When people hear my accent these days, one of the first things they want to know is what I think of Donald Trump being the President of the United States. I typically try to change the subject!
But seriously, what subtly underlies the question is a far more important one: On which side of the cultural divide do you stand?
The election of Donald Trump was, to use one of his characteristic words, “Yuge.” Perhaps more than any other event in recent memory, this past presidential election in the USA revealed the cultural fissures that exist in that nation. They make the San Andreas fault look like a crack in a sidewalk.
Though that election had much to do with nationalism vs. globalism, capitalism vs. socialism, and conservatism vs. liberalism, it also fundamentally highlighted the conflict between the culture of life and the culture of death. And it was for this reason that so many Christians felt conflicted and many felt compelled to vote for Donald Trump, a man who is characteristically foul mouthed, adulterous and dishonest.
No doubt, many Christians voted for Donald Trump simply because they wanted to preserve their own way of life, but many other Christians voted for Trump because they were concerned for the lives of others; specifically, they were and are concerned for the lives of the unborn. For them, the election was about the opportunity to choose life. But, obviously, not everyone is making the same choice.
During the recent “Women’s March” in the United States, prolife groups were actively marginalised. I saw a photo of one woman wearing a T-shirt that read, “Keep calm and kill more babies.” Another wore a shirt bearing these blasphemous words: “If Mary had had an abortion we wouldn’t be in this mess.”
Clearly, we face the same choice here in South Africa. We too are confronted with the choice between embracing a culture of death or a culture of life; the choice between treating all people with dignity, or not; the choice to recognise the sanctity of each and every human life, or not.
In 1993, Pope John Paul II coined the phrase “the culture of death” to describe the postmodern approach to issues of sanctity of life—issues such as euthanasia, abortion and other worldviews that undermined the value and dignity of each and every human life. He observed that a culture that does not treat each human life as having inherent dignity leads to a culture where death, rather than life, is celebrated.
Clearly, much of the West, along with many Western-influenced cultures, fits this ominous description. After all, what else more aptly describes a society where abortion is not only defended, but is happily embraced and even celebrated? How often we see marches in which people, generally women, carry signs promoting the murder of babies. How often we see celebration as “abortion rights” are successfully defended or legislation is passed affording legal protection to assisted suicide. Consider this article from The Daily Maverick.
Saturday, September 28, was the Global Day of Action for Access to Safe and Legal Abortion. South Africa has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world—on paper. Women’s health advocates are concerned, however, that less than half the abortion services supposed to be offered by government are operational.
Marion Stevens, coordinator of WISH Associates (Women in Sexual and Reproductive Rights and Health), does not mince her words. “It is very concerning that this very fundamental feminist right does not seem to be on the agenda any more,” Stevens said. “In the over twenty years that I have been involved in women’s health, I have not seen this level of apathy, both on an individual and institutional level.”
“South Africa was really leading the space [liberal abortion law] in the early 90s,” Stevens remembers. “There was a huge engagement with setting up support teams, and the nurses and doctors who provided abortions were well supported and well-regarded.” [But now] “It’s like they’re putting a curtain over something,” Stevens says. “It’s deeply disturbing.”
Notice that: It is “deeply disturbing” that the murder of babies is not as free as some would wish!
At Brackenhurst Baptist Church, we join many other churches around the world on Sanctity of (Human) Life Sunday in celebrating life and in promoting a worldview where life is valued; where the sanctity of every human life is acknowledged. And though many areas fall under the sanctify of life umbrella, anti-abortion leads front and centre.
For many decades, abortion has been legally protected, and a holocaust of horrific proportions has been accepted in practice. Hundreds of millions of persons have lost their lives in what should be the most hallowed place for the unborn: a mother’s womb.
In South Africa in 2016, conservatively 80,000–100,000 lives were taken in the womb. Consider also the large numbers of people who lose their lives by the increasingly accepted practice of “mercy killings” or “euthanasia” or “(physician) assisted suicide.”
Further, consider the millions of abandoned children, the marginalising of the physically and mentally impaired as well as racist-driven genocides—particularly on our own continent.
