\n
say The serpent subtly softens the severity of the prohibition by using this word in place of the original \u201ccommand.\u201d Then it deliberately misquotes God so that the woman cannot give a one-word reply but is drawn into conversation that forces her to focus upon the forbidden tree that he had not mentioned.<\/p>\n
3. or touch it In correcting her enquirer, she either unconsciously exaggerates the stringency of the divine prohibition or is quoting what her husband told her. Either way, she introduces into her own mind the suggestion of an unreasonably strict God.<\/p>\n
4\u20135. The serpent emphatically contradicts the very words God used in 2:17. In this way it removes her fears. It then proceeds to ascribe self-serving motives to God, thus undermining His credibility in her eyes. Finally, it appeals to an attractive standard of utility: eating of the tree\u2019s fruit elevates one to a higher plane of existence.<\/p>\n
5. your eyes will be opened You will be endowed with new mental powers,2 with the capacity for reflection that allows one to make decisions independently of God.<\/p>\n
like divine beings Hebrew \u02beelohim is a comprehensive term for supernatural beings and is often employed for angels.3 Any possible ambiguity inherent in the use of the same word for \u201cGod\u201d and for \u201cdivine beings\u201d is here removed by the plural form of the verb \u201cknow\u201d (yode\u02bfei) and by verse 22 (\u201cone of us\u201d). As tractate Soferim 4:5(4) points out, \u201cthe first \u02beelohim [in this verse] is sacred, the second non-sacred.\u201d<\/p>\n
who know good and bad See Comment to 2:9. The notion that such is a prerogative of the angelic host is found again in 2 Samuel 14: \u201cFor my lord the king is like an angel of God, understanding \u2026 good and bad\u201d (v. 17); and \u201cMy lord is as wise as an angel of God, and he knows all that goes on in the land\u201d (v. 20). A polytheistic version of this sentiment is found in Gilgamesh: \u201cWise art thou, O Enkidu, like a god art thou.\u201d4 What the serpent is saying is that the woman and the man will have the capacity to make judgments as to their own welfare independently of God. The insidious nature of its discourse lies in the implication that defiance of God\u2019s law constitutes the indispensable precondition for human freedom.
\nThe serpent had initially pretended total ignorance of the situation. The woman had merely referred to \u201cthe tree in the middle of the garden.\u201d By \u201ccoincidentally\u201d using the phrase \u201cto know good and bad,\u201d God\u2019s own words in 2:17, the creature cleverly enhances the listener\u2019s receptivity to its words.<\/p>\n
6. The word of the serpent prevails over the word of God. The allure of the forbidden has become irresistible. There is an undertone of irony in the formulation that she \u201csaw that it was good,\u201d for it echoes God\u2019s recurring judgment about His creation in chapter 1. Now, however, good has become debased in the woman\u2019s mind. Its definition is no longer God\u2019s verdict but is rooted in the appeal to the senses and in utilitarian value. Egotism, greed, and self-interest now govern human action.<\/p>\n
as a source of wisdom Hebrew le-haskil is the capacity for making decisions that lead to success. The Targums as well as the Septuagint, Latin, and Syriac versions all derive the verb from the stem s-k-l, \u201cto see, contemplate.\u201d5<\/p>\n
and be ate The woman is not a temptress. She does not say a word but simply hands her husband the fruit, which he accepts and eats. The absence of any hint of resistance or even hesitation on his part is strange. It should be noted, however, that in speaking to the woman, the serpent consistently used the plural form. This suggests that the man was all the time within ear\u2019s reach of the conversation and was equally seduced by its persuasiveness. In fact, the Hebrew text here literally means, \u201cShe also gave to her husband with her (\u02bfimmah),\u201d suggesting that he was a full participant in the sin, thereby refuting in advance his later excuse.<\/p>\n
7. the eyes \u2026 were opened Just as the serpent had foretold! But, ironically, the new insight they gain is only the consciousness of their own nakedness, and shame is the consequence.<\/p>\n
fig leaves The fig tree has unusually large and strong leaves. Incidentally, it is indigenous to the Land of Israel, where it was cultivated very early, but it was not known in Babylon; hence, this detail reflects a West Semitic, not a Mesopotamian, cultural background.<\/p>\n
loincloths Their pristine innocence is gone. In a sense, this action has already taken them outside Eden, for clothing is a characteristic of civilization. In the Gilgamesh Epic, putting on clothes is one of the tokens of the wild Enkidu\u2019s abandonment of his outdoor life with the beasts of the field.6<\/p>\n
THE INTERROGATION (vv. 8\u201313)<\/p>\n
The foregoing dialogue and action had proceeded as though God were backstage. Now, prompted by a guilty conscience, the disobedient couple suddenly becomes aware of the Divine Presence. God reemerges and moves to the center of the stage.<\/p>\n
8. hid from the LORD The attempt to evade God is tantamount to an admission of guilt.<\/p>\n
9. God called out to the man Not the woman, because only he had heard the prohibition directly from God.<\/p>\n
Where are you? The question is merely a formal civility, often used as a way of opening conversation.7<\/p>\n
10. The man\u2019s evasive words contain a hint of irony, for in Hebrew the words \u201cI heard the sound of You\u201d can also be translated \u201cI obeyed You,\u201d which, of course, is the opposite of the truth.<\/p>\n
I was afraid because I was naked Another evasion of the truth. The statement itself voices the Israelite ethos that it is improper for man to appear naked before God. This finds practical expression in the laws of Exodus 20:26 and 28:42\u201343 that regulate the proper dress code for the act of worship. There is probably an underlying protest here against pagan fertility cults and a reaction against a Near Eastern practice of priests, such as in Sumer, where the cultic ritual was performed in the nude.<\/p>\n
11. Man\u2019s self-awareness discloses the radical change that has taken place in the human condition. The consciousness of nakedness can have meaning only in contrast to the consciousness of being clothed, a new condition that came about only because of his sin.<\/p>\n
forbidden Literally, \u201ccommanded not to,\u201d in contrast to the softer verb used by the serpent in verses 1 and 3.<\/p>\n
12\u201313. The confessions are compromised by each shifting the blame onto the other. The man does not say why he ate. He stands self-condemned, for he unquestioningly did what his wife told him to do but did not do as God told him.<\/p>\n
THE PUNISHMENT (vv. 14\u201319)<\/p>\n
Human beings have arrogated the right to make decisions concerning human welfare independently of God and in defiance of His norms. They have lost their innocence and must assume full responsibility for their actions. Accordingly, God now metes out punishment on each transgressor in turn, in the order of their original appearance on the scene. In each case, the judgment is of a twofold nature: it affects what is of central concern in the life of each entity, and it regulates a basic relationship. The snake is punished in its manner of self-propulsion and in its contacts with human beings; the woman is doomed to suffer in childbearing, and her relationship to her husband is defined; the man is fated to a life of arduous labor, and his interaction with the soil is to be disagreeable.<\/p>\n
14. more cursed \u2026 than Hebrew \u02bearur mi-kol evokes the description in verse 1, \u2026 \u02bfarum mi-kol, \u201cmore shrewd than,\u201d in a kind of literary framework expressing the idea of measure for measure.8<\/p>\n
On your belly This reflects a popular notion, often represented in the art of the ancient Near East, that the serpent originally walked erect. Having arrogantly aggrandized itself in a challenge to God, it is now permanently doomed to a posture of abject humiliation.9<\/p>\n
dirt shall you eat The transgression involved eating, and so does the punishment. As the serpent slithers on its way, its flickering tongue appears to lick the dust.10<\/p>\n
15. enmity This curse seeks to explain the natural revulsion of humans for the serpent. Clearly, when it entered into conversation with the woman, it could not have been so regarded; indeed, it posed as her friend, solicitous of her interests. The imprecation may also carry antipagan undertones, as if to say that the serpent is neither a fertility symbol, as in Canaan, nor a protective emblem, as among Egyptian royalty, but a hostile object of aversion.<\/p>\n
the woman She is singled out because she conducted the dialogue with it, but she is here representative of the entire human race, as the reference to her \u201coffspring\u201d shows.<\/p>\n
