MSB Book Notes
Genesis, the title from the Septuagint, means "origins".  In Hebrew, it is "in the beginning", the first three words of the book.  Genesis is quoted over 35 times in the NT, and alluded to hundreds of times in both testaments.  The book introduces the Septuagint, and indeed the whole Bible.  The story line of God's salvation begins in Genesis 3, and doesn't finish up until Revelation 21, 22.

The author of the book does not identify himself, and the events it describes end almost 3 centuries before Moses was born.  However, large numbers of references in both the OT and the NT identify Moses as the author.  His background and education certainly qualify him to have written it.  It was written after the exodus (in about 1445 BC) and before Moses died (in about 1405 BC).  

The book begins before there was anything.  Eternity past is the term applied to it.  Then God spoke all things into existence.  Man is the crowning point of his creation.  Man was created as God's companion who would enjoy fellowship with Him and bring glory to His name.

MSB notes say "The historical background for the early events in Genesis is clearly Mesopotamian."  MSB says Genesis has three distinct, sequential, geographical settings.  First is Mesopotamia in Chapters 1-11, then the Promised Land, in 12-36, and then Egypt in Chapters 37-50.  The corresponding dates are approximately from creation to 2090 BC for the first, 2090-1897 BC for the second, and 1897-1804 BC for that third one.  Thus, Genesis alone covers more time than the rest of the Bible combined.  (Well...I guess that is true if creation goes far enough back.  MSB doesn't tell us when that was.)

In Genesis, God reveals Himself and a worldview in sharp contrast to Israel's neighbors.  There is no attempt here to defend the existence of God or to present a systematic discussion of His person and works.  Instead, the book clearly distinguishes the God of Israel from all other gods.  The foundations of many theological concepts are found here.  They are listed in the MSB intro.  

Genesis revealed to the people of Israel, when they were in the desert after Egypt, just exactly where they'd come from, all the way back to Adam, and then Shem after the flood.  They understood where their culture had come from along with their ancestry and family history.  What other culture ever had this?

Three traumatic events of epic proportions, namely the Fall, the universal Flood, and the Dispersion of nations are presented as historical backdrop in order to understand world history.  From Abraham on, the pattern is to focus on God's redemption and blessing.

Genesis has two basic sections.  The first is Primitive History, in Chapters 1-11, and Patriarchal History in 12-50.  The first has four events - creation, fall, flood and dispersion.  The second has four men - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph.
 

Chapter 1
The heavens and earth are the first things created in Genesis 1:1.  So a little hunk of dirt in the emptiness of space.  It sat there with nothing to pull on it gravitationally, with no sun, no moon, and no stars.  The Bible clearly says that earth predates all the things that modern science says it is made of.  It was "without form", so maybe not even spherical at the beginning, since there was nothing to dictate that shape - except its own gravity.  There was nothing on it.  It was "void".  Perhaps a collection of elements, but I'm guessing no compounds as this point.  And it was dark.  There was nothing to give any light at all.  Obviously, the first verse of the Bible is a clean break with modern science.  It makes no attempt at reconciling itself with science - either that of Moses' time, when the book was written, or our modern time.  It does not "predict" what science will discover, but sets itself apart as an independent history from the very beginning.  Since it is therefore a thing apart, we should look to whether it is internally consistent with what it says, and whether what we observe contradicts anything that it says.  That is, Genesis is not presented as a guide for modern scientific research.  Genesis is not written with the scientific method in mind.  It is observational, not testable.  By the way, evolution is also entirely observational, and not testable.  

On to verse 3....
Let there be light...before the sun or stars.  Light permeates everywhere, and just sort of "sits there".  But there shouldn't be light all the time.  There should also be dark sometimes.  So a cyclical pattern of existence is determined here.  No idea at all how there was day and night without a sun.

Vvs 6-8....I just don't know.  Almost as if the entire everything contained water, as vapor, evenly distributed throughout all that was.  And so God concentrates the vapor into the lump of dirt, and removes it from the bulk of what is.  The vacuum of space is the result, the atmosphere around earth is formed, containing all the water in the universe.  Maybe.  I have no idea if that's what this is about.  Seems like we have to be talking about saturation or super-saturation.  

Next, all that water vapor is further compressed and becomes water.  So instead of a water vapor saturated lump of dirt, the water is condensed - pressure increases maybe - and becomes liquid water.  This concentrates the water enough to allow unsaturated land to appear.  If evenly dispersed throughout all the dirt, we had a big ball of mud.  God squeezes the water out into "purer" collections, called seas.  The hydrologic cycle begins perhaps.  Once land and water are separate, in that same step, plants appear, and they have seeds and fruit.  These are before there is any death, before there is anything to eat fruit and disperse the seeds.  The seeds speak to reproduction, not to survival strategies.  So does the fruit.  Perhaps we need to note here that God is not just creating things as they occur to him.  He knows where it is all going.  He knows that fruit will be eaten and seeds dispersed with it.  But again, this is about living and breathing and reproducing, not about survival.  The phrases "according to its kind", "according to their own kinds", and "according to its kind" show up three times from 11-13.  It is difficult to insert "changing from one thing to another over time" into these three phrases.  I think the plural in the second phrase may mean various trees from an original tree, different fruits from an original fruit...but not kinds in the sense of bacteria as the fruit of trees.  

In vvs 14-19, we get the planets other than earth, the sun beyond, and the stars beyond that.  At this stage, there is a standard by which time can be reckoned.  With myriad physical bodies, things start to move, and larger and longer cycles come into being.  God had decided that light and dark needed to be separate, and now He implements that in a physical arrangement.  2021 - The planets, stars, sun, and moon are created to separate the  night from the day.  The two already existed - perhaps as God's plans from back in vs. 3, and now the idea is implemented?  I do not see how you can have both day and night without rotation and a distant light source, unless somehow the water vapor was refracting the light around one side or the other.  But that water vapor disappeared in vs 9, so after that, and before 14, how was there night and day.  I do not know.

Beginning in 20, we get things that live in teh water, and things that fly.  The waters swarm with living creatures.  That word is not used of the birds.  Vs 21 sort of implies that everything that lives in water was there from the beginning.  "Every living creature that moves" was there, and as a result, the waters "swarm" with life.  And these too were according to their kinds.  He tells the creatures in the seas to multiply and fill the waters.  The birds also are to multiply, but it doesn't say "fill".  There had to be room for more creatures than birds.  They were not to take up all the available spaces.  But the things in the water were to fill it.  Nothing else would be created to live there.

Vs 24 "Let the earth bring forth".  This is a new phrase.  One might almost see this as a natural consequence of what had gone before rather than a new and unique creation.  They are still "according to their kinds", but the mechanism of their existence is not as clear as the fish, birds, and plants.  In vs 25, he makes beasts, livestock, and everything that creeps on the ground.  So in context of this whole verse, God also creates all the creatures on the land.  These are not told to multiply.  Maybe he made enough of them to start with, and since there is as yet no death, they didn't need to expand.  Those in the water were to multiply, but so far, not those on land.

In 26 "Let us make man", in our image after our likeness.  So man is a "shadow" of the creator.  Man has some commonality with the creator.  This was not so of anything else.  Male and female.  Just those two.  2021 - Note that man's dominion does not extend to the beasts of the earth.  Only fish, birds, livestock, and creeping things are subject to man.  Beasts are specifically left out - that is, wild animals.  Non-domestic animals were not under man's dominion at all.  But...vs  28 includes every living thing that moves on the earth.  So...what changes between these verses?

2024 - Vs 26 says "and let them rule".  So God transferred ruling over all creatures except the wild animals to man..  Man did not rule them.  Makes sense.  
2024 - -vs 27.  In these times, you just have to point out that there were only two categories of humans.  Male and female.  
2024 - Initially, the earth was pretty empty.  So God commands Adam and Eve to multiply and fill the earth and SUBDUE it.  This implies that it was not just automatically under their control. They were tasked with subduing the earth.  Of incorporating more and more of it into their rule.  
2024 - Does vs 28 contradict vs 26?  26 left out the beasts but vs 28 say every living thing that "moves" on the earth.  That would include the beasts.  Here is the verse:
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." [Gen 1:28 ESV].  A note in MSB says that the word translated "moves" could also be translated "creeps".  In fact, it is the same word that WAS translated creeps back in vs 26.  Not sure why they changed it.  Almost all translations do this - "creeps" in 26, "moves" in 28.  The NLT translates both words "scurries along the ground".  So.  I think the two verses are consistent, and wild beasts are left out.  We were never to rule over them.

Man was to multiply, and have dominion, and to fill the earth.  To fill the earth.  Adam and Eve multiplying before Cain and Abel perhaps?  

2024 - This would mean there were children before there was sin.  This presents a lot of difficulty in one sense and answers many questions in another.  If they were born prior to Adam's sin, then they were not under the curse even after Adam sinned...unless God imputed that sin to them also, as Adam's children.  This is possible.  It almost has to be that way.  And if we continue with this, it was from these children, born before Abel and Cain and dispersed to begin "subduing", that had started "civilizing" other places, continuing to have children, and so providing wives later for Cain and Abel, and others.  I don't think the Bible is specific about this either way, and I am not smart enough to get the theological implications of this if it did happen this way, but I see nothing that excludes the possibility.

The reason for the plants is stated.  They are for food for people.  The animals will eat the plants also.  Everything will be eating plants.  But no death to anything that breathes.  Note that plants and trees were not given as food for the sea creatures.  We are not told what they will be eating.

Chapter 2
(I had hoped that my reading time would be shorter once I got back to the OT.  But so far, that hasn't happened.)
The seventh day declared as holy, because God rested that day.

2024 - He rested.  He let things run themselves that day?  No.  He didn't rest from being God, he rested from creation, from making new things that had never existed before.  

Then we seem to go backwards in time, and focus on particular aspects of creation.  The framework of it all has been described.  Now we will see some more detail within that larger whole.  Vs 4 introduces this by referring to the "generations" of the heavens and the earth.  This implies progression.  It implies passing time.  Generations of heaven and earth.  No plant or animal life is mentioned in this introduction.  Then, interestingly, the creation of man is what is described next.  

2024 - Vss 1-4 might describe the beginning of agriculture.  There were no "shrubs of the field" or "plant of the field".  Why?  Because these have to be tended.  They are not wild.  They require care, and there was no man to care for them.  Man does that.  Man tended the plants - worked at farming - from his creation onward.  Once man was around, Eden, with agricultural plants, was placed.  Doesn't say new plants were created for Eden but that God planted that place as a GARDEN.  It had trees and plants planted by God as food for the man and the woman.

Vvs 5, 6 are mysterious to me.  Nothing was growing "springing up" because there was no rain, yet the ground did get some water.  Man is created before it ever began to rain.  The mist that was coming up was watering the whole face of the ground...yet all vegetation was concentrated in Eden?  Not sure I'm on the right track there.  Hmm....There is a note that says "field" in vs 5 could mean open land.  Perhaps all the trees and animals on land were confined to a fairly restricted geologic area.  It didn't say they "filled" the land at all.  Doesn't say that plants did either.  Is very specific that birds did not fill.  So maybe there was the garden of Eden, and nothing outside it but that original dirt from which water had been concentrated.  Within that one area, there was food and room for all, but as they multiplied, the garden needed to be expanded, and this didn't happen by itself.  Man was created to aid in that expansion, to sow and to reap and provide more habitat for the expanding population of men and animals.  Remember, Adam and Eve were also told to multiply.  This fits with the next verses.
(2024 - The above paragraph is answered now by the 2024 paragraph above it.)

7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. [Gen 2:7 KJV].  God did this for us.  He breathed His own breath into our lungs, and ignited the human soul.  We were in his image.  Nothing else could jump start us, except the breath of life straight from God.  It cannot be started from a lightning-gathering contraption on top of Castle Frankenstein in Transylvania.  

2021 - Man is created first (before woman).  God "plants" a garden in Eden, in the east, and puts man there in that garden.  This was a special area, created/designed/decorated/landscaped by God as the place for man.  Eden was not just a random place.  It was God's created perfection for man.  A river flowed from the garden.  It flowed "out of" Eden to water the garden.  So...Eden proper was one thing, and a garden flowed from Eden into this garden that was on the east side of Eden, and this river then broke up and went down to Cush, Havilah, which is somewhere east of Egypt, where Saudi Arabia is today.  And remember that topography may have been very different pre-flood.  Saudi may not have been desert at all.  With all that oil there...But I also think that Ophir and Havilah are associated geographically.  I found this map, but it shows Havilah well south of Cush, and even further south - not east - of Egypt:


God specifically puts man in the "garden of Eden", not Eden itself, to work the land in the garden.  Man's first job is to cultivate God's garden.  One rule.  One plant is off limits.  Back in vs 9 we were told this tree was in the garden itself.  Not that Adam had a job before the fall.  Work is something men are meant to do.  We are to be busy.  This too separates us from the animals. 

2025 - These verses:    16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." [Gen 2:16-17 ESV].  It is very clear from this that Eve was not yet created when this order was given.  The order was given to Adam.  It would have been up to him to tell his wife what needed to be done.  In a way, Adam was the mediator between God and Eve.  He failed in this regard when sin came, because he joined her in it rather than atoning for her in some way.  He decided that it was best to join her than to separate himself from her and remain faithful to God's command.  Stated this way, we see the real magnitude of Adam's sin, we see why it is Adam that is considered responsible for sin.  He chose between God and Eve.  Later, we learn that a man is to leave his father and mother...so we see that Adam's choice was grounded in...or was the precedent for...the kind of self-sacrificing love God wants there to be between a man and woman.  They shall become one flesh.  How does one choose to go against one's own flesh?  Adam was in a terrible spot, and surely Satan understood the difficulty Adam would be in.

God decides man needs a helper.  Vs 19 says that all the living things - that breath - were formed out of the dirt.  So God created dirt, and then "formed" every thing else from the dirt he'd created.  So all that lives and breathes is created from what was created.  The sea creatures though...I still don't get them.  They don't breath though, not like land creatures.  Adam names birds and land animals.  But he does not name sea creatures and fish.  These are kept separate, because they are not the same.  Man needs some help.  I don't know if the word implies companionship or "labor".  If all the animals were named here, and each was being inspected to determine if it would be suitable as a helper, then no animal was "enough" to help man with all that he needed.  The skills just were not there.  So something new, custom made, was required.

2021 - Have animal been told to multiply?  Not that I can see.  He told sea creatures and birds to do so.  But I don't see where he has told animals to do so up to this point.  He told man to multiply back in 1:28.  Perhaps there was to be a static condition for animals and man and woman?  Things could have stayed just like they were, but for the fall.

Woman is not like the beasts.  They are made of what was made.  Woman was made of what was made of what was made.  Other created breathing things were created male and female.  Man was not.  So the female of the human species has a different substance than all other females.  Perhaps this is the origin of the mystery that the two become one flesh.  Because they have their origin in one flesh, not in dirt.  Not sure why intimacy invokes this mysterious relationship, but I think the origin of it is here.

Note vs 25.  They were naked and unashamed.  Had they yet been told to multiply?  I know we saw it in Chapter 1, but in this more detailed account, we have not yet seen it.

Chapter 3
Enter the serpent.
2021 - For the serpent to be here, and in opposition to God, the rebellion of Satan has to have occurred prior to creation.  
Satan calls God a liar.  Satan attributes to God the desire for supremacy that led to Satan's own fall.  God was from the beginning.  God never had this "ambition".  But Satan tells Eve that God "fears" being equaled.  So the reason Eve ate the fruit was her ambition to be like God.  To elevate herself to God's own level of understanding.  Knowledge of good and evil.  Not content just to enjoy life and work the land and eat and be happy.  Satan convinced her, he stoked the fires of her ambition - built in by God, for how could you want to serve God and have no ambition for anything else?  But she does not question the serpent.  She quotes God's order not to eat of this tree.  She was completely aware, but upon seeing that the tree looked really good, plus it would make her wise - and she desired now to be wise - she ate.  And she gave it to Adam.  Look at his choice?  Even had already eaten.  She was in a different  place than he was.  Her eyes were opened.  She was in a different "reality" than he was.  She had been custom made for him, and now she was not like him at all.  There was tension, there was separation and distance between them.  Did he want to obey God and condemn himself to that separation forever, or did he put his need for a helper above the orders of his God?  Pretty obvious which he chose.

2025 - The MSB footnote on 3:1 says that Satan rebelled somewhere after Gen. 1:31 and before 3:1.  How is it possible that I have never ever even once heard this preached?  It is important!  It ought to be a theological bomb shell!  There was no sin even in the angelic realm when man was created.  There was no threat that sin might come.  Why not create man and woman with this bond between them that is strong enough to rival even man's faithfulness to his creator?  And this is where Satan attacked!  Not at man's weakest link, but at his strongest connection!

Nakedness.  Always wrong, but not always recognized.  Why would this be?  It only applies to man and woman.  We don't call animals naked.  But the creation of woman is unique to the creation of other females.  One flesh.  Surely that is part of it...

This verse:
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." [Gen 3:15 ESV]  The serpent...I think we have two things going on here.  People hate snakes, and snakes bite people.  They kill each other.  But this is likely because "that old serpent, the devil" used the snake to deceive the woman.  The serpent - the devil - is the real object of God's curse here, but snakes share in it because of their part.

2025 - So...even though a created animal, the snake itself is cursed forever for its participation in this event.  Does that not imply that animals have a lot more going on than we think?  Animals have some measure of responsibility for their actions.  We see in the Law that an ox that gores a man is to be killed.  This too is holding an animal responsible for its actions.


Vs. 16 is the first place in this second account that we see children mentioned.   The need for children seems to have come about only after the fall.
2024 - No, that's not the way to look at this. Note the wording:
16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." [Gen 3:16 ESV].  "will multiply" is an imperfect verb in Hebrew.  It is about an "open ended" action, and is usually translated as present or future tense because these are more easily conceived as open ended than past events.  Here is an idea.  God says he "will multiply", and we might ought to see that as a CHANGE in the previous condition.  She had previously had children with no pain.  Going forward, that will be different.  Yes, it is just as easy to say that the painless childbirth that would have happened will now be painful, but I think the other interpretation seems more logical.  So a second verse that indicates childbirth before the fall.
2024 - We can also compare the other punishments.  The serpent will crawl on it's belly.  Previously it moved in some other way.  Adam will henceforth sweat and exceed his physical comfort level in order to provide, where previously it all came easy.  He cultivated before, but now he will have to work at it.  So in each case, something previously done is now made more difficult.  I think this makes good sense and explains a lot about early multiplication.

2025 - This last part of 16..."Yet your desire will be for your husband".  There is a footnote in MSB about this.  JM says that "The woman's desire will be to lord it over her husband, but the husband will rule by divine design.  This interpretation of the curse is based upon the identical Hebrew words and grammar being used in 4:7 to show the conflict man will have with sin as it seeks rule him."  I do not read Hebrew, but the note at 4:7 doesn't seem to me to "connect" back to this.  I put it in the notes because it at least gives the basis for this interpretation that I have heard for so long.  It is a little bit interesting that it was Adam that told Eve not to eat.  In a way, her sin was against him in that she defied what he had told her.  The consequences for her - for women - were dire.  Why would she not resent the authority who's command led to her troubles.  She would see his orders as insufficient.  He did not emphasize the cost of error, did not make it clear enough that disobedience would not be worth it.  

This verse:
22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--" [Gen 3:22 ESV]  What is happening here?  God told them that if they ate, they would die.  So they were immortal before they ate.  Now, this special tree, can give them back immortality if they eat of it, and they just might now that they are fallen.  So they must be expelled from the garden where the tree resides.

OTHER THOUGHTS....
There is no connection between things that live in water and thing that live on land or in the air.  Nothing on land evolved from what started in water.  So this evolutionary "fact" is just dead wrong.  Second, birds did not evolve from anything on land before it.  Birds were there first.  Evolution says birds came from land animals.  Evolution is completely wrong here.  If I wanted to make a career out of "disproving" evolution, these are the two places I would start.  The transition species from marine to land and from land to air.  They are disconnected in every way.

"In Genesis, God reveals Himself and a worldview in sharp contrast to Israel's neighbors.  There is no attempt here to defend the existence of God or to present a systematic discussion of His person and works.  Instead, the book clearly distinguishes the God of Israel from all other gods. "
This quote is from the MSB introduction.  Makes it clear that the Bible - that Genesis in particular - is not about science.  Creation is not scientific.  Genesis is not about evolution, because created things are complete and set at their first appearance.  It is not anthropology, because man appears as fully created may, all descended FROM a single pair, not dozens or hundreds of pairs all ascending TO modern man.  It is not about migrations, because peoples moved to where the divine plan sent them, because they were suited to that land.  Black people moved to the sun, fair people moved to the cold, and brown people stayed near the middle.  There were always variations in color.  If we want to look back at the geological history of the world, we don't need to go back billions of years.  We only need to go back thousands.  We are deceiving ourselves about any time frame longer than that.

First time, 2/27/19

1
And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.
Genesis 1:11 ESV
Seed before death, fruit before hunger.

And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars.
Genesis 1:16 ESV
There was light before sun or moon.

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
Genesis 1:20 ESV
Sea creatures and birds before land animals.  They are also to multiply, so God didn't fill the earth with them.  He may have only created two of each, expanding from a central spot.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 ESV
Only two sexes. They are also told to multiply.

2
then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
Genesis 2:7 ESV
Man created from what was created, but with God's own breath.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.
Genesis 2:15 ESV
Man had work to do before the fall.  Work itself is not a punishment to be disdained, but a part of the original plan.

Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.
Genesis 2:19 ESV
These also formed of what has already been created.  Don't remember this from previous reading.

Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Genesis 2:23 ESV
Woman made of what was made of what was created.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24 ESV
A very fundamental relationship concept.

3
But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die.
Genesis 3:4 ESV
The very first lie.

The serpent cursed.  On his belly forever, eating dust, and mutual enemy to man.  Satan?  Or snakes?  Or something else?  Never heard that Satan lives on his belly, but have heard about the bruising.  Two parts, physical and relational.

Woman cursed separately from man.  Pain of childbirth multiplied.  Not caused, but multiplied.  Part 1, physical.  Her desire contrary to her husband who is to rule over her.  Part 2, relational.  

Man a life of pain and hard labor.  No relational curse, only physical.

Chapter 4
Eve has Cain and Abel.  (Cain is pronounced cah-yin in Hebrew) Abel has sheep, Cain farms.  Abel gives the better sacrifice.  Cain kills Abel out of jealousy.  
Cain should have known from the skins provided Adam and Eve?  Or should have traded for what God preferred?
How did they even decide to offer sacrifices?  It has not been required of them directly.
2021 - Cain was oldest, and followed his father's footsteps in working the land.  We should remember that at this time, they were not eating livestock.  So Abel's sheep were about clothing, about the wool.  We might stretch it and say they killed and skinned the sheep for large skins to keep them warm, to sleep on, and so on.  So possibly Abel was "familiar" with shedding blood to make clothing as God had shed blood to clothe Adam and Eve.  But beyond that...We have zero information about these sacrifices.  It was apparently something that they just did rather than being part of a covenant of some kind.  The whole "don't eat of the tree" covenant is broken, with ongoing results - they will all die eventually.  But we don't know what replaced it.  Perhaps even this early blood had to be shed for mitigation of sin.  It is also quite possible that this is the first time sacrifices had ever been offered.  So neither brother knew what was acceptable, and they just both did their best.  The sin of Cain was in hating his brother out of jealousy about the offerings.  All Cain had to do was obtain an acceptable sacrifice and he would have been as favored as Abel.  But that's not what Cain did.
2024 - I note that both agriculture and raising domesticated livestock existed at the second generation of humanity.  According to the Bible, there were no hunter-gatherer times, followed by ag and animals.  The two may have coexisted, but the second did not "evolve" from the first.  So when thinking of archeology, superimpose this Biblical information on it, and fit that into the story, for a more complete understanding.  This right here "explains" Gobekli Tepe.  Archeology says it was too early for there to have been agriculture, Gen 4 says it could not have been too early for that.  I will understand G-T as a settlement very near the beginning of human existence, a very very early example of architecture, engineering, and city design.  Why do the doors at Chaco Canyon have the same outline as the pillars in Gobekli Tepe?  One could chase this rabbit all morning!

These are the first children after they leave the garden.  It seems a necessity that they were their first children ever, else the sin of Adam would not have cursed the children they had before the fall.  But then, the corruption of the flesh is not transmitted by a gene.  It is spiritual, and bodily...We almost need there to have been children before Cain so that there would be wives for Cain and Abel to marry.  But it presents other, theological problems.  MSB says Cain and Abel may have been twins since no time period between them is mentioned.  2021 - I don't think there were any children before Cane and Abel.  Sin is transmitted via flesh and blood from parents to children.  Not a gene, but still through childbirth.  Angels don't have children.  Their sin is their own.  Perhaps the reason there is no plan of redemption for fallen angels.  It is all on them.

2021 -This verse:
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it." [Gen 4:7 ESV]
When Cain's offering is not accepted, he is downcast.  God Himself speaks to him, and tells him that if he will but offer an appropriate sacrifice, all will be well, and God warns him that sin's desire is "contrary" to him - not in his best interest, but against his best interest.  The implication is that Cain's "human nature" is to prefer sin.  There is also the implication that sin "actively entices" people.  Sin sort of wants to "win" and pollute.  Satan's part in this is not mentioned, so perhaps this is just metaphor for human failure where sin is concerned.  Even so, at this early date, God encourages Cain to resist sin.  If we do not purposely, consciously resist, then sin becomes pervasive in our lives.  A good verse I think for Calvin's first - Total Depravity.  We always veer towards the road to sin.  We must exert force to stay on the straight road.

