The Posterity of Esau

As I am following a chronological reading schedule of the Bible by Skip Andrews, I am skipping ahead a few chapters to begin this study in Genesis chapter 36.  Since Jacob and Esau were twins, their lives were parallel, so it's time to see what Esau has been up to:

(Genesis 36:1) Now these are the generations of Esau, who is Edom.

We were told in Genesis 25:30 that Esau was called Edom, which means "red", because of the red stew for which he traded his birthright.  However, if we back up to verse 25 in that same chapter, we were told that Esau was born red and hairy.  He was named Esau, which Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions tells us means "hairy"; he is also called Edom, for the red part.

(2) Esau took his wives from the daughters of Canaan: Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite;

We were previously told that Esau had taken Canaanite wives which greatly grieved his parents (Gen. 26:34-35).  It is unclear if these wives are the same as the ones mentioned in that passage, or these are in addition to those wives.  It is very possible that Adah and Bashemath (from Gen. 26:34) are names for the same person as each is called the daughter of Elon the Hittite.  As for Aholibamah, she is said here to be the daughter of Anah and also the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; that is the way that should read, I believe.  Later in verse 24, we are told that Anah is the son of Zibeon, and we know "the child of" often means "descendant of" in the Bible, so Aholibamah is a descendant of both Anah and Zibeon.  I see no way of connecting Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite (from Gen. 26:34) to Aholibamah here, so they must be different wives.  

(3) And Bashemath Ishmael's daughter, sister of Nebajoth.

This is a continuation of verse 2, naming another of Esau's wives.  This definitely appears to be the same woman as Mahalath from Genesis 28:9 as both are called daughters of Ishmael and sisters of Nebajoth.

(4) And Adah bore Eliphaz to Esau, and Bashemath bore Reuel. (5) And Aholibamah bore Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah; these were the sons of Esau who were born to him in the land of Canaan.

Now Esau's children are mentioned.  Perhaps the wives listed above are the ones mentioned because they are the ones who gave Esau children, perhaps explaining why Judith from Genesis 26:34 is not mentioned.  Although I didn't personally read the ancient writings myself, Dr. John Gill wrote that Jerome and Jonathan in the early centuries after Christ (A.D. 200-400) said that this Eliphaz is the same friend of Job that came to visit him.  That Eliphaz was called a Temanite, and Tema was a son of Ishmael.  I suppose it could be true, but what stands out to me in my personal study is that I am supposed to be studying a chronological reading of the Bible and I was instructed to read Job before Abraham, and this is the second time Temanites have been mentioned, meaning at least the life of Abraham and perhaps those of his children, should have been read chronologically before Job, but it's too late for that now.  I certainly digress. The sons of Esau born to him in the land of Canaan were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah.

(6) And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house, and his cattle and all his animals, and all his substance which he had gotten in the land of Canaan, and went to a country away from the face of his brother Jacob.

Esau apparently had daughters, too, although those were not named.  He took his entire family and household and left the land of Canaan away from his brother Jacob.

(7) For their riches were too great for them to dwell together, and the land where they were strangers could not support them because of their cattle.  (8) So Esau dwelt in Mount Seir; Esau is Edom.

They were still sojourners and not possessors in the land of Canaan, so they still had the land's inhabitants to dwell among, and there was not room for both Jacob and Esau there, so Esau moved to Mt. Seir.  Again we are reminded that Esau is also called Edom, probably to explain why his descendants are called Edomites in the next verse.

(9) And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in Mount Seir: (10) These are the names of Esau's sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of Esau, and Reuel the son of Bashemath the wife of Esau.

Here begins a genealogy of Esau.  His sons are listed again, one might assume in a chronological order, with Eliphaz being his oldest son by his wife Adah, and Reuel his second son by his wife Bashemath. 

(11) And the sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.

The firstborn son of Eliphaz was Teman, which may be more likely the namesake of the Temanites, which identifies the Eliphaz in Job.  It seems there is discrepancy among scholars as to whether the city of Teman was named for Tema, the son of Ishmael, or more likely for Teman, the grandson of Esau.