16. Your pangs in childbearing This verse, like the preceding, presupposes the blessing of 1:28, \u201cBe fertile and increase.\u201d Now, however, its fulfillment is to be accompanied by pain and suffering, which include the disorders occurring during pregnancy as much as the rigors of parturition itself. Intense pain in childbearing is unique to the human species and generally unknown to other female mammals. It therefore calls for explanation. While the rigors of childbearing are presented here as a consequence of partaking of the tree of knowledge, modern biology traces the woman\u2019s condition to the enlargement of the human skull that was entailed by the evolutionary increase in the size of the human brain, especially that part of the brain, the neocortex, that is associated with human intelligence.<\/p>\n
your urge The import of this phrase is unclear. Rashi understood this, together with the next clause, to refer to the satisfaction of female sexuality being traditionally dependent upon the husband\u2019s initiative. Ramban took it to mean that despite the discomforts and pain attendant upon childbearing, the woman still longs for the sexual act that brings about this condition. Another possibility is to see the two provisions as a reflection of social reality. Historically, the woman was wholly dependent for her sustenance upon what her husband could eke out of the soil, in striking contrast to the situation in Eden where her food was readily and independently available at all times. It should be noted that the \u201ccurse\u201d is used in connection with the judgments on the serpent and the man, but not in relation to the woman.<\/p>\n
be shall rule over you It is quite clear from the description of woman in 2:18, 23 that the ideal situation, which hitherto existed, was the absolute equality of the sexes. The new state of male dominance is regarded as an aspect of the deterioration in the human condition that resulted from defiance of divine will.<\/p>\n
17. The longest address is reserved for the man, for his is the greatest share of culpability since it was he who received the prohibition directly from God. His cowardly shifting of the blame is rejected. The individual is morally autonomous and must bear responsibility for his actions.<\/p>\n
Adam See Comment to 2:20.<\/p>\n
Cursed be the ground Once again, the punishment is related to the offense. The sin of eating forbidden food results in complicating the production of goods. The man himself is not cursed, only the soil. The matter from which he sprang turns against him. His pristine harmony with nature is disturbed by his transgression. This notion of moral ecology is a major biblical theme; it is explicitly formulated in Leviticus 18:24\u201328 and 20:22, and it underlies the great exhortations of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.<\/p>\n
By toil Hebrew \u02bfitsavon is the same term as is used in verse 16 for the woman\u2019s anguish. The man\u2019s backbreaking physical labor is regarded as the male equivalent of the labor of childbearing. The curse lies not in the work itself, which is decreed for man even in Eden (2:15), but in the uncooperative nature of the soil, so that henceforth the wresting of subsistence from it entails unremitting drudgery.<\/p>\n
All the days of your life The same phrase as used of the serpent in verse 14. Man and beast were created mortal from the start. The formula is absent in verse 16 because childbearing does not occur all the days of a woman\u2019s life.<\/p>\n
18. Thorns and thistles Weeds that rob the cultivated plants of light, water, and the soil\u2019s nutrients and that require much effort to control. And this occurs in the face of mankind\u2019s need to subsist on the grasses of the field! Humankind is once again viewed as being vegetarian, and agriculture is taken to be man\u2019s earliest occupation.<\/p>\n
19. The sentencing ends on an ironic note. Human beings had attempted to elevate themselves to the level of the divine. All they achieved was to condemn themselves to a ceaseless, brutal struggle for subsistence, with the consciousness of the fragility of life ever hanging over them.<\/p>\n
A MEASURE OF RAPPROCHEMENT (vv. 20\u201321)<\/p>\n
These verses interrupt the flow of the narrative, which draws to its logical conclusion in verses 22\u201324. Such apparently intrusive data is one of the recurring literary features of the Genesis narratives. Generally, their function is to provide the background for the understanding of future developments. Verse 20 signifies a restoration of relationships between man and wife, indispensable to the development in 4:1; verse 21 indicates a measure of reconciliation between human beings and God. Both are essential for survival after the expulsion from Eden.<\/p>\n
20. The man named his wife Previously he had given her a generic name (2:23). Now she acquires a personal one that expresses her nature and destiny positively and sympathetically. The woman\u2019s procreative role is implied in verse 15 and made central in verse 16. It is appropriate that she now receive a name that symbolizes its actualization, which is shortly to take place. The man\u2019s act is thus an affirmation of life.<\/p>\n
Eve Hebrew \u1e25avvah, which seems to be an archaic form of \u1e25ayyah, could mean \u201cliving thing,\u201d life personified. This is how the Septuagint understood it when it rendered the name here Z\u014d\u0113. The vocalization suggests an intensive form, so that \u201cpropagator of life\u201d is also a possible meaning. There might, in addition, be a word play involved, for Aramaic \u1e25ivya means a serpent, as noted in Genesis Rabba 20:11; 22:2. In the Sifre inscription (1.A.31), the word for serpent is actually written \u1e25vvh.<\/p>\n
mother of all the living This description is closely paralleled in Near Eastern mythology, where it belongs to the mother goddess. Here it is demythologized and naturalized to express the biblical concept of the unity of the human race and of woman\u2019s primary role\u2014motherhood. On the former, see Comment to 1:27.<\/p>\n
21. Despite their transgression and punishment, Adam and Eve are not wholly alienated from God, who now displays His parental concern for their welfare. Since nakedness now evokes shame,11 God restores human dignity by providing clothing. Also, the garments will afford protection against the harsh conditions of life they are to encounter outside Eden.<\/p>\n
garments Hebrew kutonet was a kind of long- or short-sleeved shirt, generally made of linen or wool, that reached down to the knees or even the ankles. It became fashionable in the Late Bronze Age and standard dress in the Iron Age.<\/p>\n
of skins This supposes that the earliest clothing was made of animal skins. An interesting tradition, preserved in the Targum Jonathan, has it fashioned from the sloughed-off skin of the serpent.12 As noted in Genesis Rabba 20:12 and Sotah 14a, the Hebrew can also yield \u201cgarments for the skin.\u201d This leaves unspecified the material of their composition.<\/p>\n
THE EXPULSION FROM EDEN (vv. 22\u201324)<\/p>\n
By his transgression, man distanced himself spiritually from Eden. God\u2019s punishment inevitably entailed physical separation from its precincts. This is now promptly brought about.<\/p>\n
22. Man, having already exceeded the limits of creaturehood, has radically altered the perspective of human existence. He lives henceforth in the consciousness of his mortality. He may therefore be tempted to change his condition by artificial means, rather than by restoring the ruptured harmony between divine will and human will, the harmony that is ultimately the definition of paradise.<\/p>\n
like one of us See Comment to verse 5.<\/p>\n
the tree of life See Comment to 2:9.<\/p>\n
23. to till the soil As noted above, agriculture seems to be regarded as man\u2019s earliest occupation.<\/p>\n
from which he was taken This refers back to 2:7\u20138. Man was created from earth outside of Eden and is now returned to his place of origin.<\/p>\n
24. drove \u2026 out Hebrew geresh is harsher and more explicit than shilla\u1e25 in the previous verse. The same two verbs also appear in tandem in Exodus 6:1 in connection with the Exodus.<\/p>\n
east of the garden The entrance was envisaged as being on the east side, facing the rising sun. It is assumed that Adam and Eve could walk back into the garden if they so desired. Steps must be taken to prevent this from occurring.<\/p>\n
the cherubim Neither here nor anywhere else is there a clearcut definition or description of these beings. The use of the definite article presupposes a familiarity with them on the part of the reader, probably because they figured in popular legend and folklore. An example of such is Ezekiel\u2019s dirge over the king of Tyre in 28:11\u201319. See Excursus 1.<\/p>\n
and the fiery ever-turning sword This is a separate, protective instrument, not said to be in the hands of the cherubim. It too carries the definite article and so was also something well known to the Israelite imagination, even though it is not again mentioned in the Bible precisely in this form.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4*<\/p>\n
Reality Outside Eden<\/p>\n
The narrative now turns to the fortunes of humankind in the harsh world outside Eden. The flow of time that separates the events of chapter 3 from those about to be described is of no consequence and therefore goes unmentioned. The focus of the narrative is not history but the human condition.
