Commentaries on Genesis

Here is a list of commentaries on Genesis. They are listed alphabetically by author's or editor's last name. A short list of recommended first books on the topic is here.

Genesis
Robert Alter, ed.
New York: W.W. Norton, 1996.

The Book of Genesis
Basil Ferris Campbell Atkinson
Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.

Genesis 37-50: A Handbook on the Hebrew Texts
David W. Baker and Jason A. Riley
Baylor Press, 2014.

Genesis: An Expositional Commentary
James Montgomery Boice
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.

Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary
Thomas L Brodie
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
Walter Brueggemann
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)

Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis
John R. Coats
Kindle E-book, 2009.

Commentary on Genesis: The First Book of Moses
James Burton Coffman
Abilene, Texas: ACU Press, 1985.

Genesis
David W Cotter
Collegeville, Minnesotta: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1:1-25:18
John D. Currid
Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1-11
Robert Davidson
Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Book of Genesis: A Commentary
Samuel Rolles Driver
London: Methuen, 1911.

In the Beginning: The True Message of the Genesis Origin Stories
Lawrence R. Farley
Ancient Faith Publishing, 2018

Genesis
Charles T. Fritsch
Richmond, Virginia: John Knox, 1959.

The International Critical Commentary on Genesis, Chronicles, and the Psalms
Kemper Fullerton
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1912.

The Book of Genesis
Calvin Goodspeed; D. M. Welton
Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1909.

The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.

The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17
Victor P. Hamilton
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Reading Genesis: Ten Methods
Edited by Ronald Hendel

The Women of Genesis
Sharon Jeansonne
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

The Story of Joseph (Genesis 37; 39-47): A Philological Commentary
Isaac Jerusalmi
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, 1965.
(Recently up-dated, but requires ability to read Hebrew.)

The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis
Leon R. Kass
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings
Martin Kessler; Karel Adriaan Deurloo
New York: Paulist Press, 2004.

Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary
Derek Kidner
Chicago: Inter-varsity Press, 1967.

Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11
Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. 
Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.

Genesis: An Expositional and Devotional Commentary
William Klock
Lulu, 2014

How to Read Genesis
Tremper Longman III
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Commentary on Genesis
Martin Luther
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1958.

Discovering Genesis and the Origins of the Biblical World
David Neiman

A commentary upon the first book of Moses, called Genesis
Simon Patrick
London: Printed for Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1698.

Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.

Chi Rho commentary on Genesis
J T E Renner
Adelaide, S. Australia: Lutheran Pub. House, 1984.

Understanding Genesis
Nahum M. Sarna
Penguin Random House, 1970.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002

Genesis (Volume I in the Anchor Bible series )
E.A. Speiser
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Genesis
Pauline A. Viviano
Collegeville, Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1985.

Genesis
Gerhard Von Rad
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Genesis: A commentary
Bruce K Waltke; Cathi J Fredricks
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Genesis 1-15
Gordon J Wenham
Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Genesis : A Practical Commentary
Claus Westermann; David Green
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Genesis 1-11: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984.

Genesis 12-36: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1985.

Genesis 37-50: A commentary
by Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986.

Genesis
by Thomas Whitelaw; F W Farrar; Henry Cotterill; et al
New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1913.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition
by Wilbur Glenn Williams
Indianapolis, Indiana: Wesleyan Pub. House, 2000.

The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary
Ronald F. Youngblood
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991.

Genesis: The Beginning of Desire
Avivah G. Zornberg
New York: Doubleday, 1996


Related reading: How to Read a Commentary; Reviews of commentaries by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Herman Gunkel, Leon Kass and Patrick Reardon, A Little About Sources

A Little About Sources

Alice C. Linsley


A reader of JUST GENESIS who is also a member of the Facebook forum "The Bible and Anthropology" has written: "I'm curious if you know of a Biblical Commentary on Genesis that would give the historical events as you do on the blog? (I like what you did with the story of Noah, for example)."

I provide a list of Bible Commentaries on Genesis here. It is not a comprehensive list, but it provides a broad range of writers and perspectives. I should write a commentary also, but so few people read these days that I wonder if it is worth the effort. We live in a time when you are heard only if your voice is louder than the other voices in the room, or if you can state your position in 10 words or less.

