Genesis—The Book of Beginnings

The title of this, the oldest book in the Bible, of course signifies Beginning. With almost equal propriety, however, the “first book of Moses” might be termed “the Book of Names,” or of “Naming.” As the noun or name-word is the basis and starting-point of all grammar, as the term or definition is the foundation of all logic, so the starting-point of all Divine knowledge is in the Name, i.e., in that Revelation of Himself which God has made known unto men. In the words of a distinguished theologian of the Genevan school (Francis Turrettin) “omnis nostra cognitio incipit a nomine.” Genesis, that primitive Book of religion, naturally appears therefore as the Book of Sacred Names: —of the Name or Names of God in the first place, and then of the names of men, of places, or of things, in relation to God. It is a well-known fact that it was from the observance of this feature in the narratives of Genesis that the modern school of literary criticism as applied to the books of the Bible took its rise. Upon the phenomena presented by the varying use of the Divine Names has been erected the theory of diversity of origin for certain portions of the Genesis narratives. When stated in its broad outlines, this theory may be said to be generally accepted among scholars today. It must, however, be admitted that this principle of criticism has frequently been applied in a very crude, partial and onesided manner; yet this fact ought not to blind us to the value and importance of the principle taken in itself.

There are certain phenomena,—in part connected with the use of the Divine Names, in part of another character —which, when fairly construed, certainly seem to point to a diversity of origin for several clearly-marked sections of the Book of Genesis. To proceed immediately to the consideration of some of the evidence: —The Septuagint rendering of chapter 2, v. 4 reads, “This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they came into being, in the day wherein the LORD God made the heaven and the earth.” This language seems on its face to indicate the beginning of a distinct creation-narrative; especially when taken in connection with the fact that the section which follows presents what plainly appears as a (relatively) independent account of the creation. As we shall see a little further on, this second account, when compared with the one which precedes it, presents a number of individual and striking characteristics; and, moreover, like the account in chapter i, exhibits a unity of structure and purpose which would seem to indicate a relatively independent origin.

Again, at the beginning of chapter v. (verse I) one cannot fail to be struck by the fact that we have here once more a distinct historical beginning—a start de novo. The Hebrew text reads, “This is the Book of the Generations of Adam.” (LXX., αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων….” Vulg.: “Hic est liber generationis Adam.”) This statement is followed by a genealogy of the successive heads of the Adamic family, from the first generation down to Noah, covering the entire period before the Flood. In these facts we have what certainly seems prima facie evidence, pointing to three distinct original documents. Of these, the first may be termed The Book of Creation (the Cosmological narrative); the second, The Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth (the Eden-narrative); and the third, The Generations of Adam and his Descendants, or,—inasmuch as the name Adam is generic (=Man) as well as individual,—The Generations of Man (the Genealogical history).

The detailed study of these narratives gives abundant evidence of the distinctive character and viewpoint of each one of them,—a fact which seems unmistakably to point to a relative independence in their literary (or traditional) origin. Especially significant in this connection is the usage with respect to the Divine Names; each of the narratives being characterized by a special usus loquendi in this particular. In what follows we shall consider the third section, introduced by the genealogy of the Adamic family, as extending to the end of the Book. This section,—which, accordingly, will include much the largest part of Genesis,—presents us with a number of genealogical registers. Each of these is introduced by a recurring formula,—”These are the generations of Noah” (6:9—”the generations of the sons of Noah” (10:1) . . . “the generations of Shem” (11:10) . . . “the generations of Terah” (11:27) . . . “the generations of Ishmael” (25:12) ... “the generations of Isaac” (25:19) . . . “the generations of Esau” (36:1) and, finally, . . . “the generations of Jacob” (37:2).

