This volume is the first in a “Bible commentary series written by followers of Jesus in Muslim contexts. It develops biblical insight in deliberate conversation with the Qur‘an, the Hadith, and local Islamic cultures,” in this case Azad’s homeland of Bangladesh.  Azad described himself as “a Muslim-heritage believer in Jesus the Messiah” (p. xvi).  He passed away in June of 2020.  The work was co-written and completed by Ida Glaser whose doctoral work at Durham University addressed this subject and who describes herself as a Jewish-heritage believer in Jesus the Messiah.

The first chapter introduces the act of blessing, noting that in the Quran this includes spiritual and material things and comes via prayer, pilgrimage, water from Mecca, and special people who in death are visited at their tombs.  The connection is made in Arabic descriptions of God with his compassionate nature, using terms like this that are also related to the womb.  Looking at these opening chapters of Genesis and the genealogical structure, the authors argue for the complementarity of science and Scripture.  They distinguish the traditional divisions of interpretation including the original meaning, the meaning within the text (language, structure, and form), and the application to those of us who read it. 

For the original meaning (or the world behind the text) we have geography and comparative religious/myth texts.  The author, according to the Quran, was God who gave Moses the Torah.  This is different from the biblical testimony where God works through human authors and where Genesis does not claim to have been authored by Moses.  Azad and Glaser outline various traditional and critical views of the composition of Genesis and the Pentateuch.  They conclude with reliance upon Westermann, Goldingay, and Gordon Wenham.  While each of these have their strengths and weaknesses, reading Genesis as the word of God as well as that of humans leads one to Wenham’s approach as closest. 

The study of structure assumes that one can decipher much about the significance of numbers, a significance which is not always so clear in the Bible text itself.  Various structures of Genesis 1-11 are possible and discussed.  However, the clearest textual division comes with the Toledoth or genealogies.  Interestingly, the Quran also mentions six days in context with creation.  The Torah is mentioned 18 times in the Quran.  While held in high esteem it is believed to have been distorted, whether in meaning (earlier Muslim commentators held to this) or in the words themselves (a later and common view).  Judaism’s comments in Genesis Rabbah, a 4^th/5^th century CE writing, fills in perceived gaps in the Genesis account.  The first word of Genesis 1:1 is understood as teaching how the Torah was God’s blueprint for making the world.  It uses Proverbs 8 where wisdom (understood as Torah) is the “beginning” of God’s work.  Islam understand the Quran as eternal (yet separate from God) and Christianity teaching that the Messiah is the wisdom that was present from the beginning.  The Bible teaches how the combination of the two names of God, YHWH and Elohim, in Gen. 2:4 and elsewhere, demonstrate the personal closeness of God as well as his transcendent creation of the universe.  The Quran also teaches the closeness of Alla, closer than our jugular vein, as well as his transcendence.  Created in the image of God implies the ability to gain knowledge of the world God created.  The chapter ends with a challenge to listen to the questions that God asks us.

Chapter 2 considers Gen. 1:1 – 2:3 and the seven days of creation.  Azad and Glaser refer to some of the ancient (myth) and modern (Big Bang etc.) theories.  The evolutionary theories do not consider the revolution that genetic studies have brought about, and their rapidly changing models.  The myth of Enuma Elish is compared.  While a chart presents a variety of differences, they can be reduced to two: one God vs. many, humans as dominant over creation vs. humans as slaves of the gods.  In the New Testament Jesus is involved in creation (John 1:1-4) and is the best fulfillment of the image of God (Colossians 1:15-16).  The Quran teaches seven levels of heaven with God enthroned above all of them.  Every living creature is created from water.  The Quran does not mention the image of God although this appears in the Hadith.  It sees humans as vice-regents.  The means by which God taught Adam was to teach him all the names.  God also commanded the angels to bow before Adam. 