Honestly, it would be impossible to reduce nearly 40 years of research into a pithy paragraph about the roots of the Messianic Faith extending back into deep antiquity and how Genesis reveals a shift from the divine Father-Son relationship to YHWH who has no son.

The YHWH cult enters the picture about 700-250 BC, long after the time of Abraham and his Horite Hebrew ancestors. YHWH does not have a son. Therefore, we find the introduction of a new idea about God, one that expresses the Jewish understanding of God and is removed from the Proto-Gospel with its understanding of the divine Father and divine Son.

There are competing narratives in Genesis that produce contextual incongruities. Messianic references are found throughout the Bible and the kinship pattern of the Messiah's people is consistent from Genesis to the Gospels, but the Messianic Faith of Abraham and his Nilotic ancestors becomes suppressed under the final hand of rabbinic Judaism in which there is no Son of God.

Nevertheless, we know which is the older tradition. It is the one which speaks of the "Seed" of God (Gen. 3:15) coming into the world and trampling down the serpent. The work published at JUST GENESIS attempts to reconnect Christianity to that older Tradition. We discuss this at The Bible and Anthropology Forum here, for those interested.

In my research I've attempted to focus on data rather than on theological speculation and denominational interpretations. This is an empirical approach to the study of the Bible and I refer to the work as the science of "Biblical Anthropology" to distinguish it from theological anthropology which is, in my view, highly speculative.

This project has stimulated my growth intellectually, spiritually and socially. I have made friends with people around the globe and I hope the research has helped some people to better understand the Bible. I believe the whole of the Canon makes sense only when seen through the lens of the Messianic Faith. Madison Gentsch, my friend and long-time reader, knows my work represents "anthropological sleuthing" of the pre-Abrahamic origins of the Messianic Faith.

The religious authorities in Jerusalem were so far removed from the Messianic Tradition of their Nilotic ancestors that they didn't recognize Jesus as Messiah. Neither did the disciples at first. Jesus had to reconnect them to the Tradition. This is what happened on the road to Emmaus. They said to each other, "Didn't our hearts burn within us as He talked with us on the road and explained the Scriptures to us?" (Luke 24:32)

I am often asked about my sources. I suppose that is implied in the reader's question about a Biblical Commentary on Genesis that would give the historical events as I do on the blog. The sources are too numerous to cite, but the reader who follows links in the articles and pursues the topic further by attending to the articles under "Related reading" will find satisfaction.

My work is based on the earlier work of Bible scholars, anthropologists, linguists, and philosophers. None presents the material as I do, but many present the data upon which I base conclusions.

I have been influenced by the work of the Bible scholar Brevard Childs, and that is why I define the emerging science of Biblical Anthropology as a study of the canonical texts. As with any discipline it is necessary to set boundaries, and there is the broadest agreement on the Old and New Testaments as they are known today. I also believe that these texts provide sufficient data to advance our anthropological knowledge and understanding of the many biblical populations.

I owe my knowledge of kinship analysis to the great anthropologist Ernest L. Schusky. His "Manual for Kinship Analysis" is always ready at hand. Without this knowledge I could not diagram and analyse the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew. Nor could I prove that the persons listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10, 11, 25 and 36 are historical persons and their kinship is authentic.

The work of Umberto Cassuto has been very helpful. According to Cassuto, Lamech is related to the Akkadian word lumakku, meaning “priest” (Commentary on Genesis, Vol. 1, p. 233). The word indicates a junior priest of the Hebrew ruler-priest caste, and is related to the Akkadian words maklu - burnt offering, and malku - ruler-priest (which is sometimes a synonym of Šarru - king).

In his extraordinary Commentary on Genesis (Volume 1), Cassuto wrote concerning the lifespan discrepancies of the rulers: "What is the cause of the divergences between the three texts, and which recension has preserved the original figures? Much has been written on this subject, and the answer remains in dispute" (p. 265). 

Cassuto believed that the original figures are preserved in the Masoretic text and if we pursue this we discover the trail of Cain (7), Lamech the Elder (77) and Lamech the Younger (777). Lamech the Younger is the father of Noah. This Lamech is assigned the number 777, symbolic of full righteousness. 