In the Cosmological narrative (ch. 1–2: 3), it is scarcely necessary to say, the characteristic Divine Name is “Elohim.” This is the only Name of God found in this particular section. In the second section, which extends from the fourth verse of chapter 2 to the end of chapter 4, we find in the Hebrew Massoretic text the form “LORD God” (Jehovah Elohim) employed exclusively down to man’s expulsion from the Garden; after which the Name LORD (“Jehovah” without “Elohim”) is used to the end of the section. Once only in this Eden-narrative (4:25) do we find the Name “Elohim,” i.e., in the utterance of Eve,—”God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.” When, however, we turn to the Septuagint and the Vulgate, we are confronted with a somewhat different usage; although no other Divine Names occur except these two, i.e., “LORD” and “God” (together with the combined form “LORD God”). Κύριος ὁ θείς is the usual expression in the LXX., and is freely employed even beyond this section, occurring frequently down to the account of the Confusion of Tongues,—in other words, through chapter 10; after which, i.e., in the remaining forty chapters, the present writer has found it occurring but four times. In the Septuagint version of the Eden-narrative θεός alone occurs seven times (3:1, 3, 5; 4:1, 4, 16, 25); Κύριος alone once (4:3). The Vulgate, however, follows the Hebrew usage much more closely in this particular than does the Septuagint. This is only what might have been anticipated from the well-known fact that St. Jerome, the author of the Vulgate translation, frequently goes back directly to the Hebrew text, following its readings rather than those of the LXX. Thus “Dominus Deus” does not occur after the event of man’s expulsion from the Garden; the single form “Dominus” or “Deus” alone occurring.

When we come to the Genealogical history,—which, as has been said, comprises much the largest part of the Book of Genesis—we find in addition to the Names “LORD” (Jehovah) and God (“Elohim”) certain other Divine Name-forms, titles, and appellations. Thus in the Hebrew text we find “Elohim” occurring several times with the article (“ha-Elohim”),—a distinctive form which is not indicated in either the Greek or the Latin Versions. Again, we find in the Hebrew text the Name “El,” always occurring, however, with some descriptive or explanatory addition. Thus we find “El Eljon” (God Most High) four times (all of them in chapter 14)¹ ; “El Shaddai” (God Almighty) five times; “El Roi” (God that seeth) once (ch. 16:13); “El Olam” (God Everlasting) once (ch. 21:33). The Vulgate renders “God Almighty” by “Deus Omnipotens”; the LXX. by “God” accompanied by the possessive personal pronoun,—”thy God,” or “my God.”² “Adonai,” a plural with the possessive termination of the first person (=“my lords,”—a plural of majesty, like “Elohim” and “Shaddai”) does not appear in the Book of Genesis as a Divine Name; but only as an appellation of honor. It occurs only in Abraham’s addresses to the LORD in chapters 15, 18 and 20. (The passages are,—15:2, 8; 18:3, 27, 30, 31, 32, and 20:4). As is well known, “Adonai” came afterwards to be used as the representative of the incommunicable and ineffable Name “Jehovah,” which the later Jews would not venture to pronounce.

Speaking generally; This third section of Genesis, which we have denominated the “genealogical history,” exhibits a richer and more varied use of the Names of God than is the case in the earlier sections. It must, however, be borne in mind that the Names “Jehovah” and “Elohim” (though not the compound “Jehovah-Elohim”) occur with the greatest frequency all through this genealogical history.

The conclusion which we draw from the foregoing evidence (to which other evidence is to be added in the pages that follow) is, therefore, that there are clear traces in Genesis of three distinct main documentary and traditional sources. But this does not imply that the minute and often arbitrary dissection of the text which is confidently practiced by so many of the “higher critics” rests upon a sound foundation, or that it will in the long run be able to justify itself before the bar either of sound scholarship or of unbiased judgment.

