Tag: Genesis

Genesis days

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 12, 2024. Posted in Genesis, What’s new?.

Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?

In our opinion, examination of the Hebrew word for “day” and the context in which it appears in Genesis will lead to the conclusion that “day” means a literal, 24-hour period of time.

The Hebrew word yom translated into the English “day” can mean more than one thing. It can refer to the 24-hour period of time that it takes for the earth to rotate on its axis (e.g., “there are 24 hours in a day”). It can refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk (e.g., “it gets pretty hot during the day but it cools down a bit at night”). And it can refer to an unspecified period of time (e.g., “back in my grandfather’s day . . .”). It is used to refer to a 24-hour period in Genesis 7:11. It is used to refer to the period of daylight between dawn and dusk in Genesis 1:16. And it is used to refer to an unspecified period of time in Genesis 2:4. So, what does yom mean in Genesis 1:5–2:2 when used in conjunction with ordinal numbers (i.e., the first day, the second day, the third day, the fourth day, the fifth day, the sixth day, and the seventh day)? Are these 24-hour periods or something else? Could yom as it is used here mean an unspecified period of time?

We can determine how yom should be interpreted in Genesis 1:5–2:2 by comparing that context to the word’s usage elsewhere in Scripture. The Hebrew word yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. Outside of Genesis 1, yom plus a number (used 410 times) almost always indicates an ordinary day, i.e., a 24-hour period. There are a few instances where yom and a number do not imply a literal, 24-hour day. The words evening and morning together (38 times) most often indicate an ordinary day. The exact construction of evening, then morning, along with yom is only seen outside of Genesis 1 in one verse. This is Daniel 8:26, which clearly implies a long period of time.

All in all, the context in which the word yom is used in Genesis 1:5–2:2, describing each day as “the evening and the morning,” seems to suggest that the author of Genesis meant 24-hour periods. This was the standard interpretation of the days of Genesis 1:5–2:2 for most of Christian history. At the same time, there were early church fathers, such as Augustine, who noted that the vague nature of the “days” of Genesis could well suggest a non-literal interpretation.

Then, in the 1800s, a paradigm shift occurred within the scientific community. This was mostly driven by hostility to religion and an effort to re-interpret observations in ways contrary to the Bible. This caused a rift in the scientific community. One side claimed that only atheism, as well as specific ideas such as an old earth and naturalistic evolution, was compatible with science. The other side, in response, attempted to denounce atheism and any possible old-earth interpretations.

The truth is that both young-earth and old-earth interpretations rely upon certain assumptions. Sincere believers debate the meaning of yom in the creation account because a case can be made on both sides. This does not diminish the importance of what Genesis teaches, regardless of whether or not a person accepts young-earth creationism.

For instance, according to Exodus 20:9–11, God used the six creation days of Genesis as a model for man’s workweek: work six days, rest one. Apparently, He had us in mind even before He made us (on the sixth day) and wanted to provide an example for us to follow. Certainly God could have used six discrete 24-hour days. And He could have created everything using a process of long time periods. Our view, based on our interpretation of the Bible, is that six literal days is the most likely interpretation of the Genesis account.

Without form and void

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 11, 2024. Posted in Genesis, What’s new?.

The earth was without form and void

What does it mean that the earth was without form and void (Genesis 1:2)?

Genesis 1:1 tells us, unsurprisingly, that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. There is nothing especially shocking in that statement. However, the statement that follows has raised some eyebrows: the earth was without form and void (Genesis 1:2). The Hebrew tohu is typically translated as “without form” or “formless,” and bohu is rendered “void” or “empty.” Genesis 1:2 could be translated as “it came about that the earth was without form and empty.”

