Genesis 14

Place names are abundant in this chapter, and the land word שָׂדֶה (country) appears in 14:7, but the only theologically significant occurrence of the land theme in this chapter are in 14:19, 22. In those verses God is identified as “Creator of heaven and earth” (HCSB; The Hebrew word קנה could refer to either “Possessor” or “Creator.” Hamilton, NICOT, 1:411-12. In the context of Genesis, “Creator” seems the better choice. Of course, as Creator, God is the owner of heaven and earth). Abram reaffirms his trust that God as Creator of heaven and earth will fulfill his promises apart from the help of the king of Sodom.

Genesis 15

Genesis 15 is about the seed promise and the land promise. The chapter divides into two somewhat parallel sections. Verses 1-6 concern the seed promise and verses 7-21 concern the land promise (Wenham, WBC, 1:325; Mathews, NAC, 2:157; Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 248-49). In verse 7 God reaffirms his promise to give the land to Abraham. It was for this reason that God called Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans. The promises of seed and blessing could theoretically been fulfilled in Ur. But the gift of this land required Abram’s departure from Ur.

As in verse 2, Abram asks for confirmation of the promise. Given verse 6, this should not be taken as a sign of faithlessness (Wenham, WBC, 1:331). God responds to this request by cutting a covenant with Abram. This begins with God’s instructions to take certain animals, cut them in half (except for the birds) and lay them opposite. All of the animals, save for the last bird (גּוֹזָל) were used in Israel’s sacrificial system. Most were used for a number of different kinds of sacrifices. The heifer was used in sacrifices to purify the land from unsolved murders (Deut. 21:1-7). Abram is then forced to defend the carcasses from birds of prey.

It is the next section (vv. 12-16) that gives us clues as to the significance of these actions. The animals that would later be used in Israel’s sacrificial system may represent Israel (Wenham, WBC, 1:332-; Mathews, NAC, 2:172-73). Given the prediction that Israel would be afflicted in Egypt, the birds of prey may represent Egypt (Mathews, NAC, 2:172-73. Other commentators identify the birds more generally as representing the “surrounding nations.” McKeown, 92; cp. Wenham, 1:132-33). McKeown notes, “Without Abram’s presence, these carcasses would have disappeared rapidly” (THOTC, 92.). This may indicate the importance of God’s covenant with Abram in preserving the people of Israel.

In 15:12-16 we have the prediction that Israel will sojourn in another land, Egypt, before receiving the promised land. Also Abram is told that he will die prior to the return of the people in the fourth generation (15:15-16). The promise of the land was made to Abram personally in 15:7 but the confirmation speaks only of possession by his seed. In fact, it implies that he will die before the land is possessed. Perhaps this awareness of death prior to possession of the land stands behind his expectations according to Hebrews 11:18-16.

The smoking fire pot and flaming torch that pass between the pieces likely represent God. They call to mind God’s revelation of himself in fire in Exodus at the burning bush and at Sinai (See McKeown, THOTC, 93). The significance of passing through the pieces is indicated by Jeremiah 34:18: “And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant that they made before me, I will make them like the calf that they cut in two and passed between its parts” (Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, NSBT, 80; Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 250-56. I agree with Gentry, against Wenham and Mathews, that the elements of the covenant in this passage and Jeremiah are not bound to a particular time but persisted in their significance from the time of Abraham to Jeremiah). Notably, God has placed Abram in a deep sleep; God passes through the pieces himself. This is an unconditional or a royal grant covenant.