2025 - Note the phrasing comparison:
16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you." [Gen 3:16 ESV]
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it." [Gen 4:7 ESV]
In the first Eve's desire shall be contrary to her husband, but he shall rule (prevail?).
In the second, sin's desire IS contrary to you, but you must rule.
These passages are very similar in the idea they seek to communicate.  The response to someone or something with a desire "contrary" to us is to rule over it.  It the first place this rule is a God-ordained "status quo".  Of the two people - the one with a contrary desire and her husband - God says the husband SHALL rule.  In the second two - sin and Cain - the one who will rule is NOT fixed.  In the second, the possibility that the one with the contrary desire will in fact win is a real possibility.
We can see how "contrary to you" applies in the second case.  Sin is never out to do good for one to whom it is contrary.  Contrary in this context seems to mean "against what is good for Cain".  If we take that phrase and apply it to the curse, we get that Eve was to be against what was best for Adam.  That seems very insidious, seems like more than what is intended...but how else to compare them?
How do you "rule over" something that wants what is sub-optimum for you?  You have to be suspicious of all that they/it recommends, ferret out the "contrary" recommendations from the good ones.  The curse does not "make" women always work against the best interests of their husbands.  But that bent will always be there.  The possibility will be considered.  The husband must recognize it when it comes and resist it.  Rule over the contrary desire, NOT rule over the woman.  He must recognize and reject the things that are contrary to him.  Cain failed here.  The idea of murder was contrary to him, but he embraced it anyway, because it "solved" his problem, it "appeased" his anger, it "cured" his pain...or it seemed to do these things.  It promised what could never be delivered.

2021 - This verse, that I had never really noticed before:
8 Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. [Gen 4:8 ESV]  This is premeditation.  This is full on murder, not manslaughter.  There is an interesting note in TCR, which I will take the time to include.  Footnote 2 says: Hebrew; Samaritan, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate add "Let us go out to the field".  So these translations from the Hebrew to other languages all add this phrase that is not included in the oldest Hebrew texts.  These other translations felt compelled to blatantly add this phrase to emphasize the premeditation.  I looked at the interlinear, and the phrase is just not there.  But the interlinear shows a very very interesting aspect of the way this is written in Hebrew.  I will put it in using the "transliterated Hebrew".
First phrase:
qayin el hebel ah haya
Cain to Abel his brother came, (MY Translation!  Not real, but it looks like this in Hebrew)
Second phrase:
qayin el hebel ah harag.
Cain to Abel his brother killed.
These phrases look like verse in Hebrew, like poetry.  So easy to memorize and understand.  Wow!  There is more to the verse, and I don't know what it looks like in Hebrew, but this seems to suggest to me why some places in English translations take on a "poetry" look, and others are just paragraphs.  Moses wrote it as above.  The Hebrew Bible is the oldest we have.  Wow.  (And here I am two hours into this and I've covered 8 verses.  I was not going to do things this way this time, I was going to try and get through the daily reading pretty quickly and so leave time for more "focused studying" of various things.  Things like "end times", or adding notes to my web site, and so on.  But every time I read the Bible it's like I notice brand new things that are just too important to leave undocumented!  The bottom line is that now I need to speed up significantly.  So I will try...)

This verse:
10 And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. [Gen 4:10 ESV]  God knows about "secret" murder.  The ground itself knows.  The blood "cries out".  We see this from the very first human blood that ever touches the ground.  Over the millennia this blood builds up.  Today, in the US, with all the murdered children, it must be a cacophony that begs for vengeance from the One who hears it.  Manassah was the last straw for Judah because he sacrificed so many innocent children to idols.  He presided over the murder of countless innocents.  We are literally doing the same thing with abortion to children even more innocent than those.  God will have to do something about this or else apologize to Manassah, and I can guarantee that last ain't happenin'!  Shouldn't we as Christian's be happy to go down with a ship that so desperately ought to be sunk?
Possible FB post.  (Back to the OT.  Back to wrath and vengeance from God.  It has been so each time I've read the OT.  The contrast between Old and New is more striking every time I read them.)

2024 - This verse though...
11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. [Gen 4:11 ESV].  Compare to:
16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. [Rev 12:16 ESV].
First is Hebrew, second is Greek.  So their might not be any connection other than John had read Genesis.  Cain spilled innocent blood, and the earth accepted it and somehow cried out for justice.  The water from teh dragon was intended to kill, but the earth intervenes and prevents that.  The earth prevents injustice...I don't know.  But interesting.

2024 - Haven't thought of this before either:
12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." [Gen 4:12 ESV].  Here are the hunter-gatherers.  They are the ones cursed for their sins.

Cain's curse is on him, not on the ground, as Adam's was.  The ground won't yield for Cain - who made his living from farming.  He would no longer be able to do this.  His livelihood was taken.  Having no skill with livestock, he would have to wander, likely making his living stealing - as an outcast and a wanderer.  That's why people would want to kill him.  Because he would be seen as a threat.  Note that God reserves judgement of murder to Himself.  He puts a sign on Cain so that NO ONE ELSE will try to "fix" this.  For them, killing Cain would still be usurping God's place, and their punishment for killing Cain would be 7 times what Cain endured.

What people?  If there were at this time already people enough to kill Cain where ever he went, where did so many come from?  We are back to the second paragraph.  Was Cain the first human after Adam and Eve?  MSB for vs 14 says the population had greatly increased, but offers no ideas as to where all those people came from.

Cain marked to announce to all his shame, so he would be an outcast for life.  He moved to Nod, and he finds a wife who will marry him despite his crime.  There are apparently a lot of people in the world by this time.  MSB says that this wife was "obviously" one of Adam's later daughters.  It notes that by Moses' time this sort of close marriage was forbidden due to genetic decay.  It is noteworthy that Cain may have had no knowledge at all of this woman, and also that despite the curse on him, and the mark on him announcing that he was a murderer, he still found a wife.

Lamech, 7 generations from Adam, takes two wives.  Their names are given.  The first women's names after Eve.
Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.  So "the bronze age" shows up just a few generations after Eden.  No information given on how or why Tubal-Cain pursued this.  Nothing says all the plows before this time were made of stone.  Nothing about an explosion in agricultural productivity or military success to those who obtained the bronze and iron that Tubal-Cain forged.  Music also shows up at this generation.  
Genesis 4:20‭-‬22 ESV
Makes it sound like husbandry, music, and mechanical skill are all born in skills, not just learned.

Lamech kills a man who strikes him.  Possibly self defense but to me, worded more like angry retaliation.  He calls himself cursed.
MSB says self defense.  In any case, Lamech seems repentant of what he has done in contrast to the "who, me?" of Cain.

Seth born to Eve, possibly after 9 generations, but can't really be sure  She apparently had a lot of children, as did her children, that we are told nothing at all about.  

During Seth's son Enosh's time, people begin to call on the name of the Lord.  They begin to realize that sin separates them from God and that they need Him.  Perhaps this is prayer, asking God for forgiveness, for help in time of various troubles.  They accept that God is there, and is their creator, and has all power to effect events, and they appeal to him for that help.  No mention of idolatry to this point.

2025 - From some reading in Grudem Chapter 20, this might be about some on earth choosing to follow God and his commands, while others choose the sin that is contrary to them.  Cain chose poorly.  But some on earth stay faithful.  But what we see here is a separation.  The ones who choose to follow God are the sons of God.  

2024 - We might call this early religion a dispensation.  Cain and Abel knew to make sacrifices.  God spoke with Cain directly.  Enosh is only the third generation.  Adam and Even are his grandparents.  To me, "begin to call on the name of the Lord" is "begin to worship God".  Adam was right there to tell them the story, the whole story, and to tell them about offering animals and fat instead of grain.  They knew that God had intervened to judge Cain and sentence him for his sin.  So some at least held God in reverance, and they appealed to him for help.  Adam and Eve had only the one rule.  That didn't work out so well.  So next, we have people with no rules who are to figure out for themselves how to worship and how to behave.  This kind of religion ends with a big ark and a lot of rain.  And only one family that still worshiped God.  Either of these might have gone very well, but Satan was always there to ask "Hath God said....?"

Chapter 5

2025 - Look at this phrasing:
1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. [Gen 5:1 ESV]
3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. [Gen 5:3 ESV].
So as God man man in his own likeness, Adam "fathered" a son in his own likeness, in  his image.  God delegated the "making in our own likeness" to mankind.  We do this as God did.  Angels don't do this.  This is a key difference in men and angels.  I wonder...when Jesus said that angels don't marry perhaps he was speaking of marriage as the precursor to making others in one's own image.  Angels don't do that.  Men won't do that either when we get to heaven...that "reproductive" relationship will be gone.  But it does not mean that we won't have a special relationship in heaven with those we most loved on earth. 

Seth born when Adam was 130.  So not really 9 generations of years, just the storyline moving around.  Adam lives a total of 930 years.

Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Genesis 5:24 ESV

Noah is Enoch's great grandson, Methuselah's grandson, Lamech's son.  Is this the same Lamech that we saw in chapter four?  The first with two wives?  Or is this a different Lamech?  Methushael was the father of that Lamech, Methuselah was the father of this Lamech.  MSB says Methuselah died the year of the flood.  MSB doesn't comment on the two Lamech's.

After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Genesis 5:32 ESV
Were these his first children?  What a break with custom if so.

2024 - If you do the math, Lamech lived 595 years after his son Noah was born.  We know that Noah's sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth were grown and married when the rain started.  Noah was 500 years old when his sons were born. (Triplets?  Could that be right?).  We know that Noah spent 120 years building the ark.  So that would make Noah at least 620 years old when the rain started.  Lamech his father would have been dead for at least 95 years.  I think this is important in light of the whole "days of Noah" idea, where there were only evil people outside Noah's immediate family.  We get the idea that Lamech was a good man...and from this math, we see that he was long gone at the flood. We see this later though:
21 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born. [Gen 10:21 ESV].  Doesn't say by how much he was elder.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, [Gen 9:24 ESV].  This is about Ham, the youngest.  So the birth order was Shem, Japheth, Ham.  Even though 5:32 lists them as S, H and J, we see from this that S was oldest and H was youngest.  I am still not seeing anything that precludes their being triplets.  But then this one:
10 These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. [Gen 11:10 ESV].  Copying in some text from https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/my-three-sons/
"So, Noah was 600 when the floodwaters came on the earth, and two years later Shem was 100. Therefore, Shem had to be born to Noah when he was 502. We are not sure of Ham’s exact age in Scripture, but he had to be born after Shem. Thus, Genesis 5:32 (NIV) introduces us to Noah’s sons all together, and other passages give more detail about their birth order and age."  
BUT, Shem was the oldest!  And was born when Noah was 102!  So that tells us that the "500" in Gen 5:32 is just a nice round number.  No one prior to that had waited anything like 500 years to have children.  No one else is near a century mark when they have children (Seth is closest at 105).  Could be no one was exactly sure how old Noah was by the time he was this old!  Noah had no children until he was 502.  I am also bothered that the three sons are not listed in birth order in 5:32.  Remember what happened with Jacob and Esau.  This article (  http://www.e-prophetic.com/articles/did-noah-have-triplets/) is wrong, in that near the end it says Gen 10:21 makes Japheth Shem's older brother.  Here is that verse:
21 To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth, children were born. [Gen 10:21 ESV].  Shem is the elder brother, the first born.  Shem, Japheth, Ham.  Shem born when Noah was 102.  No one born when he was 500.

Chapter 5 is almost entirely genealogy.

Chapter 6
Opens with "when man began to multiply"  so we could be backing up and looking at a concurrent timeline.  It doesn't seem reasonable that these things didn't even start until after Noah was 500 years old.  If that is so, things got bad very rapidly.  MSB says these very long lifespans allowed the earth's population to increase rapidly.  Even at one every five years, a 500 year old man who fathered his first child at 100 would easily have 80 children, and with wives instead of a wife...think how many there might be?

2025 - The noteworthy thing in the first verses of Gen 6 is that the sons of God are placed in contrast to the the men who have daughters.  The sons of God are a different group.  Grudem suggests that the sons of God are the ones who choose to live godly lives, to the contrast to that would be men who do NOT live godly lives.  But those trying to be good, those trying to rule over the sin whose desire is contrary to them, nevertheless choose the daughters of men who let sin rule in their lives.  They took "whomever they chose".  In this, the sons of God did not defer to God, they instead did what was pleasing to themselves.  This is the problem.

The sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. Then the Lord said, "My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years."
Genesis 6:2‭-‬3 ESV
MSB says that "sons of God" is used elsewhere almost exclusively of angels.  It goes on to give several theories that have been advanced about this.  But then it says the NT mentions this in 2 Pet 2:4,5, and Jude 6.  

2024 - Putting in those verses:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; 5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; [2Pe 2:4-5 ESV]
6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day-- [Jde 1:6 ESV]
First, I don't see anything in Genesis 6 about casting angels into gloomy darkness.  We know from Revelation that a lot of them are in the abyss, but we don't know how or when they got there.  
Second, not staying in their position of authority sounds like the rebellion under Satan more than it sounds connected to these verses in Gen 6.  

MSB notes that to reproduce physically, angels had to have human, male bodies.  Possession maybe as in Satan's angels indwelling human men, and marrying human women as a most likely possibility.  This is an indication of the state of the world at the time.  Angels and human women together violated the ordained husband/wife order that God had previously set up.  This can be seen as an attack on the fundamental building block God had set up for human existence, and a reason - possibly a major reason - for Him to bring about the flood.
Is God's statement that man's days will only be 120 years henceforth a curse because of this?  Why are lifetimes shortened?  Or were they?  MSB says it means there were 120 years left until the flood, not that human lifetimes were to be shortened to 120 years.  Man was growing more evil, and God set a limit on how long he would give them to repent.  The Holy Spirit was very active at this time urging repentance from sin and allegiance to God.  But man was not responding.  (Still...seems like post-flood life spans are either much shorter initially, or they come down very very quickly.)

What are the Nephilim?  Are they the offspring of an angel and woman resulting in a being that is apparently quite powerful physically and were called men of renown.  Dake seems to think so and says it continued because the Nephilim were an attempt by Satan to pollute the human bloodline, so that it would be impossible for Messiah to arise.
John MacArthur says that the Nephilim are not the result of the unions in 6:2,3.  If you presuppose that angels cannot procreate with women except by possessing human, male bodies, then there is no reason to expect them to be giants or men of renown.  
Nephilim, according to the MSB, means "to fall" as in strong men who "fall" on others.  Presumably these were very large, strong, aggressive, violent men, where ever they came from.  MSB says in the note on Numbers 13:33 that the sons of Anak were not in fact descended from the Nephilim.  He says there were no post-flood Nephilim, they were all wiped out, never to arise again.  Hmm...if they were the product of the mating of angels possessing human men and human women, then there's no reason to expect they would not reappear.  MSB says the spies were exaggerating in their fear, bringing up the scariest warriors in legend and song that they knew of in order to prevent invasion.
(2/28/20-Clarification of what MSB says:  The Nephilim - giants - were already present when the sons of God began having children via possession with human women.  It was the offspring of this unblessed union between angels and men that produced the men of renown and mighty men.  MSB makes these different than the Nephilim.  MSB says there were no Nephilim after the flood, they never showed back up.  However, the human/angel offspring could and I think did show up.  Satan didn't give up on this strategy to so pollute the offspring of Adam that there were no pure men - no men only - that could be born as the perfect sacrifice.  Even so, to be "mighty men and men of renown" implies that in some way the characteristics of angels were passed in some measure to men by these angel/human unions, and that these children were "greater" than mere human children.   2021 - Pretty sure I disagree now with a lot of this.  Angels cannot procreate with humans.  They don't procreate at all.  The Nephilim may well have come from the strong dominating the weak over millennia and passing on their size, perhaps in purposeful eugenics.  After all, who would or could stop them?  This was genetics, not angels.  I think I have more to learn about how the "unholy union" of angels using possession and human women contribute to a world so evil that God destroys it - and almost all who inhabit it.)

2024 - This question of what is meant by "sons of God" keeps coming up.  I went through all my notes and gathered into one document all that has drawn my attention to the question, along with my comments.  I have put them in their own note under "Bible Studiess", then "Bible Study" and titled it "Who are the Sons of God".  

7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." [Gen 6:7 ESV]
Seems to me that there is a clear indication here that after God decides he is sorry - that's the Bible word - he made man, animals, creeping things, and birds, he could very well have started with a whole different strategy of things after the ark.  Dinosaurs before, but not after.  Reptiles in dominion before, but mammals after.  No bacteria before, bacteria after.  I am not saying this is how it did work, but that it most certainly could have been done this way.
The main point is that a very significant change in how the world works is about to take place.  This will not be an ordered continuation of how things have gone up to this point.  So any current theory that depends on ordered continuation will break down if it attempts to go back beyond the events about to take place on earth.  Anything that looks back more than about 7,000 years is extrapolating beyond a reasonable distance.
God specifically says in vs 7 that he will blot out man, and animals, and creeping things (reptiles and insects maybe?), and birds.  Yet two of each are preserved to start over...
In vs 17, it gets even more specific.  God will wipe out "all flesh in which is the breath of life".  God gives specific instructions on how to build this ark, as he gave specific instructions about how to build the tabernacle, and then the temple.  This verse:
18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. [Gen 6:18 ESV]
So, the original covenant, in Eden.  Then a covenant with Adam.  Now all from Adam to the flood, except for Noah and his are to be wiped out.  So God creates a new covenant with Noah.  There are no stipulations on this covenant as yet.  Interesting though, that something is built to go along with the covenant, and this becomes the precedent.

Of all the topics and interesting questions above, this is the one that really ought to receive the bulk of our attention:
Why was there a flood?  To answer this, the following two verses must be resolved:
First, from Genesis 1:31;
31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. [Gen 1:31 ESV]

and second, this verse from Gen. 6:7;
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." [Gen 6:7 ESV]

(Everything was good but the results were bad?  Separately all was good, but the combination was bad?  Fallen angels procreating with human women was bad?  MSB just says sin sorrowed God.  Not his creation as such, but the sin that he was seeing there.  What that created place, which had known no sin at the time God pronounced it good, had become is what God no longer cared for.  Yet all the creatures he had made for the earth and sky were preserved through the flood, as were the people he had created.  Creatures of earth and sky all started over from a single pair.  But sea creatures did not reset.  They continued as from the creation.  What about seeds?  Did Noah have seeds, or did seeds survive the flood?  Or did plants pretty much start over after the flood?)

(((((((THIS IS INSERTED from my reading of Psalm 29.  I think THIS is the best explanation for "sons of God" and Nephilim that I have come up with.  I think this "works", in that it explains things in simple straight-forward terms, is not phenomenological in that it does not require any supernatural powers on the part of angels.  God has to deal with angels being attracted to women.  He does so with a 120 year lifespan for humans.  But then, God has to deal with Nephilim - very LARGE humans - and the arrogance they are promulgating over all the earth, making themselves immune to God's will, and he does that by destroying all mankind - save Noah and his family.  Here are those notes:
2023 - Went and found that reference in Genesis 6 that talks about the "sons of God" looking upon the daughters of men.  In that verse, the Hebrew words translated "sons of God" are "ben Elohim".  So really not much wiggle room there for the translators.  Here in Psalm 29, the construction is "ben el". NOT the full Elohim, but only el.  Is that a contraction that was used in David's time that wasn't around when Moses wrote Genesis, but it means essentially the same thing? If we say it does, then the sons of God in Genesis can only be understood as heavenly, mighty beings come down from where God's throne is located and somehow "causing" human women to give birth to mighty men, these men among men, these stronger faster better than human men.  The causing could be genetic manipulation.  Genesis 6 does not imply that these mighty ones that resulted were bad or evil at all.  If you look at Genesis 6, they took human daughters AS WIVES, and the next verse says God at that time limited human lifespan to 120 years.  Why?  Well immortal angels somehow having children with mortal women might greatly extend the lifespan of that offspring....making all humanity prefer to be born of a woman and an angel instead of a woman and a man.  Angel and woman...spirit and flesh?  Hmm.  That does not seem correct.  Then Genesis 6 talks about Nephilim still being around - without explaining what they are - and we see that it is only then that we are told women give birth to "them".  Here is the verse:
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. [Gen 6:4 ESV].  
If we look closely at this verse, "and also afterward" is a prepositional phrase giving additional information but not fundamental to the sentence.  So we might read it like this:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown. .
So now, with that distraction out of the way, we see that "when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, is also a protracted prepositional phrase.  Noting this confuses us as to who exactly is fathering the mighty men of old?  What if we read it like this:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and they bore children to them.  
"Nephilim" is a masculine plural noun.  So the Nephilim are possibly the fathers of the mighty men.  It is also possible that the "sons of God" are the fathers.  But I think we know enough to realize that this is not the case.  The only example we have in the Bible of a spirit fathering a child is here:  
35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. [Luk 1:35 ESV].  What we know about this is that the Holy Spirit is part of the trinity.  This Spirit is God, a manifestation of God.  The Nephilim, and as far as that goes the "ben Elohim", are all created beings, and we have no basis for believing that ANY Spirit could "mate" with human women.  Maybe the angels just liked their company, and spent time on earth with them, and "took them out of circulation" because no human male could "compete" with an immortal angel for the attention of a woman.  This might also explain the 120 year lifespan.  Perhaps these sons of God, though they cannot mate with women, can keep them healthy and extend their lifespans for a very long time.  Taking these women out of circulation, keeping them from populating the earth, goes against God's order to go forth and multiply also.  120 years is not very long to an angel, and might well have been a disincentive for the angels to enter into relationships with women after that.  IF WE READ IT THIS WAY,
then vs 4 is talking about a whole different thing than vss 1-3 were about.  I think it was these Nephilim that were mating with women and the result was these mighty men of renown.  Here is the definition of Strong's 5303, the word Nephilim:  nᵉphîyl, nef-eel'; or נְפִל nᵉphil; from H5307; properly, a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant:—giant.  So given this definition, the Nephilim were not the good guys.  They were giants who "threw their weight around".  Perhaps someone had begun a human breeding program to produce larger and larger men.  Or women AND men, which would keep you from hitting a wall when the babies got too big for any normal sized woman to carry.  Perhaps the huge size and corresponding strength of these giants made them arrogant, and made them the "fittest" to borrow an evolutionary description.  These giants were taking over the world, doing what they wanted to whomever they wanted, and were so self-centered that they were pushing God all the way out of their consideration...and they were the ones in charge, and difficult or impossible to oppose in a time when hand to hand was the way things were settled.  And it was because of THESE that we get the next few verses:
5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. [Gen 6:5-6 ESV]
So that is enough of a complete "goose chase" this morning in '23.  I am copying this to Genesis 6 though because I think it has finally made good sense to me.  ))))))

God tells Noah exactly why there will be a flood:

13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. [Gen 6:13 ESV]
It is the violence, and the sin that produces it, that God will no longer tolerate.  It has gone so far, and consumed so many, that they are willfully resisting the Holy Spirit, and refusing to repent of their deeds.  It must stop.  God's patience is nearing its end.  This is what the last days will be like.  There were only 8 good people left on the planet at this time.

God informs Noah of what is to come, and tells Noah what he is to do to prepare.  God has a definite plan.  Further, he is going to preserve certain of his creations through this coming flood.  He is keeping man, as created, and all the forms that are on the earth, as they were originally created.  Normally, you would not expect things to go differently if you start from the same spot with the same things.  So we can expect that there will be something about the post flood world that is different than pre-flood.  Something will be different such that man does not so completely deteriorate to his base state.  What will be different?

Perhaps it will be lifespans?  Maybe it was having 900 years in a lifetime for Satan to work on, tempt, cajole, and torture into sinfulness?  IF lifespans were shorter post-flood, maybe this is why the human race has lasted longer post- than pre-flood?  We know that earth's climate will change dramatically.  There had never been rain prior to the flood.  Dew watered the ground.  Perhaps the whole world's humidity was higher, there were lots more clouds, and the planet had a warmer and more uniform temperature all over.  We do know that God said he was destroying the original earth.  Be careful extrapolating back past that event boundary.

Note that this will happen again, an earth destroyed by fire instead of water next time.  The Bible says the world will become as it was in the days of Noah again, and then the end will come.  Ultimately, His justice will wipe out all sin, and make a final distinction between the evil and the good, between those deserving of hell, and those chosen for heaven.

2021 - One last thought:  Don't bother looking for Eden, or the two trees.  They are long long gone.  Given the level of upheaval in the flood, it is very possible that even the relationship of the land to the cardinal directions has changed.

Chapter 7
1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. [Gen 7:1 ESV]
Doesn't say the whole family was righteous...or does it?  Is the you plural?   Interlinear, as I can understand it, indicates that you is a second person singular masculine.  So no, not the whole family, only Noah is here called righteous.

2024 - What about that phrase "in this generation", or in NASB "in this time"?  Doesn't that make it sound a little like the standard applied to Noah is different than that of some other time  - some other dispensation?  In the RCC by James R White, he says that righteousness and justification are the very same thing.  What if we read this as Noah was justified in this generation?  Look at this verse, back in 6:
9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. [Gen 6:9 ESV].  Righteous as in justified by faith.  This has always been the only way.  Blameless because there were no laws.  Adam and Eve had only one and couldn't keep it.  After them, God revealed things, sacrifices were made, Enoch walked with God, and now Noah.  So there was a "walk" that resulted from righteousness even in the earliest days.  Salvation was the same as today, but "there is no sin where there is no law".  Noah had to do his best to do what was right in the eyes of God.  And that was all that was required.  Getting it wrong was not sin because he had no law as to what was right and what was not...other than knowing sacrifices had to be animals to be acceptable.  He should have known that one rule.
2024 - But there is more than that...there wee clean animals and unclean, as we see in the next verses.  This implies a ceremonial law of some sort.