\nThe previous and present chapters are closely linked by several common themes: free will, personal responsibility, and inevitable punishment for wrongdoing. The opening verse harks back to 3:16, 20 as the woman begins to fulfill her appointed destiny: propagation of the species\u2014the continuity of life through the constant regeneration of the human race. Outside of Eden, this is the answer of humankind to the quest for immortality; it is a perpetual triumph over death.
\nThe preceding narrative focuses on the role of greed and unbridled ambition, and the present chapter deals with the place of the irrational in human conduct. The former offense was against God; now it is man against his brother, which also is an offense against God. It was the \u201cfruit of the tree\u201d that led to the downfall of Adam and Eve; it is the \u201cfruit of the soil\u201d that leads to Cain\u2019s undoing. The first human was worried about death; now the experience of death becomes a reality.
\nApart from these thematic parallels, several other correspondences tighten the bond between the two chapters: the name Eve occurs here too and never again in the Bible; the verb \u201cto know\u201d appears four times in each chapter; verse 7 here virtually reproduces 3:16; the divine question to the culprit in each case\u2014\u201cWhere?\u201d\u2014receives an evasive reply in both chapters; the wording of the curse upon Adam in 3:14 is echoed in that upon Cain in 4:11; the son, like his parents in the previous chapter, is \u201cbanished\u201d and settles to the east of Eden.
\nThe present chapter divides into four distinct units: Cain and Abel (vv. 1\u201316), the Genealogy of Cain (vv. 17\u201322), the Song of Lamech (vv. 23\u201324), and Seth and Enosh (vv. 25\u201326). Tying together these apparently discrete units are notices about the developments in civilization that each contains. These developments number seven in all: agriculture, sheep-breeding, urbanism, pastoralism, music, metallurgy, religion. The symbolic number seven is featured repeatedly: sevenfold vengeance is invoked (vv. 15, 24); Lamech is the seventh generation from Adam; his song refers to \u201csevenfold\u201d and \u201cseventy-seven\u201d; the number of souls mentioned in all, from Adam to Lamech\u2019s offspring, is twice seven; and the name Abel appears seven times, as do also the words \u201cbrother\u201d and \u201cname.\u201d<\/p>\n
CAIN AND ABEL (vv. 1\u201316)<\/p>\n
This narrative has often been interpreted as a reflection of the traditional conflict between the farmer and the nomad, and its supposed bias in favor of the latter is seen as representing a nomadic ideal in Israel. This is unlikely. The evidence for such an ideal in biblical literature is extremely flimsy. Further, there is not the slightest suggestion in the text of any comparative evaluation of the vocations of Cain and Abel, nor is there the slightest disparagement of the tiller of the soil. On the contrary, agriculture is regarded as the original occupation of man in the Garden of Eden as well as outside it. The sentence upon Cain is restricted to him alone; his sons are not made into vagrants or stigmatized in any way. Finally, the three pillars of seminomadic culture, as set forth in verses 20\u201322, are actually said to have originated with the descendants of Cain.
\nThe narrative, which is extraordinarily terse and sketchy here, gives no explicit reason for the unacceptability of Cain\u2019s offering and no explanation for the manner by which this is revealed. Cain lived in an unpopulated world. Of whom was he afraid? And who was there for him to marry? The presumption is inescapable that an independent narrative, in which these details presented no problem, was once well known in Israel. The difficulties now apparent arose when the Torah chose only the bare bones of the story as a vehicle for the expression and inculcation of certain fundamental truths about some of life\u2019s most perplexing problems.<\/p>\n
1. the man knew \u201cKnowing\u201d in the Bible is not essentially intellectual activity, not simply the objective contemplation of reality. Rather, it is experiential, emotional, and, above all, relational. Thus, in 18:19, when God says of Abraham, \u201cI have singled him out\u201d or to Israel, in Amos 3:2, \u201cYou alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth,\u201d the true connotation is \u201cI have entered into a special relationship with you.\u201d For that reason, the Hebrew stem y-d-\u02bf can encompass a range of meanings that includes involvement, interaction, loyalty, and obligation. It can be used of the most intimate and most hallowed relationships between man and wife and between man and God. Significantly, the verb is never employed for animal copulation.
\nThe Hebrew construction here employed usually indicates a pluperfect sense; that is, it would normally be rendered \u201cthe man had known.\u201d This leads Rashi to conclude that coition had already taken place in the Garden of Eden before the expulsion, an interpretation that finds support in 3:20.<\/p>\n
There is nothing to sustain the idea that sexual activity first occurred outside Eden. A text like 1 Samuel 1:19\u2014\u201cElkanah knew his wife Hannah\u201d\u2014shows that the Hebrew phrase in our text does not need to imply that we have here the first occurrence of sexual experience.<\/p>\n
saying Once again, as in 2:23, a midrash based on assonance accounts for the selection of the name.<\/p>\n
I have gained Hebrew kaniti, which derives from a stem k-n-h, is here connected with the name \u201cCain,\u201d which can only be related to k-y-n. The former verb usually means \u201cto acquire, own,\u201d while the latter, in several Semitic languages, denotes \u201cto form, fashion, forge.\u201d1 In fact, in Arabic and Aramaic, kayn means a \u201csmith.\u201d However, there is evidence of a secondary stem, k-n-h, meaning \u201cto produce, create,\u201d which appears in Hebrew, Ugaritic, and Phoenician. It is present in the divine epithet used in Genesis 14:19, which is discussed in Excursus 8, as well as in the name Elkanah. In Ugaritic, the goddess Asherat bears the description qnyt ilm, \u201cprogenitress of the gods.\u201d<\/p>\n
a male child Hebrew \u02beish, \u201cman,\u201d never otherwise refers to a newborn babe.2 The usage here is influenced by Adam\u2019s jubilant cry in 2:23 at the creation of woman. Eve now says, in effect: \u201cI, woman (\u02beish(sh)ah), was produced from man (\u02beish); now I, woman, have in turn produced a man.\u201d<\/p>\n
with the help of the LORD In Hebrew \u02beet YHVH; the sign of the accusative often has the sense of \u201ctogether with.\u201d A similar phrase is used in the Akkadian Atra\u1e2basis Epic when the mother goddess Mami, who has been ordered to create man, replies that she can do so only with the help of the god Enki (itti Enki-ma).