There is a problem and we dare not be silent. The annual celebration of Sanctify of (Human) Life Sunday is an attempt to help us promote a biblically-driven culture of life.
In this study, I want us to see that the battle between the culture of death and the culture of life goes back to early history. God expected people to choose life back then, and He expects us to choose life today and every day. The text which reveals this is found in Genesis 9:1–16.
I trust that our time in God’s Word will equip us to practise and promote a culture of life rather than a culture of death. We will do so under three broad headings: (1) The Choice Examined; (2) The Choice Expected; and (3) The Choice Empowered.
The Choice Examined
Following the flood, Noah and his family stood on the cusp of a new creation. God spoke to Noah and gave him some promises and instructions. In the midst of these promises and instructions we find some of the strongest proliferation words in the Bible: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it” (vv. 6–7).
In these two verses, the heart of the passage, it seems as though God is highlighting the only two available worldviews from which we can align ourselves: the culture of death (v. 6) and the culture of life (v. 7).
Clearly, Noah and his family—representative of all subsequent humanity—are here confronted with two choices: either death (v. 6) or life (v. 7). We need to examine this choice.
The Context of the Choice
As noted, Noah and his family stood on the brink of a new creation, on the brink of re-creation. And as they do so, no doubt they felt some trepidation. It is for this reason that “God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth’” (v. 1). Calvin comments,
From this we infer that Noah had been dejected by very great fear because God so often and at such length proceeded to encourage him. When Moses here says that “God blessed Noah and his sons,” he does not simply mean that the favor of fruitfulness was restored to them, but that at the same time God’s purpose about the new restitution of the world was revealed unto them.1
Having just come through a flood of death, these words of life would have been a great blessing. But further, in these and in the following words, God was making it plain that human life is to be valued and that the only one who has the right to take it is God, and those appointed by God to do so (v. 6).
This is not my theme this morning, but this passage does have a lot to say with reference to vigilantism. As dark as things get, we dare not play God in our zeal to set things right. Those who are proliferation are called to be consistently prolife and have no right to bomb abortion clinics or kill abortionists.
The Content of the Choice
The content of the choice is found in vv. 2–3:
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.
Dominion and Dinner
Mankind, as the pinnacle of creation, was given priority over creation. Mankind was given permission to kill animals for food. Contra PETA, human life is different from animal life.
God supplied all the food required to sustain obedience to His command (v. 1). He was not worried about a crowded earth—and He still isn’t.
One of the motivations behind the abortion movement is the unwarranted concern about an overpopulated world (ala Thomas Malthus). But God is an omniscient and omnipotent quantity surveyor. Rushdoony nails it: “Those who believe in the myth of over-population find this requirement offensive. Nothing in the Bible hints that God ever felt that time would nullify the validity of this commandment.”2 The prolife commandment stands.
Dominion and Dignity
Verses 4–6 highlight the issues of dominion and dignity:
But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man.
Even when exercising dominion over creation, there are boundaries. Mankind is prohibited from eating animal meat “with its blood” (see Leviticus 3:17; Deuteronomy 12:15–16). This prohibition was probably because blood had an atoning significance and so God was setting a boundary around it (Leviticus 17:11). From this, God expands the explanation to highlight the unique dignity of mankind. The wrongful taking of a person’s life is to be met with severe consequences.
The Condemned Choice
God condemns a particular choice here: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man” (v. 6).
Our choice of life is to be an informed one. We are to choose life, not because it merely seems to be the right and sympathetic thing to do (which it is), but rather we choose life because God’s revelation has informed our understanding. We choose life because we are conforming to God’s rules. His rule against murder is at the same time His rule to choose life.
The choice to devalue life to the point of taking life is condemned by God long before it was encoded in the Ten Commandments. God stands opposed to murder—regardless of the way it is carried out; regardless of how it is packaged; that is, regardless of whatever language by which it uses as a disguise.
