On Genesis, Part 6: The Blooming of Trees

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20230303-Genesis06.mp3 — Downloaded 5693 times


On Genesis, Part 6: The Blooming of Trees

In our last presentation of the Book of Genesis, Truth and Consequences and the opening verses of Genesis chapter 4, we hope to have once again fully established as fact the consequences of Eve’s sin, as it is described in Genesis chapter 3, where three times it was acknowledged that she had already conceived, and that therefore, in spite of the surface reading of Genesis 4:1, she was already pregnant when “Adam knew his wife”. Doing this, we cited several other Scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical, which are in agreement with this interpretation. But there is no Scripture in canon which explicitly disagrees with it, and our therefore witnesses must stand, and Cain must have been the literal son of the “wicked one”, as the apostle John had explained in his first epistle. With this understanding it also must be admitted that Genesis 4:1 cannot be a record of Eve’s conception, as she was already impregnated where she had been admonished in Genesis chapter 3. For that same reason Adam had already called her name Eve because “she was the mother of all living”, and in that manner he had also acknowledged that she was already with child.

But Adam, having accepted his wife’s sin, was also compelled to accept what was in her womb, and even after his punishment was declared, he may not have even been fully cognizant of the troubles which his sin would cause him in the future. So it is apparent that for that reason, Adam had raised both Cain and Abel as his own sons, and the immediate consequences of the sin in the garden once again became apparent in the murder of Abel. The name Abel is interesting in this regard, as the Hebrew term הבל, hebel or habel (Strong’s #’s 1891-93), as a verb is to breathe, and as a noun it means breath or therefore also vanity, since breath is representative of something that is transitory. However the words for breath also provide expression for the concept of spirit in both Hebrew and in Greek. Although Abel’s life may have been of brief duration, as Paul of Tarsus had explained in chapter 11 of his epistle to the Hebrews, “4 By faith Abel offered to Yahweh a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he was accredited to be righteous, having testified of Yahweh by his gifts, and being slain because of it he still speaks.”

Where Paul wrote “being slain because of it”, he indicated that Abel was slain merely because of the fact that his sacrifice was accepted. Yet there is nothing by which Abel’s sacrifice may be perceived to have been a testimony of Yahweh God beyond that of Cain, or to have been better than that of Cain, unless by the mere fact that he had sacrificed he was in some way testifying of the truth of God, where Cain was not. There was no specific fault which was attributed to Cain as he “brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.” An offering of the first fruits of one’s own labor is entirely appropriate in this instance. Therefore the only reason why Cain’s sacrifice could have been justly rejected is given in the words of Yahweh God Himself where he had told Cain that if he did not do well it is because “sin lieth at the door”. In that it is evident that Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted because Cain was a bastard, of the seed of the serpent.

So we would assert that Abel, by his act of sacrificing, was challenging Cain and making a statement concerning the truth of God in relation to his own legitimacy, while Cain was not legitimate and for that reason his sacrifice was rejected. As the text itself describes it, Cain had moved to make a sacrifice to Yahweh even before Abel had moved to sacrifice. So if all things were equal, it was not the act of sacrificing alone which distinguished Abel, since Cain had already done that same act. But if the eldest son was expected to act as the family priest, which becomes evident later in Scripture, then Abel’s act of sacrificing was indeed a testimony, as he was challenging Cain’s legitimacy and asserting his own. Asserting his own legitimacy as firstborn of Adam, Abel was testifying to the truth of Yahweh that His Creation should be maintained “kind after kind”, and should not belong to His adversaries. In essence, Abel was claiming his birthright, and it was accepted.

This is further established where, as we have already explained, the apostle Peter referred to Noah as the “eighth preacher of righteousness”, and where Cain had been challenged by Yahweh to do good. Where Cain’s sacrifice was rejected, Yahweh is described as having asked him “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” Many commentators miss the fact that these are rhetorical questions, and mistakenly think that Cain may have had an opportunity to do good and to be accepted. Rather, the questions were never answered directly, and Yahweh already knew that Cain could not do good. Therefore Yahweh told him that “if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” And as we have also asserted that the only door which could have been meant was the door of Cain’s entrance into the world, the matrix of the womb, here we learn once again that Cain was conceived in sin. Yet in the words of Christ as they are recorded in Matthew chapter 23, or in Luke chapter 11, Abel was righteous and therefore Abel must have been a true son of Adam.

