Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

  • About
  • Writings
  • Recommended Resources
  • Categories
    • Christian Living
    • Book Recs
    • Biblical Theology
    • Dogmatics
      • Bibliology
      • Christology
      • Ecclesiology
    • Church History
    • Biblical Studies

Land: Genesis 8

August 10, 2014 by Brian

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.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Was the Serpent a Real Serpent?

July 16, 2014 by Brian

Karl Giberson writes of his de-conversion from orthodox Christianity, “I began to wonder how an old story about a guy named ‘Man’ in a magical garden who had a mate named ‘Woman’ made from one of his ribs could even be mistaken for actual history. And yet this was exactly what I had believed just one year earlier. Talking snakes, visits from God in the evening, naming the animals—the story takes on such a different character the moment one applies even the most basic literary analysis. The literalist interpretation I had formerly embraced and defended so vigorously began to look ridiculous, as did the person I had been just one year earlier.” Karl W. Giberson, Saving Darwin: How to be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (New York: HarperOne, 2008), 8.

Some more orthodox Christians try to split the difference. D. A. Carson says, “I hold that the Genesis account is a mixed genre that feels like history and really does give us some historical particulars. At the same time, however, it is full of demonstrable symbolism. Sorting out what is symbolic and what is not is very difficult.” Carson introduces his discussion of the Genesis 3 by comparing the historical account of David’s sin with Bathsheba and Nathan’s parabolic parallel, concluding: “So in Genesis 3. This serpent may be the embodiment of Satan, or he may be the symbol for Satan, and the Bible doesn’t really care to explain which.” D. A. Carson, The God Who Is There: Finding Your Place in God’s Story (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 15, 29-30.

Contrary to Giberson’s claim, however “the most basic literary analysis” points toward a real serpent’s presence in the garden. Geerhardus Vos comments on the claim that the serpent is a symbol: “This view is contrary to the plain intent of the narrative; in Gen. 3.1, the serpent is compared with the other beasts God had made; if the others were real, then so was the serpent. In vs. 14 the punishment is expressed in terms requiring a real serpent.” Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), 33.

In fact, it is surely no accident that Satan appears as a subtle beast, a form that enhances his opportunity to tempt, but as a beast, a form that Eve and Adam knew they had dominion over and should have exercised dominion over. In this light, the reality of the serpent is literarily and theologically significant.

The plausibility of an animal being controlled by a demon or being given the ability to speak should hardly be an obstacle for Christians (Mark 5:1-13; Num. 22:28-30). To materialists who deny the supernatural, such accounts do appear “ridiculous.” But giving up the supernatural is to give up Christianity.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Genesis

Potential Interpretations of Genesis 5:29 in conjunction with Genesis 8:21

April 27, 2014 by Brian

The Vineyard Option

Lamech’s words in Genesis 5:29 refer to Noah’s planting of the vineyard in Genesis 9:20. No connection is made to Genesis 8:21 (Held by Wenham, Waltke; held as a possibility by Hamilton).

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. The growth of a vineyard shows the fertility of the ground.

2. The text says “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief.” Noah planted a vineyard and the wine that comes from the vineyard is a relief to man in a fallen world.

[Wenham and Waltke do not give argumentation, so the above are possible arguments in favor of this interpretation]

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. Mathews notes that verse 29 does not say the comfort comes from the ground, as this interpretation seems to presuppose. The mere growth of a vineyard does not indicate relief from the curse. Doubtless vines and plants also grew before the Flood.

2. The argument that wine itself provides man relief from runs contrary to the Scripture’s teaching that seeking comfort or relief from toil in wine is folly.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is one of the weaker interpretations. It possibly rests on a misreading of the verse and, depending how it is framed, may stand contrary to biblical teaching about wine.