Of some animals - clean animals and birds - seven pairs of each are brought on board.  ESV footnote though indicates that it may have meant seven of each kind, not seven pairs.  Guess we aren't really sure about the word used.  It is translated several ways in the KJV, though many of the variations are because of the word used with it.  It is interesting that the animals were not loaded until the last week before the rain started.  MSB note says the extras would be used for sacrifices and for food.  I don't think meat was on the menu at this time.  And that would be a lot to sacrifice them all.  Maybe more to this.  Maybe God wanted clean animals and birds to dominate after the flood.  The world was going to change, maybe he knew it would take more of these to get going under the coming conditions.  In any case, and whether 7 each or 7 pairs, it applied to ALL clean animals and ALL birds.  That's a lot more room on the ark than I had thought.  And at that time, there was no difference between clean and unclean that we've been told about.  This might be Moses projecting backwards from his own time.  Never noticed that before.  Clean is clean, whether you know it or not.  Did Noah only gather animals that were right around there where the ark was being built?  Or like the paintings you see, did they come from everywhere of their own volition - drawn by God?  

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. [Gen 7:11 ESV]
We really don't know what these fountains were, nor the windows of heaven, but the implication is that they had not been open before, or at least they had not been open for so long.  There was enough water stored up, somewhere somehow, to submerge even the highest mountains.
2021 - If this was not a real flood, but only a local event, why in the world is the date it began given so precisely?  Guess it could be that this was the first time it ever rained.  But science can't explain, nor does it accept, that possibility either.  I think the precision proves that this was a recalled event, not a myth passed down.  

2024 - So we are very early in the process of life on earth.  Eden had animals, but only so many as could fit into and find food and water inside the garden.  So...Not like today with billions upon billions of animals, birds, and "creeping things", but only a relatively few.  And maybe there also weren't many different species.  Perhaps just so many as could fit into an ark of the specified size.  They all ate fruit and veggies or grass.  There were no carnivores.  Now, if you apply the pressures that evolutionist say bring about change in species, you see that there was no pressure at all for animals to change from their created forms before the flood.  They were told to multiply, not to multiply, evolve, and fill every niche of possible survival.  There was no factor to drive that change.  They became more, but not more kinds.
We know from the sudden and drastic shortening of human lifespans after the flood that something changed about the "environment" - a sure and certain climate change that we ought to recognize as God's plan - that made survival in the post-flood conditions of much shorter duration.  Perhaps that same "change" applied pressure, tremendous pressure, to survive in whatever way might be possible.  Eden was also destroyed in the flood.  That food source was gone.  After the flood, animals first became carnivorous, as did man.  So after the flood, there was pressure for both the tiger and lynx, the wolf and the fox, the eagle and the sparrow.  Not only did the animals multiply, but the species multiplied.  That is why no ark today could hold two of everything, but back then, we know exactly how big an ark was needed to hold two of every species.
This is a FB post!

This verse:
19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. [Gen 7:19 ESV]
Lest there be any doubt, the Bible says the whole earth, all the way up over the highest mountains, was covered with water.  It does not say that the earth's topography was unchanged by this flood, or that the mountains afterward were no higher than the ones before.  We don't know what all went on with the planet during this supernatural, worldwide event.  Also this:
20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. [Gen 7:20 ESV].  Precision again, just as with the exact day it started.  The water didn't just barely cover the highest mountain, but exceeded its height by 22.5'.  No man could stand on that peak and escape drowning.  It was just too deep.  No one who grabbed a log to hang onto would make it 40 days with no food.  This was not survivable, but for those prepared by God.

24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days. [Gen 7:24 ESV]
Nothing unprepared could have survived for 150 days.

2024 - Oh my...If we go with that concept that the number of species at the time of the flood was much smaller than those we have today, and we run with that idea, can we not also say that perhaps the whole planet was not yet covered with animals, and beyond that conjecture, that mankind certainly did not yet cover the earth?  Think of a circle of civilization centered on the Garden of Eden, but of limited radius, a radius that had expanded every year, but did not yet encompass the sphere of the earth.  To wipe out all life in a flood may not have required that the globe be underwater, but only the part where creatures imbued with the breath of life could be found!  It says nowhere that all the plants on the earth were killed.  They don't breath, fish don't breath.  In this way, you can have a geographically limited flood that does everything Genesis says it did!  The raven found carrion, the dove's flight range didn't reach any place where there were still plants.
2024 - A couple hours later.  Not sure this works at all.  There are fossils everywhere.  If these are for the most part a result of the flood, then they'd only be "thick" in parts of the world that were flooded and almost entirely absent elsewhere.  That is not - I don't think - what we see.  
The dinosaurs - the big ones - have to be seen as going extinct in the flood.  Only small versions of them remained...or they just didn't get big anymore and lost the post-flood competition for resources.  Starting to sound really "stretched" out there trying to "make things fit".  Shouldn't have to do that, because they DO fit. 

Chapter 8
Starts off this way:
1 But God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the livestock that were with him in the ark. And God made a wind blow over the earth, and the waters subsided. [Gen 8:1 ESV]  He remembered them before the curse.  He made provision for them in the darkest most evil time the world has ever seen, he protected them from that evil, and he "floated" them out of the results of that evil.  And then he established them after that evil was destroyed.  

After 10 months, the mountaintops could be seen again.  By then the ark was at rest in the mountains of Ararat.  Does not say The Mount of Ararat, just somewhere in the neighborhood.  vs 5 indicates that though the ark was at rest on a mountain, it must have been one of the highest around because the "tops of the mountains" - I would read this as the tops of the majority of the surrounding mountains - didn't show up until 2 1/2 months after.

2025 - In the tenth month the mountains could be seen, but by whom?  All living things with eyes were on that ark.  For Moses to write this, it had to be inspired.  It could not even have been passed down person to person from Noah, because...well it could, if Noah opened the window and looked out every day and this was when he was first able to see the mountaintops again.  I'm going with this.  Not that God revealed the day mountains would have been visible had anyone been alive and outside to see them, but the day first spotted land again from the window of the ark.

2025 - But what about this:
4 and in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. 
5 And the waters continued to abate until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains were seen. [Gen 8:4-5 ESV].
So the ark rested in teh seventh month, but the mountains were not seen until 2 1/2 months after the ark was on dry ground?  How does that work?  Not even mentioned in the MSB notes.  Only way this works is if the ark rested up on the highest mountain of the Caucasus, and out the window, in the only direction he could see, it was another 2 1/2 months or so until other mountains could be seen.  Seems kind of a stretch here.  Surely there is a better way to explain it?  

Raven sent out first.  It did not return.  Lots of things to eat probably...Or is there another point being made about ravens vs doves?  Perhaps the raven staying out meant that there was still a lot of decay and such out there, and it was not a good time to go out.  After the raven, a dove, a second, and the third does not come back.  The doves were looking for seeds.  That's what they eat, seeds not flesh.  That is what Noah expected to sustain his family when they left the ark, and that is what all the animals had eaten before the flood.  

This verse:
13 In the six hundred and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried from off the earth. And Noah removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry. [Gen 8:13 ESV]  601 years...after what?  Vs 7:11 says they went into the ark in the 600th year of Noah's life.  So that is the most likely reference.  

They leave the ark only after God tells them to leave.  They could see that the ground was dry around them, but still they waited.  We should also.  Even when everything looks fine to move on, we should wait for God's leading.

These verses:
18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves on the earth, went out by families from the ark. [Gen 8:18-19 ESV]
So everything that is, no matter where it is, originated at a specific geologic place - the door of Noah's ark.  All peoples, and all species, originated from there and spread over the earth from that time.  Fossils that disagree with that, that don't fit in with that, are pre-flood creatures who were buried and fossilized during the flood.  If they have no post-flood counterparts, then they didn't fit with the new ecosystem that came after the flood, or they grew to different specifications.  I can easily see "adaptation" in this scenario, but there is no reason to read evolution of different species into it.  And remember also that what lives in the water - salt and fresh - was not wiped out.  Those creatures can be traced back all the way to creation.  Land animals can, but they have to go through that choke point at the door of the ark.

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and took some of every clean animal and some of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. [Gen 8:20 ESV]  Noah took some of EVERY clean animal as a sacrifice.  This must have taken a while.  There was probably driftwood everywhere, too.

While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."
Genesis 8:22 ESV
Things have continued without catastrophe or upheaval since then, but the flood changed everything that came before it.  This is the boundary beyond which Uniformitarianism does not apply.

Chapter 9
2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. [Gen 9:2 ESV]
After the flood, animals and birds fear man. They did not before.  If it fears us, it is delivered to us.  Interesting that this same thing holds true when Israel invades Canaan later.  God puts fear into the residents of Canaan, and Israel easily overcomes them.  

Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
Genesis 9:3 ESV
This was also new.  No meat eaten before.  If the animals - the great big carnivores - were not given this natural fear of man, then the struggle might have been severe for dominance.  Prior to the flood, man was to "tend the earth".  He lived in perfect peace with all the animals, because they were not competitors for food.  They didn't eat each other, and there were plenty of seeds and fruit.  It will be that way again at the end.  Man and animals will be at peace.  Likely, we will "tend" them again.  2021 - Plants would likely not have produced enough food quickly enough for Noah and his family to survive on plants alone.  Perhaps this was part of why they were to eat animals.  And if we read this right, since it said earlier the clean animals were in sevens for food, it was probably a pretty close call for them to make it until the first crop came in.  I would guess that the whole family stuck pretty close together for a year or a few years.  

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
Genesis 9:4 ESV
I thought this rule was Mosaic law, but here it is way before Moses.  Or as with clean and unclean, Moses projected backwards when he wrote...This is a difficult question to reconcile.

5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:5-6 ESV]
Anything that kills man will owe a debt to God.  Capital punishment here.  As with Cain and Abel, the murder of a man, or maybe even the accidental killing of man by man, will be avenged by God.  2021 - Not sure how to read this.  A reckoning from animals that kill men?  Lions still kill men, even today.  I have no idea how this reckoning works.  One ought to be ready to address this question.

The Noahic Covenant Stated specifically:
9 "Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, 10 and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth." [Gen 9:9-11 ESV]
This looks like an unconditional covenant.  No requirements for Noah himself or his family or his descendants are listed.  There has not been a worldwide flood since that time.  There are still rainbows.  This covenant is between God, mankind, and creatures, and is still in force - still kept - by God.  But this covenant only had that one thing.  This is ONLY about no more complete destruction by water.  

2024 - There were no rainbows before the flood.  It could not be such a sign if it was already ho-hum.  The rainbow was "invented" after the flood.  Another sign of a significant change in the environment...perhaps even in the properties of light itself.

From MSB notes on vs 16 regarding covenants in the Bible:
This covenant with Noah is the first of 5 divinely originated covenants in Scripture explicitly described as "everlasting."  The other 4 include:
1) Abrahamic (Ge 17:7), 2) Priestly (Nu 25:10-13, 3) Davidic (2Sa 23:5), 4) New (Jer 32:40).  The term "everlasting" can mean either 1) to the end of time and/or 2) through eternity future.  It never looks back to eternity past.  Of the 6 explicitly mentioned covenants of this kind in Scripture, only the Mosaic, or Old Covenant was nullified.    
So four are listed here, Noahic makes five, and Mosaic is the 6th.  I have seen the Mosaic labelled "abolished", God "divorced" Israel.  But I cannot remember where  the Mosaic was ever called "everlasting".  Further, I believe some or all of the Mosaic will be re-instituted during the Millennial.

Lest their be any doubt about where science should look for origins, there is this verse:
19 These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed. [Gen 9:19 ESV]

The story takes a bit of an odd turn here:
20 Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. 21 He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. [Gen 9:20-21 ESV]
So Noah was first a herder, then a ship builder, and only now turns to farming?  MSB implies that fermentation did not exist pre-flood.  Noah got drunk because he had no experience with alcohol perhaps.  It may have made him do things he would not ordinarily have done.  Just like it does today.

Somehow, Noah ended up naked in his tent, and Ham saw him.  Seeing someone naked was obviously a HUGE deal at this time and in the "culture" - which was just Noah's family.  (Where did babies come from?  Total darkness?)  Because he saw, even inadvertently, and even though Noah's own actions led to it, Ham was cursed forever, as were his descendants.  Ham's people settled in Canaan, and it is the Canaanites that are later driven out to make room for the sons of Shem - the Semites, the Jews, the Nation of Israel.  

2021 - This verse:
25 he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." [Gen 9:25 ESV]  Noah is talking to Ham, but calls him Canaan.  What is that about?  The servant part may have been a family thing, not an everlasting thing.  It is odd to me.  Cush and Egypt both become world powers, though descended from Ham.  Maybe it is best not to read in too awfully many long term consequences of this.  Maybe it lasted only a lifetime.  I don't see how you could claim it had any currently ongoing consequences.  MSB notes says this is the basis for the "legal" conquest of Canaan by the Shemite descendants after Israel is freed from slavery.  Interesting that they were in captivity in a land settled by Ham's descendants, and then it is Ham's descendants in Canaan - one of Ham's sons - who are conquered and driven out by Israel.  The roots of this are very deep, but I finally have an understanding of why Canaan belonged to Shem's descendants.  This, in addition to, and pre-dating  the occultism and idol worship that later permeated Canaan.  Japheth would also seem to be "subject to" the descendants of Shem, as Japheth would live in the tents of Shem, worship Shem's God, and so on.  Shem was also the oldest, and Ham was the youngest.  So the order of these things is the natural order as most think of it.

Noah lived to be 950.  He and his sons were all born pre-flood, and Noah lived 350 years after the flood.  

Chapter 10
Table of nations.  Tells where the descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth settled after the flood.  These each founded ancient cities. Ham had a son named Canaan.  Each of the sons named seems to have had a city named after him - an ancient city that is.  Implication is that as each son reached adulthood, he took a wife and likely some others and moved into a new area, in compliance with God's command in 9:7.
Interesting that all these cities that we consider to be ancient, but sometimes thousands of years apart in founding, all started within a few generations of each other, at about the same time.  In archeology, it would look like a sudden explosion of people and technology.  Which is what they say.

There is a reference elsewhere, and an MSB note about it, that there were 70 nations originally, and that it is from this that the Septuagint of 70 men came, and somehow the world will end with 70.  Maybe I can find that and paste it in here also.  Japheth had 7 sons and 7 grandsons, all descended from Gomer or Torgamah.  Descendants of the other five sons of Japheth are not named.  Ham had 4 sons.  It is a little more complicated after that.  Shem had 5.  ((((I want to come back to this, but need to move on since it is Monday morning.)))))


I never noticed this before:
5 From these the coastland peoples spread in their lands, each with his own language, by their clans, in their nations. [Gen 10:5 ESV]
Each with his own language...so there was more than one language pre-Babel.  All the translations say it unequivocally.  I just never noticed it before.
(And again here:  20 These are the sons of Ham, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations. [Gen 10:20 ESV], and one last time, to cover all three of the sons of Noah:   31 These are the sons of Shem, by their clans, their languages, their lands, and their nations. [Gen 10:31 ESV])  HOWEVER, MSB says this describes the situation AFTER the Tower of Babel.  Wonder how he knows?  Must be some very specific language in Chapter 10.  Yep...11 begins with a pretty emphatic statement about this.

8 Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. [Gen 10:8 ESV]
Nimrod was the first post-flood.  There were others before.  Cush is descended from Ham, who was the one cursed, and these built the tower that led to the dispersal.

Babel was in the land of Shinar, settled by Nimrod, descended from Ham via Cush.  Hmm...Nimrod, the first mighty man post flood, was very likely a black man.  Nimrod also went into Assyria, and built Ninevah.  Nimrod was the second generation after the flood.  Noah was his Great Grandfather.

In the genealogy of "Egypt", everyone's name ends in -im.  Older translations like KJV don't call him Egypt, they call him Mizraim.  So each of his son's had that same ending to his name.  Not sure if the -im has a specific connotation.  

2024 - What about Rephaim, the giants?  Are they from Ham?  Some verses:
5 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, [Gen 14:5 ESV]
10 (The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim. 11 Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim. ... 20 (It is also counted as a land of Rephaim. Rephaim formerly lived there--but the Ammonites call them Zamzummim-- 21 a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim; but the LORD destroyed them before the Ammonites, and they dispossessed them and settled in their place, [Deu 2:10-11, 20-21 ESV]
It is an interesting speculation, that all these 'im's came from Egypt.  All the giants came from there...from Ham.  Cursed Ham, doomed to be a slave to his brothers.  The Philistines are also descended from an -im, and so have Egyptian heritage.  Wouldn't you think, based on this, that the Palestinians could/should go home to Mizraim?

Gen 10:21 tells us that Shem was the elder brother of Japheth.  Japheth's descendants are mentioned first, then Ham, then Shem.  Youngest, middle, then oldest?  Hard to tell really.

2024 - First, Nimrod was considered a "mighty man", but there is no mention of angels in his ancestry.  No mention of any of that kind of thing going on.  So someone classed "mighty man" can be descendant exclusively from human parents.  Ham was in NE Africa.  Nimrod, who built the Tower of Babel as far as it went, was his grandson.  The beginning of Nimrod's kingdom is listed as "Babel, and Erech adn Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar".  I don't know enough about Hebrew to know if this means all four of these places were in Shinar, or just that last.  Depends on where you put the commas and Hebrew does not have commas.  Notice that none of these four are listed on the map above.  Shinar is shown well over to the East of the lands of Ham, isolated over there all by itself.  Why would Nimrod go way over there to start a country?  Note also that this is very near - probably includes - the location of future Babylon, and to the south - again probably within Shinar - we find all those extremely old cities like Uruk that are credited with being the first to develop agriculture and so grow into truly large places.  We know that Abel was already practicing ag though, way before this.  Perhaps Nimrod, post-flood, in the very fertile Tigris Euphrates valleys, organized the labor into those who grew much more than they needed in order to supply the city/cities.  isn't this exactly the kind of ambition that might make one try building a tower all the way up to heaven?  I found several maps showing a location for Babel, all are over here in Shinar.

https://www.biblecartoons.co.uk/images/1057.jpg

Chapter 11
Tower of Babel.  Languages originate.
2 And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. [Gen 11:2 ESV]
These would likely have been the descendants of Ham, according to the map above.  They were the ones in the east originally.

2021 - This verse:
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth." [Gen 11:4 ESV]  "lest we be dispersed" is a direct contradiction of God's command to Noah and his sons after the flood.  They also had learned to fire bricks, and use "bitumen" for mortar.  If bitumen is truly organically derived, it would not have existed pre-flood.  So there may well have been new materials available and human knowledge was expanding exponentially during this time.  We should look to the pace of expanding knowledge rather than "inserting" millions of years of minute and incremental increases in knowledge to explain history.  I wish I was smart enough to delineate the kinds of things that would distinguish the two.  Perhaps there is a "technology" explosion in the same way that geology finds a Cambrian explosion of life.
2023 - So if the above is correct about bitumen, then it also implies that it takes a lot less than millions of years for it to occur.  This may be another aspect of having the whole world covered with water.  Intense hydrostatic pressures, but I would think the temperatures were normal are just a bit sub-normal at depth.  There could have been many feet of sediment atop the drowning vegetation too, burying it quite quickly as the waters rose and the mountains eroded.
Possible FB post

If the whole world shared one language:
6 And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. [Gen 11:6 ESV]
The only thing holding men back from the things in the science fiction books are differences in language.  This is a permanent hindrance to unbridled progress.
2023 - Will AI remove this hindrance?  Oh my...that is an interesting thought.   God confused languages to put a stop to this level of cooperation.  Did He see this as "all bad", or was it just that in building this tower, these peoples were doing just the opposite of what God had intended for them?  The flood was already over...maybe this trend was one of the things that had led to the complete corruption of man, with himself as unlimited and not obligated to worship God, so God pre-empted it this time with language. And just maybe that unrestricted interaction via AI is about to lead once again to the pre-Noahic situation, and a second end to the planet, this time in fire.  Hmm...
Possible FB post.

The Trinity in the OT?
7 Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another's speech." 8 So the LORD dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. [Gen 11:7-8 ESV]
Yes.  MSB refers all the way back to Gen. 1:26, which reads like this:
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." [Gen 1:26 ESV]

2021 - Beginning in verse 10, detailed genealogy of Shem, from whom Abram will come.  This genealogy is most important because David and Christ also come from this line.  I don't think we get this detail on Ham or Japheth.  The genealogy of Shem continues sort of "straight line" to Abram and his brothers.  Then the focal point shifts to Terah, Abram's father, and gives much more detail about his three sons and their descendants.

Abram descended from Shem, but Canaan from Ham.  Conflict from the beginning.

Goes into a lot more detail here about the descendants of Shem than it did in 10:21 and after.  This is because from Shem come the people of Israel.  
It is interesting to note that Terah  took both Abram and Lot and headed for Canaan.  But for some reason, on the way, they stopped in Haran and stayed there.  Terah dies in Haran...maybe he got sick and that is why they stopped.  So it was Terah that sort of got Abram and Lot together.  Terah separated his three sons at this point and headed east, leaving Abram's brothers Haran and Nahor in Ur.
2023 - It is possible that Terah founded Haran, rather than just settled there, in memory of how own son Haran, who "died in the presence of his father" in Ur of the Chaldees.  Wow!  Perhaps a favorite son.  Perhaps Terah's continuing grief for his favorite son contributed to Abram's willingness to leave his father and undertake a journey of undetermined destination?

Chapter 12

2024 - Note that the Chronological Bible inserts the book of Job between Genesis 11 and 12.

2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." [Gen 12:2-3 ESV]

This is the first time God makes a recorded promise to Abram.  Nothing about land yet, just a promise of blessing to both Abram and to all the earth through him.

Abram told by God to leave his home and go to where God would send him.  Not a lot of background on his life before then, nor any indication of why he was chosen of all others.  He was already 75 when he left.  Lot, Abram's nephew, went with him. 

2021 - We know that Abram's father Terah dies in Haran.  It is not obvious from vss 2,3 whether Abram left before or after Terah died.  It does seem that there were quite a few besides those specifically named in Chapter 11 who were with them.  And Abram is told to leave his father with those.  Servants, strangers?  We really don't know.  But since Abram is told to leave his father's house, it would make better sense that Abram left while Terah was still alive.

2024 - Doesn't say Abram was a good man and was chosen because of that to be the father of a great nation through whom the whole world would be blessed.  It is almost like the Bible goes to extra trouble so we DON'T think something Abram did put him in this position.  He was God's choice and for God's own reasons.

7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him. [Gen 12:7 ESV]

As Abram passes through Canaan, God tells him He will give this land to Abram's offspring.  Does not say to Abram.  So Abram builds an altar here, then another near Bethel.  This is the first time God promises land to Abram.  The exact dimensions of the land - its extent - is not mentioned here.  Abram builds a first altar in Moreh, but he does not encamp there.  It says at that time the Canaanites were in the land.  It was already occupied.  From there, he moves on to Bethel and it is there that he encamps between Bethel and Ai.  Bethel on the west, Ai on the east.  He builds a second altar here.  But again, he does not stay.  He goes on, toward the Negeb.

They go to Egypt to escape the famine (sounds familiar!).  Abram has Sarai say that she is his sister, lest he be killed and her stolen.  Does not say how old she was.  She is so beautiful, she is taken into Pharoah's house.  This is the wording in every translation I looked at.  "Taken into his house".  And because Abram's "sister" is in Pharoah's house, Abram is treated well there, and accumulates livestock and servants.  But God sends plagues on Pharoah.  He is upset that Abram lied, and said she was his sister, else Pharoah would never have taken her into his house.  Wonder just how far this went?  Doesn't say she did, doesn't say she didn't.  But it does say Pharoah took her for his wife.  Not just for a servant girl or anything like that.  Back in vs. 3 God promised to curse anyone who dishonored Abram.  Taking his wife was surely dishonoring, though it was not intentional.  In any case, Abram and all he has gets sent away.

This map is copied from Blue Letter Bible.  I saw no copyright information about it.  I like it because it shows both Ur and Haran, and because the colors indicate how much of "civilization" as on the seacoasts rather than the interior of Arabia and North Africa, but Europe/Near East was settled extensively.

Chapter 13

He goes back to the Negeb.  It says he was very rich.  God had enriched Abram while he was in Egypt.  He left there with much more than he had entered with, because of Sarai.  This is the same thing that will happen later.  Jacob will enter, but 400 years later, his descendants will leave with the riches of Egypt. 

He goes on from Negeb to the altar he built between Ai and Bethel.  He and Lot are very wealthy in herds and flocks, so much so that there is not enough room for both.  Their herdsmen sort of "war" with each other over grazing land and such - I imagine.  Abram gives Lot first choice, and Lot chooses the Jordan Valley in the direction of Zoar.  Abram goes to Canaan while Lot settles "among the cities of the valley and moved his tent as far as Sodom".  Sodom's men "...were wicked, great sinners against the Lord."  The map below shows Bethel, where Lot and Abram were in competition.  To the right is south of them, as they looked west, with the Dead Sea and the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Zoar, and at the south end of the Dead Sea, the Valley of Siddim - apparently a very fertile place, and so Lot chose the right.  Abram stays in Canaan, where there are more mountains and highlands and great fertile valleys.