While Cain had never directly answered the rhetorical questions which were posed to him by Yahweh, his answer is indeed recorded in his act of killing his brother, and therefore it is evident that Cain could not do well because he is a bastard, because it was his intrinsic nature which had caused him to sin. When he was directly challenged by Yahweh God Himself to do well, he immediately failed in the murder of his brother.

Many centuries later, Yahshua Christ attested that same thing where He told His enemies, as it is recorded in John chapter 8, “40 But now you seek to kill Me, a man whom has spoken to you the truth…” just as Abel had testified of the truth, and Cain had killed him. Then a little further on Yahshua told them: “44 You are the sons of a father: the Devil! And you wish to do the desires of your father! He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him! When he speaks a lie, he speaks from of his own devices, because he is a liar, and his father!” So just as Cain’s intrinsic nature led him to despise the truth and to be a murderer of Abel, who had exhibited truth, so it was with the enemies of Christ, and for that reason He attested that they were indeed of the descendants of Cain. Earlier in that same conversation they had denied being children of fornication, but their attitude towards Christ and their wanting to kill Him had revealed their intrinsic nature as bastards. Christ had also attested of that same fact where He told His adversaries that they were of the race responsible for the blood of Abel, as it is recorded in the same passages where He had described Abel as having been righteous.

So Cain was not born of God, not having been born of Adam, and therefore he could not produce good fruit, since he must have been born of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, rather than of the Tree of Life. It is in that same sense that Eve was declared to be the “mother of all living” in spite of the fact that she was also the mother of Cain. Later, the apostle Jude would speak of “certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men” and if they were ordained to condemnation in antiquity, and could they not receive the mercy of Christ, then the implication is that Christ did not come to redeem them nor to forgive their sins, and they could not have been born of God. In his epistle Jude had then proceeded by relating these men to the fallen angels, and after describing them as spots in Christian feasts of charity “when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear,” he then described them as “clouds … without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots”.

Ostensibly, they were spots because they could not be cleansed, they were trees without good fruit because a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, as Christ had said, and they were twice dead because they were never among the living in the first place, not having the Spirit of God which He had instilled in Adam. They confronted God without fear, feeding among His people, and it is apparent that Cain had also slew Abel without fear, since he slew him in spite of the fact that Yahweh God had directly challenged him to do good just before he slew him.

With this, we shall commence with Genesis chapter 4 where we had left off, with verse 17:

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.

The word for city, עיר or ayr, appears in approximately 950 passages in the Masoretic Text, and in the King James Version it is translated as city or town on all but two occasions, both of them where the translators had followed marginal readings, according to James Strong in his Concordance (Strong’s # 5892). So it is indubitable that Cain had built a city, rather than a mere house or estate.

However we are not informed as to where Cain had obtained a wife. Speculation is that he took a daughter of Adam, however Cain was separated from Adam before it is recorded that Adam had even given birth to any daughters. It is much more likely that Cain had found a wife in the so-called “land of Nod” to which he was sent. Then, as we have already explained that the Hebrew term נוד or nuwd means wandering, it is apparent that Cain’s wife must have been from of the Nephilim, the fallen angels who were “in the earth in those days”, as it says in Genesis chapter 6, and that would also help to explain both why and how Cain had built a city, rather than a mere house, as it is evident that he must have mingled with people who had not come from of Adam, and who had not originated in the creation account of Genesis.

The name Enoch, חנוך or Hanok, means initiated or initiating, according to both Strong’s (# 2585) and Gesenius. Of course, in chapter 5 there is a more notable Enoch who had descended from Adam. Since Cain must have spoken the same language that Adam, Eve and Abel had spoken, it should not be alarming that some of his sons are described as having had names which were often the same as, or very similar to the names of the Adamic patriarchs. Even though the Adamic patriarchs are not yet enumerated, that does not mean that they came later in time, but were likely being born in another place, simultaneous to the time when these sons of Cain who are described here are being born.

So here in Genesis 4, culminating in the birth of Seth as a replacement for Abel, and where the subsequent genealogy of Adam is provided in Genesis chapter 5, we have the blooming of trees which are described in that precise manner in the Gospel of Yahshua Christ. There is the bad tree which cannot bear good fruit, and there is the good tree which cannot bear bad fruit, as it is described in the words of Christ Himself in Matthew chapter 7. There we read: “15 Keep away from the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are rapacious wolves. 16 You shall know them from their fruits. Does anyone gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? 17 Thusly every good tree produces fine fruit, but the rotten tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to produce evil fruit, nor is a rotten tree to produce fine fruit. 19 Each tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and cast into the fire! 20 Indeed from their fruits you shall know them.”

