FROM THE FALL TO THE FLOOD.
1. _Notes on special passages._
In Gen. 4: 1 our English version stands――“I have gotten a man _from_
the Lord.” Some critics construe these words of Eve to mean――By the
help or blessing of the Lord; but the more direct and obvious sense
of the original is this: “I have gotten a man, the Lord”――as if she
assumed that this, her first-born son, was really the promised divine
“seed of the woman” who was to bruise the serpent’s head. The current
objection to this construction is that it is too far in advance of
Eve’s theology:――to which however the obvious reply is――Who knows how
far advanced Eve’s theology may have been? Her imagination may have
outrun the actual revelation at that point made. All we can say is that
these words are recorded as indicating her thought, and that this is
the most natural sense of her words.
In the Lord’s expostulation with Cain (4: 6, 7) we read: “If thou doest
well, shalt thou not be accepted?” but better――Would there not be an
elevation――_i. e._ of countenance, a cheerful _looking up_, instead
of that fallen, sullen look spoken of in the previous verse.――――“And
if thou doest not well, sin lies crouching at the door”――sin being
personified and thought of as some animal, perhaps the serpent, ready
to allure him on to deeper, more damning crime: “And _its_ (not _his_)
desire is toward thee”――its Satanic purpose is to ensnare and ruin
thee: “but thou shouldst rule over it”――in the sense of mastering its
temptations, commanding them down and ruling them out from thine heart.
The speech or rather song of Lamech to his two wives (4: 23, 24) must
be assumed to have a close connection with the occupation and skill
of Tubal-Cain, “a workman in brass and iron.” Consciously strong and
boldly overbearing in view of this new invention and production of
death-weapons, he proudly sings: “I have slain (or could slay) a man
for wounding me――a young man――for any hurt inflicted upon me; and”
(there being in this case some real provocation; Cain had none) “if
Cain would be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven.” The
lenity shown to Cain was bringing forth its fruits; the invention of
improved death-weapons was also contributing to fill the earth with
bloody violence.――――These little facts indicate the state of society
which culminated in so filling the earth with violence that God was
compelled to wash out its blood-stains and its degenerate race with
the flood.
* * * * *
2. _Abel’s offering, and the origin of sacrifices._
Abel kept sheep; Cain tilled the ground. “In process of time” (Heb.
“at the end of days”)――the stated time for worshiping God with
offerings――Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground”――an unbloody
offering: Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their
fat.” The reference to their “fat” proves that these animals, lambs
of the fold, were slain in sacrifice.――――The record informs us that
God looked with favor upon Abel’s offering, but not upon Cain’s. It
does not concern us to know _how_ God signified his approval of Abel’s
sacrifice, whether by fire from heaven consuming it, or otherwise; but
it does concern us to ascertain if we can _why_ he approved it.
We have some rays of light on this point from the writer to the
Hebrews who says: “_By faith_ Abel offered unto God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts.” Now the simplest idea of faith, the
one element always present in it, is _bowing to God’s authority with
implicit confidence in his word_. But in this case bowing to God’s
authority implies that God had given some word in reference to bloody
sacrifices――the offering of a lamb by shedding its blood upon the altar.
And if God had given any such word of command, it is certainly to be
presumed that he had also given at least this general idea, that the
blood of the innocent lamb took, in some sense, the place of the blood
of the guilty offerer, so that the sacrifice would imply the confession
of guilt, and also faith in a bloody substitute of the Lord’s own
providing.――――Prosecuting our investigations we find this broad fact
of history bearing on the case, viz. that Noah, Abraham and Isaac
built altars wherever they were sojourning and offered bloody
sacrifices thereon. Further, God directed Noah to preserve in the ark
clean animals by sevens, but animals not clean only in pairs――two of
a species――a fact which can not be reasonably accounted for save with
reference to their customary use in sacrifice. We have then before
us the well-established fact of the early custom of bloody animal
sacrifices.