2024 - Don't recall where I found this map.  Notice, however, that it shows roads from Chaldea/Shinar into Israel in the West.  Two routes, one north of the desert, one south.  You can still trace these routes out on Google Earth, but I note that other roads are now the "main" roads. The ancient routes are still visible, they still have roads, but the more modern roads are more direct, likely because there are no longer camels that must be watered in crossing the deserts. 

14 The LORD said to Abram, after Lot had separated from him, "Lift up your eyes and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, 15 for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted. [Gen 13:14-16 ESV]

These verses are the second time God has promised the land to Abram.  This time, it is to Abram and his offspring forever.  I note that God doesn't say "This is all the land I will give you".  It does say that whatever Abram can see from that spot will belong to him and to his descendants.  Perhaps this is the land that Abram himself controlled, and yet add'l lands will be given to Israel as God looks after it.  This verse is pretty specific that Abram will be given this land:

17 Arise, walk through the length and the breadth of the land, for I will give it to you." [Gen 13:17 ESV]

Abram sets up his tent (establishes a settlement?) near the oaks of Mamre, which are at Hebron.  He builds a third altar here. 

2021 - So we might assume that Lot's chosen area is "over the horizon" to the south of Hebron. 

Chapter 14

There is a regional war in all the area around Lot and Abram.  Many Kings are mentioned.  Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned, and these seem to generally be located near the south end of the Dead Sea.  Zoar is mentioned, and it too is shown on "Bible maps" as being in this area.  There were several place names that I could not locate.  King Chedorlaomer leads a group, and they battle those rebelling against the 12 year rule of Ched. 

2021 - Chedorlaomer is King of Elam, which is to the SE of Shinar, on the Persian Gulf.  This was a fairly widespread war, as it goes all the way to the Sinai peninsula.  This war goes on for some time.  Chedorlaomer's forces defeat a number of armies that come out against them, and do sort of an enforcement action bringing various places over in the west back under Ched's rule.  Among those defeated are the Rephaim, the Zuzim, the Emim, and the Horites, along with the Amalekites, and the Amorites.  All these seem to be south of the Dead Sea.  The Amalekites and Amorites are toward the north end of the Sinai Peninsula, and as the campaign is described, they were sort of a far western stroke after defeating kings in northwestern Saudi.  After the far west, Ched's army swings north toward the southern end of the Dead Sea itself.  This is where Sodom and Gomorrah, and Zoar are located.  Ched continues his campaign to re-establish his rule, Sodom and Gomorrah fall.  As described, this seems to have been the culminating battle of the campaign.  These nations were more north of where the previous battles seem to have been and in this last battle, we find the King of Shinar.  Since Shinar borders Elam back over in the east, it is a bit confusing as to what he was doing all the way over at the Dead Sea.  Perhaps he thought to cut Elam's supply lines and surround Chedorlaomer.  This seems to be a real reach for Shinar, at least according to the map above.  I did find some additional explanation here:  http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/Chedorlaomer.htm

I think that these events, like many so remote in time and culture and language from us, may never have any real clarity, and should be read in a general context.  These things took place in about 1000 BC as nearly as I can tell.  The main point in the link above is that three of the four kings mentioned in Genesis 14 are also mentioned in surviving artifacts from that same time.  This is an external corroboration of a Biblical account from 3000 years ago.  This is one of those "ties" between Biblical history and secular history, giving weight to the historical "credibility" of the Bible that ought to extend to details that secular history has not preserved.

Also - much is made of some of these defeated by Chedorlaomer.  The Rephaim, Zuzim, and Emim were/are all thought to have been "giants" or at least peoples taller than other peoples of the time.  I did not choose to go down this trail to see what more is here.  We will see the Rephaim again in Joshua's time, so we know that while Chedorlaomer defeated them here, he apparently did not wipe them out as a race.

2024 - If you trace out the route by looking at each place named in vss 5-9, it is pretty obvious that the "Kings of the East" took the northern route and attacked Ashteroth-karnaim first.  It is NE of present day Damascus.  Then they moved on southward, conquering as the went.  The only one I cannot place is Ham, which, in order, would be South of A-K and north of S-K.  But the Land of Ham is Egypt.  They went as far south as Mt. Seir - Edom, but do not appear to have gone into Egypt herself.  One wonders then why the King of Zoar would have been drawn into this conflict.  That's a long way off. But...perhaps that is why the Eastern Kings turned back to go home after Mt. Seir.  I note that the King of Zoiim is allied with the Eastern Kings.  That ending on the word implies an Egyptian King.  Perhaps he was hoping to have the Eastern Kings help him against Zoar, but they decided against it.  It was on the way back to the East that Sodom and Gomorrah fall, after/around the time of the battle at the Dead Sea. 

It says there were bitumen pits, and as the armies of the Kings of Sodom, Gomorrah, and others fled, some fell into the pits, and some fled to the hill country.  Wonder what might be excavated from those pits if they are still there?  The armies against Ched are routed and all their possessions and provisions are taken.  Lot and his family are taken captive.

Abram gets word of this.  (Mamre is a name, of an Amorite.  So Abram is living among the Amorites at this time.)  Abram takes 318 trained men - apparently Abram had foreseen the need for a defensive force at his disposal - and divides them into two groups and then attacks by night, and defeats all these kings.  Hard to believe it was a very large group, and that they had done so much damage.  Yet that is what it says.  Those kings were chased to north of Damascus.  And they weren't just defeated.  Abram recovers all the loot they'd taken, his own family, and all the women of the people.  Abram had "preserved" the people of Sodom and Gomorrah incidentally to recovering his nephew.  I often wonder how the evil are not punished until later in the Bible, but here I see that the evil are even sometimes preserved in order for God to do good to His own.  Sometimes the good suffer with the bad, other times the bad benefit from even a little bit of good among them.

This might make a good FB post. Genesis 14.

As he returns home, the King of Sodom meets Abram, and Melchizedek king of Salem brings out bread and wine.  Says he is king of Salem, not part of Sodom, though he could have been there when the King of Sodom came out.  Melchizedek is a priest of God Most High, before the Aaronic priesthood and before the Levites.  This priest blesses Abram.  Abram gives Melchizedek a tenth of all his spoils.  This is before the law. 

2023 - It is also quite important that Melchizedek is BOTH King and High Priest.  We don't see another one like that until Jesus.

Abram won't take anything offered by the King of Sodom.  He doesn't want that King to be able to say "I have made Abram rich" - which probably means Abram did not want to be under obligation to the King of Sodom in any way.  Further, when Abram names those who should get a share because they went with him, there are three names, including Mamre's.  So Abram took his own 318 trained men, but he may well have taken many others under the leadership of these other three Amorites. 

2021 - Couple of other things.  Note that Abram follows Ched as far as Dan, and as he defeats Ched, he chases the remnants of Ched's army to north of Damascus.  So thinking about this, we might say that instead of cutting across the middle of Saudi to go home, Ched is going "around the circle", north, then west, then south, through Babylon on his way through Shinar to reach Elam.  The "order" in which Ched had attacked his enemies indicates that he had come across the interior of Saudi to begin the battle, perhaps surprising many of them, and so defeated them with what may have been a relatively small force.  (No, this is not correct.  He went around the northern route.  See above.)  However, when it came to that final battle, he still managed a resounding defeat, looting all the cities near the south end of the Dead Sea, and then he started north on the long roundabout journey home.  Perhaps summer had arrived by this time and going back across the desert would have been suicide.  So many details we don't know.

Chapter 15

Abram complains to God that despite God's promises, he has no son, and one of his servants is to inherit all that he has.  God shows him the stars, tells him his offspring will be as many, God tells Abram this:

5 And he brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 6 And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. [Gen 15:5-6 ESV]

Very important verse.  Before the law was written, before Christ.  God tells Abram that he will still have a son of his own.  It is this promise of a son that Abram believes, and it is counted as righteousness. 

2021 - He believes what God tells him despite very compelling, visible, explainable evidence that the promise is not possible.  This is faith - choosing what you cannot see because God promised it, instead of believing what you can reasonably logically expect based on human understanding and natural law.  This is really it isn't it?  This is the essential, fundamental difference between believers and unbelievers.  Unbelievers require an explanation based on natural law, and natural law only.  Nothing inexplicable is allowed.  Believers see inexplicable events all around them, and attribute these directly to a God who is beyond natural law.  This is the difference.  This is faith.

Possible FB post.

2024 - We know that Abram was following God's orders from the time he left Haran.  God was speaking to him.  But it is not until here, in 15:6, that we are told Abram's faith was great enough to save him.  Now what does that mean?  Is  it possible for non-believers to do a lot of things according to God's direct word to them,  and to experience the worldly success that might accompany that, but not truly believe until some time later when they get over the "I appreciate the help" mentality and get to the "I trust you and you alone to do the impossible" state?  Was Neb like Abram before Abram gets to 15:6, but Neb never got there?  Seems a big stretch...but surely it is significant that Abram's faith is not mentioned until we get here.  Unless...what were those two stages...repentance and then made righteous?  Adam and Eve were sinless, but not righteous.  Abram was not sinless or righteous...well, if there was no law at all it was pretty easy to be sinless.  No sin was imputed before the Law, but you still had to "become righteous" through faith in order to have right standing with God.  This is the first time those terms have made sense to me. To get into heaven you must be both sinless and righteous.  It has always been thus.  With the Law came sin.  Boatloads of sin.  And sacrifice was required to remove that sin.  But faith made  you righteous, then as now.  And Jesus eventually paid for all those "carried forward" sins.  AND, his righteousness in living a sinless life with Law all around him, is imputed to us also.  That is how it works.

He organizes and runs his business based on the belief in the fulfillment of that promise.  This is the original salvation by faith, the one way to righteousness, and still the only way.

God has Abram bring a sacrifice, then a deep sleep falls on him, and God reveals some of the future to him, including:

13 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. [Gen 15:13 ESV]  The long captivity in Egypt, predicted many generations in advance.

16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." [Gen 15:16 ESV]

Israel was staying in Egypt until  the time was right for the Amorite nation to fall at their hand.  The Amorite nation was apparently growing more and more evil, and likely God had set in motion the characteristics found in Romans 1, but was waiting until they were so evil, that God is glorified in bringing about their downfall.  This seems to imply that a generation is 100 years.  The fourth generation - four hundred years in Egypt. 

2024 - God already new that the Canaanites were evil and had to fall.  But he waits to actually bring about their judgment so that become so unbearably recognizably evil that when they fall the whole world knows they got what they deserved, the world knows there is a God in heaven, and the whole world knows that God sets up Kings and he brings them down.

2024 - From the map below, we see that it was in fact the Amorites that were settled in the entirety of what became Israel, and more besides.  Hivites, Girgashite, Perrizites...all those were apparently subsets of the Amorites based on Kingly lines or some such thing.  But when God says here that it is not yet time to deal with the Amorites, THIS is what he means.  They had to get worse before Israel invaded and carried out God's judgment of these awful people.  Wow.

https://www.bible.ca/archeology/maps-bible-archeology-amorites-2000-1400bc.jpg

https://www.bible.ca/archeology/maps-bible-archeology-moabites-2000-1400bc.jpg

https://www.bible.ca/archeology/maps-bible-archeology-edomites-2000-1400bc.jpg

Abram has brought sacrifices to God, and kept the birds off them all day.  Then he goes to sleep and the captivity in Egypt and the promise of the land are given. It says God made a covenant.  There is a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch.  Need to see what MSB says about these when I get more time.  (2021 - The smoke represents the Holy Spirit and the torch represents fire?  I never thought of this before, but surely this is what this is about!  It ties the promises of salvation to Abraham with the promise of salvation to the whole world.  How in the world can anyone believe that the Bible is not inspired by God when such things - so very far apart - in such completely different manuscripts - recapitulate each other in this way!?!?  The MSB note on vs 17 doesn't say this is the symbolism.  It says that it was God alone passing between the animal pieces to symbolize his promise to Abram.  I think it is more than that.)

Possible FB post to follow up the one on Gen 15:5...

2023 - In Acts, when the Holy Spirit comes on Pentecost, there are tongues of fire.  This is the symbolism I see.  And it is just jaw dropping to me.

God promises Abram again - the third time I believe - and this time it is far more specific than previously, as follows:

18 On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, "To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites." [Gen 15:18-21 ESV]

Note that it says "on that day the LORD made a covenant".  He had made two previously.  I would assume that they are contained inside this  one.  Each of the earlier ones was along these lines, but not nearly so specific as this.  God reveals all this to Abram after Abram complains, and questions God about how, or even if, the promise will be fulfilled.  Once Abram believes God's answer that the promise is true, God reveals much more to him.

2024 - From the Nile to the Euphrates.  From river to river.  From the river to the sea is nothing.  It is made up by descendants of the Amorites.  AND, if you run things from river to river, the divisions in Ezekiel might "fit" into Israel.

Chapter 16
Sarai gives Hagar to Abram so he can father a son.  She takes it upon herself to come up with a way to fulfill God's promise to Abram.  This usually works out badly in the Bible.  There is an interesting note on this verse:
2 And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. [Gen 16:2 ESV]
In Hebrew, the literal translation of the underlined phrase is "be built up by" her.  The Hebrew words for built up by sound like the same word for children.  So Sarai didn't really say right out loud that Hagar's children would be counted as her own, she sort of "bounces the idea off of Abram", who decides it's a good plan.  
2021 - I have been reading "The Word of God in English".  From that, I know that the ESV phrase, and what I labeled the "literal translation" are in fact both "literal, that is word for word" translations.  But they are entirely different phrases.  When I look at the interlinear translation, I see that neither ESV, nor KJV is word for word here.  A single Hebrew word - transliterated "bana", shows up in ESV as six words.  This one word is translated as a whole phrase.  Apparently this is a difficult word to turn into English.  If you look at other uses of the word, it very often means "build".  In Genesis two, "bana" is translated "made" as in with the rib, God "made" the woman.  As I look at it myself, and see what the literal words that are there mean, I have no idea how to translate it into English.  This is one of those places that is expressing so very much, so many aspects, ideas, and relationships all at once in the native Hebrew that these spoke and understood - many of the ideas being cultural and specific to that time thousands of years ago, that you just cannot bring it over into English with the same depth and complexity of meaning that it has in Hebrew.  Here is another translation that I think ought to be considered.  The interesting thing is that I know very little about this translation:  2 And Sarai said to Abram, Behold now, Jehovah has shut me up, that I do not bear. Go in, I pray thee, to my maidservant: it may be that I shall be built up by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. [Gen 16:2 DBY]  But...In Hebrew, Sarai may have used "bana" just because it sounded like "children", and not because of its underlying meaning...or more likely, she used it because of the double meaning that is implied.  Sarai is a smart, complex woman who communicated much to Abraham with this one phrase.  And what a great example of so many things I've read in the "The Word of God in English".  Ahhh!!!  By translating it I shall obtain children", we have interpretation taking place as part of the translation.  The literal words do not include "children", but the "hearing" of the word inserts the idea of children.  Even the ESV has reduced the nuances of this phrase to the single one that they chose, rather than interpreting it as Darby, with a footnote, and leaving built up in there.  Wow!  That is exactly what has happened here!!!

This verse is also worth noting:
3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. [Gen 16:3 ESV]
Hagar was a second wife, not a slave used to produce children by her master.  We will see that as a wife, Hagar's son is blessed just as Isaac will be blessed.  Polygamy violated the rules, but not as badly as making Hagar a concubine - or less - would violate the rules.

Hagar gets pregnant and looks down her nose at her mistress.  Sarai complains to Abram.  Abram gives her leave to treat Hagar however she wants.  Sarai treats her harshly, and Hagar flees.
2021 - Sarai is angry at Abram for the way Hagar looks at her after Hagar gets pregnant.  Why would she be so angry with Abram since the whole thing was her idea?  I suspect that Abram was so overwhelmingly joyous to finally be having a son that he lavished Hagar with attention.  He naturally would.  Hagar interpreted this as Abram favoring her far above Sarai, Hagar's mistress.  So what Sarai is mad about is not that baby, but about the excessive (in Sarain's eyes) attention Abram is lavishing on Hagar.  So by allowing Sarai to treat Hagar very harshly, the message is sent unmistakably to Hagar that Sarai is still the real wife, the favorite, the one in charge.  One can imagine some pretty ugly scenes as Sarai "enforces" her position, and Abram backs her up.  This is all very understandable, and I have never "figured it out" bef0ore.

Because of the harsh treatment, the slave Hagar runs away.  She would have had very little hope of improving her position this way.  A pregnant woman, alone, a slave running away...who would help her?  An angel appears to Hagar (a theophany is more likely) and tells her to return and submit, and her son's name will be Ishmael, and her descendants will be too many to number.  Ishmael will be a "wild donkey of a man", always at odds with everyone.  MSB note says Ismael is father to the Arabs.  It is not more specific than that.  Doesn't say father of the Bedouins, or the Saudi's, or anything like that.  So there is likely a lot of speculation about the specifics.  Or we will be more informed later when we see where Ismael settles.  Hagar calls the name of the Lord (angel it said earlier) who spoke to her "ro i" (pronounced row ee), meaning "You are a God who sees me".  In the Hebrew, she does not use the word Jehovah, so there is really no "Jehovah Ro i", so far as I can tall.  I am not sure Hagar thought this was God, nor Lord, but more "lord", as in someone or something very powerful and helpful and saving for her and her son, perhaps along the lines of him being another god in the Egyptian pantheon who had chosen to speak to her.  For that reason, she would not use the word Jehovah.  Now the interesting part of this is that Ishmael means "God hears".  So this "Lord" has just told her to name her son "God hears", and her name for that Lord is "You see".  Then she names this well where all this happens "Beer-lahai-Roi", which means "Well of the Living One seeing me".

Ishmael was born when Abram was 86, 11 years after he left his father's home.

Chapter 17
2021 - Thirteen years pass between the end of 16 and the beginning of 17.  Abram is now 99 years old.
God speaks of a covenant with Abraham.  This is the fourth time a covenant is declared.  This verse:
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, [Gen 17:1 ESV]
"God Almighty" is the translation of "El Shaddai".   Jehovah appears to Abram, so in some manner, Abram "sees" a representation of El Shaddai.  

2024 - There is a margin note in NASB that references God Almighty.  This is the term El Shaddai as transliterated.  The margin note says Shaddai means, literally, "complete, perfect, or having integrity".  Those seem a lot different to me than Almighty.  BLB, however, doesn't list those three as meanings for Shaddai.  In fact, the BLB definitions and references are confusing even to try and read.  I  think Almighty and all powerful tend to imply physical strength, like the mightiest general.  The other three terms all apply to non-physical concepts.  I just think we need to think of almighty here in terms beyond what we humans consider to be supremely mighty.  It goes further than anything we can "evaluate" about God.  
 
This happens when Abram is 99.  His only son, now about 13, is still Ishmael.  God changes his name to Abraham.  God tells him he will be the father of many nations.  God promises real estate to Abraham and to all his offspring after him.  He gives them Canaan for an everlasting possession.  The verses are as follows:
4 "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. [Gen 17:4 ESV]
Notice the tense in this verse.  A covenant exists already.  MSB notes say it is a unilateral covenant in that God will keep it and make it so, no matter what.  However, it does not say that the covenant requires nothing at all of Abraham or his descendants.  Even if they fail, God will keep his promises, but there will be responsibilities.  I had not seen or thought about this before.  But note the end of verse one.  Be blameless before me.  Surely that is a command, and then verse 2 continues the thought with  "that I may..."  So God clearly implies that Abraham should remain faithful to God so that God - in justice - can fulfill his promises.  God will not be unjust.  And that is why, when Israel strays so very far away, God blinds them and cuts them off from Him for the church/Gentile age, yet will bring them all home as the end times begin.

6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." [Gen 17:6-8 ESV]
This part is still future.  This covenant is to be forever.   
Abram means "exalted father".  Abraham means "father of a multitude".

Then He says:
9 And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. [Gen 17:9-10 ESV]
This is a requirement of participation in the Abrahamic covenant.  Every male, whether born at home or bought and brought home from somewhere else, must be circumcised.  If he is not circumcised, he is cut off from his people, he has broken the covenant.  This is not a requirement of Gentiles.  Our door to God is through the New Covenant, in Christ.  Note also this:
13 both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. [Gen 17:13 ESV]  This is God's covenant in the flesh of man.  So we might say this is about the body, this about the externals, this is about how you behave, what you eat and so on.  The spiritual part of this, what you think in your mind, does not seem to be emphasized at all.  That part - the underlying part - is revealed only in the New Testament.  It is a small little phrase stuck onto the end of a verse seemingly about something else, but it is of crucial importance in understanding God's agreement with Abraham, and understanding the underlying foundation of the requirements of the Law.  The Law was an external extension of this external covenant in the flesh.

So this is different.  Or seems to be.  There were never any conditions mentioned the previous three times God has spoken of a covenant with Abraham.  God has protected and enriched Abraham up to this point.  So is this condition a further revealing of the details of the covenant or is this a new and separate covenant?  Were the first promises made to Abraham alone, and this covenant now details how his offspring will also be participants in the covenant?  Abraham is circumcised also so it would seem to be an addition to the existing covenant.

Sarai's name changed to Sarah.  God promises a son to Abraham from Sarah.  Abraham laughs.

19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. [Gen 17:19 ESV]
So the covenant promises pass from Abraham to Isaac, and so on.  But not to Ishmael.  Yet Ishmael will have offspring too many to count also.  Because of the previous covenants?  Or a separate covenant  with him?  Or because of what the "Lord" said to Hagar?

Sarai means "princess".  Sarah means "noblewoman".

20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year." [Gen 17:20-21 ESV]
Kind of implies that Ishmael will have 12 sons.   If this is so - and we will see in the next few chapters - then Ismael's 12 come a full generation before Jacob's 12 sons.  Quite a head start.

The circumcisions take place that very day.

Chapter 18
Abraham sees three men.  He recognizes that they are not ordinary men.  He begs them to stay a while, and he has food prepared for them.  This verse:
1 And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. [Gen 18:1 ESV]  (2025 - In Hebrew, it says Jehovah.  I think we should go with that and not try and twist it into meaning Jesus.  Not unless we can find another place where Jehovah is indisputably used of the Son.)
The implication is that one of the three men is Jehovah.  But we know that no one has seen God the Father.  So is this Jesus appearing - pre-incarnation?  Was the Jehovah in 17:1 also Jesus?  
In vs 2, it seems that Abraham didn't really see these men coming.  He looked, perhaps from dozing, and he sees the three already there, at the door of his tent.  
2021 - The word for "were standing" is Strong's H5324.  It has an odd sound to it, not similar at all to English.  It has a wide range of possible translations that seem to be based on context.  It is translated simply "stand" 34 of the 75 times it is used.  But reading the definitions, that "stand" can also mean "stationed", as in "took up the position".  I don't think it is critical to understand this, but the fact is, these men were there for a purpose.  They were standing in front of Abraham, because there was a purpose in their appearance, and it had to do with Abraham.  

The last part of this verse:  2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth [Gen 18:2 ESV]  The interesting part of this is that none of the men immediately told Abraham to get up.  But...when they do that, there is usually a specific statement that the person bowed and worshiped.  It does not say here that Abraham worshiped the men.  But he obviously recognized that these were not ordinary men.

Food is prepared, and the three strangers eat. These are glorified bodies.  Perhaps Jesus and two angels.  They all eat physical food.  Immortal bodies still enjoy food.
2025 - Probably this is wrong.  Jesus did not yet have a physical body, he doesn't get that until the incarnation.  I am not sure  you can touch an angel.  But I do think that God can decide what we are allowed to see, and how we perceive it.  Should we believe that the eating that went on here was "fake", or that in some way God portrayed these angels - and perhaps the Son - in physical form with all that goes with that?  We really have no way of precisely saying what happened here.

The Lord says Sarah will have a son in a year.  She laughs at it, because she is past "the way of women".  Abraham had laughed earlier, but he does not seem to have gotten in trouble over it.  Sarah does though.  Here are the verses:
9 They said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "She is in the tent." 10 The LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. [Gen 18:9-10 ESV]  Looking at the interlinear on Blue Letter Bible, vs 9 seems a good literal translation.  The verb for "said" is amar.  It seems to be a word that is showing up a lot.  A very common word.  In the BLB interlinear, it does not say that the word is singular or plural, nor does it say whether it is verb or noun.  It says that the word is quite often used to mean "say".  It is used at the beginning of the verse, and it used of Abraham at the end of the verse.  So why did the translators use "They said" at the first of the verse and "he said" at the end?  Surely only one of the three men spoke.  They didn't all ask in unison.  The answer I think comes at the beginning of vs 10:  10 The LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. [Gen 18:10 ESV]  Once again, for the third time in two verses, the word in Hebrew is "amar".  KJV translates it "he said".  NKJV translates it "He said...".  ESV translates it "The Lord said..."  All the dynamically translated versions say "One of them said..."  I find myself agreeing with the dynamic translations.  The word Jehovah does not appear anywhere in these verses.  Scholars believe this is a theophany and the translators of the ESV have both translated AND interpreted for us that one of these men is the pre-incarnate Jesus.  But the words don't really say that.  In reality, one of the men asked where Sarah was, Abraham answered that one, and then that one replied.  It should be up to us poor readers to decide who the men might be.  And after all, the one that replies says he will be back next year about this time.  There is no account of that return in the Bible so far as I know.   Ahh...in vs 17, the word Jehovah shows up in the Hebrew.  So possibly the translators are just projecting backward in the conversation as to whom was speaking.  But really...they only sort of half did that, too.  They decided which things were said by Jehovah and which might have been said by one of the others, and they shaded the translation that way.  So for the record, vs 17 is the very first verse where we are sure that it was Jehovah speaking.  vs 20 also says Jehovah.  In verse 27, Abraham addresses the person he is speaking to as Adonai.