Those false prophets mentioned by Christ are the same as Jude’s “certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation”. They have no space for repentance, since immediately following the statements about trees and fruits, Christ continued and explained His words by saying: “21 Not all who say to Me ‘Prince, Prince!’ shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he doing the will of My Father who is in the heavens. 22 Many shall say to Me in that day ‘Prince, Prince, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name, and have done many works of power in Your name?’ 23 And then shall I profess to them that ‘Never have I known you! Depart from Me, those who are working at lawlessness!’”

Just as Cain could not do the will of God and his sacrifice was rejected, being a bastard, neither can his descendants do the will of God and even professing to be Christians their offerings shall also be rejected, since they are also bastards. Wolves, even so much as being among the sheep, are working at lawlessness. Therefore we also read in the words of Christ in Matthew chapter 15 that “13 … Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted!” Those plants are those same bad trees of Matthew chapter 7.

18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.

Strong’s defines the Hebrew word עירד, irad or airad (# 5897), as fugitive, citing a similar word, ערד or arad (# 6166), but Gesenius does not define this word at all. It is similar to the word עיר or ayr which is city. But even if fugitive is fitting, we would rather not reach a conclusion, especially since the Septuagint manuscripts have Γαιδαδ rather than Irad. The name Mehujael (# 4232) means smitten by god, according to Strong’s, and Gesenius agrees having struck by god. The name Methusael (# 4967) is spelled similarly to the Hebrew form of Methusaleh (# 4968) in Genesis chapter 5, but they are not quite identical. This name is said to mean who is of god, for which reason it is sometimes interpreted as man of god. Finally, the name Lamech is said by Strong to be “of uncertain meaning”, and we must agree since the definition offered by Gesenius turns to Arabic in order to deduce a meaning, and his offering, in our opinion, is barely acceptable, where he claims that the unused root word means to taste, and asserts that it therefore designates a “strong young man”. This name is the same as the Lamech of Genesis chapter 5, who was the father of Noah.

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

The name Adah (# 5711) is ornament and Zillah (6741) is shade or shadow. Another obvious difference in the account of the descendants of Cain from those of Adam is the lack of descriptions such as those which we see in Genesis 5:7, for example, where it is said of Seth that he had “7 … lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters.” In the genealogy of Cain words such as that are wanting, and we may conjecture that it does not matter that he had further sons and daughters, as it is evident that he is living among other races, the Nephilim, and it does not matter how long these men lived. It only matters that a line of the descendants of Cain is depicted as having flourished, and what some of their exploits had been, as well as their inherent attitudes toward sin, as we shall see in the words of Lamech as we proceed.

20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

This does not mean that Jabal was somehow the spiritual “father” of ranchers or husbandmen, as the word father is sometimes used in modern times. Rather, it means that Jabal took up the occupation of a herdsman or shepherd, for which reason he had dwelt in the fields in tents, and that his own sons had followed him in that occupation, so he was the literal father of the men who were herdsmen among the descendants of Cain in that period of time. The name Jabal (# 2989) means stream or river, but as a verb it is to flow and on that account Gesenius describes several other meanings with examples of their usage that are either literal or allegorical.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

The name Jubal (# 2989) is a variant spelling of the name of his brother Jabal, יובל rather than יבל, and of course it has the same meaning. The difference, the insertion of the letter vav, is the same difference that is found in the spellings of Irad and the word meaning fugitive. The names Jabal and Jubal were also spelled similar to one another in the Greek of the Septuagint, as Ιωβελ and Ιουβαλ.

22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

The name Tubalcain (# 8423) is a compound word which Strong’s defines as “apparently” meaning offspring of Cain. But in the entry for Tubal (# 8422), Strong’s has no definition and says only that the word is “probably of foreign origin”, so his definition for Tubalcain must also be uncertain. Likewise, Gesenius cannot identify the meaning of Tubal precisely, and citing both Arabic and Persian he defined the word Tubalcain to mean “smith of scoria”, since cain can mean smith and scoria is a type of volcanic rock which contains iron, and Tubalcain was a smith who worked in iron. In any event the precise meanings of both names, Tubal and Tubalcain, are uncertain.