 
E.A. Speiser's Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis helped to clarify for me the way that a ruler and his grandson would have the same name. For example Lamech the Elder and Lamech the Younger. However, Speiser missed that this is due to the cousin bride's naming prerogative.

Consider the case of Deuteronomy 21:16, which Speiser translates this way:

"He shall not be able to give the birthright to the younger son of the beloved wife, in
disregard of the older son of the un-loved wife." (Anchor Bible Commentary on Genesis, p. 118)

Analysis of the kinship pattern of the Horite Hebrew shows that the ruler had two wives. That is made clear in the cases of Lamech, Terah, Abraham, Jacob, Amram, Moses, and Elkanah. 

Now we see why Speiser's translation is a good one. He distinguishes between two wives and two firstborn sons. Deuteronomy 21:16 forbids breaking the kinship pattern by giving to the firstborn of the cousin bride (the second wife) what rightfully belonged to the firstborn son of the sister bride (the wife of the man's youth).

Speiser also contributes to our understanding of the term "Qanyty" as having an Akkadian context which, if we scratch deeper, we find is really the Kushite context of Nimrod's kingdom. Nimrod was a son of Kush (Gen. 10). In Genesis 4:1 Cain's mother gives birth and declares, "Kaniti (qaniti/qanyty)." This is interpreted to mean Kain/Cain. However, this is an Akkadian word that is related to the Nilotic suffix "itti" referring to rulers. "I have gotten a man, as has YHWH" should read "I have begotten a ruler..."

This is a Messianic reference. Kaniti/Qanyty is a reference to a king, born by God's grace. This is the second Messianic reference in the Bible. The first is Genesis 3:15, which refers to the "Woman" (not Eve) who is to bring forth the Seed of God who tramples down the serpent.

The Akkadian itti, as in itti šarrim, means "with the king" or "for the king." It is attached to the names of royal persons and dignitaries. Even today the Nilotic Oromo attach itti to names: Onditi, Kaartuumitti, Finfinneetti and Dimashqitti. That itti is associated with Nilotic rulers is evident in the name of the great Egyptian queen Nefertitti.

Kain has many linguistic equivalents: Qayan, Cain, and Kahn, as in Genghis Kahn, and the female variant is Candace or Kandake. All these words refer to a king/queen or ruler. The first kings named in the Genesis king lists are Kain and his brother Seth. They were Middle Bronze Age rulers as is evidenced by the technologies mentioned in Genesis 4-6. They were not the first people on earth.

This is evident from analysis of the Genesis 4 and 5 lists where we discover that Cain and Seth married the daughters of a ruler named Enoch. These daughters named their first born sons "Enoch" after their father, suggesting that they were the cousin brides of Cain and Seth. Enoch is a royal name. It refers to "one who ascends." Enoch would have been a contemporary of Adam.

Modupe Oduyoye, a Nigerian philologist wrote "The Sons of Gods and the Daughters of Men" and that book helped me make connections between Genesis and African names and religious practices. The book was published in 1984 by Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York.

In his book, Dr. Oduyoye notes the connection between Adamu Orisa (of Lagos State) and the Hebrew r’ison Adam. He notes that Hebrew Qayin (Kain/Cain) and the Arabic word for smith "qayn" are cognates. He says these words are related to the Yoruba Ogun and Fon Gun, both meaning “patron saint of smiths.” Other examples include Ebira Egene (the metalworker caste) and Hamn Kuno (who is credited with the invention of iron smelting). 

Oduyoye notes that the Hebrew Nod נוד and Nok נוך are almost identical. Kain is said to have wandered in the land of Nod, but that could be Nok in Nigeria, as scholars recognize that the Genesis writer makes this a play on words. If Nok, we have Kain in the vicinity of Lake Chad, Noah's apparent homeland.

I came to a better understanding of the binary (versus dualistic) worldview of the biblical Hebrew by reading the work of the anthropologist Levi-Strauss, and the philosopher Jacques Derrida.

