I think it is both. Not just one or the other.
Well is it strange? It might be strange if we wrote it, or if it was merely a story. But I do not regard it as strange, because it is not merely a story. It records the events and things that God wants us to know. Apparently the rest is not as important for us to know in detail.
This subject keeps coming up in these exchanges and it all seems centred on Adam and Eve. I will take some liberties in this response to try and make a point:
(1) Nowhere does Genesis use the term “original sin”.
(2) No matter how you read the account, Adam and Eve made a choice that meant they could not stay in a garden specially prepared for them.
(3) At no point does Genesis say that human beings realised Adam’s mistake and sought to find a way of obedience to God and seeking a godly life - the contrary is the case, so that as far as humanity is concerned, all became increasingly violent and destructive.
It would follow from the Biblical account, all humanity that descended from Adam and Eve were sinful, and the vast majority ‘beyond the pale’ in their behaviour.
This means that somehow the sin committed by Adam and Eve continued through to their descendants. Is this biological? If we mean all children were biologically from their parents, the answer is yes. If you are looking for a genetic story of sin, you will be disappointed - none (until the 1900’s) would have understood a term such as genetically sinful.
The doctrine of original sin was formulated to encompass points such as the one’s I made, but it also shows us a distinction between us, and the birth of Christ. If all descendants have sinned, this becomes historically true - but Christ was without sin, because as the last Adam, He too was brought into this world by God through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I am afraid I will say this again - this obsession with biology and genetics turns theological discussions into odd ideological hang-ups.
Sorry for the frustration GDJS. When I go to some Bible Studies at my friend’s house, the concept of “original sin” seemed to come off this way. I don’t believe that humans were necessarily “cursed” from that point on-ward… but it is talking about a couple that had the choice of the Tree of Life, but ended up doing things their own way… and thus was exiled.
Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I thought the concept of Original Sin being hereditary was introduced by St. Augustine, who lived in the 5th century AD.
I don’t know if I can explain exactly what sin “is”, but I doubt that its biological. All I know is there’s something in us that makes us tend toward corruption and the devil (or Satan, or “the adversary”) helps brings it out in us.
-Tim
The book of Ezekiel chapter 18, verse 20 says this: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”
Ecclesiastes chapter 7, verse 29 says this: “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”
We are responsible for our own mistakes, like Adam and Eve was responsible for their mistake. The same with Cain. God cast judgement on them (as shown in their exile), but he also showed mercy on them (the coats for Adam and Eve and the Mark for Cain).
I agree that the information God gives is selective, and what’s vital for our spiritual walk, and our teaching of his ways. And when I read the accounts closely, their are many trigger warnings that tell me of its more figurative nature.
Adam and Eve make themselves “aprons from fig leaves” after feeling shame for what they did. After God deals judgement on them he gives them coats of skin. This is the same in our situation. When we sin and walk away from God, we “cover up our shame”… but at the end of the day, all we are doing is sewing fig leaves to ourselves, which is of no real substance. When God forgives he coves us up more completely (hence the coats of skin).
Genesis 2:7 that states “And the Lord God formed man (Hebrew word “adam”) of the dust of the ground (Hebrew word “adamah”), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Adam (pronounced “aw dawm”) means “mankind”, while adamah (pronounced aw dawm uh) means “ground”. The wordplay is used again in Genesis 3:19 “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground (adamah); for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
In other words “adam” was taken out of “adamah” and shall return to “adamah”.
Cain is banished as a vagabond (Hebrew word “nud”), and a wanderer in the earth. He then later gets banished in the land of Nod .
The word “vagabond” is translated in Hebrew as “nud”, which means to wander, to flee, to walk to and fro. So Cain, condemned to be a “nad”, a “wanderer,” goes to live in the land of Nod, a name transparently derived from the same Hebrew root, thus the land of Wandering!