Note here that Tubalcain is not the inventor of these arts, but had only become an instructor of those who would work in brass or iron, and he must have been a noted instructor as it is worthy of mention here. As we shall discuss later and at greater length, the instruction of metalworking had come to men through the Nephilim, or fallen angels, and Tubalcain must have therefore acquired the occupation from them at an early time. Where it is apparent that the descendants of Cain had been living among the Nephilim, the conjecture is certainly quite plausible, and we shall see further evidence in the Enoch literature which we shall discuss as our commentary on Genesis chapter 4 nears an end.

23 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. 24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

It cannot escape notice that his son teaches men to make instruments of iron and brass, and Lamech slays a man, which is ironic if he did so with a weapon which had been made by his own son. But it is evident that Lamech, who had no care for the man that he killed, for whatever reason, had also accounted his own life as seventy times more important than that of his ancestor, Cain. This certainly seems to describe a level of impudence, and of arrogance, which would be difficult to surpass, but which evokes images of modern devils such as Jonathan Greenblatt, Henry Kissinger or Bill Gates. There are late apocryphal tales that Lamech had killed Cain himself, which have no support in Scripture and therefore are hardly worthy of mention.

In a lesson on humility in Luke chapter 6, we read in the words of Christ: “41 Now why do you see the stick in the eye of your brother, but the beam in your own eye you do not perceive? 42 How are you able to say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me extract the stick which is in your eye’, yourself not seeing the beam which is in your eye? Hypocrite! Extract first the beam from your eye, and then you will see clearly to extract the stick which is in the eye of your brother. 43 For there is not a good tree making rotten fruit. Contrarily, neither is there a rotten tree making good fruit. 44 For each tree is known by its own fruit. Indeed they do not gather figs from thorns. Nor could they harvest grapes from bramble-bush. 45 The good man brings forth good from the good treasure of the heart, and the wicked brings forth evil from the wicked. From the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.”

Lamech, being evil, had killed a man, and out of the abundance of his evil heart he expressed no humility in his state of guilt, but rather, he vaunted himself seventy times above Cain, his own patriarch. Neither did he care for the hurt of the man whom he had killed, but only said that he killed the man to his own hurt, meaning that as a result of his murder, he was in fear of his own life. So with his own words, Lamech certainly demonstrates the fact that he is from of an evil tree.

This tree, the descendants of Cain, is not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but it is certainly a branch on that tree, and as it continues to bloom it will continue to intermingle with it, and with the later descendants of Adam, the Tree of Life. These descendants of Cain are also the first tares of the field, as Christ had explained in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares that they had been sown by the Devil as soon as the wheat had been sown, and they are the thorns and bramble of that passage from Luke chapter 6. which we have just cited As we have also already noted, in the end, in the City of God described in Revelation chapter 22, there is a Tree of Life, but no longer is there a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, since by that time all of the fallen angels shall already have been cast into the Lake of Fire.

Along with others of the Nephilim, the Kenites, who are the descendants of Cain, will appear in later chapters of Genesis, both in chapter 6, and in chapters following the flood of Noah, so they were certainly not killed off in the flood. The word kenite (# 7014) or קין, is the same Hebrew word as the name Cain, and it may refer to Cain or to a kenite as a smith, which is merely an occupation. The two meanings are sometimes confounded in at least most translations of the Bible. One example where kenite should be smith is in the Book of Judges, chapters 1 through 5, where there are references to the father-in-law of Moses and some of his family, who were smiths of the tribe of Midian, a descendant of Abraham and Keturah, and not genetic Kenites. But where the word appears in the Book of Numbers, in the words of a prophecy of Balaam, the reference must be to the tribe which had descended from Cain, of which we see the early generations here.

So in Numbers chapter 24 speaking of Balaam we read, in part: “21 And he looked on the Kenites, and took up his parable, and said, Strong is thy dwelling place, and thou puttest thy nest in a rock. 22 Nevertheless the Kenite shall be wasted, until Asshur shall carry thee away captive.” This prophecy, addressing Israel, foresees the circumstance that so long as the children of Israel occupy the land of Canaan, the Kenites in the land would be diminished, until the Israelites are taken away in the Assyrian deportations, of which Balaam had prophesied there, where he mentioned Asshur, the eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians. Kenites as a tribe are mentioned later in Genesis, in chapter 15 in a list of the tribes inhabiting the land of Canaan in the time of Abraham, where it is apparent that they, along with the Rephaim, had intermingled with the Canaanites.