The French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss observed binary thinking among pre-literate Amazon tribes in the 20th century. In his book, Le cru et le cuit, Strauss explores cultural perceptions of natural/raw-prepared/cooked, and other binary oppositions/sets within primitive cultures. Lévi-Strauss dedicated himself to searching for the "underlying patterns of thought in all forms of human activity." On the basis of his anthropological findings he argued that the primitive mind has the same structures or patterns as the civilized mind. These observations culminated in his famous book Tristes Tropiques, which positioned him as the central figure in the structuralist school.

Jacques Derrida was a French-speaking North African Jew whose thought has contributed to a better understanding of the Semitic interpretative approach to meaning. Derrida's argument is that in examining a binary opposition and reversals, deconstruction brings to light traces of meaning that cannot be said to be present, but which have metaphysical existence. In reality, this is not a new approach to meaning. It is consistent with the binary thought and observations of the Abraham's Horite Hebrew ancestors from whom we receive the binary narratives in Genesis.

The Bible scholars, anthropologists, linguists, and philosophers mentioned in this post provided me with good ideas on how to approach the biblical texts in a more empirical way. However, the data I use to pursue a clearer understanding of the antecedents of the Messianic Faith are dug out of the Bible. Archaeologists dig artifacts to gain a better understanding of the material culture of populations living in the "Holy Land." Biblical Anthropologists dig data out of the Bible to better understand the culture and social patterns of biblical populations from Africa to Europe. The skill sets of the two disciplines are different, but they share a common objective to gain greater clarity.

Over the years I have had to learn many ancient Egyptian words and ancient Akkadian words in order to make linguistic connections. That led me to compile a lexicon for each, which I hope will be helpful to readers. For those who wish to dig deeper, I recommend beginning with the INDEX.

Finally, thank you dear readers for following this blog. Some of you have been with me for over 10 years. God bless you all.

Related reading: Something Older; Biblical Anthropology is the Work of Christians; Christianity Lacks Originality; The Sting of Death

Dr. David Neiman on the Urgeschichte

Dr. David Neiman (1921-2004) was professor of Jewish theology at Boston College where he organized the Institute of Biblical Archaeology. He specialized in archaeology, biblical studies, Jewish history and Catholic-Jewish relations and dug at several archaeological sites in Israel.

In the four-part study Discovering Genesis and the Origins of the Biblical World, the late Dr. David Neiman, explores the first 11 chapters of Genesis to see how the Biblical writers grappled with the fundamental questions: Where do we come from? Who are we? What makes us different? How did civilization come about? Why do we die? This DVD set is available to purchase here.

Dr. Neiman organized Boston College’s Institute of Biblical Archaeology and participated in nearly a dozen archaeological excavations in Israel. He was the author of Domestic Relations in Antiquity (Little Acorns Press, 1994) as well as a commentary and selected translation of the Book of Job (Massada, 1972). He also wrote several articles for the Encyclopedia Judaica. His lectures on the Book of Genesis were delivered in 2000 at the University of Judaism in Bel Air, California.

Item 9H2N1 price: $59.95
Run time: Approx. 3 Hours
ISBN: 978-1-935335-78-8

Disc 1
Lecture 1: The Polemic Language of Genesis
Lecture 2: The Garden of Eden

Disc 2
Lecture 3: The Genealogies of Genesis
Lecture 4: The Flood and the Sons of Noah

Related reading: Commentaries on Genesis

Rabbi Michael L. Samuel's Book on Gen. 1-3

Here is a review of Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel's book Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Vol. 1: Genesis 1-3.  Read other reviews here. 


The reviews do not mention anything about the historical-cultural context of Genesis 1, 2 and 3 so I suspect that Rabbi Samuel does not delve into the Kushite context of Abraham's ancestors.  Nor does he appear to address the origins of messianic expectation beginning in Genesis 3:15.


A theological conversation that is not grounded in historical-cultural realities is too speculative for my taste. This is my argument with Harvard Professor Shaye Cohen.  I prefer the thought of Rabbi Kadura and Rabbi Simon Altaf.

John Coat's Book on Genesis

John R. Coats, a former Episcopal priest and graduate of Virginia Theological Seminary, has written Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis (2009), in which he presents Genesis not as historical narrative, but as metaphor and symbolism reflecting the reader's own life. In other words, he misses the point of the book! Genesis is about the origin of Messianic expectation among Abraham's Horite people and about the ancestry of Jesus Christ.