Some have suggested that perhaps God created the heavens and the earth, and then something happened that caused the earth to go from fully created and beautiful to “without form and void.” Such an order of events attempts to explain the perceived old age of the earth. In this view, often called the gap theory, there was a long period of time (a gap) between what happened in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Thomas Chalmers, who is credited with popularizing the gap theory, stated his opinion in 1814 that “it [Genesis 1:1] forms no part of the first day—but refers to a period of indefinite antiquity when God created the worlds out of nothing. The commencement of the first day’s work I hold to be the moving of God’s Spirit upon the face of the waters. We can allow geology the amplest time . . . without infringing even on the literalities of the Mosaic record” (Russell R. Bixler, Earth, Fire, and Sea: The Untold Drama of Creation, Baldwin Press, 1986, p. 86–87). The gap theory interprets the words the earth was without form and void as an aftereffect of something that took place in between the two verses. While Chalmers’ view was impactful, later theologians such as C. I. Scofield advocated for the view and influenced many in favor of the gap theory.

The challenge for the biblical interpreter is to understand whether or not the author of Genesis intended to communicate that something might have taken place in a possible gap. The simplest and most historically held position prior to Chalmers and other gap advocates was that the representation of the earth as without form and void was simply an expression of stages of progress during the first day and not a statement of condition prior to the creation week.

In that non-gap understanding, there is no attempt to explain the appearance of age and no special consideration for any theological implications. Advocates of the non-gap interpretation might simply assert that everything created had the appearance of age. For example, Adam was created as a man, capable of speech and critical thought. He obviously wasn’t created as an infant, hence the appearance of age. The same could be said of trees, mountains, etc. Proponents of the non-gap understanding generally don’t sense a theological need or exegetical reason to insert a gap of time between the two verses and conclude that to do so would be an argument from silence and not based on sound interpretive principles.

God created the heavens and the earth

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 11, 2024. Posted in Genesis, What’s new?.

What does it mean that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)?

The first verse of the Bible is packed with meaning: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, ESV). We can learn many things from this verse: First, God is the ultimate being, who exists independently of time, space, and matter. For this reason, He cannot be identified with the universe. The universe is not God, and God is not the universe. God is God, and He transcends the created order. He is not limited by time because He is eternal (1 Timothy 1:17). And He is not limited by space or matter because He is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–12).

Second, God is the source of everything that exists. In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew word for “created” is bārā’, which is always used in contexts relating to God (cf. Exodus 34:10). When humans “create” something (poetry, music, and skyscrapers), we use preexisting materials. But when God created the heavens and the earth, He did not use preexisting materials because, prior to the act of creation, God alone existed.

Third, God created the universe ex nihilo, or “out of nothing.” The NRSV translates Genesis 1:1–2 as follows: “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void.” This translation implies that matter existed prior to God’s special act of creation. The ESV translation, however, offers a better rendition of the opening verses: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void.” This may seem like useless hairsplitting, but it is crucial to emphasize that God created the universe ex nihilo.

Adherents of ancient pagan religions believed that their gods used pre-existing materials to mold and fashion the world. The Bible insists, however, that God brought everything into existence by the “word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Genesis 1:1—2:3; John 1:1–4).

Fourth, the universe was not created in its final form. Genesis 1:2 states, “The earth was without form and void.” Initially, the universe was without form or shape, but God would soon mold it into something good and beautiful (cf. Psalm 19:1). Humans also make things that are beautiful (let us think of Beethoven’s Third Symphony or Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa). Thus, to be created in the image of God partially involves a creative element (Genesis 1:26–27).

How should we respond to the doctrine of creation? First, God should be worshiped as the creator and sustainer of the universe: “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28; cf. Job 12:10). This means that everyone is dependent upon God and accountable to Him (Romans 3:19). We owe everything to God because, without Him, we would not exist. May we, therefore, dispel the lie that we are autonomous, independent, and self-sufficient.

Second, creation should not be viewed as inherently evil (as some pagan religions have taught). God is good, and creation reflects His goodness. Initially, evil did not exist. It was introduced into the universe by creatures who misused their freedom (Genesis 3:1–24). Nevertheless, God promised that our fallen world would be restored to perfection, and the children of God would one day dwell in the “new heavens and new earth” (Revelation 21:1).