That there were indeed descendants of Cain in the period of the ministry of Christ is evident in the words of Yahshua Christ Himself where He addressed His adversaries and said, as it is recorded in Luke chapter 11: “47 Woe to you! Because you build the monuments of the prophets, and your fathers killed them! 48 Therefore you are witnesses and you consent to the works of your fathers, because they killed them, and you build. 49 For this reason also the wisdom of Yahweh says: ‘I shall send to them prophets and ambassadors, and some of them they shall kill and they shall persecute’, 50 in order that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the foundation of the Society should be required from this race, 51 from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias who was killed between the altar and the house. Yeah, I say to you, it shall be required from this race! 52 Woe to you lawyers! Because you have taken the key of knowledge, you do not enter in yourselves, and you prohibit those who are entering in!”

Since Seth had not even been born when Abel was killed by Cain, only the descendants of Cain could be justly held responsible for the blood of Abel, and therefore Christ must have been addressing descendants of Cain when He spoke those words. Upon examining the nature of the people of Judaea at the time of Christ, the histories of Josephus as well as the texts of Strabo of Cappadocia and the epistles of Paul of Tarsus all reveal that the greater number of its citizens were Edomites, and that its rulers were mostly Edomites, as Herod the Edomite, once he was made king of Judaea by the Romans, had killed the princes of Jerusalem and appointed his own cronies into all of the positions of authority.

Now, the text begins to present the blooming of the Tree of Life:

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Here is further evidence which establishes that Cain was not a son of Adam, where Seth is born and Eve exclaims that she then had a son to replace Abel. The birthright being of the utmost importance in early Adamic society, it is the eldest son of a man who would need to be replaced, so that a son could assume the role of the firstborn. If Cain had been Adam’s son, he would have been counted as firstborn and no replacement would have been necessary. Abel having been replaced by Seth, it is Abel and not Cain who must have been the firstborn of Adam. If Cain was the firstborn son of Adam, and merely lost his birthright because he slew Abel, then Eve would have declared that she had another son to replace Cain, not Abel, because Abel would never have qualified as firstborn to begin with, so if Cain were the eldest son of Adam, then Abel was never in a position to need being replaced.

So Seth must have been Adam’s second son, and Eve’s third. Otherwise, if Adam had existing sons, Abel would have naturally been replaced already with the eldest of those sons. If Cain was Adam’s legitimate son, if Adam were the father of Cain, then Abel would not have needed to be replaced. There is nothing in Scripture of Cain losing a birthright, since he never had it in the first place, except that by the circumstances of his birth it is apparent that competing claims may be made, and those competing claims became manifest in the struggle between Cain and Abel.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.

The name Seth or שת (Strong’s # 8352) means “put, i.e. substituted”, according to Strong’s, and Gesenius says of this passage that here the word “is derived from placing, setting in the stead of another”. [1] There are other words with the same spelling which are apparently not related to this word, and have different meanings, while one in particular bears meanings that are loosely related to this meaning (i.e. Strong’s # 8356), which is columns and then metaphorically princes, or nobles, all of which may be set, placed, or appointed. Seth is therefore named in that manner as he would be placed into the position of firstborn as a substitute for Abel. The name אנוש or Enos (# 582, 583) is simply man, and refers to the mortal state of man, as Strong’s defines the term.

It is often mistakenly claimed in Christian Identity contexts that the word enosh or אנוש refers only to men who are not of Adam, but that is not true. Throughout Genesis, beginning with the name of Enos but generally from chapter 17 and references to the men of Abraham’s household, the word appears in reference to men of any race, including the Adamic race, and it is very often found in references to Adamic men. The truth is that while the word adam can refer only to men who have descended from the Adamic race alone, the word enosh is descriptive of any mortal man, or woman, regardless of race.