In the study of primitive and Oriental documents the Oriental and primitive viewpoint must be steadily adhered to. It must never be forgotten that to the Hebrew mind the several Divine Names were so many distinct revelations of God. They were not mere epithets, but were regarded as so many concrete objective manifestations of the Divine Being. Not only was the Divine Being worshipped under these several Names, but the Divine Name was itself an object of religious veneration. This characteristic of Oriental religion is as evident in the Koran as it is in the Hebrew Scriptures; for in the Koran God is declared under no less than ninety-nine distinct names.³ Now it must be recognized as a radical fault of the school of “higher criticism” of today, that the majority of the critics fail properly to appreciate the Oriental usage in respect to the Divine Names. The maxim of most of the critics seems to be that each sacred writer, or at least each original author, must necessarily have confined himself to the use of some one of these Divine Names, strictly and exclusively. How utterly fallacious this maxim is, and how fatally misleading its application must necessarily be, is evident to the careful reader of the Old Testament, as well as of the Koran and other Oriental religious books and monuments of a greater or less antiquity.

Let us take, for example, a passage in the Book of Job,—Chapter 22, verses 8 to 13, inclusive. On referring to the Hebrew text, we find that in this passage three distinct Divine Names are used;—”Eloah” occurs twice; “El” three times; “Shaddai” twice. On considering the Book of Job as a whole, we find that the use of these three Divine Names is characteristic of this particular work,—”El” occurring 55 times, “Eloah” 41 times, “Shaddai” 31 times. “Elohim” occurs but five times in the distinctively poetical portion of the book, in which, moreover, Jehovah (the covenant-Name by which God revealed Himself to Israel), occurs but once (12:9). This is in perfect accordance with the fact that Job, while a partaker of the covenants which had been made with Noah and his sons, and, again with Abraham, was not a member of God’s chosen Nation, Israel. In the introductory and concluding sections of the Book, however, the Hebrew narrator freely uses not only “Elohim” but “Jehovah.”⁴ In harmony with the general character of the book, and of its pre- or extra-Israelitic standpoint, is the fact that in the Hebrew Canon the Book of Job is included with the Hagiographa, rather than with the Law or the Prophets.

Throughout the whole Book of Psalms, again, the alternating and contrasted use of the Divine Names is most remarkable and beautiful, and its consideration is spiritually most helpful to the devout mind. We cannot enter into this study at present; it must suffice to indicate in passing certain Psalms which are especially instructive in this connection, i.e., when the Divine Names are studied as they occur in the original text. In Psalm li., for example, that Psalm of deepest penitence, the speaker does not venture to call upon God by His covenant Name “Jehovah.” In a similar connection we may compare Psalm 14 with Psalm 53. Psalm 19 naturally falls into two parts, which may be designated as the cosmological (vss. 1–6) and the moral (vss. 7–14). The first part is characterized by the Divine Name “Elohim,” the Creator; the second by the name of the Covenant-God, “Jehovah.” A similar transition occurs in Psalm 22. Failing to appreciate this poetical and elegant use of the Divine Names in Psalms 19 and 22, Dr. Briggs⁵ falls into the absurdity of severing these beautiful poems into a series of “disjecta membra,” which he assumes to have been afterwards artificially patched together.

In Psalm 130 the use of “Adonai” as alternating with “Jehovah” is very striking; Psalm 67 (Deus Misereatur) is an Elohim-Psalm; Psalms 92, 95, 98, 100, 103 are all Jehovah-Psalms. But it is not only from such poetical works as the Psalter and the Book of Job that this usage with respect to the Divine Names may be illustrated; for it is an outstanding characteristic of the Old Testament as a whole, as it is of each one of its several books. “Adonai Jehovah,” for example, is a form as characteristic of the Prophet Ezekiel, as “Shaddai” is of the Book of Job. But as a rule no sacred writer confines himself strictly to the use of any one of the Divine Names.