Abortion by any other name—pro-choice, reproductive health, termination of pregnancy, “my body, my choice,” etc.—is still murder. And those who commit it stand under God’s condemnation.
It should be noted that this prohibition is comprehensive. “Whoever” is the subject of the verse. Any and all and each are forbidden to murder and any and all who commit murder are under condemnation.
Here is the overriding and guiding principle: “for in the image of God He made man.”
This prohibition is grounded in a transcendent principle. The reason that murder is condemned by God is because murder is fundamentally an attack upon God. as John Currid comments on this passage, “The killing of a person destroys an image of God. Slaying animals for food is not the same—they are not in God’s image.”3 Derek Kidner emphasises that “if all life is God’s, human life is supremely so.”4 Hence to take a human life is tantamount to attacking God.
Being made in the image of God (reflecting His sovereignty and rule, among other things) provides man with inherent dignity. This is true of every human life—and most people instinctively know this.
A pastor friend recently recommended that I read a book called On Killing. This book, not written from a Christian perspective, explores how the American military actively trains soldiers to kill. Statistics show that a very small minority of bullets fired during World War I were fired at enemy soldiers (most were deliberately aimed into the ground or above the head). By the Vietnam War, some 85% of bullets were fired directly at enemies. The military found that it required active training to prepare soldiers to kill, because people are naturally resistant to killing. People need to be trained to kill.
We speak of the sanctity of life. This is why every human being is to be valued—because they do have inherent value; they carry with them a dignity given to them by God. Every person is made in the image of God. Every person has life given to them by God: the person in the womb; the person who is physically impaired in some way; the person who is old and dependent upon another: the person who is sick and is totally dependent upon another; the person who has little by way of productivity to contribute to society; etc. If they have life, they have value. This is why we are to choose life—regardless of size, level of development, environment or degree of dependence.
John Calvin observed, “The sole purpose of this law is to support common humanity between man and man.”5 Well said. We might put it this way: If you choose God, then you will choose life. In a world of disharmony, the fallout is inhumanity. And this is why, as we will see, the prolife approach to life is inseparable from the Great Commission; it is inseparable from the gospel.
John Currid summarises, “The sanctity of human life is underscored here…. Mankind is to be held responsible for the killing of humans…. ‘I will demand’—that verb literally means ‘to pursue relentlessly,’ or ‘to seek diligently.’ God simply requires restitution of a life for a life.”6
Capital punishment is established in this verse, and has never been rescinded. God says that if one is guilty of murder then the murderer’s own life is to be taken. This is because humans are made in the image of God. Murder is an attack on God. God is prolife, with priority given to human life. When it comes to taking human life then the murderer, even if it an animal, is under God’s judgement. (It is interesting that in most places in the world, when an animal takes the life of a human being, then that animal is hunted and put down.)
This law makes it manifestly clear that human life has inherent dignity. If the ultimate offence against human dignity is met with the ultimate punishment, then clearly we should do all we can to value human life. We can argue legitimately from the greater to the lesser. Life is to be protected. This commandment, as with every commandment, creates responsibility.
Specifically, every person is responsible to respect every person. Every person is responsible to protect every man that they can (Proverbs 24:11–12).
This verse is generally seen by most interpreters as the establishment of human government. In fact, it lays the bedrock of human government. This being the case, it lays a foundation for a culture of life. Human government is commanded to be prolife. Magistrates are commanded to choose life. Paul makes this clear in Romans 13:1–5.
Every government is responsible to punish those who murder; every government is therefore responsible to promote a culture of life. Government’s purpose is to preserve the life of those whom they govern. When a Government fails in its mandate, then it provides the moral pathology for a culture of death. But we must keep in mind that, in most cases, a government reflects the worldview of those whom it governs.
This matter of capital punishment is an important matter, which Christians need to consider biblically and carefully. But it is clear that those who take a life forfeit their life. And this applies to all forms of murder, including abortion, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.
Again, we need to grasp the enormity of the crime, the enormity of the injustice of murder, the enormity of this sin. This is why the penalty/punishment is so ultimate. But until we appreciate the issue of the sanctity of life, the implementation of capital punishment will be inconsistent at best and unjust at worse.