Here is part of a review of the book:

The introduction lays out the sources used in compiling the chapters. One form of understanding these is known as Source Theory, which is briefly explained. The notes at the end list each page's group of references for further study if one chooses, since some are more obscure than others. 

Coats sprinkles his thoughts with personal reflections of how he identifies with the people and places in Genesis. For the most part, these are interesting. The tale of an interaction with his daughter will curdle milk. While I realize it should be taken in context, Coats is also clearly out of line. 

Rather than an interpretation of each chapter, there are four large sections covering a certain person or group. These sets have a further breakdown of Acts - three subsets apiece. In a way, this makes a lot of sense. Readers can read straight through, or select whatever section appeals best. 

Despite Coats having a theological background, this book is easy enough to understand. There is a natural ebb and flow to his words so readers will want to know more as the pages go by. Is it the best interpretation out there? Each person can decide. Further study might be indicated, but perhaps not. Just don't consider this book the final word on the subject. Other ones exist.

From here.

Related reading: A Comprehensive List of Commentaries on Genesis, Good Commentaries of Genesis

Good Commentaries on Genesis

A reader of Just Genesis has asked which books would be worth acquiring for his library.  I have listed the commentaries on Genesis that have merit here.  I've also reviewed numerous commentaries, including: Martin Luther's, John Calvin's, John Wesley's, Herman Gunkel, Leon Kass' and Patrick Reardon's.

Here is what the reader asks :

I'm now officially addicted to your web site! Have you written any books?

I'm working on my book - The Ancestors of God. However, I need time to finish it. I teach 8 classes a semester so you can imagine that time to write isn't something I have in abundance, especially this time of the year with final exams and final papers.

I'd like to ask you for some book recommendations (aside from the Bible!). I'm interested in all good history books relating to the Bible, from Genesis through the 3rd or 4th century AD, that you might recommend. I know there's probably not one single book that gives an in depth discussion of such a vast time - I'm slowly building a library, but I'd like to buy books with merit. What I've been finding are either very high level books that leave me with more questions than answers, fundamentalist books that teach a hyper-literal reading, or seemingly scholarly books that teach a biased history bent on tearing down the faith, not illuminating it.

What an accurate description on the available literature!  I couldn't have written a better rationale for the material presented at this blog. It fills the gap. I hope a potential publisher is reading this!  : )



Here is a list of books that I recommend as the 'first purchase' books to build a good library on Genesis. A more comprehensive list is here.

Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)

In the Beginning: The True Message of the Genesis Origin Stories
Lawrence R. Farley

Ancient Faith Publishing, 2018

The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.


I hope this is helpful, and thanks for your support!

May your Nativity Feast be blessed.

John Wesley on Genesis

John Wesley

1703-1791

"Let everyone therefore who has either any desire to please God, or any love of his own soul, obey God and consult the good of his own soul by communicating every time he can; like the first Christians, with whom the Christian sacrifice was a constant part of the Lord’s day’s service. ...Accordingly those that joined in the prayers of the faithful never failed to partake of the blessed Sacrament." - Sermon 101 (1787)

Alice C. Linsley


At JUST GENESIS I have reviewed numerous commentaries on Genesis. Each commentator takes away from the text something that suits them in their situation in life. Martin Luther’s sermons on Genesis employ the text polemically in support of justification by faith. John Calvin’s sermons on Genesis extract support for Reformed doctrine. John Wesley’s Notes Upon the Old Testament (1765) are refreshing by virtue of the man’s humility and non-polemical tone.

In the Preface, he states that his intention “is not to write sermons, essays or set discourses upon any part of Scripture. It is not to draw inferences from the text, or to shew what doctrines may be proved thereby. It is this: To give the direct, literal meaning, of every verse, of every sentence, and as far as I am able, of every word in the oracles of God. I design only like the hand of a dial, to point every man to This: not to take up his mind with some thing else, how excellent soever: but to keep his eye fixt upon the naked Bible, that he may read and hear it with understanding. I say again, (and desire it may be well observed, that none may expect what they will not find) It is not my design to write a book which a man may read separate from the Bible: but barely to assist those who fear God, in hearing and reading the bible itself, by shewing the natural sense of every part, in as few and plain words as I can.”