2025 - First, if both Jehovah and Adonai are used of this one of the three, why do we think it was a pre-incarnate Jesus?  It has to be because "no one has seen God at any time".  This verse must be true, and "Adonai" must be true, so we go to the second person of the Trinity to make it work.  God doesn't need our help to make his word true.  We have already seen that spirits don't eat - probably - and yet in the scene at the tent, all three of the "men" eat.  Two of them are angels, so God has temporarily given them all the appearance - and likely the fact - of eating physical food.  But we balk at saying that the Father can appear in the form of men and interact with men.  He - the Father - has spoken to Abraham before.  Jehovah will later appear as a burning bush.  I am going with God appearing as a man - appearing separately from the glory that surrounds him in heaven - to tell Abraham that he will have a son, and down in vs 19, to tell us why Abraham was separated out from the rest of mankind.
2025 - Vs 14 is our built-in answer to all these questions about how spirits can eat food and how God can appear before men:
14 Is anything too hard for the LORD?..." [Gen 18:14a ESV].  It says Jehovah appeared.  God can do what He wants.  I'm going to believe it as written, just as I believe the creation took only 6 days.

2025 - If I am not mistaken, in vs. 15 Sarah lies to God, directly and to his face.  She claims she did not laugh.  Can one lie directly to God - or the pre-incarnate Jesus for that matter - and live?  Yet she does.  We have many indications that the appearance of these three men is a unique event, perhaps never again repeated.

2023 - This verse:  22 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [Gen 18:22 ESV].  Look at the details...the men- the two men - headed on towards Sodom, but one - Jehovah - stayed because Abraham was talking to him.

19 For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice, so that the LORD may bring to Abraham what he has promised him." [Gen 18:19 ESV]
The reason Abraham was chosen.  So that there would be a group of people that would keep the way of the LORD, so the promises could be kept.  In Noah's day, with none really chosen, there were none left that God could have or would have blessed because all had turned into evil people.  Maybe this is the way God prevents that from happening again?  Second time - yes, I believe this is a new work, another "try", another test to see who can remain faithful to God.  Perhaps a special people, a subset of all creation, can do so where mankind as a whole had failed.  There are also some responsibilities implied here in the phrase "...so the promises could be kept."  It isn't as if God is saying "either/or", but He is clearly saying "not unless/until" they keep the way of the Lord.

2025 - Here too is the reason Satan is so anti-Semitic.  Whatever else we might say, to believe the Bible is to believe that God is preserving the Jews to fulfill the promises made to Abraham.  The Jews MUST SURVIVE for God to keep his promises.  He will therefore preserve them though all that Satan may devise to bring about their genocide.  This is why they are the focus of repeated attacks throughout history.  This is why the so often rebel and revolt - of course they do because Satan devotes the energy of his entire intellect and of the angels and demons that followed him to reducing the number of Jews who follow Jesus to zero.  He must either turn them all to unbelief or he must kill them all.  Perhaps idol worship was a wonderfully successful strategy to turn them away...up until Babylon when God quashed idol worship from the minds of the Jews.  They just never were taken in by it after that.  So when he could no longer turn their worship from God to idols, he began to try genocide.  

As they leave, the Lord tells Abraham his plan - to see for Himself if Sodom and Gomorrah are as bad as the prayers imply.  If so, then Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed.  Abraham negotiates at length with God, so that even if there are only 10 good men found in them, they will not be destroyed.   So think about how thoroughly, completely, and wholly corrupt these places were if not even 10 good men lived there?  This is how long God will be, or at least can be, patient towards cities, and toward nations.  A few bad people don't lead to destruction.  The place has to stink with corruption.  This verse:
26 And the LORD said, "If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake." [Gen 18:26 ESV]
Here, perhaps, is the reason that God waits until things are so irreparably, completely awful before He acts against peoples and nations.  For the sake of just a few, He will allow evil to continue, to get still worse.  Think of the suffering and woe of the righteous who find themselves in this "aside" before justice is dispensed.  They have nowhere to turn, they are alone.  They will be brutalized and hated for their righteousness in such a depraved culture.  Did Abraham really do Sodom and Gomorrah a favor with his request?  What of the 10 good men that continued there also?  
Even 10 though would have been a lot better than the days of Noah.

2024 - These verses introducing the negotiation:
24 Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city. Will you then sweep away the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?" [Gen 18:24-25 ESV].  I note that "the LORD" never agrees that he would never do such a thing.  We know that it rains on the wicked and the good...but that is qualitatively different certainly.  So what are we to learn from this negotiation?  That God wouldn't be there in the first place if there were ANY good people in this town?  Does he wait until there is just nothing salvageable before he sends destruction?  God knew there were no good men in Sodom and Gomorrah the whole time Abraham was talking him down.  Would it have been justified to wipe out those two places, even if 50 good men had to go with it?  Wouldn't the world have been better off to make this trade?  Or is this telling us that God would never...what?  Never wipe out a city or a kingdom if there were 10 good men left in it?   I don't understand what is going on here.
Look at vs 19:15 though:
15 As morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, "Up! Take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be swept away in the punishment of the city." [Gen 19:15 ESV].  If Lot stayed knowingly, he would be taken out with the evil that were already there.  At this point, I am not sure Lot would be classified a good man.  He did a good thing taking in the strangers,but how does offering his daughters to be raped fit into that?  Influence of bad bad place?  His compass was broken from long association with such evil?

Begs the question of just how many will be raptured at the end?  Will there be so many good men left on earth at that time that their loss is a big deal?  Or will we be down to just a few hundred, or a few dozen in the whole world?  I guess there could be any number - even millions - since they won't be left to endure the judgement about to come.  I think it is implied that the number will be noticeable.

Chapter 19
Two angels arrive in Sodom.  There were three at Abram's tent.  Per MSB note, they are called men in vs 10.  MSB says that by this time they had taken human form.  Lot sees them coming, and knows what fate awaits them if they are not offered his hospitality.  How could he live and raise daughters in such a place?  Can't really tell if Lot knows they are angels, recognizes something different about them, or just doesn't want to see travelers harmed in the city where he lives, but in any case, he presses them to come to his house.  They do so, and he feeds them.  
Every man in Sodom comes to Lot's house to abuse his guests. To the last man.  This reminds us that the city would have been spared for only 10 good men.  There weren't 10 there.  There was only Lot.  The angels rescue Lot and blind the would be attackers.  The attackers riot when Lot tells them to take his daughters instead.  They don't want his daughters.  They want the strangers, and threaten to do to Lot what they had planned to do to the men.  The angels pull Lot back inside, and make the rioters blind and unable to find the door to Lot's house.  

2023 - Vs 8 says Lot's two daughters were virgins.   Then in 14, Lot talks to his sons-in-law...who were ABOUT TO marry his daughters.  So those daughters were leaving their "betrothed", NOT their husbands.  These titles then were a custom of the time.  Does vs 14 imply that Lot's future sons-in-law were out there in the crowd around the house?  They were certainly a part of "the men of Sodom, both young and old".  My goodness...Never thought about that before.

Note also that Lot bows himself with his face to the earth.  It does not says "...and worshiped".  We know these two are angels, but they don't tell him to get up.  Because bowing like this was cultural.  Doing so did not signify worship.    

For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord , and the Lord has sent us to destroy it."
Genesis 19:13 ESV
There is a point that God draws a line.  If enough innocents cry out to Him, He destroys completely.  Not chastening, condemnation.  This is an important distinction.  God is not trying here to "scare" Sodom back into line.  It has gone past that.  Their destruction is now assured and immediate.  As the end times will be.

The angels forcibly get Lot to leave. Even then, Lot won't go to the hills, but flees to a small town which would also have been destroyed.  Lot saves a town full of homosexuals rather than fully obeying God's will.

2024 - Is this the same Zoar against whom Chedorlaomer and  his allies fought in 14:2?  This would make better sense than the Zoar that is on the coast of Egypt, West of the Nile delta.
Once Lot is safely in Zoar, God destroys S and G and the whole valley.  This verse:
29 So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the valley, God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had lived. [Gen 19:29 ESV]

Lot is saved for Abraham's sake, not for his own goodness.  He was kind and protective of the strangers, but when push came to shove, he hesitated.  He didn't want to leave his possessions, his wealth, his home - even among such evil men - but preferred to stay.  Perhaps he thought that if he stayed, he could save Sodom.  Even so, it was his relationship to Abraham that saved him, and Zoar with it.  Zoar means "small".  Lot's son's-in-law think he is kidding and refuse to leave.  Perhaps this also has something to do with Lot's hesitation in leaving.  He was asking his daughters to leave their husbands behind.  This will have consequences later.  

Then, Lot moves to the hills with his daughters because he is now afraid to live in Zoar.  They knew he showed up just before the destruction of that whole valley, and they probably thought he had something to do with it.  There would have been a serious undercurrent of animosity.  He moves into a cave with his daughters.  A cave.  The daughters feel bad that they won't be able to marry - no one would be willing to marry them given their mean circumstances - and they don't want their father to be without an heir.  So the oldest girl makes a plan.  They get him drunk, sleep with him, and have his sons, Moab and Ammon, two nations that would trouble Israel almost forever.  
For later study:  Take a look at the prophecies of these two places in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other places.  Don't they end up rising back to some sort of decent status at the end?  I would think this also is attributable to Abraham.
Drinking makes you easily manipulated into sin.  You will do and forget things you would not even dream of otherwise.  It says that Lot never even knew his daughters were there.  His sin was drunkenness.  And even in that he may have been manipulated.  He never recognized that any woman - much less his daughters - were in his bed.  Perhaps this is why such a profound sin did not disqualify him as a righteous man.  This is an interesting principle if I have it right.  

When they showed up pregnant, did he question them?  Did they tell him the truth?  Was he appalled?  Did they confess to him what they had done???  What a mess.

Chapter 20
Abraham moves after this.  He travels toward the Negeb, and settles between Kadesh and Shur.  We aren't told why he makes this move.  You wouldn't think that Zoar would be any threat to Abraham at all.  Again Abraham claims that Sarah is his sister.  She is 100 plus years old, and yet she is beautiful enough that Abraham thinks someone will kill him to claim her.  And sure enough, the King of Gerar - the country where Abraham is living - sent for Sarah.  
Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you have done this in the integrity of your heart, and it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her.
Genesis 20:6 ESV
God protects His own.  Even though Abraham had created the situation himself by lying.  And Sarah was still desirable, even at this age.  God had kept this King from calling her to him.

2023 - Never noticed this one  before...
7 Now then, return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours." [Gen 20:7 ESV].  Not just "a" prophet, but the the first prophet!

Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.
Genesis 20:12 ESV
So not a lie.  She is his half sister.  And then this verse too:
13 And when God caused me to wander from my father's house, I said to her, 'This is the kindness you must do me: at every place to which we come, say of me, "He is my brother."'" [Gen 20:13 ESV]  So we have the accounts of this happening twice, once in Egypt and now here in Gerar.  But from this statement of Abraham's, it may have happened many other times also.  It seems to have been their "standard story" when they arrived in a new place.

14 Then Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and male servants and female servants, and gave them to Abraham, and returned Sarah his wife to him. [Gen 20:14 ESV]
So Abraham profits yet again from this deception.  Even if she is his sister in fact, the more important thing is that she is his wife first.  But because first Pharoah, and now Abimelech know first hand that Abraham has the protection and blessing of God, they run him off...but they send massive gifts with him to "buy favor" from his God.  On top of that, Abimelech tells Abraham he can live anywhere he pleases in Abimelech's kingdom.  2021 - We don't really know how long Sarah was in the house of Abimelech.  (Actually, we do.  It was about a year.  We know this from the ages given in the next chapter, and from the fact that they left Gerar before Isaac was born, and we had a one year clock ticking on Isaac's birth.  So they were there about a year.)  But in vs 18, we see this:  18 For the LORD had closed all the wombs of the house of Abimelech because of Sarah, Abraham's wife. [Gen 20:18 ESV]  It seems almost certain that she was there long enough for this closing of the wombs to become evident.  No one in Abimelech's house was getting pregnant, and from the verse before, they were all sick with something that needed healing.  To "get rid" of Abraham, Abimelech, like Egypt, gave many presents, including slaves and money, plus he gave Abraham an unrestricted "deed" to live where ever he pleased in the land of Gerar, likely including the approved displacement of those already there.  It seems very foreign to our modern way of thinking for God to use something like this to accomplish his ends, but the Bible is telling us that is exactly what God did.


Chapter 21
Sarah has Isaac when Abraham is 100 years old.  So she was 90.  All the things in Chapter 20 happened in the year between when the three visited Abraham prior to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the time Isaac was born.  There is a note in MSB which implies that Abraham and Sarah had been married for 25 years when Isaac was born.  Isaac means "he laughs".  Ishmael meant "God hears".  

2021 - There is no "Abraham went in to Sarah" or anything like that in this chapter.  Rather, it says the Lord visited Sarah as he had promised.  So is this a reference to her being able to get pregnant in her old age, or is the the return visit promised by at least one of the three visitors from a year before.  So...when exactly did she get pregnant?  She had been in the house of Abimelech for some time.  Was she pregnant already when she went there?  Which would mean she went in there a month or so after the visit by the three men, and she would have been showing, though 90 years old, while in that house, and Abimelech would know he wasn't responsible.  This would likely have started inquiries even before the dream that Abimelech had.  As nearly as we can tell, Abraham was still on the move when Isaac was born.  They were in Gerar, but had not settled anywhere yet - or at least we haven't been told about it yet.  Note that vs 2 says "And Sarah conceived..." and implies that she didn't get pregnant until after they had left Abimelech's house.  Here s the wording of the "one year promise":  10 The LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. [Gen 18:10 ESV]  So it does not say precisely one year.  It does not say the son will be born in a year.  The one speaking - whom the translators have interpreted as being Jehovah - will come back in a year, and she will have a son.  So there is room for two years in here without violating what any of the verses actually say.  In fact, the promise of a return visit, which I though we were never told about, is confirmed in vs. 21:1, in no uncertain terms.

2021 - Look at this wording:  3 Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore him, Isaac. [Gen 21:3 ESV]  The FACT that Isaac is Abraham's son is reinforced three times in this verse, like a hammer driving home a nail, emphasizing that God was keeping a very large promise, and that he was doing miracles and setting aside the natural order and way of things to make it happen.  Even more interestingly, this is Sarah's first, and only child.

2023 - I cannot help but notice the similarity between between the way Isaac's conception is described and that of Jesus.  There just aren't many differences.  Angel's announce both, there is no "knowing" described, God is said to do as he said he would do...and we need to remember t hat Isaac would be laid out as a sacrifice not all that long after he is born, by his own father.  Surely there is a lot of typology here.  But there are also limits on it.  Sarah's experience after Isaac is born is completely different than Mary's.  But the two stories still have much in common.  Both are miraculous, in that one birth is to a 90 year old and the other to a virgin.  But there is never any implication that Sarah is a virgin.  There is vs. 16, which seems to be about averting any suspicion that Abimelech had slept with Sarah:  16 To Sarah he said, "Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver. It is a sign of your innocence in the eyes of all who are with you, and before everyone you are vindicated." [Gen 20:16 ESV], just as Joseph was told by an angel not to worry that there was a human father of Mary's baby.  

When Isaac is weaned, Abraham has a celebration.  Sarah sees Ishmael laughing.  She gets really angry.  Ishmael would have been older by this time, 13 or 14 - and he could well have known that as Abraham's first born, he would inherit the greater share, and was laughing at Isaac because of this.  Hagar probably had more than a little to do with his attitude, telling him the story of how he was going to be a great nation.  In their minds, they probably saw this coming about as Ishmael being the heir of Abraham, and so getting the lions share of everything.  I expect it was Hagar's attitude that got her into trouble back in the Beer-lahai-roi days, and now she's passed that attitude to her son.  Plus, we know that Ishmael will be a "donkey of a man".  Heck of a worker, not very smart, stubborn to his own harm.  We see the beginning of that also in these verses.  Sarah asks Abraham to sort of banish Ismael and Hagar to insure that Ishmael will not get any inheritance at all.  Abraham is not at all pleased by this request.  Yet God tells him to do it, He will take care of the details.

And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring."
Genesis 21:13 ESV
God's promises are true, even when we mess them up by helping.
Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael off with very little in the way of provision or survival possibilities.  Only one skin of water goes with her.  He sends no slaves with her, no man, no protection, possibly not even a camel to ride on.  She wanders around in Beersheba.

And God heard the voice of the boy, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is.
Genesis 21:17 ESV
The boy, not Hagar.

And God was with the boy, and he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran, and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
Genesis 21:20‭-‬21 ESV  So Ishmael is half Egyptian, and his children will be 3/4's Egyptian.  Not much Hebrew in him at all, yet God blesses him as Abraham's son.

Abraham consents to an alliance with Abimelech and with Phicol his military commander, to deal honestly with them at all times because of the generosity that Abimelech has shown Abraham.  This verse:  31 Therefore that place was called Beersheba, because there both of them swore an oath. [Gen 21:3, 31 ESV].  So here is the origin of this place name that we will see so many more times in the Bible.
It says in vs 32 that Abimelech returns to the land of the Philistines.  So this is where Abraham had been living.

Second time, 3/16/20.  Emergency declared in OKC yesterday because of corona virus spread locally.
Notes incorporated

Chapter 22
2024 - Always a difficult chapter.  It is helpful to keep in mind that God did not ask of Abraham anything that God was unwilling to do himself.
2024 - It also occurs to me here that in this "dispensation", this "era" of the Bible, from Noah to the Law, God speaks directly with people of his choosing.  He speaks to Sarah, to Abraham, to Hagar, to King Abimelech in Chapter 20, and so on.  He also spoke directly with Adam and Eve before the flood...but did he speak with others during that time?  I can't really remember, but I  think this is pretty important as we look at how God has moved his plan forward in different eras/segments/dispensations.

2 He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you." [Gen 22:2 ESV]
This is where Moriah comes from.  A place of hard testing, of faith beyond what most people ever need in their lives.  Moriah is a place you don't want to be sent.

It took Abraham three days to get to where he could see Moriah.  Three days from Beersheba to Moriah. When Abraham and Isaac go forward alone, Isaac carries the wood on his back  The burden of the sacrifice is laid on Isaac.  The load is on Isaac.  Abraham takes the fire and the knife.  The fire speaks of judgement.  The knife?  Justice maybe?  Nothing in MSB about these specifics of the preparation.  But it is most certainly a picture of the coming of Christ.  

2021 - This verse:  8 Abraham said, "God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son." So they went both of them together. [Gen 22:8 ESV]  How much does this verse really say!!??  It leaves no doubt that this sacrifice of Isaac is a foreshadowing of Christ.  It says that Jesus is God's provision for cleansing the whole world of sin.  It was God's doing.  He arranged it all.  Nothing about it is to do with us, our works, the good that we do, none of that.  God provides His own Lamb.
Possible FB post...maybe.

Abraham prepares to sacrifice Isaac, but an angel stops him before.  This "angelic voice" seems to be God speaking.  MSB references Ex 3:2 where the same language indicates that it is God speaking.

2025 - Why then would the voice be attributed to the "angel of the Lord" if it is in fact the LORD speaking?  As translated, it is hard to say this is anyone but God doing the talking.  If we want to disagree that it is God, then we must translate it a different way.  BLB, translating the Masoretic Text, renders it "the angel FROM the LORD".  Not.  The angel of the LORD called FROM heaven is what it says.  So I don't really see any way to get there - to get to anything but this angel of the LORD is God.  Why would it be that way?

2025 - Grudem discusses this in Chapter 19.A.11.  He says "the" angel of the LORD is a form that God assumes at various times for short periods so that he can communicate with people.  As in the case we just saw of Hagar, of Abraham before he sacrificed Isaac, and of Moses at the burning bush.  Grudem suggest that this may "more specifically be" the pre-incarnate Christ.  He does not explain at all why we would say this and I see no reason to say this.

Through this sacrifice - this almost sacrifice, the OT saints and prophets had a glimpse of things to come.  It would have been a dim vision, but all the elements are there.  And those prophets may well have recognized this type for what it was.  And one more lesson - difficult for us to accept much less embrace...The faith that brings salvation means there is absolutely nothing we will hold back from God.  Nothing at all...

2021 - Also this verse:  10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. [Gen 22:10 ESV]  The word translated "slaughter" is Strong's 7819.  There, the word means slaughter, as in a sacrifice or a massacre.  This is about the unflinching taking of a life.  Many translations just say kill here.  But more than a few translate it slaughter.  It caught my eye because it is such a severe word.  To slaughter one's own son...Not the slaughter of food preparation, but of sacrifice, of massacre.  A very different sort of word.

2023 - This verse:
13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. [Gen 22:13 ESV].  The ram because the substitute for sacrifice of one man, and Jesus became the substitute for all men.  Different, but so undeniably entwined.

Abraham calls the place "The Lord provides", Jehovah-jireh.  10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. [Gen 22:10 ESV].

2024 - This verse:
15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven [Gen 22:15 ESV]...Note that when combined with the next verse we see that "the angel of the Lord" IS in fact the Lord.  And this is the second time that the Lord has spoken, though He is identified as the angel of the Lord.  Back in 22:1, it just says God...said to him.  Why does it switch to angel later.  God is identified as the one who told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.  The Lord, as "the angel of the Lord", tells Abraham NOT to sacrifice Isaac in vss 11-12, and renews and extends the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant in vss 16-18.  MSB sends us to a note at Ex 3:2 about "the angel of the Lord" and gives this very unsatisfactory explanation: "Lit. "messenger of Yahweh" who, in context, turns out to be the Lord Himself talking to Moses (cf Ac 7:30)".
Only thing I can see in the Genesis verses here is that it is God Himself who requires, and the messenger that extends first mercy, and then promise.  We might see Father and Son in this.  God is before all things a God of justice, the judge of all things.  Yet he sent his son to die for us, that the judgment might be merciful.  And not only that, but in addition to mercy we are promised eternity in heaven with both Father and Son.  
Perhaps, in context, we are seeing seeds of the Trinity in the OT.  I noticed some things very late in Revelation that made me wonder if there will still be "three" in heaven.  There will be no sin.  There will be no devil to accuse.  There will be nothing to judge, so no need for pleading or mercy.  Only worship.
These:
22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. 23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. [Rev 21:22-23 ESV]
The Temple IS Father AND Son.  Both in one.  Grantham Sharp does not apply.  But separate lights...
Then this:
1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb [Rev 22:1 ESV].  One throne.  For both.  But Grantham Sharp does not apply.  Both have definite articles, so separate in that way.  
One more....
5 And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. [Rev 22:5 ESV].  In Greek, Lord and God are singular, and "they" is plural.  Just a thought...I hope it is not heresy.

and said, "By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord , because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice."
Genesis 22:16‭-‬18 ESV
The promises made again, God swearing by himself.  This time, they are stated as the result of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.  Possessing the gate of enemies is new here, but I think all the rest are repeats.
Need to study them and compare and contrast.
The promises of God to Abraham must come to pass.  Despite the current blindness of the Jews, they will come to God, they will possess the land, they will possess the gates of their enemies.  World prominence, even domination, will come to the Jews.

19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they arose and went together to Beersheba. And Abraham lived at Beersheba. [Gen 22:19 ESV]
This is where the oath was made with Abimelech that he and Abraham would be square with each other in all matters.

The chapter ends with some genealogy of what has been going on back at Nahor's place.  This is Abraham's brother, whom I believe he left at Haran.  Odd to end with this little bit of genealogy.  Doesn't seem to fit here, but I am sure it is here for a reason.

2023 - I note this year that Abraham's brother Nahor also has 12 sons.  Abraham's brother has 12, and Ismael will have 12.  But it will be Abraham's grandson that has 12.  I don't think there is any reason to believe that Nahor was blessed because of Abraham.  I don't know what "people" those back in Haran might have become.  I don't recognize the names as "famous ancient city names" either.  

Chapter 23
Sarah dies, aged 127, in Hebron.  I don't know how far this would be from Beersheba (as I read current maps, Hebron (Kiryat-Arba) and Beersheba are very close together), nor whether she and Abraham were apart for some reason at the time.  Maybe she could get better care in Hebron...we just don't know.  But she was there, and it says Abraham "went in to mourn for Sarah".  
MSB says Sarah died in about 2028 BC, but makes no comment on the place where she died or why she was there.  

Abram purchases a tomb for burial at Machpelah for 400 pieces of silver.  Buys from the Hittites.  There is apparently more than a little significance to how this property was conveyed.  MSB mentions that the Hittites were far from there homeland in Anatolia (Turkey) but were established here at this time.  The business between Abraham and the Hittite Ephron is conducted according to Hittite custom.  The chapter repeats the procedures several times, showing perhaps that Abraham already owned this land before the Jews invaded Canaan after the Egyptian captivity.
2021 - It is noteworthy - in light of the book I'm reading on Bible translations -  that when reading this in ESV, we get a sense of the "foreignness" of the negotiation between Abraham and the Hittites for this piece of land.  All this happened in a very formalized way, in a culture remote in time and procedure from anything in our experience.  The wording, the cadence, the give and take, the indirection of the negotiations rather than flatly bluntly asserting themselves gives us the sense of being there at the time.  New "dynamic equivalence" Bibles are more likely to "update" these negotiations to something more akin to buying a used car.  