In this covenant, the Lord specifies the borders of the land. No longer is it simply “this land” (12:7) or “all the land that you see” (13:15). Now specific boundaries are set. The promised land will stretch from the river of Egypt, probably the Wadi el-Arish (In other places the term נַ֫חַל [translated brook by the ESV] is used instead of נָהָר. Some commentators therefore think that the eastern part of the Nile Delta is meant [cf. Waltke, 245]. However, since these borders are repeated elsewhere [Num. 34:5; Josh 15:4-47; 1 Kings 8:65; Isa. 27:12], it is most likely simply a variation in terminology [cf. Hamilton, NICOT, 1:438]), to the Euphrates River. The land is also designated by the peoples who lived there. Waltke holds that a purposeful discrepancy exists between the stated borders and the nations that Israel is said to conquer. “Since the geographic description is much larger than the ethnographic and the ethnographic matches Israel’s history but the geographic does not, the geographic is best regarded as an idealization” (Waltke, 245). First, the land of the Amorites stretched up to the Euphrates River (ABD, 1:199-200; P.E. Satterthwaite and D. W. Baker, “Nations of Canaan,” DOTP, 601-2. Milgrom says, “In the eighteenth-century Mari texts, Amurru is a territory and kingdom in central Syria. As such it continues in Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries when its boundaries are most clearly defined: from the Mediterranean to the Orontes and to Canaan on the south.” Milgrom, Numbers, JPSTC, 105. Though Milgrom thinks that Genesis 15 uses the term merely as an ethnic label for those living in Canaan, the evidence he cites indicates it could have a broader referent). The discrepancy Waltke posits does not exist. Second, the argument for idealization by analogy does not hold up. Waltke says the point is to highlight the land’s “spiritual significance,” which is greater than its physical significance just as the Jordan river is physically insignificant but spiritually significant to Christians. These are not parallel examples. The spiritual significance of the Jordan is never outlined in a covenant. One would think that a covenant document promising land would be the least likely place for borders to be merely ideal. Such an argument would certainly be rejected by interpreters of human covenants. Why take God’s covenant words any less seriously and straightforwardly?

In Solomon’s day Israel’s exercised brief control within these borders, but it was never complete nor long lasting. This points toward a future fulfillment of this promise. It may have been to avoid this conclusion that Waltke resorted to the expedient of claiming the boundaries were idealized (Kidner, TOTC, 125; Hamilton, NICOT, 1:438).

Genesis 13 begins with a geographical reversal as Abram retraces his steps from Egypt back into the Promised Land. Verses 5-7 set the stage: Abram and Lot are dwelling in the land, and they have been blessed. But there is not room for both of them to dwell together. Verse 7 reminds the reader that the continued presence of the Canaanites and Perizzites contributed to this problem.

In verses 8-9 Abram demonstrates faith in God’s promise by offering Lot the choice of settling anywhere in the land. The land is still possessed by the Canaanites, but Abram speaks as if God’s promise is true and the land is his to give. Abram also shows faith that his generosity toward Lot won’t result in his loosing part of the land to him.

Verses 10-14 present Lot as a foil to Abram. Lot makes his choice based on sight, rather than based on faith. His choice places him on the very edge of the Promised Land, if not beyond it.

In verses 14-17 God expands on the land promise. The promise is now no longer simply to Abram’s seed―it is a promise to him personally. He is promised all the land that he can see. He is promised that this land will be his and his seed’s possession forever.

In verse 18 Abram is said to have settled by the oaks of Mamre. This location is near the only plot of the promised land that Abram will own in his lifetime (Gen. 23:17-18).

The Abraham narrative begins with movement from one land, Ur of the Chaldeans (11:28) to another land, the land of Canaan (11:31). The first words we hear from God to Abraham are for him to leave his land and his family to go to another land (12:1).[1] Already the themes of land and seed are present. The fact that Abram travels with his father, Terah to Haran and remained there until Terah died (Acts 7:4)[2] may indicate a lack of obedience on Abram’s part.[3] Verse 4, however, indicates Abram’s obedience.

Preceding the obedience of verse 4 is a recitation of the promises of God to Abram. These promises are often summarized under the headings of land, seed, and blessing. These themes have their genesis in chapter 1 at the climax of the creation narrative. Genesis 1:28 identifies God’s words in 1:28-30 as a blessing. The blessing centers on seed (“be fruitful, and multiply”) and land (“fill the earth and subdue it”). When Adam and Eve sin the blessing is replaced with a curse (Gen. 3:17). The content of the judgment focuses on seed (3:16) and land (3:17). Therefore it should come as little surprise that God’s plan of redemption includes promises to Abraham regarding land, seed, and blessing.

