CHAPTER VII.

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.