In the Quran, Mohammed’s question about the Spirit meets God’s response that it is not to be mentioned.  The three other occurrences of the Holy Spirit in the Quran are taken as references to the angel Gabriel or to Jesus.  The jinn (creatures often malevolent but also good) are thought to have inhabited the earth until God created Adam.  The angels then destroyed the jinn so earth could be a home for humanity.  Muslims deny Jesus as present at creation because they see him as a created human being.  However, he can create birds from clay and give them life. 

Azad and Glaser understand God’s naming of creation in Genesis 1 as signifying ownership, control, and knowledge of it.  God is the source of all light and the creator of light sources (Isaiah 30:26; 60:19).  In the Quran only God is the Light (an-Nūr 24:35) and it is one of his 99 names. The light, waters, dry land, and plants are described as created.  The detailed discussion of seeds implies the refutation of fertility worship (p. 62).  The Bible downplays the creation of the sun, moon, and stars so that they may be seen as under God’s control and not for worship.  The Quran identifies several purposes for stars:  a heavenly ornament, to prevent jinns and devils from entering heaven, and to direct travelers.  In the Quran Abraham approached monotheism as he found in the moon’s waning and the sun’s setting evidence that they are objects of creation and not divine (al-Anʿām).  Azad and Glaser note the view that the black stone in the Kaʿba could have been a meteorite and that Hubal, the chief deity there, was a moon god (p. 67).  There is also a tradition that the black stone can wipe away sin.  The fish and birds are distinct from plant life because they have consciousness.  In the Quran the birds glorify God because he enables them to fly; whereas the fish are extraordinary and mysterious. 

By the times we come to v. 26 and the creation of people, it forms the seventh “let there be…and it was so” expression in the chapter (p. 71).  The reference to God in the plural has been addressed as an early reference to the Trinity, a plural of majesty, a reflection of God with himself, or a heavenly court.  The latter is problematic especially for creation “in our image,” where the image is that of God, not the divine court.  The Trinitarian emphasis, identified in the patristic period, is difficult in the Old Testament and with no explicit connection.   Nevertheless, there may be a relationship with the idea of internal deliberation reflecting a complexity to God.  Azad and Glaser discuss the title khalīfa (al-Baqara 2:31) which describes God’s appointment of Adam as representative of his rule.  The term has been used for all humanity, for skilled artisans, and for Muslim leaders.  The Quran actually identifies King David as khalīfa on the earth (Ṣād 38:26).  Azad and Glaser argue that, as God’s “pure representative,” Jesus is not only the perfect khalīfa, but God himself who stands in our place (p. 77).  The discussion of male and female in the text affirms the equal worth and guilt of both.  However, the discussion remarkable use of sexually explicit differentiation in Gen. 1:27 does not deal with the implications for transgender issues of today. 

Along with the command to procreate as a special value placed upon life and human life, there is the unique command given only to humans to act as stewards of God’s world.  It is true that human beings were created, according to Babylonian myth and theology, to feed the gods. Indeed, this is the purpose of temples in Mesopotamia and the roles of priests as servants of the deities. 

The seventh day is a day of rest, not mentioned in the Quran.  Azad and Glaser conclude their discussion of this chapter noting that we are all in God’s image and should be treated with respect; God as Creator guarantees that he is in control and so we can trust him; and that we should rest on the Sabbath.

Chapter 3 considers Gen. 2:4–4:26.  Genesis 2 is a continuation of chapter 1 (p. 93) with an emphasis on humanity.  Adam and his wife ae mentioned in the Quran.  The man was created out of earth and with the divine spirit breathed into him.  As in the Bible, the woman was taken from the man’s rib.  The couple are involved as the dual is used.  As already noted, Satan does not bow to the man when the other angels do.  This places Satan at enmity with humanity.  The story of the prohibited tree and Satan’s persuasion of the man and the woman to touch it occurs in the Quran.   Adam built a place of worship where Abraham would later build the Kaʿba (al-Baqara 2:125-27). 