(12) And Timna was the concubine of Eliphaz, Esau's son, and she bore Amalek to Eliphaz; these were the sons of Adah, Esau's wife.

Amalek was the father of the Amalekites who were bitter enemies of the Jews.  As a son of Eliphaz's concubine, he is added to the list of "sons", or actually grandsons that were borne by Adah.

(13) And these are the sons of Reuel: Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah; these were the sons of Bashemath, Esau's wife.

The "sons", or more precisely grandsons that came from Esau's wife Bashemath, were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah, none of whom are mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, other than perhaps if they occur in a genealogy.

(14) And these were the sons of Aholibamah, Esau's wife, the daughter of Anah, the daughter of Zibeon; and she bore to Esau Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah.

Esau's sons by Aholibamah are listed again with no sons of theirs mentioned.

(15) These were dukes of the sons of Esau: the sons of Eliphaz the firstborn son of Esau, duke Teman, duke Omar, duke Zepho, duke Kenaz,

A duke was a captain or a governor, but could also be a head of family.  Sons and grandsons of Esau are listed as dukes or leaders of some sort.

(16) Duke Korah, duke Gatam, and duke Amalek; these were the dukes of Eliphaz in the land of Edom; these were the sons of Adah.

Korah is inserted here as a son of Adah.  There is a Korah who is a son of Aholibamah, but as he is mentioned later among her sons, I don't believe this is the same Korah, unless he was mistakenly mentioned twice.  1 Chronicles 1:36 lists these sons of Eliphaz and adds Timna.  Timna was also the name of Eliphaz's concubine, so perhaps Korah is another son of Timna who was also identified by his mother's name.   

(17) And these are the sons of Reuel, Esau's son: duke Nahath, duke Zerah, duke Shammah, duke Mizzah; these are the dukes of Reuel in the land of Edom; these are the sons of Bashemath Esau's wife. (18) And these are the sons of Aholibamah Esau's wife: duke Jeush, duke Jaalam, duke Korah; these were the dukes of Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Esau's wife. (19) These are the sons of Esau, who is Edom, and these are their dukes.

The list of dukes from Esau's sons and grandsons continues.

(20) These are the sons of Seir the Horite, who inhabited the land: Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, and Anah, (21) And Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan; these are the dukes of the Horites, the children of Seir in the land of Edom.

Now we have a description of the original inhabitants of the land, the sons of Seir the Horite, first mentioned in Genesis 14:6.  Anah is listed as a son, but I believe he is the son of Zibeon as discovered above, but just as grandsons of Esau were called sons, all these are descendant sons of Seir, and also called dukes. 

(22) And the children of Lotan were Hori and Hemam; and Lotan's sister was Timna.

Seir's son Lotan's children are mentioned, probably to show the relationship of Timna, who became Eliphaz's concubine, and mother of his son Amalek, and possibly another son known by Timna or Korah.

(23) And the children of Shobal were these: Alvan, Manahath, Ebal, Shepho, and Onam.

The sons of Shobal, the second son of Seir, are listed.

(24) And these are the children of Zibeon: both Ajah and Anah; this was the Anah who found the mules in the wilderness, as he fed the donkeys of Zibeon his father.

The third son of Seir is Zibeon and his sons are listed, including Anah, who was listed as the fourth "son" of Seir.  Anah is described to the reader who would know the story, although we have not been privy to it.  There is no consensus among historians as to what this story might be.  Some believe that Anah may have discovered breeding horses with donkeys produced mules, but I tend to believe the second story.  The word translated as "mules" is "yem" and also thought to mean "warm or hot springs", so he probably discovered hot springs.  In fact, the meaning is uncertain, as it is used only one time in all of scripture.  Readers of the day may have known what this Anah was famous for, but we just have to take their word for it.  It could be this Anah was being described to distinguish him from another Anah, and therein lies the problem of trying to decipher who all these people are who are only mentioned once or twice.   

(25) And the children of Anah were these: Dishon, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah.