For example, last year a man named of Dylann Roof murdered several members of a church as they gathered for Bible study and prayer in Charlotte, North Carolina in the United States. At his trial, prosecutors argued that he is “a calculating killer who deserves the death penalty because of his motive, his lack of remorse and the shooting’s impact on the victims’ families.”
I agree that he deserves (and rightly received) the death penalty. But none of these reasons stated by the prosecutors are alluded to in Genesis 9:6. Though we sympathise with those sentiments, nevertheless they misses the biblical rationale for the death penalty.
Again, the same applies to the trial of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the surviving terrorist who, with brother, set off two bombs at the Boston Marathon in 2013, killing three people and injuring 268 others. They also murdered a policeman. The then United States Attorney General, Eric Holder, sought the death penalty. In a statement, he said that “the nature of the conduct at issue and the resultant harm compel this decision.”
Tsarnaev was sentenced to death. That was the right judgement. However, the reason behind the sentence was not grounded in biblical truth and therefore it is very inconsistent. It is arbitrary.
Why are abortionists profiting from murder rather than being punished for it? That is a fair question. Having examined this text, it is clear that society does not understand the sanctity of a life.
The Choice Expected
If v. 6 was the condemned choice, then v. 7 can be labelled the commanded choice: “And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it.”
I love how the NKJV translates the opening words of this verse: “And as for you.” It reads in such a way as to draw a major contrast between the subjects of v. 6 and the subjects of v. 7. So, what is the contrast?
Verse 6, as we have seen, describes those who choose a worldview that minimises the value of human life. When this worldview increasingly becomes accepted and acceptable, then a culture of death takes root and, like a cancerous growth, metastasises.
But in v. 7 we have an obvious contrast. Here we have a description of those who choose life—and therefore here we have a people whose worldview and practice promotes a culture of life.
“And as for you.” The assumption is that those saved by God’s grace will not be among those characterised by v. 6 but rather they will be characterised as those who love life because they love God and their neighbour. Calvin puts this beautifully: “It is as if he said, ‘You see that I am intent upon cherishing and preserving mankind; so you must play your part in this.’”7
This positive view of human life is what God expects of those whom He has recently delivered from death by His grace (chapters 6–8). This is perhaps why the contrast is so pronounced: “And as for you.” That is, “As for you who have experienced my grace, of course you will not be characterised as life-devaluing people. No, you who have been delivered from death will be those who value life. In fact, I expect for you to so value life that you will hold society accountable to appropriately defend human life and to punish those who by their evil actions promote a culture of death” (v. 6).
Christian, is this contrast self-evident in our culture? In other words, do we assign dignity to our fellow human beings—each and every human being—or are we too much with and like the world?
Is there a contrast between how the unbelieving world views and treats those of another culture, colour and material position, and how we, Christians, view and treat them? Are we so informed about and persuaded of the sanctify of life that a prolife worldview is practically demonstrated? That is, are we principally and practically prolife, or merely theoretically so?
I recently read that two out of three women seeking abortions in the USA profess to be Christian. How often Christians embrace the use of contraceptives that are knowingly abortifacient. Christians are often opposed to abortion—except in the case of rape or incest. But, of course, as unimaginably horrible it must be to be in that situation, the child conceived in rape or incest is a human being, created in the image of God, whose life deserves to be protected.
Far too often, professing Christians are critical of large families. Far too many are racist and therefore unjust in their treatment of others. Far too many professing Christians defend (physician) assisted suicide and euthanasia.
It should be the case that when someone comes to know that we are Christian they immediately conclude that we are prolife. It should be a given that, in a society characterised as a culture of death, we rather choose life. In other words, we should choose to love rather than to hate.
The Choice Commissioned
I believe that Currid is correct when he writes, “The command of fruitfulness is … the main theme of this section.”8 It is a kind to prioritise human life; it is a commission to choose life.