* * * * *
_How came this custom into existence?_
It did not originate _with men_――certainly not with _good men_. Apart
from divine suggestion, they could not have supposed that the slaughter
of an innocent animal would be pleasing to God. The presumption would
be utterly against this. They could not have thought out the divine
idea of atonement for sin by the death of Christ, God’s own incarnate
Son: the very supposition is absurd, for it supposes that men were
able to sound the infinite depths of God’s wisdom and of his love,
and to grasp the relations and bearings of his vast moral government
with a reach of thought, not human but divine. Yet further; it is
not supposable that, having excogitated and discovered the grand idea
of atonement, they could have devised the plan of prefiguring this
atonement by the bloody sacrifice of the most innocent, harmless
and lovely of the animal races.――――And further, if they could have
thought out this miracle of God’s wisdom and love――both the divine
idea of atonement, and the expediency of illustrating it for ages by a
foreshadowing system of bloody sacrifices――it would still have been the
height of presumption in them to have started this system of sacrifices
without God’s special and sanctioning appointment.
We are therefore shut up to this alternative: Either the whole system
of altars and bloody sacrifices, as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham
and Isaac, was an unmeaning farce――a thing of no significance, a mere
amusement or fancy, meaning nothing and good for nothing; or, God
himself originated the system and enjoined it, and these good men
were observing it in obedience to special revelation from God.――――Here
it will be readily seen that the first side of this alternative is
perfectly precluded by the fact that God approved their sacrifices. God
“had respect to the offering of Abel.” He “smelled a sweet savor” in
the sacrifices offered by Noah (Gen. 8: 20, 21.) The other alternative
therefore, viz. that bloody sacrifices originated in a direct
revelation from God――is the only supposition left us. We must adopt it.
It can not be necessary to draw out an argument to prove that in
instituting this system of bloody sacrifices God gave his people some
notion of its significance. The whole record shows that he was on most
familiar terms with them and therefore can not be supposed to have left
a point of so much importance utterly blank. It is not too much to say
that unless some light were thrown by the Lord himself upon the meaning
and purpose of these bloody offerings, the command to make them would
require some apology; for apart from their expiatory significance,
they are most revolting to even human benevolence――most foreign to all
just notions of what is due treatment of innocent lambs, bullocks and
doves from our hand. It should also be considered that their moral
value depends on their significance. All these bloody sacrifices must
have been practically valueless unless their expiatory significance
was in some good degree understood. That God ordained them for the sake
of their moral value, who can for a moment doubt?――――The conclusion,
therefore, seems inevitable that God not only enjoined these bloody
sacrifices, but gave his people to understand in general their
significance to the extent of fulfilling that unconscious prophecy of
Abraham (Gen. 22: 8): “My son, God will provide for himself a lamb for
a burnt-offering.”
These views, if just, are of vast historic value as showing _how much_
God taught his people at that earliest day, pertaining to his great
thoughts of redemption for a lost race.
* * * * *
3. _The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age._
(1.) It may be regarded as God’s experiment of a very long
life-probation for man. Of course this experiment is not to be thought
of as made to satisfy himself as to its wisdom, but to satisfy created
finite minds in this and in every other world. In a case where issues
so momentous were pending on the results, it must be vital to the honor
of Jehovah before all created minds that he should fix the average
period of human probation in this earthly life at the best possible
point. If he had begun with the same average limit which has obtained
since the days of Moses (three-score years and ten), he must have
anticipated the general impression that this is much too short for
the decision of destinies so vast as the welfare of an immortal
existence. It was therefore eminently wise that God should begin
(as we see that he did) with a much longer, even a tenfold longer
average life-period.――――This very long life, moreover, carried with
it an extraordinary physical vigor, apparently a very great exemption
from sickness, frailty, suffering, save as induced by the violent
and murderous passions of man toward his fellows. The discipline of
suffering seems to have been at its minimum for all human history. The
experiment of almost unimpaired physical well-being was afforded the
freest scope for its manifestation.
What was the result? The words of Solomon express it well: “Because
vengeance against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the
heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl. 8: 11).
The mass of those generations sunk down morally to the lowest point
possible, short of a general and promiscuous destruction. “All flesh
had corrupted its way.” “Every imagination of the thought of man’s
heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was filled with violence.”
Human life had no sacredness; society, no safeguard; murderous passions,
no restraint. The race were fast becoming too corrupt to live. If the
Lord had not swept them by a flood, the earth would fain have opened
her jaws to swallow them from the face of the sun.
