I. GENESIS.
2. The Hebrews name this book Bereshith, in the beginning, from the first word. Its Greek name Genesis signifies generation, genealogy. As the genealogical records with which the book abounds contain historical notices, and are, in truth, the earliest form of history, the word is applied to the history of the creation, and of the ancient patriarchs, as well as to the genealogical lists of their families. Gen. 2:4; 25:19; 37:2 etc. In the same wide sense is it applied to the book itself.
3. Genesis is the introductory book to the Pentateuch, without which our understanding of the following books would be incomplete. Let us suppose for a moment that we had not this book. We open the book of Exodus and read of "the children of Israel which came into Egypt;" that "Joseph was in Egypt already," and that "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." Who were these children of Israel? we at once ask; and how did they come to be in Egypt? Who was Joseph? and what is the meaning of the notice that the new king knew not Joseph? All these particulars are explained in the book of Genesis, and without them we must remain in darkness. But the connection of this book with the following is not simply explanatory; it is organic also, entering into the very substance of the Pentateuch. We are told (Ex. 2:24, 25) that God heard the groaning of his people in Egypt, and "God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; and God looked upon the children of Israel, and God had respect unto them." The remembrance of his covenant with their fathers is specified as the ground of his interposition. Now the covenant made with Abraham, and afterwards renewed to Isaac and Jacob, was not a mere incidental event in the history of the patriarchs and their posterity. It constituted the very essence of God's peculiar relation to Israel; and, as such, it was the platform on which the whole theocracy was afterwards erected. The nation received the law at Sinai in pursuance of the original covenant made with their fathers; and unless we understand the nature of this covenant, we fail to understand the meaning and end of the law itself. The very information which we need is contained in Genesis; for from the twelfth chapter onward this book is occupied with an account of this covenant, and of God's dealings with the patriarchs in connection with it. The story of Joseph, which unites such perfect simplicity with such deep pathos, is not thrown in as a pleasing episode. Its end is to show how God accomplished his purpose, long before announced to Abraham (ch. 15:13), that the Israelites should be "a stranger in a land not theirs."
But the Abrahamic covenant itself finds its explanation in the previous history. For two thousand years God had administered the government of the world without a visible church. And what was the result? Before the flood the degeneracy of the human family was universal. God, therefore, swept them all away, and began anew with Noah and his family. But the terrible judgment of the deluge was not efficacious to prevent the new world from following the example of the old. In the days of Abraham the worship of God had been corrupted through polytheism and idolatry, and ignorance and wickedness were again universal. The time had manifestly come for the adoption of a new economy, in which God should, for the time being, concentrate his special labors upon a single nation but with ultimate reference to the salvation of the whole world. Thus we have in the book of Genesis in a certain measure (for we may not presume to speak of God's counsels as fully apprehended by us) an explanation of the Abrahamic covenant, and, in this, of the Mosaic economy also.
4. In accordance with the above view, the book of Genesis falls into two unequal, but natural divisions. The first part extends through eleven chapters, and is occupied with the history of the human family as a whole. It is the oldest record in existence, and its contents are perfectly unique. It describes in brief terms: the order of creation; the institution of the Sabbath and marriage; the probation to which man was subjected, with its disastrous result in his fall and expulsion from Eden; the murder of Abel by Cain, and, in connection with this, the division of mankind into two families; man's universal degeneracy; the deluge; the covenant made by God with the earth through Noah, and the law of murder; the confusion of tongues at Babel, and the consequent dispersion of the different families of men, a particular account of which is given by way of anticipation in the tenth chapter. In addition to these notices there are two genealogical tables; the first from Adam to Noah (ch. 5), the second from Shem to Abraham (ch. 11).
The second part comprises the remainder of the book. In this we have no longer a history of the whole race, but of Abraham's family, with only incidental notices of the nations into connection with whom Abraham and his posterity were brought. It opens with an account of the call of Abraham and the covenant made with him; notices the repeated renewal of this covenant to Abraham, with the institution of the rite of circumcision; its subsequent renewal to Isaac and Jacob; and the exclusion, first of Ishmael and afterwards of Esau, from a share in its privileges. In immediate connection with the covenant relation into which God took Abraham and his family, we have the history of the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, sometimes with much detail, but always with reference to the peculiar prerogative conferred upon them. The book closes with an account of the wonderful train of providences by which Israel was brought into Egypt.
Though Ishmael and Esau were excluded from the covenant, yet, apparently in consequence of their near relation to the patriarchs, genealogical tables are devoted to them; to Ishmael, ch. 25:12-18; to Esau, the whole of ch. 36.