It appears this Dishon was named after his uncle who was mentioned in verse 21 as a son of Seir.  I suppose it's possible we also have an Anah named after his uncle Anah, and maybe Zibeon is a brother to one and a father to another.  Whew!  It's easy to get bogged down in the "weeds".  I believe the true intent of mentioning this genealogy of Seir and the original inhabitants of the land is to show how the Edomites married into this group of people.  Timna, Esau's son Eliphaz's concubine and the mother of Eliphaz's son Amalek, was a descendant of Seir, as was Aholibamah, who became Esau's wife.

(26) And these are the children of Dishon: Hemdan, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.

This appears to go back to the uncle Dishon, the son of Seir, and names his children.

(27) The children of Ezer are these: Bilhan, Zaavan, and Akan. (28) The children of Dishan are these: Uz and Aran.

The children of the last two sons of Seir are listed, none particularly noteworthy except perhaps Uz, for whom the land of Uz may have been named.

(29) These are the dukes of the Horites: duke Lotan, duke Shobal, duke Zibeon, duke Anah, (30) Duke Dishon, duke Ezer, and duke Dishan; these are the dukes of Hori, among their dukes in the land of Seir.

All the sons of Seir are listed as dukes.  Hori was Lotan's son and Seir's grandson.  It would seem the Horites were called so after him, in the land of Seir, the original inhabitant of the land.

(31) And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.

Next we begin a list of kings who reigned in the land that would become known as the land of Edom, called so after Esau.  It is unclear whether these are kings who reigned before, during, or after the time it became known as Edom.  There are scholars who believe the dukes of Esau rose up to take over from the kings.  There are others, as I found when I read these accounts in 1 Chronicles 1 below, who believe these kings came from Esau.  I honestly do not know, nor can I tell from scripture, but obviously the Edomites came to power and had some dominion, as was prophesied by Isaac to his Esau in Genesis 27.  There has been much discussion among Biblical scholars as to how Moses, who supposedly wrote the first five books of the Bible, could have mentioned any possibility that there would ever be a king over Israel when they had no king in his lifetime.  I see no problem with this as Moses evidently wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  There are many prophetic pictures of the coming Christ found in these books written by him.

(32) And Bela the son of Beor reigned in Edom, and the name of his city was Dinhabah. (33) And Bela died, and Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place. (34) And Jobab died, and Husham of the land of Temani reigned in his place.

A succession of kings is begun, but I don't see any noteworthy names, except perhaps that the land of Temani may be so-called after Teman, the son of Eliphaz (Esau's son) above.  If that is so, then it does seem there is an influence of the family of Esau during the reign of kings in the land.

(35) And Husham died, and Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.

Again we have an aside, a description of this Bedad that the original reader would have known, but one of someone of whom we have not been made aware.  It is possible that the Midian he attacked was Abraham's son by Keturah, and that would have been noteworthy to the early reader.

(36) And Hadad died, and Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. (37) And Samlah died, and Saul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his place. (38) And Saul died, and Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place.

The succession of kings who reigned in the land of Edom continues with no especially noteworthy names.

(39) And Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor died, and Hadar reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pau; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

Hadar appears to be the last of the kings in this land.  His wife seems to be a person of note because of the particular mention of her and her ancestors, but once again, we present-day readers don't really know who she is.  Dr. John Gill supposes that this monarchy was put to an end "by the united familes of Seir and Esau, and changed into dukedoms; of which there were seven of the race of Seir, and fourteen of the race of Esau, of whom an account is given in the preceding part of this chapter..."  I say "supposes" because I haven't found any other historical evidence for his assertion.  The other early commentaries I study are silent on this.

(40) And these are the names of the dukes that came of Esau, according to their families, after their places, by their names: duke Timnah, duke Alvah, duke Jetheth,

Dr. Gill continues his thought that after the monarchy ceased, the government in Edom was by dukes partly by the race of Seir and partly by the race of Esau.  He points out that neither Esau nor the sons of his first two wives are called dukes, only his sons by his last wife and his grandsons, which seems to show that the dukedoms were not immediate in the land, but may have occurred later when an end was put to the monarchy by "the joint influence of Seir and Esau".