\nThe role of God in human procreation is frequently acknowledged in the Bible.3 As Niddah 31a expresses it, \u201cThere are three copartners in the production of a human being: God, father, and mother.\u201d<\/p>\n
the LORD The most sacred divine name YHVH is here uttered by a human being, a woman, for the first time.<\/p>\n
2. bis brother The absence of the formula \u201cshe conceived and bore\u201d4 led to the tradition that Cain and Abel were twins.<\/p>\n
Abel No explanation for this choice is given. Hebrew hevel means \u201cbreath, nothingness.\u201d5 The name may augur his destiny; or, if it was given after his death, it may be a reflection of his fate. Hevel is often used to express the fleeting nature of life. The name may alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously, contain a reference to his vocation in that Syriac habl\u00e2 means a \u201cherdsman.\u201d<\/p>\n
keeper of sheep \u2026 tiller of the soil Adapting to the new ecological conditions encountered outside Eden, human society produces a mixed subsistence economy based on stockbreeding and agriculture. Labor becomes specialized. Cain, the first-born, follows his father\u2019s occupation, while Abel branches out to new areas. The two parts of the economy supplement each other. Since, in the biblical view, mankind was vegetarian until after the Flood, the function of animal husbandry at this point was to supply milk, hides, and wool.
\nIt should be noted that, for aesthetic effect, the names in verses 1\u20132 are mentioned chiastically: Cain-Abel, Abel-Cain.<\/p>\n
3\u20135. The two sons, unlike their parents in Eden, subsisted through the toil of their hands. In the fruits of their labors they recognized divine blessing, and they felt gratitude to God for His bounty. Their offerings were spontaneous, not a response to divine command. The reason for God\u2019s different reactions may be inferred from the descriptions of the offerings: Abel\u2019s is characterized as being \u201cthe choicest of the firstlings of his flock\u201d; Cain\u2019s is simply termed as coming \u201cfrom the fruit of the soil,\u201d without further detail. Abel appears to have demonstrated a quality of heart and mind that Cain did not possess. Cain\u2019s purpose was noble, but his act was not ungrudging and openhearted. Thus the narrative conveys the fundamental principle of Judaism that the act of worship must be informed by genuine devotion of the heart. It also teaches that the two aspects of divine worship\u2014the cultic act and the verbal element\u2014are separate in origin. Further on, in verse 26, prayer is said to be a later development, independent of sacrifice. This constitutes a revolutionary development in the religious thinking of the ancient world, where the two elements were inextricably interconnected, the one inoperative without the other, because the religious act was essentially magical and required for its effectiveness both the spoken word and the praxis. By severing the two, the religion of Israel stressed the exceptional, nonmagical nature of prayer. In the same vein, the official priestly sacrificial ritual prescribed in the Book of Leviticus is not accompanied by prayer. Tradition consistently ascribes the institutions of sacrifice to Moses and the introduction of the recitation of psalms to David.<\/p>\n
4. paid heed Based on such passages as Leviticus 9:24, Judges 6:21, 1 Kings 18:38, and 2 Chronicles 7:1, ancient and medieval commentators imagined fire descending from heaven and devouring Abel\u2019s offering but leaving Cain\u2019s untouched.6<\/p>\n
distressed Cain\u2019s mood is depression, not anger. Hebrew \u1e25arah l- expresses despondency or distress, as opposed to \u1e25arah\u02beaf, which means \u201cto be angry.\u201d7<\/p>\n
his face fell This too is a figure of sadness and depression, not only in Hebrew but in several other ancient Near Eastern texts as well.<\/p>\n
7. The Hebrew text bristles with difficulties.8 Yoma 52a\u2013b designates the passage as one of those in which the precise syntax cannot be decided. It seems to be a forewarning to Cain of the dangerous potentialities inherent in his present mood. The underlying idea is that man is endowed with moral autonomy, with freedom of choice. He can subdue his primitive passions by an act of will; otherwise, they will control him.<\/p>\n
8. Cain said to his brother Abel \u2026 The three dots draw attention to the lacuna. The Aramaic Targums, like the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions of the text, add: \u201cCome let us go into the field.\u201d This is also the reading of the Samaritan text. Ramban also took this to be the sense of the passage. On the basis of the usage in Exodus 19:25 and Esther 1:18, many Jewish commentators took the unexpressed object of the verb to be the foregoing words of God. Others took Hebrew va-yo\u02bemer to mean \u201cHe had words with him.\u201d9<\/p>\n
in the field Hebrew sadeh refers to the open, uninhabited country away from the settled areas. It was often the scene of crime, as may be inferred from Deuteronomy 22:25 and 2 Samuel 14:6.<\/p>\n
killed him Cain\u2019s depression gives way to an irrational act of aggression. The first recorded death is not from natural causes but by human hands, an ironic comment on the theme of chapter 3. Man and woman had striven to gain immortality, but their first-born brings the reality of death into the world. The narrative illustrates one of the most lamentable aspects of the human condition, one that is a recurrent theme in the Bible\u2014namely, the corruption of religion. An act of piety can degenerate into bloodshed.<\/p>\n
9. the LORD God at once intervenes. None can escape His all-embracing, sovereign rule.<\/p>\n
Where \u2026? As in Genesis 3:9, the question is a means of opening the conversation, perhaps eliciting confession and contrition. The implication is either that Cain at once fled the scene of his crime or that he immediately buried his victim.<\/p>\n
I do not know Cain defiantly lies, stifling all conscience and expressing no remorse.<\/p>\n
Am I my brother\u2019s keeper? The sevenfold stress in this chapter on the obvious fraternal relationship of Cain and Abel emphatically teaches that man is indeed his brother\u2019s keeper and that all homicide is fratricide.<\/p>\n
10. What have you done? Not a question, but a cry of horror.<\/p>\n
Hark Hebrew kol is here used as an exclamation.10 Being singular in number, it cannot be the subject of the following plural verb.<\/p>\n
blood Hebrew damim is plural, a usage that, with rare exceptions, appears in a context of bloodshed or bloodguilt. The Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5, so the Targums, takes the plural to include, apart from the blood of the victim, also that of the potential offspring now doomed never to be born: \u201cWhoever takes a single life destroys thereby an entire world.\u201d<\/p>\n
cries out The Hebrew stem ts-\u02bf-k has a legal setting. It connotes a plea for help or redress on the part of the victim of some great injustice. See Comment to 18:20 for further discussion of this verb.<\/p>\n
11\u201312. A breach of the moral law inevitably sets in motion countervailing forces that must ultimately prevail because they are sustained by God Himself. Cain, tiller of the soil, whose criminal act was the outcome of his offering the fruits of the soil, stained the earth with his brother\u2019s blood. It is fitting, then, that the earth be the instrument of his punishment.11 It will no longer yield him its produce, and so he can no longer pursue his vocation. He must perforce become a vagrant and an outcast. Genesis Rabba 22:26 notes that Cain is not condemned to death because death had not yet been experienced, and he had no way of knowing that his blow would extinguish his brother\u2019s life. He is guilty of homicide, not murder.<\/p>\n
13. My punishment Hebrew \u02bfavon means both sin and its penalty12 because in the biblical world view the two are inseparable, the latter inhering in the former. For this reason, the text contains an ambiguity. Apart from the translation given here, it can also be rendered \u201cMy sin is too great to be forgiven\u201d or \u201cIs my sin too great to be forgiven?\u201d<\/p>\n
14. I must avoid Your presence A crime against another human being is simultaneously a sin against God. The spiritual ties that unite man to his Maker have become severely strained. Cain fears that he can no longer receive God\u2019s providential care.<\/p>\n
anyone who meets me In the present context of the narrative, this can only be understood to mean that future offspring of Adam and Eve would feel free to exact blood vengeance.<\/p>\n
15. The manner in which God responds to Cain is of special interest. The initial Hebrew lakhen, here rendered \u201cI promise,\u201d13 frequently introduces a solemn declaration, while the formulation of the reassurance derives from the realm of law. The unusually emphatic language is directed first to Cain, in order to allay his mortal fear, and then to the world at large, as a kind of royal proclamation that has the force of law. It states that despite his crime, Cain still remains under God\u2019s care.<\/p>\n
sevenfold Saadiah, Bekhor Shor, and Radak take this simply as a figure of speech meaning \u201cabundantly\u201d or \u201cseverely.\u201d Others take the number literally, meaning that seven of the assailant\u2019s family would be killed or that vengeance would continue to the seventh generation.14<\/p>\n
vengeance This is one of the few passages in which the biblical Hebrew stem n-k-m has its primitive meaning of exacting revenge. Otherwise, it has the sense of redressing the imbalance of justice.<\/p>\n
a mark This phrase has been persistently misunderstood. The reference is not to a stigma of infamy but to a sign indicating that the bearer is under divine protection. Hebrew \u02beot here probably involves some external physical mark, perhaps on the forehead, as in Ezekiel 9:4\u20136, serving the same function as the blood of the paschal lamb smeared on the lintels and doorposts of each Israelite house in Egypt.15 It is also possible, though less likely, that the \u201csign\u201d consists of some occurrence that serves to authenticate the divine promise as being inviolable. In that case, the text would be rendered: \u201cThe LORD gave Cain a [confirmatory] sign that no one who met him would kill him.\u201d<\/p>\n
16. left the presence of the LORD The audience with God, sovereign Judge of the world, is now concluded.16<\/p>\n
the land of Nod A symbolic name. Hebrew nod means \u201cwandering,\u201d as in verses 12 and 14.<\/p>\n
THE GENEALOGY OF CAIN (vv. 17\u201322)<\/p>\n
The first killing has taken place, and justice has been done. A human life has been extinguished, but life must go on. Humankind proliferates. Cain and his descendants are now listed, seven generations in all. The genealogy is linear, with only the first-born mentioned until the seventh generation; then the list becomes segmented, and more than one branch is included. Brief narrative material about the development of the arts of civilization is interspersed throughout the list. It is possible that at one time all the names were associated in popular traditions with stories about their achievements. The Torah has chosen to highlight only a few.