We could understand Cain’s exile into the “land of Wandering”, away from the presence of the Lord, as meaning that he will no longer be at peace, and will become unstable in all his ways. In the very next verse we come across an almost paradoxical statement. Genesis 4:17 “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
How can one “build a city” in a place that’s called “the land of Wandering”? A city implies settling down and stability, while “wandering” denotes the opposite. This can be better understood in the spiritual sense. It’s not about outward appearances. Sure, on the outside Cain is building a city, but on the inside his spirit is wandering and unstable.
In Genesis 2:23 we read, “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Have you ever stopped to ponder the words “man” and “woman”. The word “woman” is simply a combination of two other words “Womb” and “Man”, hence “Womb-man”. This play on words doesn’t exist in all languages; in Spanish woman is mujer, and man is hombre. However, this play on words does seem to exist in both English and Hebrew.
The existence of Eden a bit of a mystery. Genesis 2:8 “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” … the text presumes the existence of a place called Eden, but never explains its origin. How did it become “Eden”. Who named it? This, along with the land of Nod, remains a mystery, and in some shape or form, has those allusions of a figurative nature.
The wordplay is hard to ignore here.
Their are two genealogies that are juxtaposed with one another. The Cain Genealogy and The Adam Genealogy that continues through Seth, the appointed son.
In Genesis 5 we see the first two people in the Bible who “walked with God” - both Enoch and Noah. Both of which occupy significant positions in the genealogy. Number 7 and Number 10. Both of which carry numbers that are significantly different from the rest of the patriarchs in the genealogy (Enoch’s “ascension” at age 365 and Noah’s begetting at age 500). What does Seth’s genealogy give us? It teaches us exhaustive information about how long they lived, and when they begat children… however it says nothing about what their professions were. What’s interesting is that that is the exact OPPOSITE information we are given in Cain’s genealogy. We don’t know anything about when they begat children, or when they died, but the text tells us pretty extensively about what they did (their professions in other words).
Genesis 4:17 “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
Genesis 4:20 “And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.”
Genesis 4:21 “And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.”
Genesis 4:22 “And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.”
What’s the message here? Why did the author choose to juxtapose Cain’s line with Seth’s line? My observations give me this inclination: walking with God is associated with long life, (in Enoch’s case avoiding death), and in Noah’s case bringing comfort (or Rest). This is all expressed in Seth’s line. On the flipsyde, we have on Cain’s line the first murderer mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 4:8 “… Cain rose up against Abel and slew him”), the first polygamist mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 4:19 “And Lamech took unto him two wives …”), the second murderer mentioned in the Bible (Genesis 4:23 “… I have slain a man to wounding, and a young man to my hurt”), as well as a strong emphasis on worldliness (Genesis 4:17, 20, 21, 22).
There are other connections to be made, of which I will further elaborate. There are parallels between each genealogy if you pay close attention. There are two people in each list that share each other’s name.
There’s an Enoch in Seth’s line (Genesis 5:24 “And Enoch walked with God; and he was not; for God took him”)
And there’s an Enoch in Cain’s line (Genesis 4:17 “And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”)
There’s a Lamech in Seth’s line (Genesis 5:29 “And he [Lamech] called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.”)
And there’s a Lamech in Cain’s line (Genesis 4:23, 24 “And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.”
How were each of the Enochs different from each other? The Enoch of Cain’s line had the very first city named after him: but the Enoch of Seth’s line was the first person to avoid death. The text implies that Enoch of Seth was “translated” to heaven: while Enoch of Cain symbolizes worldly accomplishments. One makes his home in the sky, the other on earth. Both have elements of either dedication or consecration.
How were each of the Lamechs different from each other? The Lamech of Cain’s line follows Cain’s footsteps and continues the never ending blood feud. While the Lamech of Seth’s line sees hope in his son for a “renewal of the land” (alludes to the flood). The Lamech of Cain is, in a sense, a continuation of the curse of Cain (see Genesis 4:11,12) while Lamech of Seth sees comfort on the horizon, and that the “curse” won’t be forever.