5. The Mosaic authorship of Genesis has already been considered; and, in connection with this, the question whether the Pentateuch, and especially Genesis, contains any clauses of a later date, Ch. 9, No. 11. Some, as Hengstenberg and his followers, deny the existence of such clauses; but others think that a few must be admitted, which were afterwards added, as needful explanations, by prophetical men. We are at liberty to decide either way concerning them according to the evidence before us. On the question whether Moses made use of earlier written documents, see Ch. 9, No. 11.
The clauses for which a later date can with any show of reason be claimed are few in number, and none of them enter essentially into the texture of the book. They are just such extraneous remarks as the necessities of a later age required; for example, Gen. 36:31; Ex. 16:35. On the last of these, Graves, who considers it "plainly a passage inserted by a later hand," says: "I contend that the insertion of such notes rather confirms than impeaches the integrity of the original narrative. If this were a compilation long subsequent to the events it records" (according to the false assumption of some respecting the origin of the Pentateuch), "such additions would not have been plainly distinguishable, as they now are, from the main substance of the original." On the Pentateuch, Appendix, sec. 1, No. 13.
6. The contents of the first part of this book are peculiar. It is not strange, therefore, that we should encounter difficulties in the attempt to interpret them. To consider these difficulties in detail would be to write a commentary on the first eleven chapters. Only some general remarks can here be offered. Some difficulties are imaginary, the inventions of special pleading. In these the commentaries of modern rationalists abound. They are to be set aside by fair interpretation. But other difficulties are real, and should not be denied or ignored by the honest expositor. If he can give a valid explanation of them, well and good; but if not, let him reverently wait for more light, in the calm assurance that the divine authority of the Pentateuch rests on a foundation that cannot be shaken. To deny a well-authenticated narrative of facts on the ground of unexplained difficulties connected with it is to build on a foundation of error.
(A.) Of the difficulties connected with the first part of Genesis some are scientific. Such is the narrative of the creation of the world in six days. Respecting this it has already been remarked (Ch. 10, No. 3) that with all who believe in the reality of divine revelation the question is not respecting the truth of this narrative, but respecting the interpretation of it. As long ago as the time of Augustine the question was raised whether these days are to be understood literally, or symbolically of long periods of time. The latter was his view, and it is strengthened by the analogy of the prophetic days of prophecy.
Another difficulty relates to the age of the antediluvian patriarchs, which was about tenfold the present term of life for robust and healthful men. According to the laws of physiology we must suppose that the period of childhood and youth was protracted in a corresponding manner; since in man, as in all the higher animals, the time of physical growth—physical growth in the widest sense, the process of arriving at physical maturity—has a fixed relation to the whole term of existence. After the deluge, in some way not understood by us, the whole course of human life began to be gradually quickened—to run its round in a shorter time—till the age of man was at last reduced to its present measure. All that we can say here is that we do not know how God accomplished this result. He accomplished it in a secret and invisible way, as he does so many other of his operations in nature. On the discrepancy between the Masoretic Hebrew text, the text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and that of the Septuagint, in respect to the genealogical tables in Genesis, see below.
The unity of the human race is everywhere assumed in Scripture. Some modern scientific men have denied this, but their arguments for a diversity of origin do not amount to positive proof. They are theoretic rather than demonstrative, and the weight of evidence is against them. We must remember, moreover, that man lives under a supernatural dispensation. The narrative in the eleventh chapter of Genesis seems to imply that God interposed miraculously to confound human speech, in accordance with his plan to scatter men "abroad upon the face of all the earth." In like manner he may have interposed in a secret way to intensify the diversity in the different races of men. It does not appear certain, however, on physiological grounds, that any miraculous interposition was needed; and we may leave the question of the manner in which the present diversity among the children of Adam was produced among the secret things of which it is not necessary that we should have an explanation.
The question of the universality of the deluge is with believers in revelation one of words only, on which it is hardly necessary to waste time. The end of the deluge was the complete destruction of the human race, all but Noah and his family. This it accomplished, and why need we raise any further inquiries; as, for example, whether the polar lands, where no man has ever trod, were submerged also? "All the high hills under the whole heaven" doubtless included all the high hills where man lived, and which, therefore, were known to man.