Chapter 24
This is a VERY LONG chapter in Genesis.  A lot happens.  It is primarily narrative, but with other elements also.  Abraham's determination to keep Isaac from intermarrying with Canaan, the trusted servant on a mission for his master, the request for God's direction, and God's answer to that prayer.

Abraham sends his servant back to his homeland to find a wife for Isaac.  He meets Rebekah, and the sign is that she also gives his camels water.

2025 - This verse:
7 The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house and from the land of my kindred, and who spoke to me and swore to me, 'To your offspring I will give this land,' he will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there. [Gen 24:7 ESV].  Here, an angel is to be "assigned" to the servant who makes this journey.  The duties of the angel are not specified here.  We can assume the angel was to do whatever was necessary to make this journey successful in accomplishing Abraham's purpose.  A safe journey for all.  No robbers, no lack of food or water.  And at the other end, connection with Abraham's family and a suitable bride for Isaac.  How did an angel do all these things?  How does an angel affect the physical world?  My guess is that when an angel is sent to do something, that angel is granted access to the physical - to manipulate it, to turn away the thoughts of evil men so they will not come up against those who are to be protected...and in extreme cases, perhaps to fight directly with men to turn them aside.  We see later that this trip is very successful, so there is no reason to believe this was not at least partly due to the activity of the angel.

Abraham is very old.  He makes his oldest (most trusted?) servant swear to get Isaac a wife from his homeland, and NOT let Isaac marry a Canaanite.  There is the whole "put your hand under my thigh" procedure.  The servant also swears not to take Isaac back to Abraham's homeland.  The bride to be must come to Canaan.

The servant departs, bearing many enticing gifts.  And probably more than a little escort.

He arrives in the city where Nahor lives.  Rebekah, who is Nahor's granddaughter, comes out after the servant prays for a sign.  So Rebekah is Abraham's great-niece, and Isaac's first cousin, once removed.  Don't think I realized before that they were related.

An interesting verse indeed:
47 Then I asked her, 'Whose daughter are you?' She said, 'The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bore to him.' So I put the ring on her nose and the bracelets on her arms. [Gen 24:47 ESV]  It was a nose ring.  Not a finger ring.  It weighed 8/10's ounce of gold.  Pretty heavy for a nose ring.  The interlinear renders it "...so I put the earring upon her face".  Strong's says the word means "breathing place" so nose or nostril.  And there is only one of them given.  It was a nose ring.

Laban, Rebekah's brother, seems to have been in charge of negotiations.  Perhaps Rebekah's father was dead by this time.  No....vs 50 says that both Laban and Bethuel answered Abraham's servant.  Maybe Bethuel couldn't get around very well, or maybe tradition was that the son went out to invite the guests.  Both Laban and Bethuel say "Take her and go".  Hmm...perhaps she wasn't the greatest person to be around???

After giving them gifts all around, the servant leaves with Rebekah, her nurse, and some other servants apparently.  As they go, we are told that Isaac is now living in the Negeb, and it is implied that he has changed his location since the servant left to find him a wife.  They spot Isaac, and they each learn of the other.  It is apparently love at first sight.  This verse:
67 Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death. [Gen 24:67 ESV]

Chapter 25
This starts the chapter:
1 Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. [Gen 25:1 ESV]
He was 100 years old when Isaac was born.  Sarah had died.  Abraham was alone.  Isaac was a teenager when Abraham was commanded to sacrifice him.  And now, at this age, Abraham takes a wife.  He fathers 6 sons with this wife!  He is around 115 at this time.
But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.
Genesis 25:6 ESV
Does not seem ok by today's standards. Have to remember also that Abraham was over 100 when these children were born.  These are not the children of Keturah I don't think.  Besides Keturah and Sarah, he had concubines, and he fathered children by them also.  Are they all blessed as Isaac was?  Do each of them also have children as numerous as the sands of the sea?  That's what Ishmael received.  (I Chron 1:32 says Keturah was a concubine.  Only Hagar was a wife, as Sarah...and at this point I'm not even positive about that.  MSB notes on Chapter 16 say that according to the custom of the time, Ishmael was considered Sarah's son, and therefore heir to Abraham.  So this might be the difference between Ishmael and all the children of the concubines.
2022 - This time through, I note that it doesn't say Abraham sent Keturah away.  Abraham lived to see his sons with Keturah grow into men, ready to take on their own responsibilities.  He gave them freedom, in at least some sense, to leave him and go where ever they wished.  He gave them gifts - items of significant value - that might help them buy some land, establish a place for themselves, and marry in the land they chose.  Read this way, this is not a "bad" thing Abraham did, that we must understand as the cultural norm of the time.  He set them up to succeed, and he sent them out on their own, ceremonially, likely with a departure celebration and fanfare, to begin their own lives.

Abraham dies at 175, full of years.

11 After the death of Abraham, God blessed Isaac his son. And Isaac settled at Beer-lahai-roi. [Gen 25:11 ESV]
We have seen Beer-lahai-roi before.  This is where God spoke to Hagar and told her he would prosper her son Ishmael.  An odd place for Isaac to settle.  Remember it means "Well of the Living One seeing me".

Ishmael has 12 sons.  They settle east of Egypt toward Assyria, from Havilah to Shur.  The map below from brotherpete.com is one interpretation of where these places are.  There are other maps, all a bit different, some including the entirety of Saudi Arabia as Havilah, others more like this.  Shur is the desert along the Mediterranean, they all seem to agree on that.  Shur was also a city on the eastern side of that desert.  They crowd right up to the southern and southeastern borders of Canaan.  Ishmael dies at 137.  We are not told anything else about his life and times, at least at this point.  Islam makes much of Ishmael as they are descended from him and his sons.  Yet the Bible says almost nothing of him.


2021 - It is interesting that they would camp all along the northern edge of Saudi Arabia.  These are the Arabs.  They are right up against their brethren in Israel, but they stretch out much further to the east also.  Remember that Abraham also sent the sons of his concubines to the east.  So many descendants of Abraham are in this whole area.

There is quite a bit of genealogy in this chapter of Genesis.  

23 And the LORD said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger." [Gen 25:23 ESV]
So we have Ishmael splitting off from the line that leads to Israel, and settling south (and east) of Canaan - right up against it.  Lot's sons by his daughters settle on the east side of Canaan - Moab and Ammon.  And now here is Esau, who will become Edom, and be on the south side of Canaan.  All of Israel's enemies were split off from the direct line from Abraham to Israel.  They all settle in this area.  Need to keep this in mind when reading the prophecies of these places in Isaiah and Jeremiah, and later prophets.  That would be such an interesting study!  
2021 - Ishmael and his sons are the Arabs, wild like donkeys I believe the phrase was, though it may only have applied to Ishmael.  His sons would be 3/4's Egyptian, also.  Who do the sons of Esau become?  Just the Edomites?  A place and not a people?

Rebekah has twins.  Esau red and covered with hair.  Jacob, who dwells in tents.  Jacob means "he who takes by the heel", or "he who cheats", because he was holding onto Esau's heel as he was born.  Jacob was not a manly man like Esau.  Isaac loves Esau for the game he brings, but Rebekah loves Jacob.
2021 - I always thought Esau meant red, but it does not.  The word for red is "admoni", which means just red, or red-haired.  But the verse says this:
25 The first came out red, all his body like a hairy cloak, so they called his name Esau. [Gen 25:25 ESV].  By this wording, it would seem that the abundance of hair, and not the color, were the basis of his name.  Esau means "hairy".

2025 - Just to be clear, Esau was "red" or "ruddy", either his hair or his complexion or both, when he was born.  But his name does not mean red.  His name means hairy.  Edom is the word that is sort of "bent" to mean red.

28 Isaac loved Esau because he ate of his game, but Rebekah loved Jacob. [Gen 25:28 ESV]  Here might be a good place to remember how "easily" Rebekah's kin consented to her moving far away.  Perhaps they recognized a problem in her even then.  This choosing of sides is a problem on both sides.

Esau really wants some of Jacob's red stew.  So Esau is called Edom, because Edom sounds like the Hebrew word for red.  In the usage in vs 30, the word for red is transliterated "adom".  Apparently red stew uses a different form of the word than when it means "red-haired".  But "adom" obvious sounds a like "edom".  Further, in the interlinear, the word "adom" is used twice of the stew.  The word for word translation makes it "that same red".  So the stew was red red?

Esau sells his birthright for stew.  He did not value his birthright.  He was a grown man at the time.  He knew what the birthright was worth, but it meant nothing to him.  He disdained it.  He is disrespected by God for what he did.  Very short sighted.  In the book of Hebrews, he is called profane.
Hebrews 12:16 KJV — Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

Chapter 26
There is another famine, different from the one in Abraham's day that drove him to go to Egypt and led to the lie about Sarai being his sister.

I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
Genesis 26:4 ESV
God's covenant with Abraham is repeated to Isaac, but Isaac must stay where God tells him during the famine and not go to Egypt.  Isaac settles in Gerar, where Abimelech is still King of the Philistines.  (or a descendant still using his name is king).  So in some sense the covenant is conditional wrt Isaac.

Then there is this:
because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
Genesis 26:5 ESV
Doesn't say the promises are conditional, more like a reward.

2024 - We continue to see God speaking directly with those who have a central place in the unfolding of His plan for mankind.  He speaks mainly with the patriarchy, but remember that he spoke with Hagar...how many others?  Consider this direct communication a characteristic of this time, this dispensation.

When the men of the place asked him about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he feared to say, "My wife," thinking, "lest the men of the place should kill me because of Rebekah," because she was attractive in appearance.
Genesis 26:7 ESV
Like father like son, and for the same reason.  Only this time it really isn't true.  She is his first cousin, once removed.  Was this part of the culture they lived in then, that if you wanted another man's wife, you could just kill him and have her?  Why would they allow murder for women?  That doesn't seem right.  What other reasons would there be?  If you killed the husband did you get all his goods, and not just his wife?  Abraham and Isaac seem more worried about being killed for their wives than for their wealth...Something about how that culture handled each situation?
2023 - Maybe it was just because they were outsiders, and outsiders had no "right to life" or anything else.  They were barely better than outright enemies.  Like Islam and infidels perhaps.  

12 And Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in the same year a hundredfold. The LORD blessed him, [Gen 26:12 ESV]
This is a pretty good year for a farmer...Isaac's wealth continues to grow, and he becomes a competing "nation" with Gerar.  Seems the servants of Abimelech had filled in all the wells that Abraham had dug somewhere along the line, perhaps to remove any claim to the land that Abraham's descendants might have.  Abimelech asks Isaac to leave the area.  This verse:
17 So Isaac departed from there and encamped in the Valley of Gerar and settled there. [Gen 26:17 ESV]
This implies to me that while Isaac may have moved out from under Abimelech's immediate location, he stayed in that kingdom, and did not go to Egypt.  Hmm...is the famine over, or did Isaac get 100 fold increase during the famine?  That would certainly have made him rich very quickly.  

MSB doesn't really talk about where Isaac moves to, but we read that Isaac digs the wells again that had been plugged up, and gives them the same names Abraham had given them.  He doesn't declare war on Abimelech, he just re-digs the wells.  This seems to be his strategy.  There are more conflicts over wells, and each time, rather than draw a line in the sand, Isaac gives up the well and digs another in a different place.  Eventually, they leave him alone.  As he grows more powerful, Abimelech and Phicol (So still the same king from Abraham's time?) come and make a deal with Isaac.  This also may have been a cultural thing, like lying about your wife being your sister.  Abimilech first wanted an oath from Abraham - a sort of contract to leave each other alone.  Now he wants this same promise from Isaac.  If Isaac will leave them alone, they won't be plotting against him.  Much the same kind of agreement that Abimelech had with Abraham.  Hard to realize that one man could have enough wealth, servants, and trained fighters (as Abraham had) to be a threat and a challenge to a king.  But today, I think we have much the same.  Billionaires make policy.  They dictate to Kings, Presidents, and Prime Ministers.

When Esau was forty years old, he took Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite to be his wife, and Basemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and they made life bitter for Isaac and Rebekah.
Genesis 26:34‭-‬35 ESV
Bitter for his parents.  How, I wonder?  MSB says that Esau had deliberately broken the standard set by Abraham for Isaac to take his wife from among their own people back in Haran.  He has intermingled the family of Abraham with those who are to be expelled later.  This will certainly result in a lot of conflict.  At this point, the descendants of Abraham will be driving out their own relatives - kinsmen is the word I believe - when they come in to conquer Canaan.  2021 - But this is also true of Ammon and Moab, and all the Ishmaelites.  But I guess up until Esau marries these Hittites, there had been no intermingling with the inhabitants of Canaan itself.  Note also that this means Canaan was inhabited originally by both Hittites - which we now know came there from Turkey, and by Philistines who came from Egypt.  Turkey was inhabited by the descendants of Japheth, and Egypt by the descendants of Ham.  I guess when it all goes back to an original three, you don't have to look far to find yourself fighting your own family.

Chapter 27
Isaac is already old by this chapter.  We aren't really told very much about his life up to this point.  We know that Esau's choice in wives caused them much bitterness, but other than that, not a whole lot.  We know that despite the bitterness, Isaac is very fond of Esau, and Rebecca of Jacob.  Surely by this time they all know that Esau sold his birthright to Jacob. Likely some family bitterness about that too.

Here is a good verse from today's reading.  Fits in with the current situation in the world:
2 He said, "Behold, I am old; I do not know the day of my death. [Gen 27:2 ESV]
Spoken in a time when there wasn't a virus around.  This is always the case.  We are all acting like death has walked up on the porch and started knocking insistently.  This is NOT the case.  There was always something there, and we never know the day!

Isaac sends Esau to hunt and cook,  before he blesses him.  The intent is clearly to bless Esau, not Jacob.  I expect this blessing is a completely different thing than birthright.  (As it turns out, no, this is not the case.  They are part and parcel.)  MSB says that though Isaac seemed to think his death was imminent at this point, he actually lives another 43 years.  So he had to live with the consequences of his actions for that much longer in his old age.  How blind was he for that 43 years?  Surely he was confined to a very small area.

As to Isaac sending Esau, and planning to give him the blessing, MSB notes that this is opposition to God's words in 25:23 where God said the older would serve the younger, ignoring that Esau sold that birthright - so trying to circumvent for him the consequences of his actions, and then also not considering the rebellion of Esau against his parents, and all the grief he'd caused them over the years, by marrying the Hittite women.

Rachel and Jacob plot to steal the blessing.  Premeditated theft accomplished by deceit.  Circumvention of God's plan by Isaac leads to deception after deception.  This family is imploding.

But Isaac said to his son, "How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son?" He answered, "Because the Lord your God granted me success."
Genesis 27:20 ESV
Jacob refers to God as Isaac's God, not as his own.  Further, he "includes" God in his deception of Isaac.  
He said, "Are you really my son Esau?" He answered, "I am."
Genesis 27:24 ESV
A flat out lie.  Intended for Jacob's gain at Esau's expense.  Why?  Because Esau was a profane man, disdaining his birthright for a bowl of red stew.

2021 - Isaac  "tests" Jacob four times about his identity.  Isaac was old and blind, very handicapped in this situation, and yet he was obviously still sharp of mind.  He was suspicious.  Something just wasn't right, and he did all in his power to uncover a fraud.  Even at the end, when he called Jacob near, he smelled Esau's smell on the clothes that Jacob was wearing.  Five times Isaac tried to validate his suspicions, but he failed.  The deceivers "won" because they anticipated Isaac's suspicion and they accounted for it.  So it is with us.  We  may be suspicious, but we are sometimes deceived.  This is what Satan does.  This is why we need forgiveness for our whole lives.  At the same time, God wanted Jacob to receive those blessings for his own purposes.  We could almost say that God set up this deceit.  Let's just be honest, that is what this looks like.  And then we have to go still one level deeper...Why was Isaac trying to bless Esau when he knew that Jacob was the son of promise?  Why Esau when Esau had taken Hittite wives, bringing much bitterness on Isaac and Rebekah?  Esau had spurned his birthright, and then spurned the tradition of his Father's Father and intermarried with pagans.  Esau, by his own hand, had rejected all that God offered and was actively working against God's plan.  Yet Isaac was going to bless him.  God didn't arrange a "deception".  God preserved the promised line.  (apparently I was already clued into this last year, per next paragraph.)

Isaac blesses him in vvs 28,29.   Note this part of the blessing:
29 Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!" [Gen 27:29 ESV]
By saying that his brothers will bow to him, Isaac is deliberately ignoring all the previous indications that Jacob would be in charge.  These came from God, and from Esau's profane treatment of the birthright.  Isaac knew all this, yet he would have over ridden them.  So Rebekah and Jacob's deceit accomplish what God willed in this family.  But the consequences of the way it was brought about would have divided them as a family for the rest of their lives.

Just as this is done, Esau returns!  The deceit is discovered.  Esau believes Jacob has cheated him twice.  I think the first time was Esau's own fault.  In fact, on this second reading, it seems that both Esau and Isaac got what God intended.  Esau is still not taking responsibility for his previous actions.
Isaac fishes around and tries to find something, anything, to bless his favorite son with, and he comes up with this:
40 By your sword you shall live, and you shall serve your brother; but when you grow restless you shall break his yoke from your neck." [Gen 27:40 ESV]
Isaac makes one last bitter mistake.  The blessing he gives to Esau promises violence and division between his sons for the rest of their lives.

Esau begins to hate Jacob and plots to kill him.  Note that Esau's plans are for the short term.  They all believe Isaac is about to die.  But Isaac lives, for decades yet, and with Jacob gone to Laban, that rage dissipates, and Esau never carries out his plans.
Rebekah urges Jacob to run away and go Laban's house until Esau cools off.  Then she tells Isaac that she did not want Jacob to marry a Hittite woman.

Chapter 28
So Isaac sends Jacob to Laban, not realizing yet another manipulation.  Isaac reiterates that the promises of Abraham are being conveyed to him.  So even though that blessing was obtained by deceit, and even though Isaac meant for it to be otherwise, now that it is done, it is done, and he goes on.  Or perhaps Isaac now realizes that he was about to sin against God by blessing Esau - after all the younger ruling the older was told to Rebekah even before they were born.  In any case, Isaac does not seem to resent Jacob at this time.

Esau, in a sort of recanting of his previous actions, goes and takes a third wife, this one from his own family - a daughter of Ishmael, his grandfather's brother's daughter.  Another second cousin kind of marriage.

Jacob's ladder.  In the dream, God repeats the promises He made to Abraham and to Isaac.  There are no conditions given.  This is God's first direct appearance to Jacob.  Jacob seems to be "converted" at this point and becomes a follower of God.  But Jacob puts conditions on God.  He says that if God keeps his promise, and lets Jacob return someday to Isaac's home, that he will serve him and will give a tenth in offerings to God.  I suppose this would be burnt?  There is no priesthood at this time.  MSB says it is better to translate Jacob's "conditions" with a "since" instead of an "if", and therefore see Jacob's new commitment to God as genuine in all respects.  Jacob has here changed his ways, no longer the "cheater".  Note that it was God who approached Jacob to save him, not the other way around.  But with this note from MSB, we see that Jacob's conversion was genuine, and that he will try from here on to serve God as a righteous man.  Perhaps he will be less than 100% successful at this, as we all are, because our previous natures drag us down sometimes.  Jacob had practiced deceit his whole life.  He had been very successful doing so.  That way of thinking is not going to disappear overnight, but will take work.

Chapter 29

2024 - Vs 1 - The land of the sons of the east.  I relate this to the Euphrates drying up in Revelation to make way for the Kings of the east.  Why do we try to make this China or Russia?  I think we need to look a lot closer to "home", and this verse is good evidence for that.  Gesenius' Hebrew Chaldee dictionary, which looks to be pretty old, makes this translation pretty much correct.  Newer definitions  translate the word "before" rather than "east". They all migrated from the east, so where they were "before" is in fact the eastern part of the fertile crescent.  But don't read just a whole lot into this.  
Might be interesting to do a search on this word, Strong's H6924, and also a search on the English word "east" and see what might be learned about it's usual geographic meaning.  Is it a direction, or is it a place?

Starts with Jacob arriving in the land of the "people of the East".  Different culture and customs probably.  They are not "occupied by the Hittites" as the place Jacob came from.  This well used to water sheep was shared by many apparently.  But not by all!  Therefore it had this big rock over it.  You had to have enough "manpower" to roll that rock off the well or you couldn't get to the water.  Where Jacob came from, wells were in someone's territory and the water was not shared at all.  So a difference here it seems.  Jacob has a conversation with those gathered to water their sheep.  Jacob tells them it is the wrong time of day to be watering sheep, the sheep should be out in the pasture eating and such.  Jacob tells them to hurry up with this watering and get the sheep out to eat.  But it seems all centered around rolling the stone off this well.  It was only done once per day perhaps, and everyone had to be there when they did it.  Local custom perhaps - but in contradiction to standard agricultural understanding.  Jacob meets Rachel as she is bringing the sheep to water.  Jacob is able to roll away this stone all by himself so that Rachel's flock can drink.  So this is more about custom than requirement.  The stone may have been large, but you didn't need several shepherds to roll it away, only one.  So why were all these guys really standing around?

2023 - The key, I think, is in vs 3:  3 and when all the flocks were gathered there, the shepherds would roll the stone from the mouth of the well and water the sheep, and put the stone back in its place over the mouth of the well. [Gen 29:3 ESV].  They just waited to water the sheep until everyone was there.  They were so backward in husbandry that they probably went to the well in the heat of the day and rested in the shade, rather than keeping the sheep eating all day and watering them at night.  They just had no clue about sheep.

After a month at Laban's place, Laban asks Jacob what wages will keep him there, in Laban's service.  Perhaps the shepherding knowledge in the west far surpassed the knowledge in the east?  For a month, Jacob had been showing Laban better theory and practice when it comes to sheep.  So Laban wanted to retain Jacob to continue that!  Oh my goodness!!!!  That explains the whole rock of the well thing!!!!  This is what this all about.  Laban wants Jacob's expertise to improve his flocks, and consequently his wealth!!!  Jacob says he will work 7 years for Rachel, Laban's younger daughter.  There's this whole rolling away the stone from off the well so the sheep can drink thing.  There were two other flocks already there, but they had not rolled the stone off.  When Rachel comes, Jacob rolls the stone off.  MSB says he asked the other two flocks to depart so he could be alone with Rachel.  But they don't appear to have gone.

Laban deceives Jacob and gives him Leah instead.  How does it feel, Jacob?  This is the reason Laban gives:
26 Laban said, "It is not so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn. [Gen 29:26 ESV].  So just maybe Laban is not a crook.  Maybe Jacob is cross ways with the customs of the East, and had requested something that just could not be done.  Still...Laban didn't explain the custom.  So...really it is hard to give Laban any slack.  More likely Laban was greedy and wanted Jacob to continue instructing his herdsmen.

Laban requires a second 7 years, and Jacob ends up with sisters as wives, and loves Rachel more than Leah.  This is fertile ground for problems if ever there was any.  Jacob plays favorites.  God makes Rachel barren, but Leah is not.  This is sort of laid out there as if the favorites and the barrenness are related, but it doesn't really say so.  You  have to remember that Sarah was barren, Rebekah was barren, and now Rachel is barren.  Either barrenness was not unusual in the east - which is where all these women, all related by blood in fact - were coming from.  We also need to look at why God would repeatedly allow this barrenness as part of fulfilling his plan?  This is the first time it has occurred to me that all these women are related.  Most likely, the barrenness is a family problem, perhaps even part of the reason they left UR in the first place.  If it was locally known that the women of this family tended to be barren, who would want them as wives?  It would get to be a real problem.  Never considered this before.  Ahh...but then vs 31 trashes my latest insight:  31 When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb, but Rachel was barren. [Gen 29:31 ESV].  Or maybe it just confirms it!  This is worded almost as if both were barren initially, but God favored Leah and "fixed" her problem because of Jacob's favoritism.

Leah has four son's.  Reuben (behold a son), Simeon (heard), Levi (joined to), and Judah (praised).  Then no more.  As each son is born, she says that maybe now her husband will love her.  He still favors Rachel, and is only going in to Leah for the sons she bears him.  No matter how many sons Leah has, Jacob still loves Rachel.  At the birth of Judah, Leah leaves off looking for favor from Jacob, and instead praises God for her sons.  Her attitude changes.  Her focus changes.  Interesting that she praised God for this son, and Judah plays such a role in the future of God's people.  God blesses Leah for her praise, it seems, and for her perseverance in being the wife she should be, even in the face of disdain from her husband.    I never noticed this before.  I also never noticed that Judah was the fourth son of the less favored wife, born before any from the most favored wife.  God chooses whom he will.  David and Jesus are descended from the fourth son of the least favored wife.  Nothing really t here to recommend Judah by the standards of the time in which he was born.