This is the final verse of what we have called “the second creation account of Genesis.” When we begin to read what is now Genesis chapter 5, we read “This is the book of the generations of Adam”, and that marks the beginning of the third creation account in Genesis, which runs through chapter 9, or perhaps even a little further. While we cannot prove it, it seems that chapter 10, or perhaps chapter 11, begins yet another scroll which explains the circumstances of the race of Adam after the flood, how it was divided, and that is the world from which Abraham was called in chapter 12. However with certainty the texts in Genesis 2:4 and Genesis 5:1 mark three distinct divisions in the early accounts of the creation of God, and following chapter 1 each one of them begins by repeating events which occurred in the closing verses of the one previous. So chapter 2 repeats the description of some of the things which were created in the closing verses of chapter 1, and chapter 5 repeats the account of some of the men of the race of Adam who were born here at the end of chapter 4. But the language in the opening verses of chapter 5 also evokes the language of the creation of Adam in chapter 1, where we see that each of the three creation accounts present different aspects of a common narrative of the creation of God.

These final verses of this chapter, and all of chapter 5, represent the first blooming stages of the Tree of Life, as Christ is the True Vine and those of His who would follow Him are the branches, and they also represent the wheat of the field in the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares, which are sown by God Himself. Therefore where the Tree of Life is described in Revelation chapter 22, it bears twelve fruits, which must represent the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. Yahshua Christ being Yahweh God Incarnate, He justly takes credit for planting the wheat in the parable of Matthew chapter 13. This also helps to reveal the fact that these chapters were written to provide a foundation for a Godly society, as we have already claimed, and that society is comprised of the children of Israel.

The fact that the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares describes the conditions which are apparent here in Genesis chapters 3 and 4 is revealed where, immediately after his record of the parable, Matthew wrote: “34 All these things Yahshua had spoken in parables to the crowds, and without a parable He spoke nothing to them, 35 that that which was spoken through the prophet would be fulfilled, saying: ‘I shall open My mouth in parables; I shall bellow things kept secret from the foundation of Society!’” So our interpretation of these chapters, made through an understanding of the words of Christ, certainly do represent those things which had been kept secret, which had not been revealed to men until the coming of Christ. Therefore they are represented in these chapters in parables recorded by Moses, and not in plainly literal language, because it was the general will of Yahweh God not to reveal them until after the coming of Christ.

There are two verbs in the final clause of this passage, and no word for man, where we read that “then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.” The first verb, חלל or chalal (# 2490), which is translated as began, in Hebrew is in a perfect tense and a masculine singular form. The second verb, to call upon, is in an infinitive form. Furthermore, the verb translated as began has a wide range of meanings, such as defile, profane, bore, pierce, or wound, and only in some senses meant began or begun [2].

Strangely, in the so-called International Standard Version this clause is translated to read “Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the LORD began.” But there, while no word for men is added, the verb chalal is translated twice, both as began and as profaning, while the second verb to call upon, is ignored.

So if we venture not to add a word for men to the clause, and interpret the passage with either Seth or Enos as its subject, we may write something such as “26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: at that time he being wounded [or defiled or profaned] called upon the name of the Yahweh.” But even if the verb is appropriately translated as began, which seems to be the case, it is nevertheless singular and there is no plural verb which justifies adding the plural word men to the text, something which nearly all translations do.

With this the Septuagint agrees, where it has verse 26 to read: καὶ τῷ Σηθ ἐγένετο υἱός, ἐπωνόμασεν δὲ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ενως· οὗτος ἤλπισεν ἐπικαλεῖσθαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ. There Enos is interpreted as the subject of the final clause, which Brenton properly translated as “he hoped to call on the name of the Lord God.” The readings provided in Origen’s Hexapla generally agree with that, although they are divided between began and hoped, since here in the Septuagint the verb for hope must have been rendered from some Hebrew verb other than the word chalal.

One verb for hope in Hebrew is יחל or yachal, and with that we may see that there must have been a scribal error, and perhaps this clause should be read “he hoped to call on the name”, translated from Hebrew as well as Greek. With that final conclusion, we should agree as it is much more fitting to the balance of the grammar in the passage.

[1 Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Baker Books, 1979, p. 852-853. 2 ibid., p. 281]

In any case, calling upon the Name of Yahweh by the time when Enos must have been old enough to do so, there were ostensibly many men who had been born to Adam and Seth besides Enos, and while this is only the third generation of the race of Adam, the other sons and daughters of both Adam and of Seth must have also had many sons and daughters of their own, so the population could easily be in the thousands by this time considering the long lifespans of the patriarchs.

We would assert that men, or perhaps only Enos, had hoped to call on the name of Yahweh at this time because that is when the oppression had begun which is described in Genesis chapter 6, where the Nephilim began to take wives of the daughters of Adam. So here we shall cite several chapters from the Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, in order to hopefully have a somewhat accurate glimpse of the way in which the ancients had perceived the circumstances of these times, which is the time from Enos until Noah.