(2.) This social and moral degeneracy becomes a very instructive lesson
for all time upon the results of the non-punishment of murder. It was
doubtless wise for God to begin as he did with Cain; but it was not
wise to continue that policy after such results had been brought out
before both this world and the whole intelligent universe. What men
socially related must needs do for their mutual protection in order not
merely to make society a blessing but to make the existence of men in
society a possibility, was precisely the problem to be solved; and to
its solution this first period of human life――the antediluvian age――was
definitely adapted. It brought out the solution perfectly. No other
experiment can ever be necessary. When the race started anew after the
flood, the Lord advanced to the true doctrine and enjoined on social
man the solemn duty of shielding human life by taking the murderer’s
blood. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed”
(Gen. 9: 6). This was one step of manifest _progress_ in the revelation
of God’s will as to the responsibility and duty of men in their social
and governmental relations. It was progress in the origination of
society――progress built on the great lessons of human history.
(3.) Here are also lessons of faith and of heroic virtue in the godly
lives of the small and it would seem constantly diminishing group of
pious men living among the multitudes of the ungodly. Here was Enoch,
“the seventh from Adam,” who preached a righteous God and a coming
judgment to a hardened generation, but seems to have met with only
resistance, to the extent apparently of relentless persecution. The
remark of the apostle (Heb. 11: 5)――“He was not _found_ because God
had translated him,” may perhaps imply that his enemies sought him for
purposes of bloody violence, from which the Lord took him away in his
chariot of fire by translation to heaven!――――Here too was Noah, also
“a preacher of righteousness,” who “walked with God”――and was warned
by him of the impending deluge of waters. He warned his fellow men of
their threatened doom, but warned them only in vain. “They ate, they
drank; they bought, they sold;” they revelled and scoffed――till the day
that Noah entered into the ark――no longer!――――But we speak now of the
example of Noah’s faith in God. He saw no portents in the sky; heard
no muttering thunders in the distant heavens; yet he held on year after
year till the ark was ready――himself preaching and warning; fearlessly
and heroically witnessing by his labors upon the ark to his positive
faith in the forewarnings of God. Thus his faith rebuked the godless
unbelief of his generation, and testifies to us of the wisdom and
blessedness of taking God at his word and of adjusting our life to his
command, though in the face of a scoffing world.
(4.) Yet another point in this cluster of great moral lessons
is indicated for us by Peter (2 Pet. 2: 4–9); “For if God spared
not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher
of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the
ungodly:――the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation
and to preserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.”
That awful word, _retribution_, gathers into itself the fearful
significance of these stupendous events. They are God’s foregoing
judgments, brought out in this world to foreshadow the sorer
visitations of that coming day when God shall bring every work into
judgment with every secret thing, good or evil. God surely does take
note of the sins of men, how long soever he may stay his uplifted hand
and delay to smite. If wicked men were wise _they would believe God’s
words of warning_, and take care not to live over again the life of
that doomed generation and meet a final judgment more awful even than
theirs!
(5.) Let us not fail to notice those wonderful and beautiful ways
of God with his children, coming down in such condescending and most
familiar communion, talking with them apparently almost as man talks
with his dearest friend; and this not in Paradise only before the fall,
but after the fall scarcely less; and onward as the narrative indicates
in the case of Enoch and of Noah. What more could he have done to
reveal a _personal God_ to mortals? Surely the God who thus revealed
himself in the fresh morning of our race is no dim abstraction, no
impersonal Nature or Essence, diffused and diffusible throughout space,
the ideal soul of all matter. This effort to dispose of a God with whom
it is man’s privilege to walk in positive personal communion, but who
also takes cognizance of man’s iniquity, and to transmute him into an
empty, forceless ideality, finds not the least countenance in these
earliest manifestations of himself to our race. Note how he dwells with
men; how he walks with them and lets them walk with him! What is this
but free and loving communion? What less can it imply than just what
the narrative of man’s creation witnesseth, viz. that God “made man _in
his own image_”――capable therefore of real and most intimate communion
of spirit with his Maker? This lesson is written all the way through
the Bible. It stands out here with beautiful prominence in this first
great chapter of God’s revelation of himself to man.