It may, however, be said in reply to this, that the alternative, or contrasting, use of the Divine Names points to a late date and authorship of the document in which it occurs; to a time when these several Divine Names had all come into frequent use. But this explanation is itself by no means susceptible of proof by any evidence which has as yet appeared; indeed, as a hypothesis, it assumes the very point which is to be proved. The evidence which we have all points the other way. For even in the earliest books, and sections of books, as they appear in the Canon we find that this same usage is as strongly marked and as characteristic as it is in any of the later books. To evade the force of this evidence, as it stands, the “higher critics” are obliged to resort to the most minute and artificial processes of division and recombination; processes which, congenial as they may be to the modern “scholarly” editor, are entirely foreign to the Oriental, forget to acknowledge, in all fairness, the very great debt under which modern criticism of the Sacred Scriptures has laid the world of the present time. Many facts of the greatest value and importance have been and are being brought to light, no less by the critics themselves than by those who decline to follow them in their more radical conclusions. Diversity of origin and plurality of documentary sources, so far as regards certain books of the Old Testament, and in particular, the Book of Genesis, may be said to have been fairly well established, and that as the result of the “higher criticism.” This fact, however, is quite consistent with the Mosaic authorship both of the Pentateuch as a whole, and of the Book of Genesis.

To the Book of Genesis let us now return. As we have already seen, the Book seems to fall naturally into three divisions,—the Creation-narrative, the Eden-narrative, and the Generations of Adam and his Descendants. Let us consider these sections in turn, with the view of noting certain of the characteristic features belonging to each. (Our study of the third section is here confined to that portion which deals with the period before the Flood.)

The Book of Divine Creations

The Creation-history (Genesis 1:1–2:3) is written from the transcendental point of view. Elohim is the sublime Creator and Fashioner, through His Spirit, which in the beginning brooded upon the face of the waters, impregnating them with the germs of life, and thus enabled them to co-operate with the Divine Agent, and to breed their myriad forms of life. This is the Hebrew Book of Science; its aim is to account for the origin of the visible “heavens and earth,” with all their phenomena; with all the several species of plant and animal life, passing on and up, from lower stages to higher, and finally culminating in the creation of man, who is made in the image of Elohim. The word bara is the characteristic term used to denote the Divine activity. Bara as=“create” is used in the Scriptures only of God. It occurs in this Book three times,—at the beginning (vs. 1);—in connection with the origin of the great sea-monsters, the fishes and the winged fowl (vss. 21–22), and finally, thrice repeated (vs. 27) in connection with the creation of man. The co-operation of subordinate agencies is not shut out by the use of the word “bara”; rather it is implied, as will be seen from a careful study of the context. Another word, “asa,” to “form,” to “produce,” is also used throughout this chapter; pointing to a moulding as well as to an initiative or strictly creative activity. The waters and the earth “bring forth,” i.e., teem with the myriad forms of life, each species being produced “after its own kind.”

The Septuagint translation does not convey the distinction between the two Hebrew verbs, “bara” and “asa,” which are characteristic of this section; but renders them both by ποιεῖν. Ποιεῖν is a term of creative import; implying that realization of an end which transcends mere process. Πράσσεῖν, on the other hand (with its noun πρᾶξις), implies that the end is immanent in the process itself. Compare the use of these two words in Romans 7:15, 21: also in St. John 3:20, 21 and 5:29. The Hebrew “asa” in Genesis 1—2:3 seems to correspond rather with πράσσεῖν, and to convey the meaning of “immanent process,” “production by gradual modification”;—in a word, that which we term “evolution”; while “bara” signifies the original, initiative or properly creative energy. “Creation” and “evolution” are thus seen not to be inconsistent or contradictory conceptions, but to be mutually complementary, each to the other. Very significant in this connection are the terms used in verse 11—”And Elohim said, Let the earth vegetate vegetation, herb seeding seed (i.e., producing seed)—and fruit-tree making fruit (asa p’ri), after its kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth.” This points to a co-operative activity of the earth, of the herbs and of the trees, concurrent with the supernatural Divine agency. And in verse 20 the same idea is indicated by the terms,—”Let the waters creep creeping things,”—living organisms, that is (Heb. “soul of life,” nephesh hayah)—”and let winged things wing over the earth, over the face of the expanse of the heavens.” The correspondence of the noun- and verb-forms points to the fact that in each species function corresponds to organism. Again, in v. 24, “Let the earth produce ‘soul of life’ (living organism), after its kind; cattle, and creeping thing (reptile) and beast of the earth, after its kind.” At the end of this section the two characteristic verbs “bara” and “asa” are brought together;— (Elohim rested from all his work—melakah— “business,” “operation,” conveying the idea of sending messengers) which Elohim created to make (LXX. ὧν ἡρξατο ὁ θεὸς ποιῆσαι). God, personally gave the initiative; to His messengers was entrusted the work of carrying out His supreme designs; compare the expression used in connection with the work of the creation of man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Here the plural form of the verb and of the pronoun implies a plurality of supernatural agents, which, indeed, has been already indicated by the plural form of the noun “Elohim.” On the other hand, the fact that in this narrative of Creation, as throughout the Old Testament generally, “Elohim” is followed by the singular number of the verb, clearly indicates that the work of Creation is to be referred to One supreme Personal Source.