The promises hang on a command regarding land and seed. Abraham is to leave his land and his family in order to receive God’s blessing. The land promise is not given in these opening verses, but it is hinted at by God’s promise to show Abram a land (12:1). It is also implied in the promise to make Abram a great nation (12:2). The term גוי may imply both people and land.[4]

The climax of God’s promise to Abraham is that in him “all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (12:3). Interestingly, all the land words in this chapter are אֶ֫רֶץ except in this verse where אֲדָמָה is used. The energies of the commentators is spent on determining whether נִבְרְכ֣וּ should be understood as passive or reflexive.[5] Little reflection is given to why the word אֲדָמָה is chosen over אֶ֫רֶץ. It could be free variation. Wenham notes that אֲדָמָה is used here and in 28:14 but that אֶ֫רֶץ is used when this promise is repeated in 26:4l 22:18; 18:18.[6] However, there may be an allusion back to Adam. All are cursed in Adam, but in Abraham all the families of אֲדָמָה shall be blessed.

Verse 4 testifies to Abram’s obedience to the Lord’s command. In verses 5-7 אֶ֫רֶץ occurs five times and in verses 8-9 the recurrence of geographical locations indicates that land is a major theme of 5-7. These verses reveal Abram’s entrance into the land and his travels through it from top to bottom in a survey of the land.[7]

And yet the land is clearly not yet Abram’s. In the first two mentions of land in verses 5-9, the land is identified as “the land of Canaan.” After noting that “Abram passed through the land to the place at Schechem,” Moses says, “At that time the Canaanites were in the land” (12:6). The reference to the oak of Moreh may be a reference to a place of Canaanite worship,[8] and its mention may be another means of driving the point home: Abram is a sojourner in this land.[9] It is in this context that God appears to Abram and for the first time explicitly promises the land to Abram’s seed. Abram responds by building an altar to the Lord. This may serve as a counterpoint to the oak of Moreh, and it reveals that Israelite possession of the land should displace pagan worship with the worship of Yahweh.

Verses 10-20 reveal that the path to fulfillment is not going to be straight. Already facing a barren wife (11:30), Abram now faces a barren land (12:10).[10] Abram does not respond to the challenge of the barren land by faith.[11] He leaves the land for Egypt, he places the seed promise in jeopardy (from a human perspective) by lying about Sarah, and as a result Abram is a curse to Pharaoh rather than a blessing.

---

[1] Abram’s obedience to God’s command does not merit the promises. His obedience is a testimony to his faith in God’s promises. Abraham’s later behavior in this chapter and God’s blessing of Abram despite his failures is a testimony that Abram is blessed because of God’s grace and not because of his goodness.

[2] On ways to harmonize Genesis 11:32 with Acts 7:4, see Hamilton, 1:367-68; Waltke, 201.

[3] Waltke, 201; Kidner, 111.

[4] Wenham, 1:275; Hamilton, 1:371-72; Mathews, 2:112; Currid, 252; Gentry & Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 235.

[5] Conservative commentators favor the passive. Kidner, TOTC, 114; Wenham,  1:277-78; Hamilton,  1:375; Mathews, 2:117.

[6] Wenham, 1:278.

[7] Wenham, 1:283; Hamilton, 1:379; cf. Sailhamer, EBC, 112.

[8] See Wenham, 1:279. This oak is identified by name in Deuteronomy 11:30 and seems to be mentioned in Genesis 35:4; Joshua 24:26; and Judges 9:6, 37.

[9] Mathew Henry emphasized the sojourning nature of Abram in these verses. Commentary on the Whole Bible, 35.

[10] Currid, 1:58.