I now turn to Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament which points out that "the names which follow are not a second list of Edomitish tribe-princes (viz., of those who continued the ancient constitution, with its hereditary aristocracy, after Hadar's death), but merely relate to the capital cities of the old phylarchs, is evident from the expression in the heading, 'After their places, by their names,' as compared with Gen 36:43, 'According to their habitations in the land of their possession.'"  In this statement, I don't know if this commentary is refuting the idea set forth by Dr. Gill or not.  K & D continues that since that is the intention of the list, it should come to no surprise that only two names in this list correspond to those given in Genesis 36:15-19.  "This proves nothing more than that only two of the capitals received their names from the princes who captured or founded them, viz., Timnah and Kenaz."  (Actually, I personally thought Teman was one, too, mentioned in verse 42 with Kenaz.)  I am relieved to know I don't have to research where all the these new dukes came from!  If I am interpreting this correctly, we formerly already read a list of some of the dukes that came initially from Esau's sons and grandsons, and now we have more who have names of cities corresponding to their names that have perhaps sprung up since the beginning of the dukedoms of Esau.  Perhaps we are being shown how the Edomites grew in the region.  I have to say I feel like I have spent a long time trapped in the weeds in this study by names that really don't have any more significance in the Bible.  It was important to the early reader and it is significant in that out of Esau grew a mighty people.  The lists of dukes from Esau continues:

(41) Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon,

As there appeared to be a son of Eliphaz, Esau's son, known by his mother's name, Timna, there appears to be a son known as Aholibamah, and evidently a place also known by that name.

(42) Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, (43) Duke Magdiel, duke Iram; these are the dukes of Edom, according to their dwelling places in the land of their possession; Esau is the father of the Edomites.

It is important to note that as the posterity of Esau grew, his descendants came to take possession of the land of Seir.  In verses 6-8 above, Esau first went to Mount Seir, and by the time this chapter ended, many dukes have come from the line of Esau and they possess the land formerly held by Seir and a line of kings.

As this is a chronological Bible study, my reading now turns to 1 Chronicles 1:35 where the genealogy of Esau is recapped:

(1 Chronicles 1:35) The sons of Esau were Eliphaz, Reuel, Jeush, Jaalam, and Korah. (36) The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, and Kenaz; and Timna and Amalek. (37) The sons of Reuel were Nahath, Zerah, Shammah, and Mizzah. (38) And the sons of Seir were Lotan, Shobal, Zibeon, Anah, Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan.

I find it interesting that in this genealogy in 1 Chronicles 1, which is a genealogy starting with Adam, that Seir is introduced in it along with Esau.  Seir was not of the race of Esau, but as Esau's family married into his, and Esau's descendants eventually overtook his land, I suppose he has an important role in the line of Esau.

(39) And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam; and Timna was Lotan's sister. (40) The sons of Shobal were Alian, Manahath, Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon were Ajah and Anah.

Alian was written as Alvan before.  The original name appears to be the same:  Alvan or Alyan, originally meaning "tall".

(41) The son of Anah was Dishon. And the sons of Dishon were Amram, Eshban, Ithran, and Cheran.

Amram appears to be the same as Hemdan in Genesis 36:26.  The original name was either "Chemdan" or "Chamran", probably depending on the handwriting on the particular early manuscript first read.

(42) The sons of Ezer were Bilhan, Zaavan, and Jaakan. The sons of Dishan were Uz and Aran. (43) Now these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dinhabah;

Again I find it peculiar that a list of kings who reigned before and/or during the time the Edomites were growing and taking possession of the land, would be included in a genealogy that started with Adam and concluded with the families of the sons of Isaac.  The 1599 Geneva Bible Translation Notes supposes that these are kings who came from Esau, and although I was not sure about that when I was studying Esau's descendants in Genesis 36, it certainly does seem to fit now that they are included in a genealogy along with a description of Esau's descendants.  As I have supposed all along, at the very least, these genealogies of Esau show how his power and dominion grew, and show how he intermarried with the original inhabitants of the land.