The Flood Option

Lamech’s words in Genesis 5:29 refer to the Flood. Lamech’s “wish” becomes a “nightmare.” “Comfort (nḥm) does come with Noah, but it is a different kind of comfort. What comes is the Lord’s repenting desire (nḥm) to destroy humanity. Thus Lamech’s wish turns into a nightmare" (Hamilton). Thus 5:29 connects with 6:6-7. No connection is made with 8:21

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

נחם occurs only here and in 6:6-7 in this part of Genesis. It does not occur again until chapter 24. It is thus likely that there is a play in words intended here.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

נחם is used in 5:29 in a different sense than in 6:6-7. The recurrence of the same word in a different sense doesn’t necessarily indicate a connection between the two passages. In addition Noah does bring blessing, so it would be more likely to understand Lamech’s words as fulfilled positively rather than negatively.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is also one of the weaker interpretations. The arguments to the contrary are stronger than the arguments in favor.

The Remnant Option

Lamech hoped for relief from the curse. He does not receive his wish. However, Lamech’s desire finds an analogue in the preservation of the Sethite line that Noah achieves through the ark and the new beginning given to the human race (Wenham, Mathews). There is a loose connection to 8:21 in that there the preservation of the post-flood world is promised.

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. Lamech’s words are not prophecy but a hope. Lamech’s hope is fulfilled but not in the way he wishes. What Noah actually does is not remove the curse from the ground but preserve the line of Seth, and brings a new covenant relation between man and God as a ‘new Adam.”

2. This interpretation is able to maintain a natural interpretation of both Genesis 5 and Genesis 8. It does not attempt forced readings of either passage.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. The attempted connection between preservation of a remnant and hope for removal of the curse is rather tenuous.

2. An interpretation that demonstrates coherence between Lamech’s words and Noah’s life is to be preferred over an interpretation that posits a divergence between the two accounts.

3. Biblical narratives are economical. If Lamech’s words have little to nothing to do with the Noah narrative that follows, why are they given? This is especially relevant since Lamech’s words are embedded in a genealogy. The other comments added to the genealogy are those about Seth being in Adam’s image and those about Enoch’s translation.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable, but unlikely, option. It should be preferred if attempts to show Lamech’s words are fulfilled prove to be exegetically untenable. If the fulfillment of Lamech’s words are demonstrated to be exegetically plausible, this interpretation should not be preferred.

The Covenant Option

The covenant with Noah creates a “new . . . relationship between God and mankind,” and one that touches on the land. It is the Noahic covenant that fulfils Lamech’s words (Leupold).

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

The nature of the Noahic covenant is to set bounds on the curse so that God’s plan of redemption can be worked out in the world. The culmination of the redemption made possible by the Noahic covenant is the removal of the curse. In this way Noah plays a significant role in God’s plan to bring the earth relief from the curse.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

The covenant with Noah itself does not bring relief from work or painful toil.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable option. Lamech has a hope or a prophecy about the curse in relation to Noah and God made a covenant with Noah that limited the curse that God would bring on the world. The weakness is that Lamech’s hope for relief from painful toil and the promises of the Noahic covenant don’t align precisely. The covenant preserves the world until that hope is fulfilled on the New Earth.

The Mitigation of the Curse Option

Lamech says that Noah will bring relief from the agonized labor brought by the cursed ground. The next passage in which the language of cursing appears in 8:21 (though the Flood itself as a curse on the ground does intervene). If 8:21 is translated, “I will never curse further the ground because of man” (Wenham), it would indicate that God will not add to the curse of Genesis 3:17. An implication of this view is that the curse had intensified from Genesis 3 until the time of the Flood and that this intensification would be arrested and reversed after the Flood.

Videtur quod sic [arguments in favor]

1. The account of Cain and the Flood itself demonstrate that the curse of Genesis 3 could be added to because of additional sin.

2. It seems from 8:10, 12 that the translation of עוד as “further” is viable.

3. This interpretation results in the closest harmony between 5:29 and 8:21, which is preferable.

Sed contra [arguments to the contrary]

1. The implication that God had been adding to the curse of Genesis 3:17 until the time of the Flood is speculative.

2. The translation of עוד as “further” is not attested in key lexicons such as CHALOT.

Respondeo dicendum [response & conclusion]

This is a viable option.