Chapter 30
Rachel tells Jacob to give her a child or she shall die.  This angers Jacob.  Perhaps because it is obvious that Jacob is not the problem.  Also, like Leah who's main goal seemed to have been winning Jacob's love away from Rachel, Rachel is looking to Jacob and not God to "answer her prayers".  This is likely to go poorly.  Rachel gives him Bilhah to have children on her behalf.   The phrasing, the words here, are the same ones used of Sarai when she gave Hagar to Abraham to bear her children to him.  This would indicate that as a custom, it came from over in Haran or all the way back to Ur and was brought along by this family as they traveled and spread out.  It also says, as it did of Hagar, that Bilhah is given as a wife.  So she is not a concubine with offspring to be sent away, but her sons will inherit from their father, just as Ishmael did...though clearly he was secondary.  In any case, Bilhah has Dan and Naphtali.  This was apparently custom still, because this is the same thing that Sarah had done with Hagar.  Things are different here though.  In Hagar's case, Ishmael was not the son of promise, and was in fact sent away from Abraham.  Perhaps there is something different in the way it was done here that makes the sons of the servants equal inheritors with the sons of the wives themselves.  This verse though:
8 Then Rachel said, "With mighty wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister and have prevailed." So she called his name Naphtali. [Gen 30:8 ESV]
The home life could not have been good.  Both Rachel and Leah consider it a competition for Jacob's attention and believe that the sons they bear - the works they perform - will be the tally that counts most in the competition.

Leah recognizes that the four sons she's had appear to be all the children that she can have.  So further escalating the competition between herself and Rachel, she gives her servant Zilpah for Jacob to marry and have more sons.  Zilpah has Dan and Asher.  MSB says the rivalry between the sisters indicts the system, not the sisters.  Polygamy is not according to God's plan, and was at the root of all the problems.

Rachel consents to Jacob sleeping with Leah in exchange for some mandrakes that Reuben finds and brings to Leah.  These were believed to enhance fertility.  Leah gives birth to Issachar.  Then Leah has a sixth son Zebulon, and a daughter Dinah.  Rachel is still barren.  Leah still feels neglected, is still being treated as the "second wife", though she has given Jacob 6 sons and a daughter.  Hers is a hard and lonely life, though she is among family the whole time.

Finally, Rachel has Joseph.

2024 - So here are the sons of each mother:
Leah has Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah.  Later Issachar and Zebulon, daughter Dinah.
Bilhah, Rachel's maid, has Dan, Naphtali
Zilpah, Rachel's maid, has Gad, then Asher
Rachel, Joseph, Benjamin.

Jacob wants to leave Laban and return home.  They make a deal about spotted lambs, but Laban tries to cheat.  Jacob does a little manipulating also, and is successful.
2021 - There is a lot to this story, but it is all about Laban's treachery to keep Jacob with him as almost an indentured servant.  Laban is not about God, and uses divination to discover that all the good happening to him is because Jacob is there.  It is really Jacob being blessed, not Laban.  So in his greed, Laban plots and plans to keep Jacob there no matter what.  At this time at least, Jacob seems to be acting in an honest manner.  None of what he does to increase the newborn sheep and goats attributable to his flocks is treachery, nor is it hidden.  It is something he "knows" how to do, and likely stems from the superior knowledge of husbandry in the west.  Jacob's flocks multiply greatly.  Laban's do not.  But at least Jacob is still there.  Jacob has all sorts of tension within his household, with four women bearing him children, two of them in outright warfare over him.  Now, his employer is cheating him and manipulating him to prevent him from doing as he thinks he should.   Jacob is in a bad place, and seems now to be trying to do the right thing, despite all that is going on around him.  But remember the reason he came here in the first place.  Esau was planning to kill him for not one, but two acts of treachery.  Jacob's tension filled life,  his lack of peace, may well be the consequence of his own previous actions.  God has not forgotten all that, any more than he forgot David's sin with Bathsheba.  David suffered a long time over that.  He lost children over that.  Mistakes have consequences, even while we are on this earth.
What a good FB post!

Chapter 31
Things change between Laban and Jacob, and God tells Jacob to leave.  
Jacob informs Rachel and Leah of events of late and of his plan to leave.  They are ready to go.
Laban had gone to shear his sheep, and Rachel stole her father's household gods. And Jacob tricked Laban the Aramean, by not telling him that he intended to flee.
Genesis 31:19‭-‬20 ESV
Really hard to see Jacob and his wives as the heroes in this story.  Did Rachel steal the gods so she could continue to worship them or to spite her father.  Both present some severe problems.

Laban pursues and catches up after a week.  God warns Laban to be careful what he says.
How did they get from Haran to Gilead in only seven days?  Jacob got there in 10 pushing livestock women and children.
They have a confrontation.  Laban accuses Jacob of stealing his gods.  Jacob is unaware and says it Laban finds them, someone will die.  Laban searches.
Rachel hides what she stole with another lie.  Jacob makes a self-righteous speech about what a good guy he is and how Laban has abused him.
Laban and Jacob then make a covenant to leave each other alone.  Laban kisses the grands, and then goes home.

Chapter 32
2024 - Starts this way:
1 Jacob went on his way, and the angels of God met him. [Gen 32:1 ESV].  Here we have the angels of God, mal-ake elohim.  This is a different term than sons of God, which we have seen before.  Moving this verse over to "Who Are the Sons of God, as a relevant reference.  This is all it says about the angels.  They "met him". What does that even mean?  Jacob recognized them as sent from God, and he recognized that it was a big deal, and he gave the place a special name because of it.  He recognized that this was very significant.  But that is all we really know.

As Jacob nears home he sends ahead to Esau.  Esau comes to meet him and brings 400 men.  Jacob is afraid.  He prays, and asks God to keep his promises and do him good.  To me, this is the first time in Jacobs life that he "comes clean".
Jacob sends a present ahead of him to Esau, each with a distance between it and the next present, while Jacob stays behind.  He hopes each wave of presents will lessen Esau's anger.  I suspect he also believes some of the 400 will be assigned to tend flocks, lowering the odds.
Jacob wrestles an angel and is not defeated.  His name is changed to Israel, and he received a blessing.  BUT, he still hasn't received one freely intended for him.  He's deceived someone for pretty much everything he has.

2024 - These verses:
24 And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. 25 When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob's hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. 26 Then he said, "Let me go, for the day has broken." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." [Gen 32:24-26 ESV].  A "man" wrestled with him.  The Hebrew word appear 1,639 times in the KJV and is translated simply "man" 1,002 times.  It is never translated angel, never means anything supernatural.  So a man able to knock a hip out of joint with a touch but not win a wrestling match.  I'm thinking...not JUST a man.  It is also quite interesting to me that as the day break, the man wants to be released.  Do angles fear the daylight?  Do they always appear at night?  Well not when they ate with Abraham before Sodom and Gomorrah...but wait...did those verses use this word?
Hmmm....The very same word is used of those who appeared at Abraham's camp:
2 He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth ... 16 Then the men set out from there, and they looked down toward Sodom. And Abraham went with them to set them on their way. ... 22 So the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the LORD. [Gen 18:2, 16, 22 ESV]
There were three of them that time.  So we cannot say this word applies exclusively to the pre-incarnate Christ.  We know that two of the "men" who appeared to Abraham were angels, as that comes out in the rest of that particular story.  So I think if we put these two stories together, we have a good case that this wrestler was not "just" a man.  Angels are spirits.  So not just an angel either, or Jacob would never have been able to hold on to him so that he had to ask to be let go.  Jacob was not wrestling a spirit but somehow, flesh and blood.  The "man" asks Jacob his name, as if he did not know it.  And this "man" sort of moves forward the promises that had been made to Abraham and Isaac, and bestows them on Jacob.  This does not have to be God, nor does it have to be an angel.  God speaks through others more and more.  Perhaps this wrestling match is the first instance of God speaking through a messenger instead of speaking directly to a person?  No...not the first, because when the three men visited Abraham they told him Sarai would have a son in a year.  So that was not God speaking directly to Abraham but instead speaking through a messenger.  I don't see that we have any real "requirement" to make this "man" Jesus pre-incarnate.
But...this following verse:
30 So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." [Gen 32:30 ESV].  This is how Jacob thought of the event.  He thought he was wrestling with actual God, face to face. We have other verses that say no man has seen God.  This was a physical person with which Jacob wrestled.  God would NEVER need to ask a man to release him because the sun was coming up!  So NOT the Father.  Why would Jesus need to ask that?  Frankly, I don't think this angel in human form needed to either.  He could have popped both shoulders and the other leg out of joint and walked away.  
So what do these "trappings" of an all night wrestling match that Jacob "wins" tell us?  What meaning is being conveyed?  All the "lessons" I come up with are just wrong.  MSB says, in the note on 32:24 in part, "The site name...given by Jacob and the commentary given by Hosea (Hos 12:4) identifies the man with whom Jacob wrestled as the "Angel of the Lord", who is also identified as God, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ.  See note on Ex 3:2."  Sorry MSB, but I don't think that's correct.
2024 - Still can't let it go...so this:
4 He strove with the angel and prevailed; he wept and sought his favor. He met God at Bethel, and there God spoke with us-- [Hos 12:4 ESV].  You DO NOT PREVAIL over God.  Jacob "met" God in the sense that God gave him information that he, Jacob, was the son through whom the promises would be fulfilled.  God spoke through the angel, not directly, as he had spoken to Abraham.  I think God also speaks directly to Isaac.  To Jacob, though, was it directly or only in that dream to go home in Chapter 31?  
Another really good study.  How long is the gap where God stops speaking directly with men?  From when until Moses?  We know he spoke directly with Moses.  I would really like to do that study, but you'd have to re-read all of Genesis to this point!

Chapter 33
And he put the servants with their children in front, then Leah with her children, and Rachel and Joseph last of all.
Genesis 33:2 ESV
In those days, hierarchies were real and everyone knew where they stood.
Jacob meets Esau and they both say friendly words.  Seems to me though that Jacob deceives again as to his real plans.  He does not follow Esau home but goes elsewhere and buys himself some land.
He builds an altar and calls it El-Elohe-Israel, meaning God the God of Israel.

Chapter 34
Dinah, Leah's daughter, goes exploring.  A man sees her and rapes her.  He decides he loves her and asks his father to arrange a marriage to her.  
Or he wants to cover up his evil deed by making it legal.  He is Shechem, prince of the land who's sons sold Jacob his property and his father is Hamor.  
Jacob gets word of what's happened.  His sons are all in the fields, so he sits tight for a time.  Shechem and Hamor show up to negotiate for Dinah.  By now, the sons are home and pretty angry.  Hamor offers peace in the land, their daughters for Jacobs sons, their sons for Jacobs daughters, peace, trading and prosperity. Shechem offers any bride price that Jacob cares to ask for and says he will pay it.

Jacob's sons answer deceitfully.  Perhaps they learned this from Jacob and Laban and their dealings with each other, as Lot's daughters had learned their morals in Sodom.  Our choices, and especially our sins, have consequences.  Little eyes are always watching, and they learn from their parents, and from the environments where their parents take them.  Jacob's sons require Shechem and his party to be circumcised if Dinah is to be given in marriage.  They agree.  Indication is that Jacob is not a party to this deal, but his sons alone are negotiating.  

2025 - Jacob's sons pervert their covenant with God by using it not as something sacred but as a way to manipulate and gain advantage over others.  And they are successful really.  It works, and they run amok.  Worse, they are using a sign meant to keep Israel separate from the tribes around them for the opposite purpose.  It was not a means of "converting pagans to God", but to a means of separating Israel from the surrounding pagans.

Hamor and Shechem, being very honored in the town, convince all the townsmen to be circumcised also.  The name of the town is Shechem, I believe, which tells you something about who these people were.  On the third day after circumcision, when the men are all sore, Levi and Simeon attack the city, kill Shechem and Hamor both, retrieve their sister, loot the town, steal the flocks.  They also take their little ones and their wives, I'm guessing to enslave the children for life and to use the wives as concubines and slaves.  

Jacob hears of it and tells Levi and Simeon they have caused him a lot of trouble, because if the Canaanites and the Perizzites combine, Jacob will be destroyed.
But they said, "Should he treat our sister like a prostitute?"
Genesis 34:31 ESV

Seems to me the punishment went far beyond the crime.  Levi and Simeon enriched themselves.  Their motives seem more about the loot than about their sister.  The wrong another does is not carte blanch for us to do whatever we want.  Justice works both ways.

Chapter 35
God tells Jacob to go to Bethel and build an altar to him.  Jacob tells his family group to give him all the foreign gods that they have, purify themselves, and put on nice clothes.  But he doesn't destroy those foreign gods.  He hides them under a terebinth tree near Shechem.

2024 - Note that God speaks to Jacob directly here.  So the idea of the angels, or the men who were angels in disguise delivering messages instead of God delivering them directly, is not the case every time.  At least not yet.

2024 - This:  
10 And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name." So he called his name Israel. [Gen 35:10 ESV].  Jacob's name had already been changed at the end of the wrestling match in Chapter 9.  Why did it have to be done again?  MSB says that this was a return to Bethel, and that Jacob repeats the things he'd done there the first time, as he fled from Esau.  He meets God - though the last time they wrestled - God repeats the new name, God repeats the Abrahamic promises...
But is that what this is?  Or is this God saying what the angel only had said before.  This is God affirming that what that angel said is in fact from Him directly?

11 And God said to him, "I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body. 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you." [Gen 35:11-12 ESV]
The promises made to Abraham are renewed to Jacob.  I don't know why.  It is also difficult to understand Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated.  Neither was a peach, but Jacob seems to take two-faced to a whole new level.

Jacob journeys to Ephrath, that is, Bethlehem.  Rachel goes into labor on the way.  Hard labor.  She dies just after she gives birth, naming her son Ben-oni, but Jacob calls him Benjamin.  So Rachel who was barren, ends up with two sons, Joseph and Benjamin, and they also are Jacob's favorites.  It was always Rachel that he loved so her children were his favorites.  They continue on and set up camp in Eder.

2025 - This verse:  18 And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin. [Gen 35:18 ESV].  Our souls leave our bodies when we die.  Hard to interpret this any other way...except that in context, it is not about what happens when we die, it is about the death of Rachel.  So don't read too awfully much into it.  
How old would Rachel have been here?  Still young enough to have a son...but perhaps past the age of safety.  Especially in that day and age.

2025 - Neither Deborah, Rebekah's maid, nor Rachel, is buried in the family crypt at Mamre that Abraham had purchased.  That was a big deal having that land, but Jacob doesn't seem to make any effort to get the mothers of his sons to Mamre.

While there, Reuben has sex with Bilhah, his father's concubine.  What a great bunch of people!  Jacob, now called Israel, finds out.  We are not told that he does anything at all about it.  (Until later.  He does do something about it though.)

Isaac dies at the age of 180.  He breathed his last and was gathered to his people, old and full of days.  Jacob and Esau bury him.

2025 - So Isaac was still alive when Jacob returned.  How long had he been back in the land of Canaan and just now goes to see his father?  Isaac had favored Esau, and Jacob had deceived them both.  He probably didn't feel all that welcome in Isaac's tent.  Hurts like these run deep and last a very long time. 

Chapter 36
The generations of Esau detailed.  He has three wives and five sons.  He becomes wealthy, and decides to leave Canaan because there is not enough room for both he and Israel.  He leaves and goes to Seir (Esau is Edom).

Esau's oldest son was Eliphaz.  Two of his sons are Korah and Amalek.  The Amalekites?  Checked MSB but no note there.

We get a lot of detail on the sons of Esau, of the chiefs that were in Seir and their lineage, and then we get a long passage about the kings who reigned in Edom, before any king reigned over Israel.  Not sure why we get all this detail, but there has to be some reason.

Chapter 37
The generations of Jacob.
Joseph is tending the sheep at the age of 17, and brings his father a bad report of the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.  Israel makes him a coat of many colors.  His brothers hate him so much they cannot even speak peacefully to him.  Joseph dreams that his brothers will bow down to him, and he tells his brothers about the dream.  They hate him still more.  He doesn't really help himself much in this.  He has a second dream, and in it, not only his brothers but his father and mother bow to him.  He tells them all about the dream.  His father rebukes him, but remembers the dream.  His brothers are jealous of him.  2021 - It is interesting that in both cases, they all knew the interpretation of the dream.  No mystery.  They just resented the dream. 
2024 - It seems Joseph had inherited a lot of his father's character traits.  He was younger, but saw himself as the rightful heir, the oldest, the one to be served.  He tried to tell them that because of these "mystical, prophetic dreams of the future" that they might as well start paying homage now, and not waste the time.  He has no idea how his words and actions will be perceived by others, no foresight or wisdom.  He seems a bit of a narcissist....or at least might be diagnosed as such in our day.  Though I guess being so open about his "rightful" position is not a very good narcissistic tactic, and in fact might get you sold to the Midianites!

Israel sends Joseph to check on his brothers at Dothan.  Not really a very wise idea...but it turns out God was behind it.  His brothers see him coming and plot to kill him.  But Reuben rescues him by having them throw Joseph in a pit instead of killing him outright.  Reuben's plan is to go back and rescue him from the pit and send him home.  While they are still there, a caravan of Ismaelites goes by.  Judah decides to sell Joseph as a slave to them, rather than to kill their own brother.  

Are Midianites and Ishmaelites the same?  Because it says:
28 Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt. [Gen 37:28 ESV]
The pronouns are very confusing.  Does it mean Midianites came by.  Joseph's brothers, or Judah? pulled him up from the pit and sold him to the traders (the guys descended from Ishmael who now live in Midian?), and the traders, or the buyers or somebody, took Joseph to Egypt.
2021 - other translations imply that Midianite traders are Ishmaelites.  Midian shows up often as we go along.  Try to remember where they came from.  Same with Amalekites, descended from Amalek, Esau's grandson by a concubine. 

Reuben comes to rescue Joseph, as planned, but he is not in the pit.  So Reuben was not with the other brothers when they also decide not to kill Joseph.  Reuben goes back to his brothers and tells them Joseph is gone.  But they apparently don't tell him that they sold him down the river.  Either that, or Judah had made the decision to sell Joseph all on his own, and none of them knew about it.  Does it matter to the story later?  They are all afraid when they learn Joseph's true identity in Egypt...but because they sold him, or because they didn't know what had really happened to him?  They all decide to put blood on Joseph's coat of many colors.  They take it to Israel, but don't technically lie to him about it all.  They ask Israel if this is Joseph's coat, and Israel identifies it as such.  He says that a wild animal doubtless tore him to pieces, and the brothers don't argue with him.

2025 - In vs 22 we see Reuben's plan.  He intended to return Joseph to Jacob.  Reuben first talks them out of killing Joseph outright and throwing him into a pit already dead, but agrees to throw Joseph in a pit alive.  Reuben's plan, all by his lonesome, is to go back and rescue Joseph from the pit and take him home.  Reuben was not in his father's favor at all.  Perhaps he thought by this means to recover some of the ground that he had previously lost.  
2025 - The Ishmaelites just happen to come along.  Judah decides it would be better to sell Joseph and get some money and send him far away as a slave than to kill him in the pit.  So even though Joseph is alive in the pit, they are apparently still arguing a bit over whether to go ahead and kill him or not.  Being his father's favorite, they cannot really let Joseph out of the pit at this point.  They can't let him go home or he will tattle on them as he always does.  
2025 - As it reads in the NASB95, "a caravan of Ismaelites" and "some Midianite traders" are essentially the same thing.  Or perhaps both Midianites AND Ismaelites passed by and they sold Joseph to the highest bidder - the Ishmaelites.  
2025 - Vs 29 confirms for us that Reuben had separated from his brothers, probably on some pretext, so he could rescue Joseph from the pit.  We know that Reuben is innocent of this move, because "behold" he was not in the pit.  Reuben is surprised to find Joseph missing.  He returns to his brothers greatly distressed.  He does not want to return to Jacob without Joseph.  He does not want to tell the true story of what has happened.  I cannot tell from the text whether the other brothers told Reuben what they had done.  It may well be that as far as Reuben knows, Joseph has disappeared from the pit and Reuben has no idea where to find him, and as the oldest - presumably the one in charge of his brothers and the flocks - this will all be considered Reuben's failure.  And he already has enough problems with Jacob.  So watch for any mention of Reuben as the story unfolds.  We might be able to piece together a little more of his role in all this.

2021 - vss 26, 27 make it clear that Judah proposes selling Joseph to the Ishmaelites.   So Judah gets credit for persuading his brothers not to murder Joseph.  They were all in on selling him into slavery.   Where was Reuben?  Why was Reuben acting alone, and why was he trying to rescue Joseph?  Rueben had convinced his brothers to throw Joseph into the pit, intending to rescue Joseph later.  To do that, Reuben would have had to separate himself from them.  But the Bible doesn't fill us in on these specifics.   We do know Reuben was successful and returns alone to the pit but Joseph is gone, and it does not seem like the others inform Rueben of the sale.  Is that right?  Just let Reuben wonder what had become of Joseph?  Because they didn't want to give him a share of the 20 shekels?  And did they keep this conspiracy quiet for the next, what, 20 years or so?  How does Reuben react when Joseph reveals himself?  Do we see a difference?

In the last verse of the chapter, it says the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh.  So this looks very much like the Ishmaelites they saw were from Midian.  And Joseph is now in the sphere of the Pharaoh of Egypt.

Chapter 38
Judah has three sons of a Canaanite woman named Shua.  Tamar is the wife of Er, Judah's first son.  He is wicked and so God kills him.  Judah urges Onan to provide heirs for Er.  But Onan deceives, to make sure no kids are conceived.  So God kills him also.  Then Judah tells Shua to wait on the youngest, because Judah is afraid God will kill him too.

2024 - So Judah goes off alone on this trip to see an Adullamite named Hirah.  While there, he spots this woman and begins a long term relationship with her.  I think it is implied that Judah is with these people away from his brothers for a very long time.  Long enough to have three sons with the woman, and for that son to get old enough to marry.  I never noticed this before, that Judah lived apart from his brothers and his father for so long.  

2024 - This verse, that probably no one wants to discuss:
9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. [Gen 38:9 ESV].  If we think about this, we see that this brother "goes in to her" several times, but each time he is careful that she won't get pregnant.  What conceit!  To go in there, sleep with her, but make sure that the purpose for this visit is not fulfilled.  Deceit seems to be a characteristic of Jacob's descendants!  I read somewhere that it was only the firstborn son of a widow by her brother-in-law who inherited his dead "father's" estate, and subsequent children belonged to and inherited from their biological father.  But I'm not sure where I read that.  If it is true, then we have to assume that Onan did not want the expense and trouble of raising a son not his own.  And I guess it is also possible that he didn't want to raise any daughters who came along before a son came along.  It is very callous.  Ohh...Maybe Onan knew that HE would inherit from Er's estate if no son were ever born to Er through Onan!  That makes more sense, and it makes it all even more sordid.   Because the woman had to KNOW what Onan was doing!

2021 - Here is the verse:
Then Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law, “Remain a widow in your father’s house, till Shelah my son grows up”—for he feared that he would die, like his brothers. So Tamar went and remained in her father’s house.
Genesis 38:11 ESV
Thia is error on top of error.  Er and Onan were killed by God because they were evil men, born to a concubine.   Judah is blind to the reason his sons died, and now compounds this circumvention of custom by keeping his third son Shelah away from Tamar.

Judah's wife dies.  Tamar pretends to be a prostitute, and conceives by Judah.  So maybe those apples fell pretty close to the tree.  She keeps his stuff as pledge.  Judah sends payment but the cult prostitute is gone.  
2024 - So we see that Judah did indeed marry the daughter of Shua.  (Per BLB, Shua is a masculine name.  We are never told the name of Judah's wife.  That Shua was the father of Judah's wife is confirmed in vs. 12.)

2024 - Before we blame Tamar too much for this deception, we have to remember what Onan did to her.  He used her, many times, but never gave her the child to whom she was entitled.  She had no support to count on in her old age, the support a son who inherited his father's goods would have given her.  She was very abused.

Then about three months later Judah is told that Tamar has been immoral.  He orders her to be brought out and burned.  (He is likely thinking he'll be rid of this woman whom he blames for two dead sons.  Perhaps the rumor convinces him that she was the problem indeed and that Er and Onan were indeed fine boys.)  She sends back his stuff saying it belongs to the man who got her pregnant.  Judah says she is therefore more righteous than he is, because he didn't give her his youngest son.  

She gives birth to twins, (they are both the children and grandchildren of their father)  the first puts his arm out and a scarlet cord is tied on it.  But then the other actually comes out first and is named Perez because he has made a breach for himself.  Then the first is born, named Zerah.  There is another place, a genealogy I believe, where it says that a child was named Perez because "in his day the world was divided".  Might have been Peleg though...

2024 - I recognized the story, but I can't remember anywhere that Perez or Zerah show up later?  So what is the point of this detail?  
Oh my!!!  These verses:
18 Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, 19 Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, 20 Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, 21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David. [Rth 4:18-22 ESV].
This earlier verse in Ruth 4 tells us this is the same Perez that Judah fathered by Tamar:
12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the LORD will give you by this young woman." [Rth 4:12 ESV].
King David is descended from this son, the one who stuck his arm out first and then withdrew it.  THAT is why the story is here!

2025 - Another Biblical story where a woman dishonored and used by men ends up honored forever.  David is descended from Tamar, and Jesus from David.  It does get more honored than that.

Chapter 39
Potiphar recognizes, not that Joseph is good at whatever he does, but that the Lord is with Joseph, and blesses what Joseph does.  This is an Egyptian, yet he can see this.  We don't even look for it today.  Potiphar puts Joseph over everything that he has, and it all prospers.  Potiphar's wife tries to seduce Joseph, but he scorns her.  She lies and tells the other servants and then her husband that Joseph tried to seduce her.  Joseph is sent to the king's prison.  Joseph ends up in charge of the whole prison.

Chapter 40
The cupbearer and the baker are thrown into prison.  They each have a dream and Joseph interprets the dreams.  