(44) And when Bela was dead, Jobab the son of Zerah of Bozrah reigned in his place; (45) And when Jobab was dead, Husham of the land of the Temanites reigned in his place; (46) And when Husham was dead, Hadad the son of Bedad, who attacked Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place, and the name of his city was Avith. (47) And when Hadad was dead, Samlah of Masrekah reigned in his place. (48) And when Samlah was dead, Shaul of Rehoboth by the river reigned in his place. (49) And when Shaul was dead, Baal-Hanan the son of Achbor reigned in his place. (50) And when Baal-Hanan was dead, Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai; and his wife's name was Mehetabel, the daughter of Matred, the daughter of Mezahab.

The list of kings continues pretty much as it did in Genesis 36, with a few variations in spellings.

(51) Hadad died also. And the dukes of Edom were duke Timnah, duke Aliah, duke Jetheth,

"Hadad died also."  Then begins a list of the dukes of Edom.  This makes it sound as if the monarchy ended and then the dukedoms of Edom began.  As I've said before, whether they are part of Esau's descendants or not, they played a part in making Edom what it was, and that is about as much as I am going to get out of this study! 

(52) Duke Aholibamah, duke Elah, duke Pinon, (53) Duke Kenaz, duke Teman, duke Mibzar, (54) Duke Magdiel, duke Iram. These are the dukes of Edom.

As I am happy to be finished with this cumbersome genealogy, I will reflect on the fact that genealogies were important in Biblical times.  All these descendants of Esau could trace their lineage back to Abraham, and that was of utmost importance to the people back then, as that made them a part of the blessings and promises that God made to Abraham and his descendants.

The Sons of Noah Populate the Earth

In my Bible study, I am using a chronologically ordered study by Skip Andrews, and following the life of Noah is this genealogy of Noah's sons found in 1 Chronicles:

(1 Chronicles 1:5) The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. (6) And the sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. (7) And the sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. (8) The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. (9) And the sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raamah, and Sabtecha. And the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. (10) And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be mighty on the earth. (11) And Mizraim begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, (12) Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom came the Philistines and the Caphtorim). (13) And Canaan begat Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth; (14) The Jebusite also, and the Amorite, and the Girgashite; (15) And the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; (16) And the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. (17) The sons of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech. (18) And Arphaxad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. (19) And to Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. (20) And Joktan begat Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, (21) Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, (22) Ebal, Abimael, Sheba, (23) Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan.

Now we return to Shem and the direct line from him to Abraham:

(24) Shem, Arphaxad, Shelah, (25) Eber, Peleg, Reu, (26) Serug, Nahor, Terah, (27) and Abram, who is Abraham. (28) The sons of Abraham were Isaac and Ishmael. (29) These are their generations: the firstborn of Ishmael was Nebajoth; then Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, (30) Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, (31) Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. These were the sons of Ishmael. (32) Now the sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan were Sheba and Dedan. (33) And the sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. (34) And Abraham begat Isaac. The sons of Isaac were Esau and Israel.

Now we return to Genesis 10:

(Genesis 10:1) Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood. (2) The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. (3) And the sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. (4) And the sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. (5) By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided into their lands; everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.

The isles of the Gentiles were not really islands, but those lands that were accessible to the Hebrews from the sea; they had to go by sea to reach these lands. They are generally thought of to be the countries of Europe and Asia Minor.

(6) The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan. (7) And the sons of Cush were Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabtechah; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan. (8) And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. (9) He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD". (10) And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. (11) Out of that land he went forth to Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, (12) And Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is a great city). (13) And Mizraim begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, (14) And Pathrusim, and Casluhim (from whom came the Philistines and Caphtorim). (15) And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, (16) And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, (17) And the Hivite, the Arkite, and the Sinite; (18) And the Arvadite, the Zemarite, and the Hamathite. And afterward the families of the Canaanites were spread abroad. (19) And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon as you go toward Gerar, to Gaza; then as you go toward Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. (20) These were the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations. (21) And children were born also to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder. (22) The children of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram. (23) And the children of Aram were Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. (24) And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. (25) And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. (26) And Joktan begat Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, (27) And Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, (28) And Obal, Abimael, Sheba, (29) Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab. All these were the sons of Joktan. (30) And their dwelling place was from Mesha as you go toward Sephar, a mountain of the east. (31) These were the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. (32) These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.