1. The speculation necessary for making this interpretation work is reasonable given the evidence in Genesis 4 and the Flood account itself that the curse may be intensified. However, the speculation could be avoided by adopting the previous solution.

2. More work should be done, but the usage of עוד within Genesis 8 seems to allow for the translation, “further.”

3. An interpretation of coherence between 5:28 and 8:21 is to be preferred. Whether this position with its tighter coherence but greater speculation or the previous position with its looser coherence and less speculation is to be preferred is an open question. I lean toward this position.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Genesis

Land: Genesis 7

February 25, 2014 by Brian

Land words occur in Genesis 7 at a higher percentage per verse than in any other chapter in Genesis.[1] Land words occur in several contexts in the chapter. In several instances God is promising to keep alive earth-creatures by bringing them on the ark: “to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth” (7:3); “. . . and of everything that creeps on the ground, tow and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah (7:8-9); “and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth . . . went into the ark with Noah” (7:14-15). In several other instances the emphasis is on the death of all creatures not in the ark: “and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground” (7:4); “and all flesh died that moved on the earth . . . all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth” (7:21); “everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died” (7:22); “he blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground” (7:23); “they were blotted out from the earth” (7:23). Finally, earth is repeatedly the destination of the great flood: “I will send rain on the earth” (7:4); “. . . when the flood of waters came upon the earth” (7:6); “the waters of the flood came upon the earth” (7:9); “and rain fell upon the earth” (7:12); “the flood continued forty days on the earth” (7:17); “the waters increased and bore up the ark, and it rose high above the earth” (7:17); “the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth . . .” (7:18); “and the waters prevailed on the earth” (7:24).

It is clear from these verses that the earth stood at the center of God’s judgment, that the earth-dwellers faced certain death unless they received rescue and life through the ark. The centrality of the earth to this judgment is made clearer by the many echoes back to Genesis 1 in these chapters.[2] In the Flood God is reversing the creation and then recreating his earth. This shows the great extent of the judgment—sin required a recreation. It also shows the depth of sin—even a recreation and washing of the earth with water cannot rid the world of the problem of sin. Finally, it demonstrates the centrality of the earth for God’s purposes. Land plays a large role in the promises of God, and it plays a large role in the judgments of God.

A number of different land words are used in Genesis 7. אֶ֫רֶץ is the most common (14x). אֲדָמָה occurs three times. In verse 4 it is used to recall the curse of Genesis 3:17-19.[3] In 7:23 it is used alongside אָדָם, which may be a literary association designed to highlight that man who came from the ground is returning to the ground.[4] חָרָבָה, which means “dry land” or “dry ground” is used in 7:22 to note that all life on the dry land died in the Flood.


[1] In terms of straight number of occurrences, only Genesis 1, 41, 47 exceed chapter 7.

[2] Mathews, 1:376; Wenham, 1:182; Sailhamer, 80.

[3] Mathews, 1:373.

[4] Mathews, 1:381.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Zechariah 14: Premillennial or Amillennial?

February 22, 2014 by Brian

Zechariah 14 is one of the key texts that support s premillennial eschatology. In this chapter the Second Coming of the Messiah is described. He returns and stands on the Mount of Olives (14:4; Acts 1:11-12), conquers his enemies (14:3, 12-15), and reigns as king over a restored earth (14:8-9, 16). And yet the chapter indicates that some of the nations will refuse to come to Jerusalem to worship. As a result they will be judged with drought (14:16-19). The presence of disobedience and judgment after the return of the Messiah supports the conception of a Millennial period that precedes the New Heaven and New Earth.