\nThe list constitutes a silent polemic against the mythological concepts of the ancient world, which attributed the advance of culture to divine or semidivine figures. Mesopotamian tradition knew of the seven Apkallu, or mythical sages, half-fish and half-man, who rose out of the sea to reveal to man the sciences, the social system, writing, and art. Enlil, the air god, created the mattock; EnkiEa, god of watery chaos, was closely associated with magic, wisdom, the arts and crafts, and music. For Egyptians, it was the god Thot who invented the scales and the balances; Osiris who taught humans agriculture and the arts of life; and Ptah who was the special patron of artists, artificers, and men of letters. In the Ugaritic-Phoenician area, the god Koshar, the divine artisan and smith, was credited with the discovery of the use of iron and the fishing tackle. In the Greek sphere, it was Athena who invented the plough and the rake and who taught both the useful and the elegant arts, while Apollo founded towns and invented the flute and the lyre.
\nThis phenomenon, known as euhemerism or the divinization of the benefactors of humanity, was common to the ancient world. In this chapter it is tacitly rejected. The development of human culture is demythologized and historicized. The seven-day divine creation of the cosmos is paralleled by these seven generations of human creativity. Man became a copartner with God in the world of creation. At the same time, the ascription of the origins of technology and urban life to Cain and his line constitute an unfavorable, or at least a qualified, judgment of man\u2019s material progress on the part of the Narrator, a recognition that it frequently outruns moral progress and that human ingenuity, so potentially beneficial, is often directed toward evil ends.
\nThe line of Cain is not mentioned again in the Bible. No details are given of his span of life, and even the fact of his death is not noted. The same is true of the list of his descendants. The entire line passes into oblivion.<\/p>\n
17. his wife A tradition mentioned in Jubilees 4:9 and Sanhedrin 58b has Cain marrying his sister. This is probably based on 5:4. Actually, in the present narrative context no other possibility exists.<\/p>\n
Enoch The basic meaning of the stem \u1e25-n-kh has to do with initiation, dedication, and education. Thus the name may be symbolic, signifying the regeneration of life.<\/p>\n
he then founded a city He was the founder of urban culture. The soil, being accursed and unproductive for Cain, is put to use by him for wholly new purposes. This notice exhibits a consciousness of the importance and prominence of the city as a political and social unit. The idea of a city owing its existence to individual initiative accords well with ancient Near Eastern experience. Furthermore, the notion that the farmer originated the city is consistent with the fact that the rise of urban centers historically followed in the wake of the development of agriculture.
\nThe association of Cain with settled urban existence seems to contradict his fated life of vagrancy. Accordingly, the Narrator must have had in mind that the city served his son, not Cain himself. For another suggestion, see Comment to verse 18.<\/p>\n
after his son Compare 1 Kings 16:24.<\/p>\n
Enoch Because in 25:4 one of the sons of Midian is also Enoch and the Midianites are closely connected with the Kenites in several biblical texts, the town of Hanakiya in the region of Midian has been proposed as the site referred to here.17<\/p>\n
18. Irad The name has not been satisfactorily explained. Curiously, in Sumerian traditions, the first city was Eridu, now Tell abu Shahrain, in southern Mesopotamia, which excavations have revealed to be the oldest site in that part of the world. It has been suggested, therefore, that the statement in verse 17, \u201cHe founded a city, and named the city after his son,\u201d really belongs here, so that Enoch. not Cain, built the first city and named it Irad (=Eridu) after his son.18<\/p>\n
Mehujael The name has been variously derived from \u1e25-y-h, meaning \u201cGod makes live\u201d; from m-\u1e25-h, meaning \u201cblotted out by God\u201d; and from Akkadian ma\u1e2b\u1e2b\u00fb, \u201can ecstatic,\u201d meaning \u201cseer of God.\u201d19<\/p>\n
Methusael The first element of this name, mt, appears in Hebrew,20 Ugaritic, and Egyptian as \u201cman, husband,\u201d and in Akkadian as \u201chusband, man, warrior.\u201d The name mutba\u02bfal, \u201cman of Baal,\u201d occurs in Ugaritic. Methusael would mean \u201cthe man of Shael,\u201d with the latter element originally being she\u02beol, \u201cthe underworld.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lamech A similar word in Arabic means \u201ca strong young man.\u201d<\/p>\n
19. Lamech is apparently the first polygamist, though his two wives are identified only in order to make the following poem intelligible. It is uncertain whether the ascription of polygamy to a descendant of Cain is meant to be a tacit condemnation of the institution.<\/p>\n
Adah \u2026 Zillah The names may respectively mean \u201cdawn\u201d and \u201cdusk,\u201d the first being connected with Arabic ghad\u0101t, the second with Hebrew ts-l-l, \u201cshade.\u201d Adah may also derive from Hebrew \u02bfadi, a \u201cjewel,\u201d and Zillah from Hebrew ts-l-l, \u201cto tingle.\u201d This name would then be the equivalent of the modern English name Melody.
\nThe seventh natural-born generation comprises three brothers, and to each of them a major advance in material culture is attributed. By this time labor has become still more specialized, and an artisan class has arisen. An intriguing question is the reason for highlighting only the three ingredients of civilization mentioned here. The similarity of sound between the three personal names and the common fatherhood suggests a closeness of relationship between the pastoral, musical, and metalworking arts, which in fact is well founded. The name Cain, which means a \u201csmith,\u201d also means \u201cto sing\u201d in several Semitic languages, though Hebrew kinah is restricted to mournful song. The Cypriot god Cinyras, to whom was attributed the invention of the lyre, was revered by the Greeks both as a musician and as the archetypal smith. Pan, Greek god of flocks and shepherds, was the inventor of the flute. Similarly, Apollo, the deity who protected flocks and cattle, was also the god of song and music, and still another tradition has Hermes, god of shepherds, as inventor of the lyre.