Satan Still Tempts in the Same Way Today as in the Garden of Eden

A study of Genesis Chapter 3 shows that things haven't changed in 6000+ years. Satan works in the exact same way he did back in the Garden of Eden, and people still fall for it.

Because my Bible study is following a chronological order based on "A Chronological Bible Reading Schedule" by Skip Andrews, I will begin with a genealogical preface:

(1 Chronicles 1:1) Adam, Sheth, Enosh, (2) Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered, (3) Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech, (4) Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

(Genesis 3:1) Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?"

Scheme #1 of Satan is to question God's Word. "Did He really say that?" No book in the history of mankind has been questioned more than the Bible!

(2) And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; (3) But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat of it; neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (4) And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die."

Satan's big lie: "You won't die." Is that not the real reason people don't come to Christ for salvation, because they don't really believe they will die an eternal death without Him? If people truly believed the Bible, everyone would be saved!

(5) "For God knows that in the day you eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Is this line not straight out of New Age doctrine? Your eyes will be opened; you can be as God; you will have knowledge!

(6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.

Although it began with Satan's temptation and lie, the ego and human pleasure plays a huge part. As it is now, Eve wanted pleasant things, and she wanted to feel wise, and she wanted someone to go along with her. That always makes us feel better about doing something wrong, knowing that everyone else does it!

(7) And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (8) And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. (9) And the LORD God called to Adam and said to him, "Where are you?" (10) And he said, "I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself." (11) And He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?" (12) And the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

This part always amuses me. We always want to blame someone else; it's not MY fault. But in this case, Adam even insinuates that it's GOD's fault: "It's that woman YOU gave me!" That excuse is used even now, like the argument that God made homosexuals the way they are. "Homosexual" is an adjective describing an ACT; it is not a person!

(13) And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Eve passes the blame, too, as people still want to today. When we can't pass it back any further, then it's because of how we were raised or that Satan made us do it. But we each have a responsibility for our own actions. Sure, it may be more difficult because of how we were raised. Sure, homosexual tendencies may be stronger in some, but just as a kleptomaniac has a stronger desire to steal, we all have temptations to overcome and do not have to act on them.

(14) And the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. (15) And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

And certainly the snake is no longer a friendly familiar being to people, but slithering on the ground, striking at the heels of man, and one of the most hated creatures being frequently struck on the head to kill it. This scripture is also a prophetic reference to Christ: The woman's seed, a descendant, would ultimately trample Satan, although Satan would bruise His human form to the point of death.

(16) To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you."

John Wesley explained the woman's "sentence", as he called it, succinctly: "she is condemned to a state of sorrow and a state of subjection". The pain she experiences is not only in childbirth, but in sorrow and worry, she raises her children. Now rather than an equal helper to Adam, she is now put in subjection to him. "Your desire shall be to your husband". I have wondered if that meant your natural desire is to serve him, or whether you desire what your husband has, but he rules over you. Either way, it is subjection, and I suppose both could be true. The woman traditionally serves her husband, but the modern culture has made the woman very dissatisfied with that role, as she seeks to be "equal" to men.

(17) And unto Adam He said, "Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat of it', cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. (18) Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. (19) In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are, and to dust you shall return."

Man is sentenced to a life of toil and trouble. As I read this again, I am reminded of how we used to say as kids (and maybe as adults, too), "It's not fair!". Our parents told us life isn't fair. I've even heard, "Life's not fair, and then you die". Is that not the exact lot of mankind after Adam's sin: You WILL have toil and trouble all your life and then you'll return to the ground.

(20) And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (21) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. (22) And the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; (23) Therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. (24) So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

I believe rather than interpreting that Adam had become as God, which is what a New Age religion would have us believe that we can be God, this is better interpreted that only in the knowledge of both good and evil, has man become like God. First he knew only good, all the good things God gave to him freely in the garden. Then when he was tempted and sinned by disobeying God, he came to know evil. Then, because he sinned, he lost eternal life, and was forever separated from the tree of life, and sent to his life of toil.

These are the decisions with consequences we make in daily life. Will we accept God's way and obey Him and enjoy His blessings, or will we believe the lie of Satan that we can be as God and in the end die forever separated from God?