A proper understanding of Genesis 1:1 ensures that we give God all the glory, praise, and honor for creating and sustaining the universe. The appropriate response is to “present [our] bodies as a living, sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is [our] reasonable worship” (Romans 12:1; cf. 1 Corinthians 6:19–20). We were made by Him and for Him.

In the beginning God created

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 11, 2024. Posted in Genesis, What’s new?.

What does it mean that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)?

The significance of Genesis 1:1 is well articulated by apologist Frank Turek in his book Stealing from God (NavPress, 2014). He asserts, “The greatest miracle in the Bible is the first verse: ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ If that verse is true, then every other verse in the Bible is at least believable” (p. 187).

God’s act of shaping the world forms the basis for Christianity. If a Divine Being created this world, then that Being would be the center of our existence. Similar to how we create things for specific purposes, this Being would have had a reason behind making the world and humanity. Our main goal should be to discover the right revelation of this Being and align with His desires.

Many other Bible verses support the concept of God creating the world in the beginning. An example is Colossians 1:16, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” (Also see Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 11:3; John 1:3.)

The Bible takes Genesis 1:1 as an established fact, which aligns with the cosmological argument for God’s existence. By combining scientific facts and philosophical reasoning, one can reasonably conclude that the universe had a beginning and a cause. The cosmological argument can be summarized as follows:

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe had a cause.

The first two statements are uncontroversial. Premise 1 is based on the law of causality, which states that every event has a cause. The second statement is supported by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the expanding universe, and the big bang theory. Philosophers, both past and present, have also presented viewpoints for the universe’s beginning, with the kalam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig being a popular modern example.

The main point of contention lies with the third statement. Should we posit that God is the First Cause of the universe? Once again, we can draw insight from Frank Turek, who argues,

If space, time, and matter had a beginning, then the cause must transcend space, time, and matter. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. This cause also must be enormously powerful to create the universe out of nothing. And it must be a personal agent in order to choose to create, since an impersonal force has no capacity to choose to create anything. Agents create. Impersonal forces, which we call natural laws, merely govern what is already created, provided agents don’t interfere (ibid., p. 2).

The implausibility of something arising from nothing also lends support to the first verse of the Bible. If the universe is not eternal, then it either came out of nothing or was created by a self-existent Being called God. The latter is more reasonable, especially when considering other evidence such as fine tuning, objective morality and the irreducible complexity of cells.

Therefore, we can reasonably say that the first sentence of the Bible is true and that the Creator God aligns with the theistic worldview. The truthfulness of the statement that God created the heavens and the earth also makes miracles possible. Genesis 1:1 lays the foundation for other truths.

Garden of Eden

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 10, 2024. Posted in Genesis, The Biblical Creation Account, What’s new?.

What was the Garden of Eden like?

Eden was the name of a region of the earth when God first created the world. The Hebrew word translated “Eden” is taken to mean “pleasure” or “delight.” In this area God planted a garden:

“Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters” (Genesis 2:8–10).

From this brief description, we note several things about the Garden of Eden: 1) it was planned and planted by God Himself; 2) it was mankind’s first home; 3) it contained incredible variety, with “all kinds of trees”; 4) it was a beautiful place, as the trees were “pleasing to the eye”; 5) it was a fertile, fruitful place; 6) it provided nourishment and nutrition, as the trees were “good for food”; and 7) it was naturally well-watered. Later, we read that there were all kinds of animals in the garden (Genesis 2:19–20). We also have the note that Adam and Eve were unclothed in the garden (Genesis 2:25), indicating that they needed no protection whatsoever—the environment, including the climate, was perfectly suited for humanity.

We do not know the exact location of the Garden of Eden, but the Bible’s description of the area associates it with four rivers and an abundance of resources, including fine gold and gemstones (Genesis 2:11–14). We also know these things about Eden:

The Garden of Eden was a place where man could meet God. The Creator “was walking in the garden in the cool of the day” in Genesis 3:8, and Adam and Eve could be with Him and converse with Him.