Greg Beale proposes an amillennial reading of this chapter. He suggests that the event of this chapter are focused on the church age. In his first coming Christ defeated the nations (Ps. 2:8-9, which begins to be fulfilled at the resurrection). The judgment Zechariah speaks of is judgment on nations that “feigned” belief in Christ during the church age.

This interpretation is not compelling. It ignores the broader context of Zechariah 12-14, which focuses on Israel’s restoration in the last days. It neglects that Psalm 2, while beginning to be fulfilled with the resurrection, is not completely fulfilled until the return of the Messiah. Also correlation of this passage with other passages points towards locating this chapter at the Second Coming rather than at the church age (e.g., 14:4; Acts 1:11-12).

Beale also raises two objections against the premillennial reading. First, he notes that Zach. 14:11 (alluded to by Rev. 22:3) says there will be no more curse. This verse cannot be referred to the eternal state because “v. 11 is a continuation of a narrative of the period directly following God’s defeat of the unbelieving nations in vv. 1-3, which is narrated again in vv. 12-15, all of which directly precedes the purported millennial period.” Second, Beale says this passage is inconsistent with premillennialism because it involves judgment during the Millennium whereas premillennialists believe the judgment occurs at the end of the Millennium.

This second objection is easily dismissed. There is nothing inconsistent with national judgments taking place on disobedient nations during the Millennium and a final judgment of individuals at the end of the Millennium. The first objection is also easily answered by paying attention to the details of the text. Verse 11 does not say the entire earth will be free from the curse. The context of verse 11 is in the land of Israel and not the earth as a whole. Verse 10 specifies boundaries that identify the land under consideration. The focus of both verses 10 and 11 is clearly Jerusalem. So in context verse 11 speaks of the removal of the curse in the land of Israel (or perhaps more specifically, in Jerusalem). The allusion to this verse in Revelation 22:3 does not contradict this interpretation. Old Testament promises to Israel are often expanded beyond their original specifications by the NT (the New Covenant being a primary example). There is nothing inconsistent in the curse being removed from Israel or Jerusalem during the Millennium with that blessing being extended in the New Earth and New Jerusalem.

Bibliography:

G. K. Beale, "The Millennium in Revelation 20:1-10: An Amillennial Perspective," Criswell Theological Review, NS 11, no. 1 (Fall 2013): 61-62.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Zechariah

Land: Genesis 6

February 13, 2014 by Brian

Land words are significant to this chapter. Verse 1 opens with a recollection of Genesis 1:28.[1] In chapter 1 God declares the blessing: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth [אֶרֶץ].” In 6:1 we see that God’s blessing is being fulfilled. The setting of the chapter is “when man began to multiply on the face of the land [אֲדָמָה].”[2] And yet the blessing is now seen to be tainted by the fall. The seed blessing is seen to be corrupted in 6:1-4. Verses 5-7 highlight the corruption of the land blessing. It seems that the inspired text could read: “The Lord saw the wickedness of man was great. . . . And the Lord regretted that he had made man. . . . So the Lord said, ‘I will blot out man whom I have created.” But instead we read that the “wickedness of man was great in the earth [אֶרֶץ]” and that “he had made man on the earth [אֶרֶץ]” and that man will be blotted out “from the face of the land [אֲדָמָה].” This emphasis recurs in 6:11-13. Verse 11 resumes the discussion of the sin problem that leads to the Flood after verses 8-10 introduce righteous Noah and his family. The earth leads off the description of the problem: “Now the earth [אֶרֶץ] was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth [אֶרֶץ] was filled with violence.”[3] There is probably an allusion here to the fact that God intended mankind to fill the earth (1:28); but rather than being filled with humans, the earth is filled with violence,[4] which almost certainly includes murders. It is this violence that corrupts the earth, just as Cain polluted the ground with the blood of Abel.[5] Verse 12 says that “God saw the earth [אֶרֶץ],” which harkens back to God’s sight of his creation in chapter 1 (vv. 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). But now what he sees is not good.[6] He sees corruption, and the rest of the verse explains why: “for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth [אֶרֶץ].” Verse 13 then gives the death sentence, and the reason given for the sentence is an echo of verse 11—“the earth [אֶרֶץ] is filled with violence.” Thus it is not simply that the death sentence will be executed. It will be executed in conjunction with the earth: “I will destroy them with the earth [אֶרֶץ].” Verse 17 and 18 explain that this will happen with “a flood of waters upon the earth [אֶרֶץ]” with the result that everything that is on the earth [אֶרֶץ] shall die.” The earth is at the center of the problem in this chapter (it is corrupted by sin), and it is therefore going to play a large role in the judgment.