Wesley’s approach to Genesis is closer to that of John Chrysostom and Basil the Great. He reads the text through the lens of Jesus Christ, finding His form and hearing His voice in the creation narratives and in the lives of the Patriarchs. In reference to Genesis 3:15, he writes, “Christ as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan.”

William M. Arnett (Asbury Theological Seminary) encourages his students to read Wesley’s Notes “for he loved God with a holy passion; he bowed in adoring wonder before a Redeeming Saviour who died for him and who had strangely warmed his heart; and he loved the souls and bodies of all men, and especially the common man to whom his lifework was given. I can well imagine that some present day scholars who are preoccupied with critical problems would be impatient with Wesley's efforts on the Old Testament. But if there are such who hear or read these lines and are tempted to undue impatience, I beg you to remember the purpose for which Wesley wrote and the people for whom he wrote. Really, I stand in awe before the monumental labors of this man, and particularly his Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament when I recall the abundance of his travel and preaching in the months in which he produced it. It is amazing grace and an amazing achievement!”

Wesley’s remarkably fresh commentary was undertaken with a great deal of reluctance, which he explains in the Preface:

“About ten years ago I was prevailed upon to publish Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. When that work was begun, and indeed when it was finished, I had no design to attempt any thing farther of the kind. Nay I had a full determination, Not to do it, being throughly [sic.] fatigued with the immense labour. . . of writing twice over a Quarto book containing seven or eight hundred pages.

But this was scarce published before I was importuned to write Explanatory Notes Upon the Old Testament. This importunity I have withstood for many years. Over and above the deep conviction I had of my insufficiency for such a work, of my want of learning, of understanding, of spiritual experiences, for an undertaking more difficult by many degrees, than even writing on the New Testament, I objected, that there were many passages in the Old, which I did not understand myself, and consequently could not explain to others, either to their satisfaction, or my own. Above all, I objected the want of time: not only as I have a thousand other employments, but as my day is near spent, as I am declined into the vale of years. And to this day it appears to me as a dream, a thing almost incredible, that I should be entering upon a work of this kind, when I am entering into the sixty third year of my age.”

One should remember that Wesley was preparing his notes on the Old Testament while he was itinerating as an Anglican priest and by his estimate preaching “eight hundred sermons a year.”

Because Wesley holds the Bible in such high regard and does not attempt to use it polemically, his Notes on Genesis seem almost “scientific” in the quality of observation. For example, regarding the Flood, he remarks that “The six hundredth year of Noah's life was 1656 years from the creation.” Yet, he recognizes that there is a problem with young earth dating because he observes: “The mountains were covered - Therefore there were mountains before the flood.” He knows that mountains are the result of volcanic activity and geologic forces that require thousands, indeed, millions of years.


From Wesley’s Notes on Genesis

On the Location of Eden

The situation of this garden was extremely sweet; it was in Eden, which signifies delight and pleasure. The place is here particularly pointed out by such marks and bounds as were sufficient when Moses wrote, to specify the place to those who knew that country; but now it seems the curious cannot satisfy themselves concerning it. Let it be our care to make sure a place in the heavenly paradise, and then we need not perplex ourselves with a search after the place of the earthly paradise.

On the Authorship of Genesis

Wesley accepted the Jewish tradition that Moses was the author of Genesis. He wrote, “A description of the garden of Eden, which was intended for the palace of this prince. The inspired penman in this history writing for the Jews first, and calculating his narratives from the infant state of the church, describes things by their outward sensible appearances, and leaves us, by farther discoveries of the divine light, to be led into the understanding of the mysteries couched under them. Therefore he doth not so much insist upon the happiness of Adam's mind, as upon that of his outward estate. The Mosaic history, as well as the Mosaic law, has rather the patterns of heavenly things, than the heavenly things themselves. (Heb 9:23).

Wesley regards Moses as a divinely inspired writer. However, he refers several times in his Notes on Genesis to the Holy Spirit as the author of the narratives.