\nThe three main specializations depicted in verses 20\u201323 are well illustrated by a wall painting from the rock tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan, about 160 miles (257 km.) south of Cairo and dating to ca. 1900 B.C.E. This portrays the arrival of a caravan of Asiatics, and prominently featured among their baggage are livestock, a lyre, and bellows.<\/p>\n
20. ancestor He is the archetypal pastoral nomad. Abel the shepherd was not nomadic.<\/p>\n
amidst herds This is an example of the figure of speech known as zeugma. Hebrew yoshcv, \u201cdwell,\u201d properly applies only to \u201ctents,\u201d whereas it appears to govern \u201cherds\u201d as well.<\/p>\n
herds Hebrew mikneh is more comprehensive than ts\u02beon, \u201csheep,\u201d of verse 2. It includes all types of livestock, as Exodus 9:3 makes clear. The notice indicates an awareness that the rise of animal husbandry was a major step forward in human history.<\/p>\n
21. who play Hebrew tofes, literally \u201chold, handle,\u201d also came to mean \u201cto be skilled in,\u201d and it would thus suggest specialization and professionalism.21<\/p>\n
lyre \u2026 pipe The two, again coupled in Job 21:12 and 30:31, represent stringed and wind instruments, respectively. The item testifies to the important role of music in ancient Israelite culture.<\/p>\n
the lyre Hebrew kinnor is the only stringed instrument mentioned in the Torah. It is one of the earliest documented musical instruments in the Near East, with a history traceable to ca. 3000 B.C.E. The outline of a lyre scratched into a stone pavement in Megiddo dates to about that time. Actual remains of lyres from ca. 2500 B.C.E. were found in royal tombs of Ur, a city in ancient Sumer in lower Mesopotamia. The lyre is first depicted in Egypt on the wall painting at Beni Hasan referred to above. In Israel, it was the favorite instrument of David (1 Sam. 16:23) and enjoyed pride of place among the instruments used by the Levites in the Temple worship. The kinnor seems to have been a Canaanite invention. The word appears in a variety of Semitic languages and was borrowed by the Egyptians and the Greeks. Cinyras appears in Cyprus as the god of the lyre.<\/p>\n
the pipe Hebrew \u02bfugav is of uncertain derivation. The word seems to be a generic term for wind instruments of various kinds.<\/p>\n
22. Tubal-cain The compound name is most unusual. Tubal alone is mentioned again in 10:2 as the name of a people, in association with Meshech and Javan, among the Japhethites. Ezekiel frequently couples Tubal with the former, and Isaiah 66:19 connects it with Javan, which is Ionia. This places Tubal in Asia Minor. Assyrian sources record two countries, Tabal or Tabura and Musku or Mushku, which are undoubtedly the Tubal and Meshech of the Bible. They are the same as the Tibarenoi and Moschoi referred to by Herodotus in his Histories. These places were known for their precious metal vessels. Ezekiel 27:13 also refers to their trafficking in bronze vessels. Archaeology has confirmed them as centers of metallurgy. It is now known that Tubal and its variants\u2014tabura, tabira in Akkadian, tibira and dibira in Sumerian\u2014mean \u201cmetalworker.\u201d It has already been noted above that in several Semitic languages kayn means a \u201csmith.\u201d Accordingly, the two elements of the name given to the son of Zillah both mean the same thing, and both designate his profession. The second element really explains the first, the meaning of which was probably lost to the Israelite audience.<\/p>\n
who forged The Hebrew text is difficult. Its literal rendering is, \u201cTubal-cain was one who forged every artificer of copper and iron.\u201d22 Ibn Jana\u1e25 noted that Hebrew \u02beavi, \u201cthe ancestor of,\u201d which is present with each of the preceding designations, is here lacking and is required for the sense, which is: \u201cTubal-cain was one who forged; he was the ancestor of \u2026\u201d Indeed, the Targums supply the word.<\/p>\n
copper \u2026 iron There is no memory of a Stone Age, but the narrative recognizes the discovery of the use of metals to constitute a revolutionary advance in the progress of civilization, allowing the development of new and more efficient tools and weapons. The order in which the principal metals are mentioned in the Torah\u2014gold (2:11), copper, and iron\u2014correctly reflects the history of metallurgy.
\n\u201cCopper,\u201d Hebrew ne\u1e25oshet, is actually \u201cbronze,\u201d which is an alloy of copper and tin. This metal was already worked extensively in southern Mesopotamia and in Sinai as early as the third millennium B.C.E.
\nIron of the meteoric variety was worked even by preliterate peoples and was sporadically used in the course of the Bronze Age. It is recognized as a constituent of ancient artifacts through its high nickel content. Known as \u201cthe ore of heaven\u201d or \u201cthe black iron of the sky,\u201d it is mentioned in a fourteenth-century B.C.E. Hittite text. Evidence for the working of terrestrial iron as early as 2500 B.C.E. comes from northwest Turkey. However, it took another twelve hundred years until the Hittites first realized and exploited its industrial potentialities. Thereafter, terrestrial iron became more and more widespread. The true Iron Age does not begin in the Near East until ca. 1200 B.C.E. There is no way of telling to which variety of iron Hebrew harzel in this verse refers. Incidentally, the Beni Hasan paintings portray two pairs of skin bellows, essential for the fusing of molten iron.<\/p>\n
Naamah This surprising note, with no further information about her, implies some once well-known personage. The stem n-\u02bf-m means \u201cgood, lovely,\u201d and the name may express either her beauty or her character. The same stem also means \u201cto sing.\u201d Targum Jonathan makes her a professional singer.23<\/p>\n
THE SONG OF LAMECH (vv. 23\u201324)<\/p>\n
This is the first true example of biblical Hebrew poetic style. It possesses neither meter nor rhyme in the present sense of these terms, but it does have an undeniable rhythmic quality. Its essential formal characteristic is \u201cparallelism,\u201d that is, the featuring of a couplet in which the second line may restate the thought of the first in different words, as here, may supplement it, may be antithetical to it, or may be climactic. The parallelism of the Song of Lamech is illustrated as follows:<\/p>\n
Clause a
\nClause b
\nAdah and Zillah
\nwives of Lamech
\nhear
\ngive ear
\nmy voice
\nmy speech
\na man
\na lad
\nfor wounding me
\nfor bruising me
\nCain
\nLamech
\nsevenfold
\nseventy-sevenfold<\/p>\n
The Song of Lamech probably originally belonged to a larger poetic composition about the exploits of this hero, and the inclusion of this here serves several purposes. First, it forms an envelope structure that enables the genealogy to end as it begins, with mention of Cain, thus linking the genealogy to the preceding episode. Moreover, the lust for revenge exhibited by Lamech is a lamentable commentary on the moral state of homo faber.