[1] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 2, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 76; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, ed. R. K. Harrison, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1:262; Mathews, 1:322.

[2] It may be that אֲדָמָה is used here instead of אֶרֶץ to indicate the close connection that man has to the ground. That connection will be significant as the passage unfolds. See Wenham, 1:137, 139.

[3] Some think that earth here is “synecdoche” (Leupold, 1:266) or “metonymy” (John Currid, Genesis, EP Study Commentary, 1:184) for “inhabitants of the earth.” However, given the emphasis on the physical earth throughout this chapter, and given the teaching in chapter 4 and later in the Pentateuch that murder pollutes the land, it is better to see the physical earth here as corrupted by the violence of its inhabitants. Mathews, Genesis, New American Commentary1:359-60.

[4] Gordon Wenham, Genesis, Word Biblical Commentary, 1:171.

[5] Mathews, 1:159-60.

[6] Wenham, 1:171.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Land: Genesis 5

January 20, 2014 by Brian

In Genesis 5:29 Lamech prophesies that Noah will bring relief from agonizing labor that results from cursed ground. This prophecy probably refers to the Noahic covenant. That covenant placed limits on the curse’s effects on the world.

Genesis 8:21 may indicate that God will no longer intensify the curse on the ground as he did with Cain in Genesis 4 and in the Flood itself. This verse may indicate that such intensifications were not limited to these two instances. If so 8:21 may indicate that the Noahic covenant will roll back the intensification of the curse. On this interpretation 8:21 would signal the fulfillment of 5:29.

The Noahic covenant may fulfill the prophecy of 5:29 in a different way. The nature of the Noahic covenant is to set bounds on the curse so that God’s plan of redemption can be worked out in the world. The culmination of the redemption made possible by the Noahic covenant is the removal of the curse. In this way Noah plays a significant role in God’s plan to bring the earth relief from the curse.

These proposals are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Land: Genesis 4

December 7, 2013 by Brian

In this chapter אֲדָמָה (ground), שָׂדֶה (field), and אֶ֫רֶץ (earth, in this chapter) all occur. אֲדָמָה is the most frequent land word in this chapter.

At the beginning of this chapter Cain is the worker of the ground (4:2-3). Cain’s occupation is to cultivate the ground, but as the story unfolds he murders his brother in the field—in the place of cultivation.[1] Because Abel’s blood cries to God from the ground, the ground figures prominently in Cain’s punishment. He is cursed from the ground, which means that the ground will no longer produce for him.[2] In addition Cain is exiled from his land and becomes “a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth” (4:12). We see in this account something that will be expanded upon in the Mosaic code: murder pollutes the land. To avoid the consequences of polluted land, the law will set up mechanisms for dealing with the pollution.[3]

In many ways the punishment of Cain is an intensification of the punishment received by Adam.[4] The ground was cursed such that it would require extra work from Adam to make it productive; Cain is cursed (the person, not the ground this time) such that the ground will not produce for him. Adam and Eve were exiled from Eden, and at the eastern edge of the garden cherubim blocked the entrance; Cain is exiled from his land and moves further east of Eden to the land of wandering (Nod).[5] This exile in both cases involves moving from the presence of God.[6]

In these opening chapters of Genesis land plays an important role in the punishments given. This is likely due to the prominent place it holds in relation to God’s blessing and to the duty of man.