Creative purpose and finality in the products, both as viewed collectively and severally, are clearly indicated by the repeated statement,— “And Elohim saw that it was good,”—At the end of the whole creative process we read, — “And Elohim saw everything that he had made; and, behold, it was very good.”

The Generations Of The Heavens And Of The Earth

Genesis 2:4-4:26

In this Book, besides the characteristic Divine Name, “Jehovah-Elohim” (LXX., Κύριος ὁ θεός) and the term “toledoth,”=“generations,” “progeny,” which occurs in the title, we shall find a characteristic verb employed to denote the Divine activity. In the Septuagint version, verse 4 of chapter 2. reads, “This is the Book of (the) Genesis of heaven and earth” (“Αυτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς) which evidently points to the tradition that here we have the beginning of an independent narrative. The recurrence of the two verbs “bara” and “asa” in the opening sentence of this Book, in which they are not afterwards repeated, seems to point in the same direction. In verses 7 and 19, which recount the origin of man and of the animals, we find yatsar (LXX. ἔπλασεν, from πλάσσω “form,” “mould,” “shape,”—Vulg. “formavit”) used to describe the Divine activity. The same Hebrew verb is used of the work of the potter; it conveys the idea of a plastic, moulding activity. Man, Adam (Adam, “red”), is moulded out of visible material,—the dust of the “adamah,” (i.e., the reddish soil) and into his composition enters also the invisible “breath of lives” nish palim. Thus through the Divine moulding “man” (Adam) became a living soul.

In contradistinction to the word yatsar, which is used of the formation of man, banah (LXX. ἐκοδόμησε, VUlg. “aedificavit”) is used of the making of woman (vs. 22), —”And the rib which Jehovah Elohim had taken from the man builded he into a woman” (LXX. ὠκοδόμησεν εἰς γυναῖκα, Vulg. “aedificavit in mulierem”). The distinction indicated by the use of these contrasted terms is that between two different activities revealed in the production of all living organisms. There is, in the first place, the power which produces the type. This, properly speaking, is the plastic activity; it lays down the specific lines upon which the development and growth are to take place. This activity is in nature closely associated with the masculine principle. The feminine activity, on the other hand, is that which nourishes and builds, rather than originates and directs. In the Genesis-account the man-type having been already formed, the woman is afterwards built up or constructed along the pre-existing lines. Thus man is the original of which woman is the counterpart, or copy. This, indeed, is indicated by the word kenegedo, “corresponding,” or “answering to” him (2:18, LXX. ποιήσωμιν αὐτ᾿ βοηθὸν κατ ἀὐτόν. Vulg. “faciamus ei adjutorium simile sibi”).