In the Quran the nafs is similar to a bird and so the souls of the martyrs live in the bodies of green birds whose nests are in the chandeliers hung from the throne of the Almighty.   While the Quran tends to find the body as a cage for the nafs, the biblical idea of the body is good and will be resurrected.  In addition to the observations of Azad and Glaser, it is proper to see the Hebrew nephesh as inseparable from the body in the original creation. 

The authors take eden to mean plain or steppe, assuming the Sumerian origin and ignoring the W. Semitic arguments of Tsumura who identifies it as a “well watered place.”  This is interesting because the authors’ emphasis on water occurs in the same paragraph as their definition of eden (p. 101).   The Hebrew for garden is gan, not unlike the Arabic jannnat and the Bangla began.  Among the various levels of heaven some are regarded as gardens.  In fact, unlike Genesis, the Quran does not mention the location of Eden as on earth.  The Genesis account seems to place it somewhere in Mesopotamia.  While referring to Josephus’ equation of the Pishon with the Ganges River, the authors do not mention James Sauer’s use of satellite photography of Saudi Arabia to identify the remains of a river course that he suggests may have been the Pishon (“The River Runs Dry: Creation Story Preserves Historical Memory.”  Biblical Archaeology Review 22/4 [July/August 1996]: 52-57, 64).  The placement of the man in Eden entailed work that he was charged with doing.  Therefore, work is not the consequence of sin but an intended part of life.  In the Quran eating of the forbidden fruit of what is the tree of eternity makes one unjust.  Since death was an original part of God’s plan in the Quran, the sin of Genesis 3 was not a major matter as in Genesis.

Azad and Glaser reflect on the naming of the animals (in the Quran God taught Adam the names (as already noted) as an act of authority and as the first verbal expression of the man.  In Bangladesh only a senior person in the family is invited to the naming of a newborn child in a Muslim family, usually seven days after the child’s birth and including the sacrifice of an animal.  The mention that Gen. 2:20 “is the first occurrence of ‘Adam’ without the definite article” (p. 108) and therefore a personal name, is not strictly true.  The common Hebrew prefix he is not present, but the inseparable preposition attached to the noun would not allow for its presence anyway.  In fact, the consonantal text could reflect a definite article.  This is true for all occurrences of this noun until Gen. 4:25 when it becomes a proper name (R. Hess, “Splitting the Adam: The Usage of ‘ADAM in Genesis i-v,” pp. 1-15 in J.A. Emerton ed., Studies in the Pentateuch [Supplements to Vetus Testamentum XLI; Leiden: Brill, 1990]. 

The subject of marriage (Gen. 2:24) brings some contrasts.  Church leaders in Christianity are called to be monogamous (1 Tim. 3:2).  However, the Quran allows for as many as four wives and additional slave concubines.  In general, both religions rule out rape, prostitution, adultery, and homosexuality.  The Quran allows for divorce by the husband, but it is not something God prefers in Christianity or in Islam.  Some Muslims allow for temporary marriage contracts lasting as briefly as a day.  The marriage relationship has priority over all others.  The authors note that in Bangladesh it is common for the couple to live with the husband’s family and in some cases with the wife’s family.  Most Muslims see marriage as obligatory for men who can support a wife.

Moving further into ch. 3, the Quran replaces the serpent with Satan.  Other stories tell how Satan entered the Garden in the form of a serpent.  Serpent worship, known in the ancient world, continues today in places in India where the snake goddess is worshipped.  The Bangla epic Manasa Mangal honors her as a fertility goddess. 

Azad and Glaser’s chiastic structure analysis for Gen. 2:15-3:24 is excellent (p. 122).  The only question is why the structure begins at 2:15 rather than 2:4.  The central point to this chiasm is “Disobedience and calling to account (3:6–13).”  People were to rule the animals, not listen to them as the woman did to the serpent.  Azad and Glaser understand the prophecied death as a spiritual death that took place when the couple ate the fruit.  The man should have warned the woman but instead participated in the sin.  The Quran has the serpent addressing both.  The man was also tempted.  It also has Satan convincing the couple that eating the fruit would accomplish something good and be obedient to God. In popular Bangladeshi Muslim literature, the forbidden fruit is wheat, shaped like the female sex organ, and indicating that the two had sexual relations before being sent from the Garden.  The Garden of Eden is heaven or in heaven, contrary to the biblical view which places it on earth. 