On the Serpent

Whether it was only the appearance of a serpent, or a real serpent, acted and possessed by the devil, is not certain. The devil chose to act his part in a serpent, because it is a subtle creature. It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been.

That which the devil aimed at, was to persuade Eve to eat forbidden fruit; and to do this, he took the same method that he doth still. 1. He questions whether it were a sin or no, (Gen 3:1,2). He denies that there was any danger in it, (Gen 3:4). 3. He suggests much advantage by it, (Gen 3:5). And these are his common topics.

And this is part of the serpent's curse: A perpetual reproach is fastened upon him. Under the cover of the serpent he is here sentenced to be, (1.) Degraded and accursed of God. It is supposed, pride was the sin that turned angels into devils, which is here justly punished by a great variety of mortifications couched under the mean circumstances of a serpent, crawling on his belly, and licking the dust. (2.) Detested and abhorred of all mankind: even those that are really seduced into his interest, yet profess a hatred of him. (3.) Destroyed and ruined at last by the great Redeemer, signified by the bruising of his head; his subtle politics shall be all baffled, his usurped power entirely crushed.

A perpetual quarrel is here commenced between the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of the devil among men; war proclaimed between the seed of the woman, and the seed of the serpent, (Re 12:7). It is the fruit of this enmity, (1.) That there is a continual conflict between God's people and him. Heaven and hell can never be reconciled, no more can Satan and a sanctified soul. (2.) That there is likewise a continual struggle between the wicked and the good. And all the malice of persecutors against the people of God is the fruit of this enmity, which will continue while there is a godly man on this side heaven, and a wicked man on this side hell.

A gracious promise is here made of Christ as the deliverer of fallen man from the power of Satan. By faith in this promise, our first parents, and the patriarchs before the flood, were justified and saved; and to this promise, and the benefit of it, instantly serving God day and night they hoped to come. Notice is here given them of three things concerning Christ. (1.) His incarnation, that he should be the seed of the woman. (2.) His sufferings and death, pointed at in Satan's bruising his heel, that is, his human nature. (3.) His victory over Satan thereby. Satan had now trampled upon the woman, and insulted over her; but the seed of the woman should be raised up in the fulness of time to avenge her quarrel, and to trample upon him, to spoil him, to lead him captive, and to triumph over him (Col 2:15).

On Cain and Abel

Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, (Gen 5:4). But Cain and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve when she bare him said with joy and thankfulness, and great expectation, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Abel signifies vanity.

…at some set time Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam.

…Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.

On Cain’s Wandering

And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt on the east of Eden - Somewhere distant from the place where Adam and his religious family resided: distinguishing himself and his accursed generation from the holy seed; in the land of Nod - That is, of shaking or trembling, because of the continual restlessness of his spirit.

On Lamech

We know not whom he slew, or on what occasion: neither what ground he had to be so confident of the Divine protection.

On Lamech’s Daughter, Naamah

Why Naamah is particularly named, we know not: probably they did, who lived when Moses wrote.

NOTE: Today we know the significance of Naamah, the daughter of Lamech the Elder. She married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah and named their first-born son Lamech after her father. This is an example of the cousin bride's naming prerogative, a distinctive feature of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the biblical Hebrew.  

On the Location of Noah’s Ark

And the ark rested - upon the mountains of Ararat - Or, Armenia, whether it was directed, not by Noah's prudence, but the wise providence of God.

On Noah’s Drunkenness

And he drank of the wine and was drunk - 'Tis highly probable, he did not know the effect of it before. And he was uncovered in his tent - Made naked to his shame.

On Peleg

The reason of the name of Peleg, (Gen 10:25), because, in his days, (that is, about the time of his birth) was the earth divided among the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when Noah divided it, by an orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when, upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by the confusion of tongues.

Wesley recognizes that this likely refers to the division of Eber's territory between his two sons, Peleg and Joktan.

Related reading: About Commentaries on Genesis; Hermann Gunkel on Genesis; John Calvin on Genesis; Martin Luther on Genesis; Giovanni Pico della Mirandola on Genesis; Jacob Böehme on Genesis; Herman Gunkel on Genesis, Leon Kass on Genesis; Patrick Reardon on Genesis