Man is made of the dust of the ground; and, as the result of his sin, his fate is to return to dust again. Although in the Garden man had had the opportunity to eat of the “Tree of the Lives,” ets hahayim, yet in his own proper nature man is but mortal. From the ground originally, his work is to “dress” and to “keep” the Garden, and afterward to “till” the ground. In spite of human sin, there is a ray of hope in the promise that “the Seed of the Woman shall bruise the serpent’s head”; even the head of the Tempter who had ruined Adam’s happiness, and had brought about his expulsion from the Garden of Delight (LXX., ἡ παράδεισος τῆς τρυφῆς.).

In this Book, as in the other two, man’s proper, as well as his generic, name is Adam. “Ish” is the name which indicates “man” as distinguished from “ishah,” “woman,” i. q., Gk. ἀνήρ, as distinguished from γυνή, Lat. “vir” as distinguished from “mulier” (see LXX. of Gen. 2:23). Jerome, in order to bring out the etymological connection between the respective nouns in this passage, translates the Hebrew “ishah” by “virago.” The adjectives indicating sex as “male” and as “female” in Gen. 1:27 and 5:2 are zakar and nekebah, LXX. ἄρσεν κεν θῆλυ, Vulg. “masculum et feminam.”

Very significant are Adam’s words in naming his wife. Having failed to find sympathetic companionship in any of the animals which had been brought to him to be named, Adam at last recognizes in this new being⁶ something which is of the same substance and nature with himself. To her he gives the generic name Woman. Her proper name, havah (LXX. Ζωή, or, by transliteration from the Hebrew, Εὔα) means “Life.” It is a significant fact that this name was given to woman after the Divine judgment and promise, and just before the expulsion from the Garden. After the expulsion of Adam and his wife from the Garden, it is to be observed that the full Divine Name “Jehovah-Elohim” no longer occurs. The form henceforward used (it occurs ten times) is “Jehovah”; “Elohim” occurs once (4:25).

Following the sin of Adam and his wife and their expulsion from the Garden, comes the further history of the development of sin in the case of Cain and his descendants. Disloyalty to God is followed by disloyalty to one’s brother. The Divine-human society having been disrupted by man’s original sin, the next consequence of sin is to break up the human family. Cain is driven away from the presence of the LORD, and from his father’s and mother’s presence as well, even as Adam and his wife had been driven out of the Garden of Eden. The subsequent history of the Cainite family is traced in outline. Violence and crime, having once found entrance into the world, grew by leaps and bounds, culminating in the fierce Song of Lamech,—”For I kill a man for a wound to me, And a boy for a scar. For Cain shall be avenged seven times, But Lamech—seventy times and seven.”

At the same time, we trace an advance in civilization. The origin of certain industries, arts, and crafts—cattle raising, music, forging of brass and iron—is indicated in connection with the history of Cain’s descendants.

But Cain, the first-born, to whom his mother had looked as to (perchance) the promised Deliverer,⁷ —Cain having proved worse than a failure (inasmuch as he had brought death rather than life into his family), has Seth “appointed” as his substitute, or rather (see iv. 25) as the substitute of his brother Abel. And to Seth, in turn, is born Enosh. In his time men “begin to call upon the Name of Jehovah.” Enosh appears to have been the first to establish Divine worship as a regular and public practice.⁸ Thus the Book of Generations closes with a ray of hope—its last word is Jehovah.

The Book of the Generations op Man

Genesis 5:1—1.

This Book, like Books I. and II., goes back to the beginning of human history. Adam’s origin is in the creative act of God. The creative word “bara” occurs three times at the beginning of this Book (ch. v. :1, 2), “asa” occurring (though only once) in the same connection. Then follows the word characteristic of Book II., yalad, to “beget”; spoken of each of the antediluvian patriarchs of the Adamic line. By Divine act the family relation is established. Elohim calls the wife by the name of her husband; “male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” The names of none of the wives of the patriarchs are here mentioned. This is in accordance with the Hebrew method of reckoning genealogical succession by the male line. It is to be noted that the Hebrew word for “male” means Memorial; i.e., Name.