Azad and Glaser find the consequences of the first sin as hiding from each other, fear, and hiding from God.   They do not connect this with the breakdown in harmonious relations between people, God, and creation (see R. Hess, The Old Testament: A Historical, Critical, and Theological Introduction [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2016], pp. 27, 51).  In the Quran there is no intentional sin.  When God calls them to account, Islam teaches that he reminds them of the prohibition which Satan had caused them to forget.  They repent at once and God gives them the words of repentance to speak (al-Baqara 2; al-Aʿrāf 7).  Even so, the Quranic interpreters draw from the biblical account to attach blame to the woman (p. 129).  The authors are correct in observing the unique expression of the seed of the woman in Gen. 3:15 as a justification for the unique role of the virgin birth.  The Quran agrees that Satan will be defeated but it does not describe how this will happen nor does it provide a means of redemption.  The passive role of women is described in the brutal treatment of women and wives (al-Baqara 2:223).  Azad and Glaser also refer to Murad:  “The human rights worker Nadia Murad, a Nobel Prize winner, complained that the Islamic State prisoner camps used women as sex-slaves and raped them regularly” (p. 132). 

Although the Quran does not mention the name of Eve, her Arabic name Hawwa does appear in the Hadith.  The Quran mentions clothing God gave the couple when they were expelled.  It contrasts this with Meccans who worshipped naked; arguing that people are to wear clothing.  In the view of most Muslims a prophet cannot sin.  Adam was a prophet and so did not sin.  The descent of the man and woman to earth was part of the original intent.  Satan’s fall to earth was a temporary reprieve from eternal punishment.  This contrasts with Christianity where all have sinned and need redemption.  Both Islam and European Christianity attempted to recreate paradise gardens.  The Taj Mahal is one example in India.  Baghdad was originally called Madina al-Salam “City of Peace,” a name for paradise in the Quran. 

Concerning murder the Quran quotes the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 4:5; al-Māʾida 5:32 [p. 149]):

We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people.

In Gen. 4:1-17, the seven mentions of Abel, seven references to “brother,” fourteen mentions of Cain, and the occurrence of the important figure of Lamech as the seventh descendant from Cain all attest to the importance of the number seven.  We are not explicitly told why God accepted Abel’s sacrifice and rejected Cain’s (although the emphasis of Abel’s sacrifice as the best of his flock seems important – see Hess, The Old Testament).  The Quran maintains that Abel’s deeds were righteous and Cain’s were not.  Unlike Genesis 4:7, there is no speech from God.  Instead, Cain says to Abel, “I will kill you.”  Abel warns his brother that God will only accept those who have a sincere heart to follow him and not idols.  In the Bible, Abel speaks only as his blood cries from the ground.  Cain lies about his sin.  As cursed, Cain will have even more trouble growing food than his father and he will be sent even farther away.  The source of Cain’s wife is not known to us but Christian and Muslim tradition have Eve bearing many children and allow for the marrying of sisters.  Judaism also understands Gen. 4:2 and the “again” to mean that Cain and Abel both had twin sisters and married each other’s twin.  Even though Cain will build a life for himself apart from God, he bears the mark of God. 

For the names in the line of Cain and their meanings, Azad and Glaser follow several studies and add some notes on traditions regarding Noah’s wife’s name.  Seth is not mentioned in the Quran but Islamic tradition regards him as the second prophet after Adam.  The calling on the name of the LORD (Gen. 4:25) has to do with communication with God in a manner lost when Adam and Eve left the Garden.  Azad and Glaser challenge us to be like Abel and not Cain.  Sometimes someone who appears like Cain becomes Abel and vice versa.  God speaks to Cain because he cares about the sinner.  Cain did not repent of his sin but sin must be punished.  The acceptable sacrifice for sin is found ultimately in Jesus.  The Old Testament sacrifices point toward the perfect sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah.  The Bangladeshi poet, Kazi Nazrul Islam, appeals to his fellow Muslims to abstain from animal sacrifice and to sacrifice their own sinful nafs instead.  We as believers are to see ourselves as dead to our sinful nafs, and live in control of our desires.