\nBecause of the brevity of the poem and the loss of its original context, the interpretation of the verses is uncertain. An attractive suggestion is that they constitute Lamech\u2019s taunts, threats, and boastings, which are of the kind customarily uttered in ancient times by those about to engage in combat. The story of David and Goliath, as told in 1 Samuel 17, especially verses 10, 36, and 43\u201346, is an excellent biblical example of this genre. Alternatively, Lamech may be describing some incident that has already taken place in which he actually shed blood to avenge a previously inflicted wound. The translation of the tenses of the verbs in verse 23 will, of course, be affected by the interpretation adopted.<\/p>\n
23. a man \u2026 a lad Such a pair in parallelism is unique. If the two are synonymous here, then Hebrew yeled, usually a \u201cchild,\u201d24 is to be understood as derogatory: \u201cThis man, my antagonist, is but a mere child in combat!\u201d The two nouns could also express degree, as in verse 24. Lamech boasts of recognizing no restraints in exacting revenge.<\/p>\n
for wounding me In this and its parallel term the Hebrew suffix could be either objective, as here rendered, or subjective, in the sense of, \u201cMy mere wounding\/bruising of my combatant is fatal.\u201d<\/p>\n
24. sevenfold Compare verse 15.<\/p>\n
SETH AND ENOSH (vv. 25\u201326)<\/p>\n
The line of Cain passes into oblivion. Despite the air of gloom that pervades the chapter, it concludes on a hopeful note. Humankind is regenerated through another son of Adam and Eve.<\/p>\n
25. Seth The name is here connected with the stem sh-y-t, \u201cto place, put, set.\u201d The birth of Seth compensates for the loss of Abel. Since the noun shat means \u201cfoundation,\u201d as in Isaiah 19:10 and Psalm 11:3, there may lie behind the name the notion that, as Genesis Rabba 20:29 has it, \u201cWith him the world was founded [anew].\u201d It is probably no coincidence that Seth, in turn, named his son Enosh, which, like Adam, means \u201cman\u201d but which puts the emphasis on the basic frailty of man because the stem \u02ben-sh means \u201cto be weak.\u201d<\/p>\n
meaning Hebrew ki, literally \u201cbecause.\u201d The phrase \u201cshe said,\u201d supplied by the Septuagint and the Targums, is understood. A similar unintroduced quotation is found in 32:21 and 41:51.<\/p>\n
26. men began to invoke the LORD by name Prayer, as noted above, is seen as a development independent of sacrifice. It is the consciousness of human frailty, symbolized by the name Enosh, that heightens man\u2019s awareness of utter dependence upon God, a situation that intuitively evokes prayer. The coupling of prayer with the divine proper name YHVH is understandable because this name, the simplest interpretation of which is \u201cHe Who Causes To Be,\u201d expresses God\u2019s personality, His relationship to human beings, and His immanence in the world.
\nThis text takes monotheism to be the original religion of the human race, and the knowledge of the name YHVH to be pre-Abrahamic. In conformity with this notion, YHVH is freely used throughout the patriarchal narratives. On the other hand, it is significant that of all the proper names listed in the Torah, none is constructed of the divine element based on this name, whether prefixed yeho\/yo or suffixed yahu\/yah, until the birth of Moses. Yokheved, the Hebrew name of Moses\u2019 mother, is the first such. This accords with the tradition of Exodus 3:13\u201316 and 6:3, which clearly implies that the divine name YHVH only came to prominence as the characteristic personal name of the God of Israel in the time of Moses. It was only then that the people as a whole experienced the essential character of God as it revealed itself through His direct intervention in history.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n
The Book of Genealogies (5:1\u20136:8)<\/p>\n
Having disposed of the line of Cain, the narrative now takes up the idea of a fresh start for humanity, as implied in the preceding verses. Commencing with Adam, it presents a vertical genealogy that covers ten generations spanning the period between the creation of the world of man and the advent of Noah, who witnessed its destruction.
\nParallel to the traditions in the present chapter is the list of Sumerian kings who reigned before the flood, as recorded by Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the third century B.C.E. who wrote a history of Babylonia in Greek. He too details ten antediluvians, the last also being the hero of a flood. There is reason to believe that the ten-generation pattern for genealogies was favored by Western Semites in general and that the convention left its mark on the historiography of Israel. We meet this phenomenon again in the genealogy of David from Perez, as set forth in Ruth 4:18\u201322 and 1 Chronicles 2:5, 9\u201315.
\nIn the Bible this pattern is utilized for theological purposes. It so happens that, following the Flood, ten more generations separate Noah from Abraham, whose birth is projected as being another climactic turning point in human history. The genealogical chain that registers this development in 11:10\u201326 follows almost the identical literary pattern as that of the present chapter. The conclusion is unmistakable: we have here a deliberate, symmetrical schematization of history, featuring neatly balanced, significant segments of time as a way of expressing the fundamental biblical teaching that history is meaningful. It is not a series of haphazard incidents but the unfolding of a divinely ordained, meaningful design, the corollary being that human activity lies under the perpetual scrutiny of God.
\nThe present chapter also serves other functions in ways that are more specific to its immediate context. The biblical Narrator does not seek to present a comprehensive history. Rather, his is a highly selective and episodic presentation in conformity with larger theological purposes. Hence, the genealogy enables him to bring together otherwise disconnected occurrences and smooths the transition from Adam to Noah. At the same time, it demonstrates how the divine blessing of 1:28, \u201cBe fertile and increase,\u201d is being fulfilled. Finally, it again emphasizes the great teaching of the first two chapters that the entire human race is traceable to common ancestry and thus constitutes a unity.
\nThe present genealogy appears to share several items in common with the Cainite list of chapter 4. The names Enoch and Lamech occur in both; Cain and Kenan are almost identical in Hebrew; and Irad sounds like Jered, as does Methusael like Methuselah. Also, the last entry in each list is segmented so that three sons are mentioned in each case. These similarities have led some scholars to regard the two lists as doublets, either one being a reworking of the other or both deriving from a common source. Supporting this claim is said to be the additional fact that the Mesopotamian lists of early kings exist in several recensions that vary in number from seven to eight to ten generations. Yet it should be pointed out that in all the latter, the flood is the epochal dividing line, whereas the Cainite genealogy of chapter 4 is not so oriented. Moreover, only two names are really identical, while the similarity in other names is more superficial than real. It is also difficult to understand why an editor should arbitrarily have rearranged the order of the generations.
\nThere is a stereotyped pattern in the genealogy. For each personality, the age at which he first became the father of a son is noted, then the number of his remaining years, then the fact that he fathered sons and daughters, and, finally, the age when he died. The formula is varied in the case of the first and the last on the list, Adam and Noah, so that these constitute a literary framework for the entire list. The seventh, Enoch, is also singled out for special attention, meriting four verses instead of the three uniformly assigned to each of the other personalities.