No mention is made either of the Garden of Eden, or of Cain and his family, in this Book. The origin of sin is accounted for by human perversity,—enhanced by the evil co-operation of the “Nephilim” (“fallen ones”) and of those angels who left their first estate and consorted with the daughters of Adam. Jehovah says, “My spirit shall not always rule (or dominate) in man,—he is but flesh;—yet shall his days be an hundred and twenty years.” But human wickedness goes on increasing until it has now risen to an overwhelming pitch. “Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart—But Noah” (which means “Rest”) found grace in the eyes of Jehovah.” Thus Book III., like Book I., ends with the note of rest;—like Book II, moreover, it strikes a closing note of hope in the Name of “Jehovah.” Though mankind as a race are to be “blotted out,” with the single exception of Noah and his family, yet there is still another gleam of light and hope from above. Enoch, the seventh from Adam, like Noah, “walked with the Elohim” (LXX., εὐηρέστησε τ᾿ θε᾿, Vulg. “ambulavit cum Deo”). In Enoch’s case, instead of the regularly recurring formula, “and he died,” which is used of all the other patriarchs, we read, “and he was not, for Elohim took him.” St. Jude testifies (Jude 14, 15) that Enoch preached of coming judgment upon the world of the ungodly. In Hebrews 11, we read that “Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation he hath had witness borne to him of having been pleasing unto God.” The Son of Sirach (44:16) testifies that Enoch was “an example of repentance to all generations.” Avoiding all intercourse with the Nephilim and with the disobedient sons of heaven, Enoch, and Noah after him, walked with the Divine Powers, and, specifically, with Jehovah. The names of the ten patriarchs are significant,—Adam—Red Earth; Seth— Appointed; Enosh—Man; Cainan—Possessor; Mahalalel —Praise of God; Jared—Descent (cp. the Jewish legend that in his days the angels descended to the earth); Enoch —Dedicated; Methusaleh—Man of the Dart (?); Lamech —Strong Youth; Noah—Rest.

The generic form “ha-Elohim,” not used in Books I. or II., occurs, as we have said, several times in this Book of the Generations of Man (Adam).⁹ Appropriately so, for this is a genealogical document. The “Elohim” constitute in a metaphorical sense a “family” corresponding to mankind, the family of Adam. The disobedient “sons of the Elohim” transgress the Divinely-appointed barriers of race; they present the first instance of mis-cegenation in history. Emphasis is laid upon the proper limits which separate what may be called the two “families,” the “family” of the Elohim, and the family of Adam. In transgressing this limit, in not holding to their origin μὴ τηρήσαντες τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχήν, Jude 6) the wayward “sons of the Elohim” set the first example of miscegenation, a sin which the Priestly Code condemns so emphatically and with such fullness, and which was so characteristic of the (Hamitic) Egyptians and Canaanites (see Lev. 18). It was Ham and his son Canaan, be it noted, who showed themselves so completely lacking in the reverence due both to their father and to their race (Gen. 9:20–27). With this early error of the “sons of the Elohim,” is connected in the Hebrew tradition the rise of polytheism and of pantheism as well; both which errors postulate the breaking down or ignoring of the line of demarcation which subsists between the human, fleshly nature and that which is spiritual and superhuman. Compare, in this connection, the development of Greek polytheism and pantheism. The growth of human sin—its rise to an enormous height in the days before the Flood, though connected with the error of the angelic beings, is not represented as resulting primarily from that.