[11] It is difficult to determine whether Abram’s departure because of the famine was acceptable or indicated a lack of faith. On the one hand there are many parallels between this passage and the divinely ordained sojourn of the people of Israel from Jacob to Moses: famine results in the emigration to Egypt, plagues are visited on Pharaoh by God, Abraham/the people leave with great wealth from Egypt. On the other hand, Abraham is not recorded here as leaving the land with a word from the Lord. In a context in which Abram is told by God to go to the land and in which his faith is tested, and in which he in other matters is showing a lack of faith, a negative reading seems most likely.

Land is a significant theme in Genesis 1-11. It plays a prominent role in both blessing and judgment. McKeown summarizes that theme well:

When humans are alienated from God there are significant repercussions, because God uses the land to punish his recalcitrant subjects. Misdemeanors as diverse as eating ‘forbidden’ fruit (Gen 3:17-19), fratricide (Gen 4:10-16) and building a tower without divine approval (Gen 11:5-9) are all punished in relation to land. As a result, the ground is cursed (Gen 3:17-19), thorns and thistles make the ground more difficult to cultivate and less productive (cf. Gen 5:29), human beings must still work the soil but the benefits they receive are greatly reduced (Gen 3:19, 23), and the harmony established at creation is replaced by alienation culminating in the expulsion of the human beings from the idyllic surroundings of the garden of Eden (Gen 3:24). The account of the fratricide perpetrated by Cain shows that crimes such as murder could result in further alienation from the ground and in a total loss of fertility of the ground. The final crime in the primeval narratives is that of the tower builders whose insubordination results in them being scattered over all the earth. In these early stories fertile land is a gift from God and a sign of his blessing while infertility (famine) may be a consequence of divine displeasure.

J. McKeown, “Land, Fertility, Famine,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 488.

The tower of Babel account is the concluding account to the first major section of Genesis.[1] The phrase “all the earth” [כָל־הָאָרֶץ] brackets the account as well as being a motif that recurs throughout (11:1, 4, 8, 9). The account begins with the people of the earth resisting the creation blessing. Instead of filling the earth they are determined to avoid being dispersed.[2] Mankind determines to use its capacity for dominion over the earth to resist God and to build what may be seen as an alternative Eden. The land of Shinar is located between two rivers given the names of two of the rivers that flowed from Eden.[3] After the Fall, mankind had been thrust from Eden, God’s dwelling place with man. But in this account, the people seek to build a tower that reaches into the dwelling place of God.[4] On one level this is absurd. The text makes the point that God has to come down to even see the tower.[5] On the other hand, God notes that the blessing of dominion can be turned to powerful evil if limits are not placed on it. For this reason he confuses the language of the peoples, which results in their scattering over the earth. This scattering could be looked at as a parallel to the exile from Eden and the exile of Cain.[6] Once again in the opening chapters of Genesis exile is the judgment for disobedience. On the other hand, this scattering over the face of the earth is what makes possible the fulfillment of the creation blessing’s promise that mankind will fill the earth.[7]

---

[1] For literary connections between 11:1-9 and earlier parts of Genesis, see Mathews, NAC, 1:466-67. The toledoth formula seem to be the major structuring device in Genesis, but the narrowing of focus to the covenant family of Abraham beginning in 11:27 seems to mark a thematic division in Genesis.

[2] Josephus, Antiquities, 1.110; Jeremy Cohen, “Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It”: The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 69.

[3] Mathews, NAC, 1:467. It plausible, though unknown, if these rivers had the names Tigris and Euphrates at the time of the tower of Babel. The Euphrates, however, did have its name by the time of Abraham, five generations later (15:18).

[4] Wenham, WBC, 242; Mathews, NAC, 1:481-82.

[5] “With heavy irony we now see the tower through God’s eyes. This tower which man thought reached to heaven, God can hardly see! From the height of heaven it seems insignificant, so the Lord must come down to look at it! ‘He sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers’ (Isa 40:22). God’s descent to earth to view the tower is no more proof of the author’s primitive anthropomorphic view of God than is God’s asking Adam and Eve where they were hiding in the garden an indication of his ignorance. It’s is simply a brilliant and dramatic way of expressing the puniness of man’s greatest achievements, when set alongside the creator’s omnipotence.” Wenham, WBC, 1:240; cf. Mathews, NAC, 1:468, 469, 483; Hamilton, NICOT, 1:354.