But first, I must offer a disclaimer and state that I do not trust the Ethiopic version of Enoch to any significant degree, and therefore I would not esteem it as canon. It contains many interpolations, and even entire chapters and books, which were evidently not even a part of Enoch originally and which are often in conflict with established Scriptures. But certain passages from a portion of 1 Enoch which are known as the Book of Giants, or at least passages which are very similar, were apparently preserved in the Enoch literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls, for which I have a much higher regard. We must imagine that since Jude cited Enoch explicitly, and since there are allusions to passages in Enoch throughout the other writings of the apostles, that they must have had access to what they believed were legitimate writings by Enoch.

So here, because the Enoch literature found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is very fragmentary and incomplete, we are going to cite R. H. Charles’ translation of 1 Enoch in reference to this aspect of Genesis and especially Tubalcain’s having been an instructor in the arts of working brass and iron. I must further note that although I am making these citations, I am also persuaded that there are interpolations even in the text of these chapters of the Ethiopic Enoch which we are about to read.

Where 1 Enoch chapter 6 begins, it is describing events which led up to the great flood of Noah which is recorded in Genesis chapter 6, so it also helps us to understand better what the ancients had thought of those events which were only described here in a very concise manner by Moses, and which apparently began here in the life of Enos:

Chapter 6: 1 And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto 2 them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men 3 and beget us children.' And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not 4 indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations 5 not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' Then sware they all together and bound themselves 6 by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon [here is one clause which we certainly believe is an interpolation, and most of this chapter seems to be embellishments], because they had sworn 7 and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And these are the names of their leaders: Samlazaz, their leader, Araklba, Rameel, Kokablel, Tamlel, Ramlel, Danel, Ezeqeel, Baraqijal, 8 Asael, Armaros, Batarel, Ananel, Zaqiel, Samsapeel, Satarel, Turel, Jomjael, Sariel. These are their chiefs of tens.

So 1 Enoch mentions these fallen angels by name, yet we cannot presume that this is the sum total of all the angels which had fallen. Furthermore, where it describes these angels as the “sons of heaven”, we would assert that where the manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, and therefore most modern Bible versions, have “sons of God” in Genesis chapter 6 in verses 2 and 4, we should amend that to “sons of heaven”, rather than “sons of God”. Since it is referring to the Nephilim, “angels” fits the context where “sons of God” does not. Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38) and it was the Nephilim who were taking his daughters. Certain manuscripts of the Septuagint, such as the Codex Alexandrinus and others which are attested in Origen’s Hexapla, have “angels” in those same places. Continuing with 1 Enoch:

Chapter 7: 1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells [here is another clause which we certainly believe is an interpolation]: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

The fragments of the Book of Giants in the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain references to Mount Hermon in Lebanon, or to the fantastic size of the giants, who are the nephilim, all of which things seem to be interpolations and embellishments. Neither to they make mention of the Biblical patriarch Jared, who was born in the third generation after Enos but while Enos was still alive. But the general introduction of sin is ascribed to them in the Dead Sea Scrolls , and the miscegenation of both men and animals which is far more extensive than what is described here as mere “sin against birds, beasts and reptiles”. Nevertheless, we will continue with our citation:

Chapter 8: 1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .

Perhaps this crying of men is what is portrayed as having had its beginnings here in Genesis 4:26, although it may have been quite some time before Yahweh God had decided to act. According to Clifton Emahiser’s Patriarchal Chronology, it was over twelve hundred years between the birth of Enos and the birth of Noah, but only three hundred and twenty-two years from the death of Enos to the birth of Noah, and that frame of time is much more appropriate to our narrative.

As it is described in Genesis chapter 4, the descendants of Cain already had skill in metal-working, and were teachers of the craft, where we read of Zillah, the wife of Lamech that: “22 … she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron…” So here we would once again make the assertion that Cain was indeed associated with the descendants of the Nephilim, and not with the descendants of Adam who had only acquired these things some time later, ostensibly from the Nephilim who are credited here with being the authors of such sin.