Currid again helpfully notes that, “This section essentially constitutes a renewal of the original divine mandate given to mankind by God at the creation in Genesis 1…. Genesis 9 is a re-creation account.”9
God here commands Noah, and his family, to choose life—lots of life!
Note the wording here, which teems with life. “Be fruitful” means, in this context, to bear children. “Multiply” means to increase by a lot. “Bring forth” literally means to swarm or abound; to breed abundantly; to bring forth in abundance. And, to make the point abundantly clear, God adds, “and multiply in it.” God commissioned a well-populated world.
This verse is clearly pro-life. Noah was to take this commandment seriously. And so are we.
Those who have “found grace in the eyes of the LORD” (6:8) are to choose life. Clearly this includes a love for children. It clearly means that Christians are to value the bearing of children. Christians, rather than taking life, are to be in favour of making life—lots of lives
Make and Maintain
But not only are we to make life; we are also to care for human life. This is why sanctity of life issues are wider than abortion, including caring for those who have had abortions and caring for those who are orphaned rather than aborted.
But there is more here than merely a biological, physiological commandment. In fact, what we have here is the choice commissioned; they were commissioned to choose life.
This is not the first time that we read these words, for they reach as far back as Genesis 1:26–28.
When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them their first commandment: “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.” This is in effect the same commandment that God reissued here to Noah and his family.
Now we need to ask, what kind of people were Adam and Eve to fill the earth with? The obvious (and correct) answer is that they were to fill the earth with people like them; with people who, like them, were made in the image of God and with people who, like them that at that point, were perfect in innocence. We can summarise this commission as the commandment to fill the earth with God-followers like themselves.
The idea of procreation was not merely to fill the earth with people but with a particular kind of people—those who would live under dominion to God; therefore those who would reflect God’s worldview—including the sanctity of human life.
But we know what transpired. Adam and Eve soon rebelled against God, and creation was thrown into a tailspin.
But even as fallen sinners, Adam and Eve obeyed the commandment and two sons were born. Yet while one (Abel) chose to promote a culture of obedience and life, the other (Cain) chose to pursue disobedience and a culture of death.
These two lines grew alongside one another (see Genesis 4:16–5:32). This culminated in the world becoming so corrupt that God wiped out the entire population while sparing one family. It is in this context in which we find this commission or commandment given.
This family was responsible to fill the earth with righteousness. They were to reproduce righteously and were to govern righteously. They were to spread a culture of life, to choose life and to influence others to choose life. The church is called to a similar task. We call this the Great Commission.
As with the first commission, so with this one: Those who, by the grace of God, are followers of God are to make more followers of God and to fill the earth with them.
I would go so far as to say that the Great Commission is not merely a prolife issue; it is, in fact, the prolife issue. In other words, Matthew 28:18–20 has a lot to do with Genesis 9:6–7.
As we preach the gospel and make disciples, the result of this is a change of worldview. And a huge part of this worldview is to value the lives of any and all and each. The sanctity of life would be a part of this worldview
By the new birth, hearts and minds are changed. Rushdoony observed, “An age that does not believe in God will not believe that man is made in God’s image.”10 The church is called to oppose such unbelief and to do something constructive to change this—that is, the Great Commission.
As we make disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ we will begin shaping hearts and minds with the result that the culture of death will be increasingly opposed by the culture of life. This war is winnable! We are to reach everyone. Every life has value. Yes, even those who are hell-bent on denying this.
In the wake of Donald Trump’s presidential victory, Madonna said that she was thinking about “blowing up the White House.” At a recent prolife event, Eric Metaxes responded that, while he was outraged at abortion, “I have not thought a lot about blowing up Madonna’s house. And the reason I have not thought about blowing up Madonna’s house is because the Lord I follow commands me to love my enemies. When Jesus told us to pray for our enemies, we’re crazy, we do it. He then led the crowd in prayer for the musician.
Scott Klusendorf suggest three ways that the prolife movement can end abortion in America: (1) Recruit more fulltime prolife apologists: (2) systematically train youth; and (3) go visual.