[6] McKeown, THOTC, 72.

[7] McKeown, THOTC, 72; Mathews, NAC, 1:467.

Genesis 10 demonstrates that the blessing of Genesis 1:26-28 as reaffirmed in Genesis really did come to pass. Noah’s sons were fruitful and multiplied and filled the earth (McKeown, THOTC, 67). The structure of the chapter is built around tracing out the offspring of Noah’s three sons. Each section ends with a refrain that is a variation of: “by their clans, their languages, their lands [אֶ֫רֶץ], and their nations” (10:31; cf. 10:5, 20).

Land words also highlight countries that will be significant in Scripture. The “land [אֶ֫רֶץ] of Shinar” is closely connected to Babel and Assyria (10:10-11). Verse 19 gives the boundaries of the “territory [גְּבוּל] of Canaan.” The word גְּבוּל is can be translated territory or boundary. It occurs most often in Joshua, frequently with reference to the setting of the tribal boundaries in the latter part of that book. The “settlements” [hcsb; מוֹשָׁב] of the sons of Joktan are also noted, but their location is uncertain (Mathews, 1:465).

The final significant land word is found in 10:25: “in his [Peleg’s] days the earth [אֶ֫רֶץ] was divided.” Wenham says, “Here ‘the earth’ denotes the peoples of the world” (WBC, 1:230). This most likely refers to the scattering of the peoples at the tower of Babel.* This hints at what will become clear in chapter 11: the fulfillment of the blessing to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth is not unalloyed from elements of sin and judgment.

---

*Other options are noted by Wenahm and Mathews, but this traditional interpretation is deemed by them most likely. Wenham, WBC, 1:230-31; Mathews, NAC, 1:464.

In chapter 9, the text moves from relating God’s speech within his own heart to relating his speech to Noah. The blessing that God first relates is a reiteration of the creation blessing of Genesis 1:28. Verse 1 of chapter 9 is an exact quote of 1:28a except for the alteration of the persons to whom God is speaking. Verse 7 of chapter 9 is similar to 1:28a except for the replacement of וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ (“and fill the earth”) with שִׁרְצוּ בָאָרֶץ (“swarm on the earth”). The word שׁרץ is used in Genesis 1:20, 21 of living creatures that swarmed in the waters and in 7:21 of creatures that swarm on the land. Thus the blessing of being fruitful, multiplying and filling or increasing greatly on the earth is reiterated in 9:1 and 9:7, forming an inclusio (Matthews, NAC, 1:397).

Missing from this quotation of the creation blessing is the phrase “and have dominion over” (1:28).* That aspect of the creation blessing is taken up in 9:2. The phrases in the statement “over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” from 1:28b or close analogues all appear in 9:2. In place of “and have dominion” (1:28b) are the statements “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be . . .” and “into your hand they are delivered” (9:2b). The concept of dominion is not absent but is placed into the context of the Fall.**

Verse 3 quotes 1:29 and expands on the liberty to eat plants given there. One of the effects of the Fall is the death of animals, and man is now permitted to eat them. Verse 5 then places a limitation on this new liberty—no animal blood may be eaten. The mention of blood raises the issue of the shedding of human blood. The reason given for this is the image of God born by man (1:6).

Thus 9:1-7 is a reaffirmation of the creation blessing in a fallen world. All of the same elements are found in 9:1-7 as are found in 1:26-29: the image of God in man, the blessings of fruitfulness and dominion, and the provision of man’s needs, specifically food, by the creation.

In 9:8-17 God covenants with Noah what he had purposed in 8:21-22. The heart of the covenant is that God will never again destroy the earth with a flood. Great emphasis is placed on the earth in this passage. Animals are identified as being “of the earth” or “on the earth.” The covenant is even said to be made with the earth itself (9:13). The covenant therefore guarantees that the earth will remain a stable place for God to work out his plan of redemption, despite the continuing sinfulness of man which deserves God’s judgment.