\nThe remarkably long lives enjoyed by the patriarchs before the Flood accord with the widespread folkloristic notion that associates ancient heroes with extraordinary longevity. Compared, however, with Mesopotamian ideas, the biblical figures give the appearance of moderation. The combined total of the years reigned by the ten antediluvian kings in the list of Berossus comes to 432,000; that of the Sumerian King List adds up to 241,200. By way of contrast, in Genesis the years from Adam to the Flood number 1,656. What the specific figures represent individually and collectively, whether they are invested with symbolic meaning or are the constituents of some comprehensive schematization, is presently unknown. If any such exists, it has not yet yielded its secret. The matter is further complicated by the variations in the numbers found in the Samaritan recension and in the Septuagint version of the Torah.<\/p>\n
1\u20132. These verses are introductory and recapitulate 1:26\u201328.1<\/p>\n
This is the record of Adam\u2019s line This is most likely the title of an ancient genealogical work that served as the source for the data provided in the present chapter, in 11:10\u201327, and possibly in other genealogical lists as well. Hebrew sefer, here rendered \u201crecord,\u201d specifically denotes a written document, not an oral composition.<\/p>\n
Adam The Sifra to Leviticus, Akiba and Ben Azzai (mid 2nd cent. C.E.). Akiba declared Leviticus 19:18, \u201cLove your neighbor as yourself,\u201d to be a cardinal principle of the Torah. Ben Azzai proclaimed the present opening phrase, \u201cThis is the record of the line of man (\u02beadam),\u201d to express a superior rule. By tracing all humanity back to a common parentage, this phrase conveys the idea that the \u201cGolden Rule\u201d is logically indefensible without the presupposition of the absolute unity and equality of the human race as created by God.<\/p>\n
in the likeness of God This phrase refers to 1:26. The use of demut alone, without tselem, \u201cimage,\u201d is probably conditioned by consideration of assonance: \u02beadam, \u02beadam, demut. Compare Comment to 9:6.<\/p>\n
He blessed them A knowledge of 1:27\u201328 is presumed. Since the theme of the chapter is the replication of the human race, one is reminded that sexuality is a divine blessing and procreation a God-given duty.<\/p>\n
and called them Man As explained in the Comment to 2:19, the act of naming, in the biblical concept, is the exercise of authority and mastery. That God Himself gave the human race its name is not mentioned in chapter 1, but it is implied there in verse 26. It is made explicit here because inherent in the genealogical concept is human replication of divine creativity. Each act of procreation is an imitation of God\u2019s original creation of man. Hence, there is need to assert man\u2019s creatureliness, that is, his absolute subordination to God.<\/p>\n
ADAM (vv. 3\u20135)<\/p>\n
a son in his likeness after his image What constituted \u201cthe image of God\u201d in the first two human beings was transmitted through procreation to all future generations.<\/p>\n
he named him This formula appears again in the present unit only in verse 29, in respect of Noah, to form a literary framework. In 4:25 it was the woman who named Seth. The masculine is used here because only the fathers are featured in the genealogy.<\/p>\n
Seth Cain and Abel are ignored, not because this list represents another tradition that had Seth as the first-born, but because the sole concern of the document is to trace a linear genealogical chain from Adam to Noah. For an analogy, see the line of Aaron as given in 1 Chronicles 6:35ff., which ignores the two older sons Nadab and Abihu, whose deaths are reported in Leviticus 10:1\u20132.2<\/p>\n
After the birth of Seth The continuity of the line is in jeopardy until the birth of the first son, who becomes, for that reason, a child of destiny. Hence, this event marks a meaningful point of demarcation in the measurement of a human lifetime.<\/p>\n
ENOCH (vv. 21\u201324)<\/p>\n
The seventh on the list, Enoch is singled out for special mention. The allusive brevity of this biographical note suggests the one-time existence of some well-known story connected with his life and death. In postbiblical Jewish literature he became the focus of legends connecting him with a knowledge of the secrets of heaven, with the invention of mathematics and astronomy, and especially with the devising of a solar-based calendar. Curiously, in the Sumerian King List, the seventh, Enme(n)duranna, enjoyed an intimate relationship with the sun god, according to Mesopotamian legend, and was initiated into the arts of divination, astrology, and mathematics.<\/p>\n
walked with God The regular formula, \u201che lived,\u201d is replaced by a description of how he lived. The idiom is used again only of Noah in 6:9 and, in a slightly varied form, of the ideal priest in Malachi 2:6. It is expressive of a life spent in full accord with God\u2019s will and in closest intimacy with Him.<\/p>\n
23. 365 years Whether this figure is actually inspired by the solar year and reflects the legend about Enoch\u2019s calendar, or whether it became the source of that legend, cannot be determined. If there is a connection with the Mesopotamian tradition in which the sun god is featured, then the number 365 would be significant. What is important is that our biblical text is wholly devoid of pagan elements. It is not caprice that determines Enoch\u2019s relationship to God but the quality of his chosen lifestyle.<\/p>\n
24. Enoch walked with God This is repeated, as Bekhor Shor noted, so that the brevity of Enoch\u2019s life not be misinterpreted as a punishment for sin.<\/p>\n
then he was no more The regular formula, \u201cthen he died,\u201d is replaced by a description of how he died. The term is most frequently used of sudden, unexpected, and unexplained disappearance.3<\/p>\n
for God took him A euphemism for death, as is clear from such passages as Ezekiel 24:16, 18 and Jonah 4:3.4 It is most likely used here, as Rashi noted, with the sense of premature death. It was the narrative about Elijah\u2019s transference to heaven without dying, as told in 2 Kings 2, that gave rise to the popular legend that Enoch too underwent this experience of apotheosis.<\/p>\n
METHUSELAH (vv. 25\u201327)<\/p>\n
The one who lived the longest life span is fathered by the individual who had the shortest. His death coincides with the onset of the Flood, according to the present chronological scheme. His name has variously been interpreted to mean \u201cthe man of the weapon\u201d or \u201cthe man of the infernal river.\u201d5<\/p>\n
LAMECH (vv. 28\u201331)<\/p>\n
On the name, see Comment to 4:18.<\/p>\n
28. he begot a son The arrival of the tenth generation marks a critical turning point in human history and so brings the list to completion. The formulaic style is therefore varied. The text is expanded to focus upon the one who is to become the illustrious hero of the age.<\/p>\n
29. Noah The name as such is unparalleled in biblical and extrabiblical sources. It would appear to derive from the stem n-w-\u1e25, \u201cto rest,\u201d and there are records of Akkadian and Amorite personal names compounded of this element. The explanation given in the narrative rests on similarity of sound, not on etymology, since Noah cannot derive from n-\u1e25-m, \u201cto comfort, give relief.\u201d The incongruity is noted in Genesis Rabba 25:2. In the Hurrian version of the Gilgamesh Epic, one hero of the flood is Na\u1e2bmasulel, and a dim recollection of this may have influenced the word play in our text. At any rate, the two stems, n-w-\u1e25 and n-\u1e25-m, are subtly integrated into the language of the narrative. The first stem appears in 8:4, 9, 21; the second provides an ironic touch, for this same stem is used in 6:6, 7. As Rashbam observes, since Noah was the first to be born after the death of Adam, his arrival signigfied some easing of the curse laid on the soil through Adam\u2019s sin. The father looked to \u201crelief\u201d (yena\u1e25amenu) from \u201ctoil\u201d (\u02bfitsavon), but instead came God\u2019s decision to wipe out civilization. God \u201cregretted\u201d (va-yinna\u1e25em-ni\u1e25amti) and was \u201csaddened\u201d (va-yit\u02bfatsev).<\/p>\n
relief The reference is probably to a tradition about Noah as a culture hero. According to Tan\u1e25uma Genesis 11, he invented the plow; that is to say, he was the initiator of true agriculture as opposed to hoe agriculture or horticulture. The invention of the plow inaugurated a revolution in the production of food and effected an enormous saving of time and energy. Such a tradition may underlie 9:20, which describes Noah as \u201ca tiller of the soil.\u201d Another possibility is the report in that same text that Noah initiated viticulture. He was the first to discover the soothing, consoling, and enlivening effects of wine.6<\/p>\n
NOAH (v. 32)<\/p>\n
The extraordinarily advanced age at which he begets a child, as compared with his forebears, is required by the fact that, according to 7:11, he is 600 at the time of the Flood, and there are no grandchildren in the ark. Noah is also the only personage in the list who has no daughters. This must be connected with 6:1\u20132, which tells how fallen angels consort with the daughters of men. The idea is that his immediate family remained uncorrupted. See Comment to 9:24 in regard to the order of the three names.<\/p>\n
Shem Its meaning is \u201cname, fame, renown,\u201d and it is probably abbreviated from shemuel or the like.<\/p>\n
Ham Its origin is obscure, despite attempts to connect it with Hebrew \u1e25am, \u201ca wife\u2019s father,\u201d \u1e25am, \u201chot, dark-skinned,\u201d and Egyptian \u1e25m, \u201cservant.\u201d Ham is synonymous with Egypt in Psalms 78:51; 105:23, 27; and 106:12.<\/p>\n
Japheth The name may be the same as that of Iapetus, which appears in Greek mythology but has no Greek etymology. Its meaning is unknown.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n