The Garden of Eden was a place of total provision. God had seen to every detail in designing a home for humanity, created in His own image (Genesis 1:27). Adam and Eve lacked nothing and were “free to eat from any tree in the garden” (Genesis 2:16), except for one. Their diet was vegetarian (Genesis 1:29).

The Garden of Eden was a place of unity and fellowship. Eve was created in the garden and brought to Adam (Genesis 2:21–22). Thus, Adam had “a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). The unity and fellowship enjoyed by the human couple was a reflection of the unity and fellowship they both enjoyed with God.

The Garden of Eden was a place of work and fulfillment. When God placed Adam in the garden, He gave the man a task: Adam was “to work [the garden] and take care of it” (Genesis 2:15). What God had planted, Adam was to maintain. This task was in addition to Adam’s mandate to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Genesis 1:29). Mankind was blessed by God, given responsibility, and provided work that was meaningful, creative, and beneficial.

The Garden of Eden was the setting for the first marriage. It’s in the Garden of Eden that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman who have left their parents to form a new family unit (Genesis 2:24).

The Garden of Eden was a place of innocence. Originally, there was no sin in the garden and nothing that would cause anxiety or unrest. Adam and Eve’s nakedness (Genesis 2:25) “suggests that they were at ease with one another without any fear of exploitation or potential for evil” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Law, Walvoord and Zuck, David C. Cook, 2018).

The Garden of Eden was a place of life. “In the middle of the garden [was] the tree of life” (Genesis 2:9), and Adam and Eve had free, unhindered access to it.

The Garden of Eden was a place of testing. Also in the middle of the garden was “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9), the fruit of which God had said Adam could not eat: “You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:17). It was the one prohibition in the Garden of Eden. God had created Adam and Eve to be free, with a moral sense and the ability to make decisions and choose for themselves. The presence of a forbidden tree provided the opportunity for Adam and Eve to make a real, necessary choice to either obey or disobey.

Unfortunately, Adam failed the test. The serpent in the garden, used by Satan, tempted Eve with a false promise of blessing, and the woman ate of the forbidden fruit. She in turn gave the fruit to her husband, and he also partook. Both were disobedient to the word of God, and the consequences of their sin were disastrous for them and for all their descendants (Genesis 3:1–19). They lost their fellowship with God, they lost their home, and they lost their innocence.

The Garden of Eden became a place of atonement and hope. The sin of Adam and Eve was met with God’s judgment, but in the midst of the judgment was mercy. God covered their nakedness—of which they were now ashamed—with animal skins (Genesis 3:21). And He gave them good news: in His judgment on the serpent, God said, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15). This verse acknowledges the curse on mankind and the related strife, but it also promises God’s provision of a Savior who would do battle with the serpent and win. This Savior would be the “offspring of the woman”; eventually, Jesus, the virgin-born Son of God, came “to destroy the devil’s work” (1 John 3:8). From the beginning, God had the plan of salvation in mind, and no sooner had sin entered the world than He informed us of that plan.

The Garden of Eden is a place to which we long to return. God had to force Adam and Eve to leave the garden, and He posted a formidable cherubim to guard against unauthorized re-entry: “The Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden. . . . After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life” (Genesis 3:23–24). The loss of our paradise garden has stayed with us and forms part of our deep longing for what is good and pure and eternal (see Ecclesiastes 3:11).

The Garden of Eden will be restored. Our access to the eternal garden of God is based on our restored relationship with God through Jesus Christ (see Luke 23:40–43). The One who laid down His life for us has defeated the serpent and opened paradise: “Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God” (Revelation 2:7). In the New Jerusalem, there is “a river with the water of life, clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb. It flowed down the center of the main street. On each side of the river grew a tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, with a fresh crop each month. The leaves were used for medicine to heal the nations. No longer will there be a curse upon anything” (Revelation 22:1–3a, NLT).

The Garden of Eden, that place of pleasure and delight, we lost because of our sin—and God, in His mercy and grace, will restore it to us on Christ’s behalf.

Let there be light

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 10, 2024. Posted in Genesis, The Biblical Creation Account, What’s new?.

Why did God say, “Let there be light,” during creation?

