Genesis 1–11:26 (NAC 1A)

Written by Kenneth A. Mathews Reviewed By Terence E. Fretheim

Increasing numbers of sophisticated biblical studies are being produced by evangelical scholars. This commentary on Genesis 1–11:26 is no exception (it belongs on the shelf with the Genesis commentaries of G. Wenham and V. Hamilton).

The authors of this series ‘affirm the divine inspiration, inerrancy, complete truthfulness, and full authority of the Bible’ (p. 7). At the same time, Mathews explicitly and often draws upon insights from scholars who would not necessarily hold to those same commitments. Indeed, he is thoroughly familiar with the wide range of scholarship on Genesis. Such openness to the contributions of the larger scholarly community, both Jewish and Christian, is to be commended. It is hoped that this conversation across longstanding barriers can become increasingly a two-way street. In this day and age when biblical authority is more and more called into question, we need all the help we can get from one another.

A 90-page introduction covers the traditional topics: literary matters (focusing on the genealogies), the book’s canonical placement in the Pentateuch, the theology of Genesis as a whole (with a focus on the ancestral promises), the history of interpretation, related Ancient Near Eastern texts, and contemporary issues (e.g. creationism). There are excursuses on Genesis 1:1–2, the image of God, the human soul, the origin of civilization in ANE mythology, and the revelation of the divine name.

Genesis 1–11 is divided into the following sub-sections: creation of heaven and earth (1:1–2:3); history of the human family inside and outside the Garden (2:4–4:26); Adam’s family line (5:1–6:8); Noah and his family (6:9–9:29); the nations and the Tower of Babel (10:1–11:9); Shem’s family line (11:10–26). Each of these sections is introduced with general comment, with particular concern for the literary structure, theological emphases, and the exploration of links to OT and NT texts. A detailed exegesis of individual verses follows, with careful attention to the options for interpreting the more difficult passages. I briefly respond to some conclusions.

For Mathews, ‘Genesis requires the reader … to take the early chapters of Genesis as recounting historical events’ (p. 12). Though he recognizes that these chapters are a different ‘kind of history writing’ from, say, chapters 12–50 (p. 109), his genre decision seems strained, with the word ‘history’ covering a very broad range of literary types. Why would not a more open designation such as ‘story of the past’ be more true to the texts and be sufficient to claim a high authority for them (see my ‘Genesis’ in NIB vol. 1, pp. 335–6)?

Mathews qualifies Mosaic authorship to a small degree, admitting that Moses ‘accessed an array of ancient sources’ (p. 77; he is an ‘author/compiler’) and ‘did not always blend them to our satisfaction’ (p. 25). I sense some ambivalence here, seen in phrases such as ‘author (Moses)’.

A strong claim is made regarding typological forms of interpretation, so ‘Moses is typological of Christ … the Mosaic community was typological of the church’ (p. 53). This is a hermeneutical decision that tends to close down interpretative possibilities for Christians (e.g., if Moses is typological of Christ, it is more difficult for the Christian to see in Moses something of what the divine-human relationship entails).

Mathews sets up the discussion of Genesis and science by speaking of two models that seek to explain the origins of life: creationism and naturalism. He defines creationism in such a way that virtually any Jew or Christian would be a creationist (p. 102). While recognizing some of the different ways in which the community of faith understands these matters, he remains cautious regarding detail. For example, ‘for the apologist of creationism, the defence of a particular theory of creationism may divert the discussion from the validity of general creationism to a particular view of biblical interpretation that requires more demonstration than is necessary for the immediate apologetic purpose’ (p. 106). He concludes: ‘there is a general correspondence between Genesis’s telling of the earth’s origins and modern reconstructions, but the correlation of the details cannot be worked out satisfactorily’ (p. 111).

This commentary is especially recommended for seminary students and pastors, but any student of Genesis could profit from its use.


Terence E. Fretheim

Luther Seminary, St Paul, MN