To sum up: —It appears that we have not one but three narratives of events which took place before the Flood. So far as the history of man is concerned, the Noachic covenant constitutes a pivotal point, to which the narratives that precede it may be regarded as being introductory. It is a very significant fact that the word b’rith” (covenant) first occurs in the history of God’s dealings with Noah (vi. 18), “I will establish my covenant with thee.” “And Elohim spake unto Noah and to his sons with him, saying, ‘And I, behold I establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you. . .’”(9:8, 9). It is to be observed that in this passage (which extends through verse 17) the word “covenant” occurs seven times. Here seems to be an analogy to the fact that in the New Testament each of the several Gospel narratives leads on to and culminates in the great central fact of the Resurrection, which, again, after the analogy of Noah’s Flood, was the ushering in of a new (moral and spiritual) world. Taking our stand with Noah and with his sons, on the hither side of the Flood, we may look back along two lines or vistas of approach,—i.e., along the Generation—history or the Eden-narrative—till we arrive at a relative beginning. And it may be neither far-fetched nor fanciful to trace analogies between these two Genesis-narratives and two of the four Gospels. St. Matthew, writing from the Jewish, masculine point of view (compare the appearances of the Angel to Joseph in chapters 1 and 2), depicts our Lord as the Son and Heir of David and of Abraham,—in whom are fulfilled the promises made to God’s ancient people. In so doing, St. Matthew emphasizes the legitimacy of our Lord’s descent. In this respect, and to this extent, the First Gospel may be compared to the geneological and (in some sense) “priestly” narrative of Genesis.

St. Luke, in distinction from St. Matthew, emphasizes the universal human aspect of the Saviour; bringing into clear light the tender sympathy of the Son of Mary, the “Seed of the Woman.” The feminine element is prominent in St. Luke’s Gospel, as is evidenced by his tender and delicate account of the events leading up to, and more closely, following our Saviour’s birth, constituting what Dr. Plummer has called the “Gospel of the Infancy.”

“It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women. Jew and Gentile alike looked down upon women. But all through this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types of womanhood are placed before us: Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and the women at the tomb. A Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (3:38).”¹⁰

Is it not evident that this characteristic of St. Luke’s Gospel is akin to what we find in the Book of the Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth,” in which such prominence is given to Woman,—to what is said of her and to her and by her,—of the significance both of her generic name “Ishah” and of her proper name “Eve,” or “Life”?

And finally, when we turn to the Gospel of St. John, with its transcendental point of view; with its “beginning” antecedent to all temporal “beginnings”—has it not a close kinship with the grand Creation-narrative which, like the Fourth Gospel, moreover, opens with the words, “In the beginning—(was) God.” As the Evangelists bear their united witness to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, so the Genesis-narratives, each and all of them, lead our thoughts about the “beginnings,” whether of man or of the world, back to God as the sublime Creator and Maker of all.

1) Abraham’s interview with Melchizedek

2) The passages in which these forms occur are 17:1; 28:3; 35:1; 43:14; and 48:3.

3) The Koran, chapter 7, Sale’s edit, p. 136, with foot-note (s).

4) The Divine Name which is characteristic of the Noachic covenant is ‘Elohim’ (see Genesis 6:1–17), while the covenant—Name declared to Abraham is ‘El Shaddai’, God Almighty, (see Genesis 17.)

5) In the International Critical Commentary, “Psalms,” Vol. 1, in loc.

6) Note the thrice repeated and very emphatic Zoth in ch. 2. v. 23. The verse may be rendered as follows: —”And Adam said, This, this time, (is) bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; to this shall be given (the name) Woman (ishah), because from Man (Ish) was taken this.”

7) Compare the language of Eve in chapter IV: I—”I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah,” or, “I have gotten a man, even Jehovah,” which, in view of the strong anthropomorphism of this Book, is a possible rendering. See Dean Payne Smith in Ellicott’s Commentary on Genesis pp. 177-178.

8) The LXX. translates ch. 4:26,—οὗτος ἤλπισεν (had hope, con-confidence ἐπικαλει`σθαι τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου του θεου`. Vulgate: “iste coepit invocare nomen Domini.”

9) I have noted ten instances, as follows;—5:22, 24; 6:2, 4, 9, 11; 17:17; 20:6, 17; 35:7. In nearly all of these passages there is apparently some reference, direct or indirect, to the idea of a sacred human family, bearing some analogy to the Divine ‘family’ of the Elohim.