[1] Leupold, 1:206; Wenham, WBC, 1:107.

[2] Calvin, Genesis, 209.

[3] Mathews, NAC, 1:275-76; Craig G. Bartholomew, Where Mortals Dwell: A Christian View of Place for Today (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 33-34.

[4] Wenahm, WBC, 1:108.

[5] Currid, EPSC, 1:151.

[6] Matthews, NAC, 1:278.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Land: Genesis 3

November 30, 2013 by Brian

The land theme surfaces again at the end of Genesis 3 in the judgments that God pronounces on Adam and Eve.[1] Genesis 1:26-28 introduces the themes of blessing, seed, and dominion over the earth, they reappear in Genesis 2, though with the hint that the blessing can turn into a curse. In Genesis 3, due to Adam’s sin, the blessing does indeed become a curse. Fittingly, the curse focuses on seed (3:16) and dominion over the earth (3:17-19). Adam’s role as the cultivator of the ground is reaffirmed (see also 3:23). But the ground now resists human dominion.[2] It is painful to work the ground, and the geound produces thorns in thistles along with food. And in the end it seems as though the ground will have dominion over the man because the man returns to the dust of which he was created.[3]

Genesis 3 ends with mankind exiled from the Garden of Eden. As noted above, they were to extend Eden into the rest of the world, but now they find themselves exiled from the Garden. Later Scripture will hold out the hope for the restoration of Eden and its extension over the entire world.


[1] “אדמה, ‘land’ one of the key words of the narrative (cf. 2:5-7, 19) is mentioned at the beginning and close of the curse ‘until you return to the land’ (v. 19), thereby forming an inclusion.” Wenham, WBC, 1:82.

[2] “The ground will now be his enemy rather than his servant.” Matthews, NAC, 252. Leupold speaks of the “insubordination” of the ground. Leupold, 1:173; Waltke, 95.

[3] “Once again the judgment is related to the offense. Mankind had been given dominion over the creation when Adam and Eve were first formed. But now the ground claims victory—it brings mankind into ultimate subjection.” Currid, 1:136.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

Land: Genesis 2

November 28, 2013 by Brian

Genesis 2

Genesis 1:1-2:3 forms a prologue to the book of Genesis which describes the creation of the heavens and the earth. The remainder of the book is divided into sections with the phrase “these are the generations of . . . .” These section heading act as a hinge.[1] The named person is typically the subject of the preceding section and what follows recounts the genealogy or the “historical developments arising out of” from that person in his seed.[2] In this case we are told the historical developments that arise out of the creation of the heavens and the earth. In fact, there is a literal sense in which man is generated from the earth, for God forms him from the dust of the ground.[3]

The reversal of heavens and earth to “earth and heavens” occurs only here and in Psalm 148:13. McCabe notes, “By reversing the normal order of heaven and earth, attention is shifted to focus “on what happened on the earth after the creation of man, particularly in the garden.”[4] Bartholomew notes there is a progression here from Genesis 1: “Narratively, therefore, the move from Genesis 1 to 2, rather than indicating a juxtaposition of two unrelated sources, involves a movement of progressive implacement culminating in the planting of Eden as the specific place in which the earthlings Adam and Eve will dwell."[5]

One interesting fact about the land theme in Genesis 2 is the diversity of words used for land in the chapter. Genesis 1 primarily used the term אֶ֫רֶץ, whereas Genesis 2 uses אֶ֫רֶץ (earth, land), אֲדָמָה (ground), and שָׂדֶה (field).