Chapter 4 considers Gen. 5:1–6:8, the line of Seth and the background of the Flood.  We learn that the Bengali people believe that those who know their lineage to fourteen generations (like Genesis 5) will be blessed by their ancestors; and that the pronouncement of blessings or curses on someone extends for those fourteen generations (p. 173).  Azad and Glaser note how the ancient king lists move backwards from the current generation, rather than forwards as in the Genesis genealogies.  This point was already made in R. Hess, “The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 and Comparative Literature,” pp. 58-72 in R. S. Hess and D. T. Tsumura eds., “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 4; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994).  Reprint of “The Genealogies of Genesis 1-11 and Comparative Literature,” Biblica 70 (1989) 241-254; and repeated in R. Hess, “The Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 and Comparative Studies: Evidence for a Seam,” pp. 145-56 in R. E. Averbeck and K. L. Younger Jr. eds., “An Excellent Fortress for His Armies, a Refuge for the People”: Egyptological, Archaeological, and Biblical Studies in Honor of James K. Hoffmeier (University Park: Eisenbrauns, 2020).

The chiasm of ch. 4, where the structure places Enoch at the center, seems a bit contrived.  The section before it lists five of the line in vv. 4-20 while the section after it lists only two in vv. 25-27.  Nevertheless, the central importance of Enoch in the line seems reasonable.  Many of the analyses of the names here follow my own Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009).  The authors compare giants mentioned in the Quran with those of Genesis 6:1-4 and conclude that Noah’s finding of favor in God’s eyes was a sovereign choice.  Enoch reminds us that “Living for God is more important than the length of our lives” (p. 192). 

In ch. 5 the flood story is compared with others around the world (including one from early texts of India) and especially with the Babylonian (Sumerian) Gilgamesh epic which preserves too many similarities to be coincidence (pp. 196-97).  Even so, the belief in one God and the human race’s acquisition of evil are both unique to the Genesis story.  In the Quran Noah follows a pattern also found in the later prophets (Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad): “the wickedness of the people, the preaching of the prophet, the people’s rejection of the prophet, the prophet’s prayer, and a catastrophic judgment” (p. 199).

Chapter 5 continues in the now familiar style of the book through the remainder of the Genesis flood story.  In a similar manner there follow ch. 6, “The Beginnings of Nations – Genesis 10:1–11:9;” and ch. 7, “The Beginnings of Abraham – Genesis 11:10–12:1.

In the final chapter, “God’s Blessings on Abram – Genesis 12:2–3,” we learn that Muslims request the blessing of Abraham on Muhammad.  Some repeat this prayer many times each day.  In Genesis 12:2-3, Azad and Glaser find seven blessings:  God will make Abraham a great nation, will bless him, will make his name great, will make him a blessing, will bless those who bless you, will curse those who dishonor you, and will make Abraham a source of blessing to others.  In the Quran God chose to work through Abraham only after he passed tests.  If the children of Israel are disobedient, they will lose the blessing of Abraham. 

At the center of Genesis 1-11 is 8:1 “God remembered Noah.”  This is unconditional and not dependent on us remembering God (unlike in Islam).

This volume is a helpful exegetical commentary also employing the tradition of Jewish and Christian interpreters.  However, its most significant contribution is to make available the tradition of Islamic interpretations and interpreters otherwise not easily accessible to many Western exegetes.  The theological comparisons and contrasts between these traditions and the biblical text of Genesis 1-11 are invaluable.

Richard S. Hess, Ph.D.
Distinguished Professor of Old Testament and Semitic Languages
Denver Seminary
November 2024