Thought about this after the kids went home today:
We had the grandkids over the last three nights and four days.  Not at all the first time we've done this but for me, this time was different.  Seemed like every second was more precious, every word more important, every hug too brief.  I caught myself studying their little faces, their expressions, their smiles.  I was just much more in the moment while they were here.  This was the "quickest" Granny camp I can remember.  It all just seemed to fly by, and it was over before I was ready.  And each time I noticed this, I couldn't help but think "This is how it should have been every time!"  The virus - the awareness of how fragile life is - has shortened my time horizon to "right now".  If I get aggravated, I want to "forgive and forget" immediately.  Not perfect at it, but it doesn't take very long!  I ache for those I love, wanting the best for them, wanting them to be untouched by this thing, wishing good for them, and salvation for them.  It should always have been like this.  God didn't send Corona, but I can and do see very much of Him using it for good.  Using it to wake us up, to remind us, to change us into a more loving people.

Chapter 41
After interpreting the baker's dream and the cupbearer's dream, and the cupbearer getting released, Joseph stays in prison for two more years.  Pharoah has two dreams, one of 7 fat cows eaten by 7 thin, another of 7 plump ears of corn eaten by 7 thin.  He is troubled by the dream.  As Nebuchadnezzar will do later in Nebuchadnezzar's time, Pharoah calls all the magicians in the land to interpret his troubling dreams.   He tells them the dreams, but still they cannot interpret their meaning.

The cupbearer tells Pharoah about his dream being interpreted by Joseph.  Pharoah sends for Joseph, who has been in the pit where Potiphar sent him after his wife's lies for two years.  Joseph says the dreams are one, and mean seven years of plenty followed by seven years of extreme famine.  Jacob goes on to recommend that Pharoah store 20% of all the grain produced during the productive years, and then use it to allay the famine of the next seven.  In fact, Joseph goes into more detail, recommending an administrative apparatus to implement the 20% plan.
 

2024 - Is this a principle?
‭‭Genesis 41:32 NASB1995‬‬
[32] Now as for the repeating of the dream to Pharaoh twice, it means that the matter is determined by God, and God will quickly bring it about.
Compare to Neb's dreams in Daniel.   None repeated, so long delay between dream and fulfilment.  Prophetic dreams and visions....often long delayed.    But dream the same thing twice - if the dreams are one, repeated, it is coming true soon.

Pharoah puts Joseph over the implementing the plan, and gives him power in Egypt second only to himself.  He calls Joseph Zaphenath-paneah (no one is sure to this day what the name means), and gives him Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, as his wife.  So Pharoah makes Joseph a part of his own royal family by marriage.  From the pit to the pinnacle.  Joseph was 30 years old at the time.  

During the next seven years Joseph stored grain in each city from all the area around that city.  So much they just quit counting it.  It was everywhere.  Also, Arsenath bears him two children, Manassah and Ephraim.  So the daughter of the priest of a false God gives Joseph two sons, each of whom receives a separate share in the promised land.  In this way, Joseph, the youngest son of Israel, receives the double portion normally reserved for the oldest.

The famine, when it comes, is very widespread.  Even the nations around Egypt are hard hit.  Things get bad enough that the people of Egypt cry out to Pharoah.  Pharoah refers them to Joseph, and tells them to do as he says to do.  When the famine gets into full swing, Joseph begins to sell the stored grain back to the people, and to the whole world.  Hmm....Joseph is in charge - a single man is in charge - of the only food remaining on the earth - at least in this corner of it.  As the Antichrist will take over all buying and selling at the end, Joseph is perhaps (I do not know, and do not remember seeing that elsewhere) the type for such a time.  It would be good to read this whole story of Joseph again and establish milestones that might correspond to the rise of the Antichrist.

Chapter 42
Jacob sends ten of his sons to buy grain in Egypt.  They bow before Joseph, but do not recognize him.  Joseph calls them spies and then says he will imprison 9 of them while the tenth goes to fetch the 11th.  They believe this is all their punishment for what they did to Joseph in the first place.  Joseph changes his mind, and says he will only keep one imprisoned while the 9 go home and get the 11th.  He even puts the money for the grain back in their bags.  Simeon is bound in their sight, and kept prisoner in Egypt.  

2024 - This verse:
‭‭Genesis 42:22 NASB1995‬‬
[22] Reuben answered them, saying, “Did I not tell you, ‘Do not sin against the boy’; and you would not listen? Now comes the reckoning for his blood.”  Joseph overhears this.  So Joseph knows at this point that only Rueben wanted to spare his life.  Likely also knows that Rueben had no part in selling Joseph to the Midianites.  Quite a character change in the man who slept with his father's concubine and will lose half his inheritance over it.

When they talk to Jacob, he is reluctant to trust them with Benjamin, because Benjamin is the only one left of the two Rachel bore him.

Many things in these two chapters.  Joseph remained in that pit that Potiphar threw him into for two full years.  A long time in a horrid place with horrid men for a crime he never committed.  Of course, Joseph did end up in charge of that pit.  Two years though...a long time to serve for a crime that didn't even happen.
Because God favors Joseph, even from such a lowly place, he rises to power almost instantaneously, from the lowest low to the second place in the land with practically unlimited power.  This is just as antichrist will arise suddenly.  Joseph was a foreigner in Egypt, and rose to power.  Joseph was betrayed by his own.  Joseph was falsely accused of crime and served time for it.  Joseph was given "inside information" that allowed him to rise to power.  There is no mention of any revenge on the part of Joseph.  But it could be that Arsenath is in fact Potiphar's daughter, though the names are not quite the same.  Potiphar's wife would have been very aware of her suddenly tenuous hold on her own position.  
Joseph also does not choose to avenge himself on his brothers.  He certainly had a grievance.
Joseph is still a bit of a schemer.  Accusing them falsely, and blackmailing them into bringing Benjamin.
And last but not least, despite all his own problems, Jacob was deeply in love with Rachel, to the exclusion of all else in the world, and because of his love for her, he loved her sons above the other ten.  He played favorites.  It caused problems, but it was how he felt and he could not hide it.  He did things that we see as unfair, but he didn't apologize for it.  God is the same.  He loves who he loves, he blesses them even when we see them as deceitful and scheming (though most are not that way), he prospers them, he takes them from low to high, and so on. 
 

Chapter 43
Israel won't let them go back with Benjamin, because he doesn't want to lose him.  So they leave Simeon a captive until they have eaten all the grain they brought home.  Israel tells them to go get more.  They say it's a waste of time if Benjamin does not go with them.  Judah says he will take full responsibility.  Points out they could have gone and come back twice by now if Israel would have let Benjamin go.  Judah also says they are all going to starve if they do not go.

Israel relents. They take twice as much money as the first time.  They take many other gifts also.  Plus they take the money from the first time.  And they go.

All the brothers are brought to Joseph's house.  They confess to the steward about their money being sent home with them the first time.  The steward says he knows about that already.  Simeon is brought in to them.  There does not seem to be much of a celebration. 

2025 - They were afraid because they knew they should have returned to Egypt as soon as they discovered their money still in their sacks the first time.  To anyone in Egypt, it would look like they decided to keep the money and go on home, and hopefully the famine would end, and they'd never have to go back.  It would seem they were willing to leave their brother Simeon  there in Egypt for the duration if it meant they could have both the food AND their money.  They certainly appear to be guilty of something in all this decisions.

​

Joseph shows up at noon and is overcome with emotion when he sees Benjamin.  He eats alone, as do the Hebrews.  The Egyptians in the house don't eat with the Hebrews because:
32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. [Gen 43:32 ESV]
I have never read why this is so, though I do remember reading it before.  MSB calls it exclusivism because the Hebrews were foreigners.  Joseph also ate alone because of his rank, per MSB.  That doesn't seem to qualify as abomination though.

Chapter 44
Joseph sends them away, but decides to test them.   He puts his own silver cup in Benjamin's sack along with his money.  After they are gone, Joseph sends his servant to accuse them of stealing the cup.  They play innocent, since they are this time, but the cup is found in Benjamin's sack.  They return to Egypt.  They all offer to be Joseph's slaves, but Joseph requires only that Benjamin stay as slave, since he had the cup.  Judah tells the whole story of Israel's love for Benjamin to Joseph, and begs to stay in Benjamin's place.

2024 - Why was it Judah, the fourth born to Leah, that offered himself in Benjamin's place?  Most obvious is that he had pledged to his father that he would take all the blame. But why Judah?  Why is he the one who shouldered the blame at home?  Not the firstborn Reuben, who was innocent of Joseph but had no idea Joseph was involved.  Not Simeon, who was already captive in Egypt.  And not Levi, from whom the intercessory priesthood would come.  Levi would have been the one I thiught would intervene.  But it was Judah, from whom Kings,  and still more inportantly the Messiah would come.  Ahhh....Judah offers himself in exchange for another as Jesus would offer himself for all!  Now doesn't the Bible make good sense!?  Such details don't just happen.  God makes them happen!
FB 031424 Thursday

Chapter 45
Joseph sends out the Egyptians and reveals himself to his brothers.  But the Egyptians hear his weeping.  His brothers are now even more afraid than before.  
This is all reported to Pharoah, and he tells Joseph to bring the whole family down, that they will get the best Egypt has to offer, they and all their children.  Gifts are given to them all, but much more is given to Benjamin.  Do they not realize that favoritism is what started all this in the first place?  

2025 - Here is an interesting verse I haven't noticed before:
24 Then he sent his brothers away, and as they departed, he said to them, "Do not quarrel on the way." [Gen 45:24 ESV].  What in the world was this about?  Is this something he remembered about them from when he was growing  up?  A characteristic that showed up all the time?  Everything was good.  Taking home food, moving to Egypt as Pharoah's favorites, Joseph alive...hmm...they were going to have to tell their father about all that, and admit they let him grieve Joseph's death all those years when they knew Joseph wasn't dead, just sold into slavery.  Maybe they'd quarrel about how would take the blame for that.  But Joseph telling them this indicates that he though the quarreling might get pretty intense.

God meant for the favoritism to result in Joseph's exile, his coming to power in Egypt, his preservation of Israel in Egypt because of that power, and the eventual captivity of Israel's descendants in that place, as foretold to Abraham so many years before.  Abraham, who put Isaac before Ishmael and his brothers, Isaac, who preferred the food and manliness of Esau before Jacob, and Jacob who showed great favoritism to Joseph, Rachel's firstborn.  To us, all this was wrong and caused so many problems - long term problems - but to God, it was designed to preserve his people.  
This is the same problem that non-Calvinist have with unconditional election.  They don't think it is fair that God choose some over others, not because of merit, but because he chooses to do so.  But God has ever done things this very way.  We should see it and believe it and accept it.

Chapter 46
Israel agrees to go to Egypt.  God speaks to him and tells him He will go also.  He tells Israel that Joseph will close his eyes when he dies.  So Israel continues to Egypt with all that his has - family and goods, children and grandchildren.  Altogether, Israel had 33 children and grands from children born to Leah.  He had another 16 from Zilpah, Leah's servant.  There were 14 children and grands descended through Rachel.  Finally, there were 7 born to Bilhah, Rachel's servant.  That is, from one man, Jacob, in two generations, came 70 descendants.  The specific names are all given in this chapter.  From these 70, in 400 years, came the children of Israel.  I have seen estimates as high as 2 million when they leave Egypt.

2024 - Why in the world does God call Israel Jacob in these night visions?  Because it was not God, but an angel that changed his name the first time?  

2025 - It is interesting.  In 46:1 it is Israel that set out for Egypt.  In 46:2 God says "Jacob, Jacob.".  Perhaps it is here that the name Israel is applied to the coming nation - the coming people of God - and Jacob is still used of the Patriarch of that nation?  This makes some sense I think.

2025 - So the sons and grandsons of Jacob through Leah are 32, and Dinah is 33.  Only one daughter named.  Were daughters truly this rare in this family?  From Zilpah, 15 sons and grandsons, and 1 daughter.  From Rachel, 14 sons and grandsons.  From Bilhah, 7 sons and grandsons.  The Bible says 66 "persons" came down.  The numbers above, including the two daughters, add up to 70, which is what we see in vs. 27 as the total.  But in vs 26, it says the "direct descendants" of Jacob , not including the wives, were 66.  Why the difference?  Because two of Judah's sons, Onan and Er, died before leaving Canaan, and Joseph's two sons were already in Egypt.  So correlating these 70 with the earlier "Table of Nations" hits a hard spot, since technically, while Jacob had 70 descendants, on 68 were in the original group in Egypt.

MSB does not address it.  It seems like a big deal to me.  Because it is God talking, not Jesus?  What, they disagree on this?  No way!  And I'm vs 5 Jacob arose, not Israel.
Joseph comes to meet Israel, and they are reunited.  Joseph says he will tell Pharoah that they have arrived, and that when Pharoah asks them what they do for a living, they will say that they herd livestock.  They are not to say they are shepherds, because shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians.  Hebrews were an abomination, as was mentioned in the previous chapters, and now shepherds.  They stop in the land of Goshen.

Joseph comes to meet Israel, and they are reunited.  Joseph says he will tell Pharoah that they have arrived, and that when Pharoah asks them what they do for a living, they will say that they herd livestock.  They are not to say they are shepherds, because shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians.  Hebrews were an abomination, as was mentioned in the previous chapters, and now shepherds.  They stop in the land of Goshen.

2023 - No, the above paragraph is just wrong.  Joseph says he will tell Pharoah first hand that the Hebrews are all shepherds, in vs 32.  I think a better interpretation is like the old west of America.  The Egyptians were cattle farmers and disdained sheep.  So by setting themselves apart as hated shepherds, the Hebrews in Goshen would be severely avoided by the Egyptians.  This was good in that it kept the children of Jacob separate and apart, not intermarrying with the Egyptians.  Egyptians apparently hated shepherds even more than cowboys hated them.  So today is the eighth time in eight years that I have read these verses, and this is the first time that this obvious thing as "gotten through" to me.

Chapter 47
Joseph tells Pharoah that his family from Canaan are now settled in Goshen.  Joseph presents five of his brothers to Pharoah, who asks their occupations.  
3 Pharaoh said to his brothers, "What is your occupation?" And they said to Pharaoh, "Your servants are shepherds, as our fathers were." [Gen 47:3 ESV]  Why in the world would they do something like this after what Joseph had told them???  Pharoah, though, does not react to that.  Instead, he tells Joseph to settle them in the best of the land of Egypt, and to let those who are capable tend Pharoah's livestock.

Israel is taken to meet Pharoah, though he is introduced as Jacob.  Jacob blesses Pharoah, and Pharoah asks his age.  Israel is 130 at this time, and says he is younger than his father's were when they died.  

The famine remains.  Joseph sells grain to all Egypt and Canaan until Pharoah has all the money that there is in those places. The next year, Joseph sells grain in exchange for the people's land, and buys the people themselves so they become Pharoah's slaves.  So all the money, all the property, and all the people - except the priests - belong to Pharoah.  He owns all there is to own.  

2023 - These verses:  20 So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for all the Egyptians sold their fields, because the famine was severe on them. The land became Pharaoh's. 21 As for the people, he made servants of them from one end of Egypt to the other. [Gen 47:20-21 ESV].  In 21b, there is a note in the TCR that says that the Samaritan, Septuagint, Vulgate, Hebrew texts all say that "he removed them to the cities", rather than "he made servants of them".  So if we go with that, it means Joseph brought them all into the cities where the storehouses were that he had set up, making food distribution efficient and quick.  They were Pharoah's servants in the sense that he was the only thing keeping him alive.  They had become 100% dependent on their government.  They did not own the means of production, even of agricultural production, because Pharoah owned it all.  He officially also owned them AS IF THEY WERE HIS SLAVES.  Since this arrangement came from God through Joseph, we see that perhaps there IS a time when pure socialism works, and that is when poverty is rampant and there is NO possibility of private survival, because the government has sucked up everything during a crisis.  In this case, because a "good" government was prepared for the severest of situations, this kind of setup worked to save many from starvation.  Then afterward, as agriculture came back, it is likely that the people "bought back" themselves, their land, and their goods, enriching the government still further, but restoring private ownership.  Maybe that's how it worked.  We really don't know what happened after the famine was over, and during the remainder of the 400 years in Egypt.
2023 - Ahh...it goes on.  What really happened is that as the famine ended, Joseph gave seed to those going back out to restart agriculture.  They all because sharecroppers, giving 20% of their produce to Pharoah from then on.  A permanent 20% tax off the top.  At this rate, Pharoah - the government - owned them all, and they worked for the benefit of Pharoah.  Wow.

When the famine is over, Jacob provides seed to Pharoah's servants, and requires a fifth of all crops for Pharoah's house.

Jacob dies in Egypt at the age of 147.  Jacob makes Joseph swear to take his bones from Egypt when they leave, and bury his bones with those of his fathers.

Chapter 48
Joseph hears his father Jacob is near death, and takes Ephraim and Manasseh to see him.  Jacob sits up in bed.  He says this of God's promise to him:
4 and said to me, 'Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples and will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession.' [Gen 48:4 ESV]
This was Jacob's understanding of God's ongoing promise that the land would belong to his descendants forever.  
Then he tells Joseph that Ephraim and Manassah will be his sons as Reuben and Simeon are his sons, and that Joseph's other children will remain with him.  I know that throughout the following history, there is no tribe of Joseph ever, but there are the half tribes of Ephraim and Manassah.  I believe this is because Jacob wanted Joseph to have a double portion of the inheritance.  Instead of a single 12th of the inheritance, this way, Joseph's descendants will receive two portions.  Normally, it was only the firstborn that got two parts.    Reuben and Simeon were the first two sons of Leah.  Reuben was Jacob's firstborn.  I don't get why both are mentioned in this way.  There is nothing in MSB about it either.  No comments at all on the two relevant verses.
(By making Ephraim and Manassah his sons instead of his grandsons, the two were entitled to inherit from Jacob, and it would be as if Jacob had 13 sons, not 12.  Joseph obviously needed nothing from his father, so Joseph's sons received Joseph's portions.)

Joseph presents his still very young sons to Jacob for a blessing. These are the words:
5 And he blessed Joseph and said, "The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, bless the boys; and in them let my name be carried on, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth." [Gen 48:15-16 ESV]
It would seem from this that Jacob intended Ephraim and Manassah to be the primary tribes, and to be the tribes most associated with his name.  Yet I would say that as it turns out, Judah is the tribe that God chose.  From Judah came Christ, not from E or M?  MSB says that Ephraim does later become a substitute name for Israel.  I will watch for this.

Jacob crosses his hands and puts his right hand on the younger son's head.  Joseph doesn't like this.  I don't know why he wouldn't!  Joseph tries to correct his father, but his father says that he has done what he intended (this time!!!) and that the younger son Ephraim will be the greater and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.  Jacob reinforces this here:
20 So he blessed them that day, saying, "By you Israel will pronounce blessings, saying, 'God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh.'" Thus he put Ephraim before Manasseh. [Gen 48:20 ESV]

Jacob gives Joseph a "mountain slope he took from the Amorites with the sword".  Gives it to Joseph instead of to Joseph's brothers.  MSB says the conquest of this slope is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.  We don't know what it's about.  He also tells Joseph that God will bring Joseph again to the land of his fathers.

Chapter 49
MSB says this about the chapter:  "...the father's blessing portrayed the future history of each son, seemingly based upon their characters up to that time.  The Cryptic nature of the poetry demands rigorous analysis for correlating tribal history with Jacob's last word and testament.  See Moses' blessing on the tribes in Dt. 33, ca 1405 BC."  I want to book mark this passage so I can come back to it in the future when I read about a certain tribe.

Jacob then goes on to bless the rest of his sons. He is very specific about their futures:
Reuben - firstborn, but will not have the preeminence because he went to his father's bed and defiled it when he slept with the mother of some of his brothers.  He had slept with one of his father's concubines.  This may be the first time Reuben learns that his father knew about it all along.  Jacob calls Reuben "unstable as water".  MSB points out that this sin against his father erased Reuben's place as the one to get the double portion.  Instead, the second son receives it.  So this is what Jacob meant by crossing his hands when he blessed Ephraim and Manasseh.  MSB says not one judge, prophet, military leader, or other important person came from this tribe.  Moses even prayed that the tribe of Reuben wouldn't die out completely.

Simeon and Levi are talked about together - Violent men.  Jacob wants nothing to do with them.  They killed men and hamstrung oxen over the rape of their sister at Shechem.  They brought down anger and bad feeling on Jacob and the whole family because of their anger.  They endangered the whole family by indulging their anger at that time.  Jacob has not forgotten what they did, and is aware of the underlying violent tendencies that prompted it.  Apparently they went far beyond justice and indulged their own violent tendencies.  Jacob curses their anger because it is fierce and their wrath for it is cruel.  They are to be scattered in Israel.  Hmm...the Levites end up as keepers of the temple, but they don't really own land.  They don't inherit the way the other tribes do.  Don't know much about Simeon's share...
Per MSB, Simeon has become the smallest tribe in Israel by the time of the census in Numbers 26.  Moses did not bless this tribe in Dt. 33.  They later had to share territory with Judah.  Levi was "scattered" in the sense that they were priests all over the land.  They had no land of their own, and so were "dispersed".

Judah:  The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet.  His brothers will bow down to him.  He will bind his foal to the vine, and his donkey's colt to the choice vine.   (Jesus entered Jerusalem on the foal of a donkey.  This is a long time before that happens! - 2020, MSB says that isn't what this means.  Letting a donkey eat from a choice grape vine is a sign of affluence and plenty.  There's enough "choice" that even the livestock get the good stuff.)  

2024 - Don't really get the whole "Shiloh" reference.  MSB says Shiloh is "the cryptogram for the Messiah".  I don't know what that means either and  he explains it no further.  I found this article - which doesn't mention cryptograms but does give some information on the interpretation of this verse:
/https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/Genesis_49.10.php
And here's the Merriam-Webster definition:

cryptogram noun

cryp·to·gram                                                                                                                                                           1  : a communication in cipher or code                                                                            
2  : a figure or representation having a hidden significance           
 

2025 - This is the only place in the OT that this Hebrew word is used.  It looks like this:

שִׁילֹה

BLB says it is an epithet of the Messiah.  Maybe means peace.  Wonder how it relates to "Salem"?  Here is what that word looks like:

שָׁלֵם

Very similar if you don't have the cantillation marks.  Perhaps it is in this sense that it is a cryptogram?  Here is the Merriam Webster definition that I think applies here for epithet:  a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing.  You can see the similarity between cryptogram and code.  

Zebulun:  Will dwell at the seashore.  Perhaps his descendants are to be fishermen.  His border will be at Sidon.  Does that come out that way?  MSB says they were not in fact on the seashore, but were so placed as to benefit from the trade routes coming from there.

Issachar is a strong donkey.  He bowed his shoulder to bear and became a servant at forced labor.  After seeing that the land was pleasant.  Issachar's descendants become workers, and laborers for wages per MSB.

Dan shall judge his people as one of the tribes of Israel.  He will be a serpent in the way, a viper that bites the horses heels so the rider falls backwards.  Per MSB Dan later abandons its land allotment and moves to the extreme north of Israel.  From xxx to Dan is a phrase that was used to encompass all of Israel.  Dan is omitted from the list of tribes in Rev. 7:4-8.  Wow.  I didn't realize that.

Gad:  Raiders shall raid Gad and he will raid at their heels.

Asher:  His food shall be rich.

Naphtali: a doe that bears beautiful fawns.

Joseph: A fruitful bough by a spring.  Jacob recounts many blessings for Joseph, far beyond anything he's said to the others.  I don't quite get this verse:
24 yet his bow remained unmoved; his arms were made agile by the hands of the Mighty One of Jacob (from there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel), [Gen 49:24 ESV]
This seems to be a messianic reference.  Yet Jesus did not come from Joseph's descendants, but from Judah's.  

Benjamin:  A ravenous wolf.  Devouring prey in the morning, dividing the spoil at evening.  Saul is from this tribe.  Gibeah was inhabited by Benjamites, and they defended it in spite of the evil that occurred there.  They were warlike beyond reason, defending themselves against all comers, with no regard for justice.  The apostle Paul is also from this tribe.  Rachel died giving birth to him, and he and Joseph were Jacob's favorites.  Yet Jacob knows this about Benjamin.

So Judah and Joseph are the only ones who seem to receive a favorable outlook for their posterity.

Jacob gives last orders as to where to bury him.  Notable that in the cave where he wants to be buried are Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Leah.  But Rachel, his favorite, is elsewhere.  Only his first wife is buried with him.  Once he's given these orders, Jacob pulls up his feet, lays down in the bed, and breathes his last.  He knew.

Chapter 50
Joseph has Jacob embalmed as the Egyptians embalm.  And Egypt weeps for Jacob 70 days.

Once Jacob dies, Joseph seeks Pharoah's permission to take his embalmed body to Machpelah and bury him in the tomb of his fathers.  Pharoah consents.  A huge group goes with Jacob.  They leave only their children and their flocks in Goshen, and go bury Jacob.  This cave, according to info I found, is actually inside the city limits of Hebron, in the west bank.  It is sacred to both Muslims and Christians...and I suppose also to Jews.

2023 - Sonny visited this place in Hebron.  It has a building built over it.  One side only admits non-Muslims, the other side, only Muslims.  I believe Jacob is on the Muslim side and all the others are on the non-Muslim side.  It is all very elaborate.  Whether it is the actual cave at Machpelah I do not know.

Joseph lives to be 110.  He saw Ephraim's children to the third generation.  Joseph tells them that God will visit and take them all back to the land of Canaan, and Joseph wants his embalmed body taken back and buried with his father.