These spiritual connections are too strong to ignore and seem to me to be deliberate. God is giving us a message in these little-read chapters. Even in the New Testament there’s a wonderful comparison to be made about Lamech of Cain.
Matthew 18:21,21 says “Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.”
While Genesis 4:24 says “If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.”
The exact same phrase is used (490 times), but the message is opposite. Lamech of Cain teaches radical vengeance, while Jesus of Nazareth teaches radical forgiveness.
Lamech of Cain had four children: Jabal, Jubal, Tubalcain and Naamah. Lamech of Seth had one son (mentioned): Noah.
Jabal was the father of such that dwell in the tents, and that have cattle - in other words LIVELIHOOD
Jubal was the father of such that play the harp and organ - in other words ENTERTAINMENT
Tubalcain was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron - in other words WARFARE
Their sister Naamah - which name translates as BEAUTY
Livelihood, entertainment, warfare, and beauty. All of these things seem to encapsulate human society, and is what you would expect to come from the “worldly line” of Cain. This what Cain’s Lamech represents. Each Lamech, in each line, comes towards the end, at the second-to-the-last of the genealogy. Lamech of Cain begets sons that are worldly, while Lamech of Seth beget a son that brings forth redemption, renewal, and “comfort”.
I’ve written much more about this in-depth, in other Bible Studies, that I save so I don’t lose my train of thought… these are just some of them.
As a side-note, while you’re pondering on these connections, I don’t dogmatically claim that these people are necessarily allegorical … though they do show many tendencies in that direction.
There’s an interesting article online by Carol A. Hill called “The Worldview Approach” that you may or may not like. It’s a third alternative to Concordism (aligning Genesis with science) and Accommodation (the view that God lowers himself to people’s knowledge at the time). In this view, the events are historical, but written through the lens of ancient people, so not everything in there is exactly how we’d see them in today’s modern world.
In this view the people in the genealogy are real people, but one must consider the idea that they are “telescoped” — like Matthew does in the first chapter of his Gospel. Skipping generations to come up with significant figures (two groups of 10, Adam-Noah and Shem-Abraham) as Matthew did to come up with three groups of 14.
In this view the lifespans are most likely hyperbolic, honorific, and/or sacred numbers applied to people of the past who were important and/or significant.
-Tim
@TimothyHicks
Yes, absolutely good point. Yet, in Exodus 20 it also says “visiting the sins of the father upon the children to the third and fourth generation, but showing loving kindness to thousands of generations of those who love him and keep his commandments…” So, there are two parts to this: first, there will be consequences of people’s behaviour and faith, upon their children. Second, that these consequences do not need to be eternal consequences if the children turn to God and love him. So the tendency to sin is part of the consequence, but salvation is possible for all who believe, love God, and desire to obey him.
You have made some interesting contrasts and comparisons between Seth’s and Cain’s descendants.
I’ve always wondered about what that passage meant in Exodus 20 “… visiting the sins of the father upon the children to the third and fourth generation…” I want to get a better understanding of what this means. Are you saying that the person who is guilty bears his own guilt, but because of the depravity of man that if you have wicked parents it’s very likely the child will be wicked too? Or perhaps the reverse is true as well… like the Proverb that goes “Train a child up in the way that he should go and he shall not depart from it”…?
-Tim
Yes Timothy, every guilty person bears their own guilt, and cannot blame their parents for it. Although we have a similar sinful nature, which is a tendency to do bad stuff, yet we do not have to give in to that nature; we have been given the ability to think and to do what is right, even if not perfectly. We know that the history of many alcoholics is that one of their parents was likely an alcoholic, though not always. And we know that children who have been trained to do wrong will likely do wrong. So yes, the proverb is true, isn’t it? It is hard to jetison the way you have been trained, even if you want to… but often there is no desire to change anyway.
But I think the contrast is great! that while the sin carries through for a few generations, God’s desire is that his love comes thru for thousands of generations for those who love him and keep his commandments.
This topic was automatically closed 3 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.