The first of Victor P. Hamilton’s two-volume study of Genesis in the NICOT series, this commentary contributes a solid, thorough explication of the wealth and depth of material embedded in Scripture’s foundational book.
Hamilton’s substantive introduction—which serves both this volume and the one covering chapters 18–50—discusses the structure of Genesis and its composition, its theology, the problems involved in its interpretation, its canonicity, and the Hebrew text itself. The commentary proper, based on Hamilton’s own translation, evidences his extensive knowledge of the ancient Near East and of contemporary scholarship, including literary, form, and text criticism. Siding with the arguments in favor of the literary and theological unity of the Genesis text, Hamilton stresses the main theme running throughout the book—God’s gracious promise of blessing and reconciliation in the face of evil and sin.
A unique feature of this book is Hamilton’s emphasis on the reading of Genesis by the New Testament community. Following his commentary on each section of Genesis, he discusses where and how the New Testament appropriated material from that section and incorporated it into the message of the New Covenant.
Interestingly, the promise to give the land to Abram (v. 7) follows the promise to show the land to Abram (v. 1), and “show” becomes “give” only when Abram makes his move.10 people highlighted this
If the verb in question has passive force, then 12:3 clearly articulates the final goal in a divine plan for universal salvation, and Abram is the divinely chosen instrument in the implementation of that plan.8 people highlighted this
Here is the essence of covetousness. It is the attitude that says I need something I do not now have in order to be happy.8 people highlighted this
Hers is a sin of initiative. His is a sin of acquiescence.7 people highlighted this
It is clear that v. 26 is not interested in defining what is the image of God in man. The verse simply states the fact, which is repeated in the following verse.18 Nevertheless, innumerable definitions have been suggested: conscience, the soul, original righteousness, reason, the capacity for fellowship with God through prayer, posture, etc. Most of these definitions are based on subjective inferences rather than objective exegesis. Any approach that focuses on one aspect of man—be that physical, spiritual, or intellectual—to the neglect of the rest of man’s constituent features seems doomed to failure. Gen. 1:26 is simply saying that to be human is to bear the image of God. This understanding emphasizes man as a unity. No part of man, no function of man is subordinated to some other, higher part or activity.7 people highlighted this