From 2:5 onward אֶ֫רֶץ is probably best translated land rather than earth. In 2:5-8 it probably refers to the land of Eden. The interpretation of these verses is disputed, but the most likely interpretation is as follows. In the land of Eden no plants of the kind that grow in cultivated fields were yet growing.[6] The primary reason for this lack of growth is the absence of a man to work the ground. In connection with this, the Lord made this land of the sort where rainfall does not supply the water for growth. In this land an inundation from water that springs up from the ground (in this case, probably the river mentioned later in the chapter) provides the water. But this inundation needs a man to manage it if it is to be beneficial for growing these plants. These verses thus expand on the teaching of Genesis 1:28 by providing a concrete instance of the kind of dominion man is to exercise over the earth.[7]

Verse 7 indicates that the man who is to cultivate the ground is himself made from the ground. There is a play on words here between man (אָדָם) and ground (אֲדָמָה). As Wenham notes, “He was created from it; his job is to cultivate it (2:5, 15); and on death he returns to it (3:19).”[8] The point seems to be that God made man in a way that intimately connected him with the ground, thus emphasizing the role that God has given to man to cultivate the ground.

Once the cultivator is created God plants a garden in Eden and causes trees to grow from the ground (2:8-9). In this context, the two trees are introduced, which are trees either of a blessing or of a curse (2:9; cf. 2:16).

Verses 10-14 provide a geography lesson. But this is a geography lesson with a theological point. It continues the second chapter’s expansion of the creation blessing. Up to this point Moses has emphasized Adam’s dominion in the garden, but 2:10-14 looks to possibilities beyond the garden. God never intended of human dominion to be limited to the garden; he intended for man to “fill the earth” (1:28). The river that provided water for garden (2:6, 10) also provides the highways into the lands beyond Eden.[9] This river is uniquely suited for transporting people to lands beyond the garden. All other rivers grow larger as tributaries flow into it. But this river is unity as it flows into the garden from Eden and divides in the garden into four rivers that flow out into various lands. In addition these lands have other resources that that humans will harness that will extend their dominion beyond gardening. Kidner notes, “There is a hint of the cultural development intended for man when the narrative momentarily (10-14) breaks out of Eden to open up a vista into a world of diverse countries and resources. The digression, overstepping the bare details that locate the garden, discloses that there is more than primitive simplicity in store for the race: a complexity of unequally distributed skills and peoples, even if the reader knows the irony of it in the tragic connotations of the words ‘gold,’ ‘Assyria,’ ‘Euphrates.’”[10]

Verses 15-16 wrap up this first section of chapter 2 by returning to the themes of dominion over the garden and of the blessing and cursing that stands before mankind in the two trees in the midst of the garden. The remainder of the chapter focuses on finding a helper fit for Adam. Genesis 2:4- 25 are thus a chapter length expansion on Genesis 1:28, with its themes of land, seed, and blessing. The first part of the chapter centers on exercising dominion over the earth, the last part centers on the wife necessary for man to be fruitful and multiply, and embedded in the middle are the trees that will bring blessing or cursing.


[1] Robert V. McCabe, "A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of the Creation Account (Part 2 of 2), Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 11, no. 1 (Fall 2006): 73.

[2] Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 43.

[3] Ibid.; Young, E. J. “The Days of Genesis: First Article.” Westminster Theological Journal 25, no. 1 (November 1962): 18.

[4] McCabe, 74; cf. Bartholomew, 24.

[5] Bartholomew, 25.

[6] שָׂדֶה does not always refer to cultivated fields, but it often does and this seems the best meaning in this context, which stresses the need for a man to cultivate the ground so that the plants mentioned will grow.

[7] Alan Jacobs aptly captures how a garden exemplifies human dominion over the earth in a way that brings God glory. “The gardener makes nothing, but rather gathers what God has made and shapes it into new and pleasing forms. The well-designed garden shows nature more clearly and beautifully than nature can show itself.” Alan Jacobs, “Gardening and Governing,” Books and Culture (March/April 2009): 18.

[8] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A. Hubbard (Waco: Word, 1987), 59. Of course, the death aspect only comes into view with sin.

[9] I am indebted to Bryan Smith for this idea.

[10] Derek Kidner, Genesis, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1967), 61.

Filed Under: Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology, Genesis

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • …
  • 12
  • Next Page »