Land, important in creation, is reaffirmed as important in 8:20-9:17. It remains the sphere of mankind’s rule. In addition it is the platform on which the plan of redemption is worked out (McKeown, Genesis, THOTC, 61-62).

Genesis 9:26-27 also has land promise implications. Cain will become the servant of Shem when Israel conquers the land of Canaan and makes it her own. Japheth dwelling in the tents of Shem*** could refer to the salvation of the Gentiles and the special role that Israel will have in the coming kingdom. Though there is an equality of all believers in Christ, Israel is given a special role relative to the nations in the future (see Ex 4:22; Dt 26:19; Isa 11:14;14:2;49:22-26; 60:12; Jer 31:7-9).

 

*The LXX adds καὶ κατακυριεύσατε αὐτῆς (“have dominion over it”) to 9:1, using the exact words found in 1:28a. Some interpreters also wish to emend the repetitive וּרְבוּ־בָהּ (“and multiply in it”) at the end of 9:7 to וּרְדוּ־בָהּ (“and rule it”). Jeremy Cohen, "Be Fertile and Increase, Fill the Earth and Master It": The Ancient and Medieval Career of a Biblical Text (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), 26-27. Both the LXX and the emendation reveal a lack of understanding of verse two. See above.

**Some might claim that God is limited dominion in this passage to rule over the animals whereas in Genesis 1 his rule extends to all the earth. It is unlikely that a limitation on the creation blessing is intended here. Furthermore, rule over the animal world alone implies extensive dominion over the earth. Gootjes notes this in his discussion of Klaas Schilder’s view of culture: “The cow has been created; it exists in the created world. But it wanders around freely. Man is given the right to domesticate it and to use its milk. The horse too has been created; it is galloping about in Eden. Man has the right and the ability to catch it, to tame it, to bridle it, and to ride it. Imagine what a development this means to created man. He can go more quickly than he could on his own feet, and he can carry heavier loads. But also imagine how much man has to invent to do this, even in a sinless world. He has to invent the bridle, reins, the wheel and a cart, stables, and fences. All this belongs to having dominion over a horse. Man can also use sheep. They can be shorn, and the wool can be used for making cloth. The dominion over the animals undoubtedly involves a cultural task. Man’s dominion becomes even more impressive when we realize that God also gave mankind dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air. They too have to serve man (after their own fashion). But in order to have dominion over fish and birds, man has to extend his influence to the sea and to the air. He has to develop the means to reach fish and birds. In other words, this dominion requires cultural development.” N. H. Gootjes, "Schilder on Christ and Culture," in Always Obedient: Essays on the Teaching of Dr. Klaas Schilder, ed. J. Geertsema (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1995), 45.

***Scholars disagree over who inhabits Shem’s tents. For an argument in favor of God dwelling in Shem’s tents, see Kaiser, Toward and Old Testament Theology, 82. For an argument in favor of Japheth dwelling in Shem’s tents, see Hamiltion, NICOT, 1:362.

Ground and earth terms recur in verses 1-14 with an emphasis on the need for the ground to dry before disembarkation from the Ark can occur. In verses 15-19 the emphasis is on earth as the place where humans and animals live. The importance of earth in this chapter is as the sphere for living life.

The account of the Noahic covenant begins in Genesis 8:20-22 with Noah’s sacrifice. The sacrifice elicits God’s purpose to covenant with Noah.[1]

In 8:21, God purposes to not again curse the ground (ESV, HCSB, NASB, etc.) or to not add to the curse of Genesis 3:17 (Wenham).[2] This verse cannot be saying that God lifted the curse of Genesis 3:17. Romans 8 teaches that the earth still groans, waiting for its redemption. Obviously painful labor and labor pains persist after the Flood.[3] In addition the ground [אֲדָמָה] referred to here is likely world-wide in reference. Clearly Israel will face ground-related covenant curses in the future.[4]

Given that that God is proposing a real limits on the curse in this verse, and given the canonical confinement to what these limits cannot mean, this verse may teach that God will not keep adding to the curse of Genesis 3:17 on a worldwide scale despite mankind continuing to sin on a worldwide scale.