On the first day of creation, God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), and light appeared as a thing separate from darkness. The phrase let there be light could be confusing to some modern English speakers who are used to using the word let in the context of permission, as in “Let me out of this box” or “Let me have the last cookie.” Some might wonder whom is God speaking to. Was there some cosmic jailer who was keeping the light under lock and key?

The phrase let there be light is a translation of the Hebrew phrase yehi ˈor, which was translated “fiat lux” in Latin. A literal translation would be a command, something like “Light, exist.” God is speaking into the void and commanding light to come into being. The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth and everything else that exists by simply speaking them into existence (Genesis 1). His personality, power, creativity, and beauty were expressed in creation the same way an artist’s personality and personal attributes are expressed through art or music. The idea of light, existing first in God’s mind, was given form by the words “Let there be light” or “Let light exist.”

The reality of the creative power of God’s voice has important spiritual implications that go well beyond the creation account itself. Light is often used as a metaphor in the Bible, and the word illumination (“divine enlightenment of the human heart with truth”) has to do with bringing things into the light. Spiritual illumination is a kind of “creation” that occurs in a human heart. “God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). Jesus Himself is “the light of the world” (John 8:12).

When God said, “Let there be light,” at the creation, and light appeared, it showed God’s creative power and absolute control. The physical light that God made on the first day of creation is a wonderful picture of what He does in every heart that trusts in Christ, the True Light. There is no need to walk in the darkness of sin and death; in Christ, we “will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12).

Nephilim

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on January 6, 2024. Posted in Genesis, The Basics on Angels and Demons, What’s new?.

Who, what were the Nephilim?

The Nephilim (“fallen ones, giants”) may have been the offspring of sexual relationships between the sons of God and the daughters of men in Genesis 6:1–4. There is much debate as to the identity of the Nephilim (verse 4) and the “sons of God” (verse 2), who seem to be distinct from the “human beings” in verse 1.

One theory is that the “sons of God” were fallen angels (demons) who took on physical form and mated with human females (or demons who possessed human males who then mated with human females). These unions resulted in extraordinary offspring, the Nephilim, who were “heroes of old, men of renown” of a giant size and, apparently, enhanced physical abilities (Genesis 6:4). If demons were involved in producing the Nephilim, it is likely those demons are the ones who were judged by God and are now “kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day” (Jude 1:6).

Assuming the Nephilim were the spawn of demons, why would demons want to cohabit with human women and produce offspring? One speculation is that the demons were attempting to pollute the human bloodline in order to prevent the coming of the Messiah. God had promised that the Messiah would one day crush the head of the serpent, Satan (Genesis 3:15). The demons in Genesis 6 were possibly attempting to prevent the crushing of the serpent and make it impossible for a sinless “seed of the woman” to be born.

There are at least two objections to the theory that the Nephilim were demon-human hybrids: first, there is nothing in the text to expressly identify the sons of God as angels. Second, the Bible never indicates that angels are physiologically compatible with women and can procreate with them (unless Genesis 6 is the only instance).

Others have suggested that the sons of God might be fallen angels who possessed men. As in the first theory, the phrase sons of God could still refer to fallen angels, the difference being that the demons were using mortal men to accomplish their goals. While this view would resolve the physiological problems of the first theory, there is, again, nothing in the text to suggest demonic possession.

Another view of the Nephilim is that the statement “There were giants on the earth in those days” (Genesis 6:4, NKJV) simply means that everyone was big and tall and mighty. Genetically, humanity was still in a nearly pristine condition. This theory takes the view that these sons of God were simply men. This would explain why there were giants before the flood “and also afterward” (Genesis 6:4; cf. 1 Samuel 17:4–7), as primeval genetic material survived in Noah’s family. The fact that Nephilim were still around sporadically after the flood is an indicator that giants like Goliath were exceptional, but not superhuman.