(B.) Another class of difficulties is historical, consisting in alleged inconsistencies and disagreements between different parts of the narrative. For the details of these, the reader must be referred to the commentaries. One or two only can be noticed as specimens of the whole. It is said that the second account of the creation (Gen. 2:4-25) is inconsistent with the first; the order of creation in the first being animals, then man; in the second, man, then animals. But the answer is obvious. In the first account, the order of succession in the several parts of creation is one of the main features. It distinctly announces that, after God had finished the rest of his works, he made man in his own image. The second account, on the other hand, which is introductory to the narrative of man's sin and expulsion from Eden, takes no notice of the order of creation in its several parts. In this, man is the central object, and other things are mentioned incidentally in their relation to man. The writer has no occasion to speak of trees good for food till a home is sought for Adam; nor of beasts and birds till a companion is needed for him. Then each of these things is mentioned in connection with him. No candid interpreter can infer from this that the second account means to give, as the veritable order of creation—man, the garden of Eden, beasts and birds!
A difficulty has been alleged, also, in regard to Cain's wife. But this grows simply out of the brevity of the sacred narrative. The children of Adam must have intermarried, brothers and sisters. The fact that no daughter is mentioned as born to Adam before Seth, is no evidence against the birth of daughters long before. In the fourth chapter no individuals are mentioned except for special reasons—Cain and Abel, with a genealogical list of Cain's family to Lamech, because he was the head of one branch of the human race before the deluge. In the fifth chapter none are named but sons in the line of Noah, with the standing formula of "sons and daughters" born afterwards. We are not to infer from this that no sons or daughters were born before; otherwise we should exclude Cain and Abel themselves. At the time of the murder of Abel, the two brothers were adult men. What was their age we cannot tell. It may have been a hundred years or more; for our first parents were created not infants, but in the maturity of their powers, and Adam was one hundred and thirty years old when the next son after Abel's murder was born. Gen. 4:25. At all events, the interval between Abel's birth and death must have been long, and we cannot reasonably suppose that during this period no daughters were born to Adam.
(C.) The chronology of the book of Genesis involves, as is well known, some difficult questions. In the genealogical tables contained in the fifth and eleventh chapters, the texts of the Masoretic Hebrew (which is followed in our version), Hebrew-Samaritan, and Septuagint, differ in a remarkable manner.
(1.) Antediluvian Genealogy. According to the Septuagint, no patriarch has a son before the age of one hundred years. It adds to the age of each of the five patriarchs that preceded Jared, and also to the age of Enoch, one hundred years before the birth of his son, deducting the same from his life afterwards. To the age of Lamech it adds six years before the birth of Noah, deducting thirty years afterwards. In respect to the age of Methuselah when Lamech was born, there is a difference of twenty years between the Vatican and the Alexandrine manuscripts. The latter agrees with the Masoretic text: the former gives one hundred and sixty-seven instead of one hundred and eighty-seven. Thus the Septuagint makes the period from the creation to the deluge 2262 years (according to the Vatican manuscript 2242 years) against the 1656 of our Masoretic text.
The Samaritan-Hebrew text agrees with the Masoretic for the first five patriarchs and for Enoch. From the age of Jared it deducts one hundred years; from that of Methuselah one hundred and twenty (one hundred according to the Vatican manuscript of the Septuagint); and from that of Lamech, one hundred and twenty-nine—three hundred and forty-nine years in all—before the birth of their respective sons. This places the deluge in the year of the world 1307.
(2.) Genealogy from Noah to Abraham. Chap. 11. Here the Samaritan-Hebrew and the Septuagint (which Josephus follows with some variations) give a much longer period than the Masoretic text. They both add to the age of each of the six patriarchs after Shem one hundred years before the birth of his son. To the age of Nahor the Samaritan-Hebrew adds fifty, and the Septuagint one hundred and fifty years. The latter also inserts after Arphaxad a Cainan who was one hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Salah.
In respect to the variations in these two genealogical tables (chaps. 5 and 11) it is to be remarked: (1) that the authority of the Masoretic text is, on general grounds, higher than that of the Septuagint or Samaritan Pentateuch; (2) that in the present case there is reason to suspect systematic change in these two latter texts; strong external corroboration alone could warrant us in adopting the longer chronology of the Septuagint; (3) that any uncertainty which may rest on the details of numbers in the Pentateuch ought not to affect our confidence in the Mosaic record as a whole, for here, as it is well known, there is a peculiar liability to variations. With these brief remarks we must dismiss this subject. The reader will find the question of scriptural chronology discussed at large in the treatises devoted to the subject. For more compendious views, see in Alexander's Kitto and Smith's Dictionary of the Bible the articles entitled Chronology.