The immediate context of Genesis lends credence to this understanding. The case of Cain demonstrates that God did curse the ground with a curse that went beyond that given in Genesis 3. The Flood was obviously a curse upon the earth that went beyond the curse given in Eden. Lamech’s comment in 5:28 may indicate that these were not the only instances in which the curse on the earth was intensified. In conjunction with 8:21, 5:29 may hint at a large scale intensification of the curse as human sin spread and intensified.[5] In this understanding, the covenant with Noah brought relief from the intensification of the curse that mankind experienced in the antediluvian world and promises that such intensification will not take place again on a worldwide scale. The advantage of this view is the way it coherently connects 8:21 and 5:29; the disadvantage is the necessity to infer an increase on the Genesis 3:17 curse. An alternative view understands the fulfillment of 5:29 in the preservation of the earth promised in the Noahic covenant which finds its ultimate redemptive fulfillment in the removal of the curse in the redemption of the earth in the last day.

Second, God purposes to never again kill every living thing as he did in the Flood (8:21).

Third, God purposes that the world will be a stable place. The regular seasons and daily cycles will continue. In addition the vocabulary of this verse is packed with vocabulary from Genesis 1.[6] God’s original purposes for his good creation are preserved by the Noahic Covenant.

The reason for this covenant is also made clear in these verses: “for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Isaac Backus explains: “The great Ruler of the universe directly after the flood, gave this as one reason why he would not bring such another with the earth remains, namely, For the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; so that if he was to drown them as often as they deserved it, one deluge must follow another continually.”[7]

---

[1] Wenham notes that God does truly respond to Noah’s sacrifice in this passage. So in a sense the covenant is a response to the sacrifice. Yet it must also be understood, says Wenham, God appointed sacrifices for this purpose. Wenham, WBC, 1:190. In other words, Noah is not meriting a covenant by his religious observance.

[2] Wenham proposes the translation “I shall not curse the soil any further.” Wenham argues, “It is important to note the position of עוד in this sentence, coming after לקלל to ‘curse,’ not after אסף ‘do again’ as in the parallel clause ‘Never again shall I smite.’ This shows that God is not lifting the curse on the ground pronounced in 3:17 for man’s disobedience, but promising not to add to it.”

[3] Wenham, 1:190; Mathews, 1:394.

[4] In his list of the covenant curses found in the Pentateuch, Douglas Stuart includes the following categories: drought, crop pests, other agricultural disasters, famine, desolation of the land, and exile. He is draws primarily on Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. For a full listing with verse citations, see Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger (Nashville: Nelson, 1987), xxxiv-xxxvii.

[5] “Prior to the flood the shedding of innocent blood polluted the ground, decreasing significantly its fertility. In 9:1-7 God issues certain instructions which are intended to prevent the earth from being contaminated in the future. These focus of the ‘lifeblood’ of both animal and humans which must be treated with due respect.” Alexander, From Paradise to Promised Land, 135.

[6] Matthews, NAC, 1:396-97.

[7] Isaac Backus, An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty against the Oppressions of the Present Day, 6. Geerhardus Vos explains why there is no contradiction for this statement as a reason for staying future curses while the similar statement in Genesis 6:5 is given as reason for judgment. “Before the deluge almost identical words were spoken by God to motive the necessity of the judgment, 6.5. How can the same statement explain, first, that the judgment is unavoidable, and then that there will be no repetition of the judgment henceforth? The solution of the difficulty lies in the addition of the words ‘from his youth; in the second case. What was described in Gen. 6.5, was the historical culmination of a process of degeneration; that called for judgment. What is here described is the natural state of evil in the human heart as such, altogether apart from historical issues. Because the evil is thus deep-seated, no judgment can cure it. Therefore other means must be resorted to, and these other means would become impossible of execution, if repeated, catastrophic judgments of this nature in the sequel interfered with the ordinary unfolding of history.” Vos, Biblical Theology, 52.