According to legend (the Book of Enoch and other non-biblical writings), the Nephilim were a unique race of giants and superheroes who committed acts of great evil. In the 2014 movie Noah, starring Russell Crowe, the Nephilim are fallen angels encased in rock. All that the Bible directly says about the Nephilim is that they were “heroes and famous warriors of ancient times” (NLT) or “powerful men of old, the famous men” (CSB). The Nephilim were not aliens, angels, “Watchers,” or rock monsters; they were literal, physical beings.

As mentioned, there were some Nephilim after the flood, according to Genesis 6:4. When the Israelites spied out the land of Canaan, they reported back to Moses, “We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them” (Numbers 13:33). Later, as Moses addressed the people of Israel before they entered Canaan, he mentioned the sons of Anak: “You are now about to cross the Jordan to go in and dispossess nations greater and stronger than you, with large cities that have walls up to the sky. The people are strong and tall—Anakites! You know about them and have heard it said: ‘Who can stand up against the Anakites?’” (Deuteronomy 9:1–2). These “giants” were destroyed by the Israelites with God’s help (Deuteronomy 3:10–11; 9:3; Joshua 11:21–22; 1 Samuel 17).

It’s a mysterious passage, but Genesis 6:4 states that there were Nephilim in the land in the days before the flood. The passage does not explicitly say how these giants came to be. It is best to not be dogmatic on an issue that the Bible says so little about and that is not theologically significant in the grand scheme of things.

Fathers blessing

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on November 22, 2023. Posted in Genesis, What’s new?.

Why was a father’s blessing so highly valued in the Old Testament?

The book of Genesis emphasizes the blessing of a father to his sons. The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all gave formal blessings to their children—and, in Jacob’s case, to some grandchildren. Receiving a blessing from one’s father was a high honor, and losing a blessing was tantamount to a curse.

An Old Testament blessing of a father to his sons included words of encouragement, details regarding each son’s inheritance, and prophetic words concerning the future. For example, Isaac’s blessing on Jacob (which was meant for Esau) gave him the earth’s bounty and authority over his brother (Genesis 27:28-29). It also promised that those who blessed Jacob would be blessed, and those who cursed him would receive a curse—words that echo God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3.

When Esau discovered that Jacob had deceived his father and had received the blessing meant for Esau, he was distraught and asked, “Have you not reserved a blessing for me?” (Genesis 27:36). Isaac’s words to Esau reinforced Jacob’s superiority but also prophesied that Esau would one day rebel against Jacob’s rule (verses 39-40).

When Jacob blessed his twelve sons, he also made predictions regarding their future (Genesis 49). The Bible records the direct fulfillment of many of these predictions, revealing the supernatural ability given to Jacob as the father of the twelve tribes.

In one of his blessings, Jacob said, “Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father’s sons shall bow down before you” (Genesis 49:8). The blessing also included a prediction that kings would come from Judah and that one King would eventually receive “the obedience of the nations” (verse 10). Judah’s descendants later became the tribe from which King David came and in whose land Jerusalem was located. Jesus Christ would also come from the tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:3).

Another example of a supernatural prediction in Jacob’s blessing is found in his words to Issachar: “He saw that a resting place was good, and that the land was pleasant” (Genesis 49:15). Issachar’s family would later inherit lower Galilee, including the Valley of Jezreel, which included rich, productive farmland.

Jacob’s youngest son also received a prophecy that was later fulfilled: “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf, in the morning devouring the prey and at evening dividing the spoil” (Genesis 49:27). The tribe of Benjamin would produce many military leaders in Israel, including Ehud, King Saul, and Saul’s son Jonathan, revealing a strong, warlike personality (Judges 5:14; 20:16; 1 Chronicles 8:40; 2 Chronicles 14:8; 17:17).

A patriarch’s final blessing was important in biblical times as a practical matter of inheritance rights. In addition, some final blessings included prophetic statements that reveal God’s supernatural power at work through the men of His choosing.

Mark Cain

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on November 13, 2023. Posted in Genesis, God our Creator, What’s new?.

What was the mark that God put on Cain (Genesis 4:15)?