Continuing with 1 Enoch for one more chapter,

Chapter 9: 1 And then Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel looked down from heaven and saw much blood being 2 shed upon the earth, and all lawlessness being wrought upon the earth. And they said one to another: “The earth made without inhabitant cries the voice of their crying up to the gates of heaven. 3 And now to you, the holy ones of heaven, the souls of men make their suit, saying, ‘Bring our cause 4 before the Most High.’” And they said to the Lord of the ages: 'Lord of lords, God of gods, King of kings, and God of the ages, the throne of Thy glory (standeth) unto all the generations of the 5 ages, and Thy name holy and glorious and blessed unto all the ages! Thou hast made all things, and power over all things hast Thou: and all things are naked and open in Thy sight, and Thou seest all 6 things, and nothing can hide itself from Thee. Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which 7 men were striving to learn: And Semjaza, to whom Thou hast given authority to bear rule over his associates. And they have gone to the daughters of men upon the earth, and have slept with the 9 women, and have defiled themselves, and revealed to them all kinds of sins. And the women have 10 borne giants, and the whole earth has thereby been filled with blood and unrighteousness. And now, behold, the souls of those who have died are crying and making their suit to the gates of heaven, and their lamentations have ascended: and cannot cease because of the lawless deeds which are 11 wrought on the earth. And Thou knowest all things before they come to pass, and Thou seest these things and Thou dost suffer them, and Thou dost not say to us what we are to do to them in regard to these.'

Where we read “the souls of men make their suit, saying, ‘Bring our cause 4 before the Most High’”, this seems to be a reference to what is meant in this last verse of Genesis chapter 4, where the children of Adam are first mentioned and then it says of Enos, as it is in the Septuagint: “26 … he hoped to call on the name of Yahweh God.” Ostensibly, in my opinion, beginning with the patriarch Enos, men began to call upon Yahweh at the time when the troubles described in the opening verses of Genesis chapter 6 had originally begun. Enos would have led this effort, as he would have been the third “preacher of righteousness”, after Adam and then Seth, as they are reckoned by Peter in chapter 2 of his second epistle.

But as for the cries of the souls of the dead, we read in a slightly different context in Revelation chapter 6 that the dead certainly can pray, where it says “9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”

These notes were adapted for this presentation from part 5 our commentary on the epistles of John, which was titled The Authors of Sin, and they are fitting here in this context, so we shall continue with them as a citation, with very little editing:

While most of these names of these fallen angels do not appear in Scripture, the name of Azazel does, however it is translated as scapegoat where it is found in Leviticus chapter 16. Perhaps it bears a meaning similar to scapegoat, but perhaps that is also why this particular angel is called Azazel in the first place. Throughout Scripture Hebrew names were titles that had purposely conveyed particular meanings. The word for scapegoat only appears four times in three verses of that chapter, so we will read it in this manner: “8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Yahweh, and the other lot for Azazel. 9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Yahweh’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10 But the goat, on which the lot fell for Azazel, shall be presented alive before the Yahweh, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for Azazel into the wilderness.” Then a little further on in the chapter: “26 And he that let go the goat for Azazel shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.”

Now, bearing this reading of Azazel from Leviticus chapter 16 in mind, we should read from part of the very next chapter of the Book of Giants, which is chapter 10 of 1 Enoch: “And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening 5 in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may 6,7 not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the 8 Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted 9 through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’”

These Nephilim, or fallen angels, did not necessarily float down from heaven to seduce the daughters of men and to commit all of these other sins. As we read in Revelation chapter 12, they were already cast down from heaven, and once they were cast down, “neither was their place found any more in heaven.” Their leader having been described as “that old serpent”, they must have been cast down even before Adam was created, as the serpent and the entire Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil which he represented were already in the midst of the garden when Adam was created. Neither is it necessary to believed that a fall from heaven is a fall from space, or outer space, as we may now call it. Heaven in ancient times was an allegory for the seats of government and power here on earth, and the angels may have fallen from a state or position which they had enjoyed here on earth.

For this, outside of the garden we see the land of Nod, and the word for Nod, which in Hebrew means wandering, is also an allegory for sin. So Cain, being of the nature of the devil, went to the land of sin and built a city, and his children already had the skills attributed to the Nephilim where they are first mentioned in Genesis chapter 4. Therefore in Genesis chapters 3, 4 and 6 we certainly see how the devil had sowed the tares among the wheat…

We could not conclude this commentary for Genesis chapter 4 any more appropriately. Yahweh willing, we shall return with chapter 5 and the third account of the creation of God in the near future.

CHR20230303-Genesis06.odt — Downloaded 52 times