Let me touch on the first strategy: Recruit more fulltime prolife apologists. Klusendorf cites Gregg Cunningham (Director of Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform): “There are more people working full-time to kill babies than there are people working full-time to save them.”
Without adopting this argument fully, I do agree that we need to see a huge increase in the numbers of people who will invest in saving babies—not merely marching and protesting (which is helpful), but also opening their lives and therefore opening their wallets and their homes to save babies.
But further, to the degree that the church is equipped by and with the Word of God to combat the culture of death, an army of people will be unleashed in this world that will save babies. In other words, there is a cultural divide, so let’s increase our numbers!
The Choice Empowered
After giving this commandment, the Lord then provides assurance concerning their choosing life.
Then God spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: “And as for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you, of all that go out of the ark, every beast of the earth. Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood; never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.”
This was significant. Consider what Noah and family had just been through: a worldwide and catastrophic cataclysmic flood that wiped out millions upon millions of people—perhaps even a billion or more. They were only the survivors. And now they were responsible to repopulate the earth. Perhaps they were concerned about the future of this commission. That is, if they chose life, would it prove to be in vain? Would they all be destroyed as those on the other side of the flood? What was the use of choosing and protecting and promoting and propagating life in a world with an uncertain future?
If this was going through their minds, then God’s covenant would have been welcome news for them. In essence, this covenant—sealed with the rainbow—affirmed their choice to be prolife. God was saying, “I’ve got this. I have a plan for this world and it is a good plan. You simply obey and leave the results with Me. I will honour your choosing of life.”
This covenant would have had an empowering effect upon their obedience to this command. Though doubtless there were many things that may have troubled them, and though there would have been many concerns about the future, the assurance of God’s covenantal faithfulness would go a long way towards encouraging them to be prolife. They could obey, leaving the future in God’s hands. So it is for us.
As Christians, we too are empowered by this covenant. God is in control and we can therefore do right leaving the results with God. Recent days have seen encouraging prolife gains in the United States and other places. In fact, more was done in the first week following Donald Trump’s inauguration as president than was done in the preceding eight years. This is encouraging. We should pray for more.
But of course, we have an even greater covenant than Noah. We have the new covenant. And this empowers us even more. The new covenant is that sovereign and gracious act by which God saves sinners through the sinless life, substitutionary death, actual burial and historic and unique resurrection of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. We call this the gospel.
By trusting in Christ alone, we are delivered from death and are granted eternal life. We might say that, in believing the gospel, we have made the ultimate decision to choose life.
The consequences are many, not the least of which we have a whole new view of God and of those made in His image. We therefore value human life, and our choices and conduct reveal this. We love rather than loathe our neighbours. We want life for them, not death. As we hold to, and then practically live out this worldview, the culture of death slowly loses its power as the culture of life increases its presence.
But most importantly, as with Noah and his family—and those who throughout history have chosen life—we too have the promise of God’s providential power and presence: “And behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). We are not alone in this endeavour. When we are on God’s side, we are in the majority.
Christian, church, we know, as we disciple the nations, that hearts and minds are changed and that those who choose life will increase, eventually. Just as the slave trade came to a halt in the British Empire, and in other places, so too will this holocaust of abortion. We should be empowered to evangelise and to make disciples, knowing that God is at work in this world to reconcile it to Himself through the Lord Jesus Christ.
So, let us obey the Great Commandment. This will produce a great commitment to the Great Commission. And this will yield a growing number of God-followers who will join those who choose life.
- John Calvin, Genesis: The Crossway Classic Commentaries (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2001), 87. ↩
- Rousas John Rushdoony, Genesis (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 2002), 78. ↩
- John D. Currid, Genesis: An EP Study Commentary, 2 vols. (Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003), 1:216. ↩
- Derek Kidner, Genesis: Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), 101. ↩
- Calvin, Genesis, 90. ↩
- Currid, Genesis, 215–16. ↩
- Calvin, Genesis, 91. ↩
- Currid, Genesis, 1:217. ↩
- Currid, Genesis, 213. ↩
- Rushdoony, Genesis, 78. ↩