After Cain killed his brother Abel, God declared to Cain, “Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (Genesis 4:11-12). In response, Cain lamented, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Genesis 4:13-14). God responded, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him” (Genesis 4:15-16).

The nature of the mark on Cain has been the subject of much debate and speculation. The Hebrew word translated “mark” is ‘owth and refers to a “mark, sign, or token.” Elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures, ‘owth is used 79 times and is most frequently translated as “sign.” So, the Hebrew word does not identify the exact nature of the mark God put on Cain. Whatever it was, it was a sign/indicator that Cain was not to be killed. Some propose that the mark was a scar, or some kind of tattoo. Whatever the case, the precise nature of the mark is not the focus of the passage. The focus is that God would not allow people to exact vengeance against Cain. Whatever the mark on Cain was, it served this purpose.

In the past, many believed the mark on Cain to be dark skin—that God changed the color of Cain’s skin to black in order to identify him. Since Cain also received a curse, the belief that the mark was black skin caused many to believe that people of dark skin were cursed. Many used the “mark of Cain” teaching as a justification for the African slave trade and discrimination against people with black/dark skin. This interpretation of the mark of Cain is completely unbiblical. Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures is ‘owth used to refer to skin color. The curse on Cain in Genesis chapter 4 was on Cain himself. Nothing is said of Cain’s curse being passed on to his descendants. There is absolutely no biblical basis to claim that Cain’s descendants had dark skin. Further, unless one of Noah’s sons’ wives was a descendant of Cain (possible but unlikely), Cain’s line was terminated by the Flood.

What was the mark that God put on Cain? The Bible does not say. The meaning of the mark, that Cain was not to be killed, was more important than the nature of the mark itself. Whatever the mark was, it had no connection to skin color or a generational curse on the descendants of Cain. To use the mark on Cain as an excuse for racism or discrimination is absolutely unbiblical.

Mandrakes Bible

Written by LWOM Amsterdam on September 1, 2023. Posted in Genesis, Songs of Solomon, What’s new?.

What are the mandrakes mentioned in the Bible?

In Song of Solomon 7:13 we read, “The mandrakes send out their fragrance, / and at our door is every delicacy, / both new and old, / that I have stored up for you, my beloved.” A mandrake is a short-stemmed, flowering plant in the nightshade family (and therefore related to the potato). Mandrakes are mentioned in one passage in Genesis and once in Song of Solomon.

Mandrakes have unusually large, forked roots that sometimes resemble a human body with open arms and legs. In the ancient world, mandrake roots were considered an aphrodisiac and were commonly prepared and eaten as a fertility drug. There are many references to mandrakes in folklore and superstitions in various cultures.

The mention of mandrakes in the Song of Solomon is part of a romantic encounter between Solomon and his new wife. Mandrakes were around them in the countryside, along with grapes, pomegranates, and “every delicacy” (Song of Solomon 7:13). The mandrakes are providing a fragrance, and, given their reputation as an aphrodisiac, are suggestive of intimacy. The entire description in verses 10–13 is of a romantic setting that enhances the desire of the husband and wife for each other.

In this particular scene, the Shulammite invites King Solomon to join her for a sexual rendezvous out of doors in the early morning: “Let us go early to the vineyards / to see if the vines have budded, / if their blossoms have opened, / and if the pomegranates are in bloom— / there I will give you my love” (Song of Solomon 7:12). The description of this romantic time is full of beautiful imagery, including the mention of mandrakes in the verses that follow, as the husband and wife enjoy each other among the vineyards.

The one other biblical account to speak of mandrakes is found in Genesis 30. There, Jacob’s two wives, Rachel and Leah, vie for Jacob’s attention. Rachel wants a child, and Leah wants more children. Leah’s son Reuben finds some mandrakes in the field and gives them to his mother. Leah then trades the mandrakes to Rachel in exchange for the opportunity to sleep with Jacob that night (Genesis 30:14–16). Rachel, who was as yet childless, accepts the trade, believing that the mandrakes would help her conceive at a later time. Leah sleeps with Jacob that night and becomes pregnant with her fifth son (verse 17).