Source: http://english.ccg.org/s/p248.html?cfet=y
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:40:10+00:00

Document:
The lines of Adam through Seth and Cain have a significance for the Plan of Salvation that is not generally understood and expounded. The two structures have an explicit meaning and a story that explains the Plan of God and declares it from the beginning.
The Book of Genesis explains the fall in the Garden of Eden, which we have examined in part 1 of this series. After the expulsion from Eden, and the ground was cursed because of the original sin, Adam set about the tasks he was entrusted with by God. His first task was to replenish the earth.
Genesis 4:1-26 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
The text here is rendered I have begotten a man from the Lord but the actual text is not a man from the Lord it is literally a man even Yahovah (Heb. ‘ith ‘esh Yahovah cf. Companion Bible n. to v. 1). The term knew his wife here was also Had known his wife which Rashi holds to mean before they were expelled from the garden (cf. Soncino n. to v. 1). There are thus a few serious issues here, which are not addressed in any serious way by the rabbinical commentators or the Soncino Chumash.
He alone created us but in the creation of this child the three of us were partners (Soncino).
This child shall be the possession of the Lord, that when we die he may serve Him (cf. Soncino ibid.).
This (newborn) man shall be my acquisition for the sake of God i.e. she dedicated her son to be come the servant of God after she and Adam died (cf. Stones Chumash).
This interpretation has difficulty in view of the activities in the texts.
She did not desire to make this pessimism explicit, so Scripture does not give the interpretation of Abel as it does of Cain (cf. Soncino).
Strong holds Abel to mean transitory.
None of the rabbinical commentaries deal satisfactorily with this very serious problem of the text here as a man even Yahovah). The text in Zechariah 12:8 states that men will become as elohim and identifies the Angel of Yahovah at their head as elohim also.
In addition Rashi points out that the accusative signs eth before the words Cain, his brother and Abel are extensions, implying that twin sisters were born with them.
He refrained from working the ground because it had been cursed (cf. Soncino).
This seems to indicate the mind set and intent of the two lines. This view is also indicative of the intention of Eve from the text.
Abel brought a sacrifice and the fat of it before the Lord and the Lord accepted it. Cain appears to have been forcing the ground. The fruit of the ground was a lesser offering for a number of reasons. It was lesser because the ground was cursed. Cain was in effect bringing produce from a cursed earth when in fact it was being made obvious that a blood sacrifice was required. Moreover, Abel’s was the firstfruits as were required under the law. Cain’s offering was not firstfruits (Heb: minchah). The view of Cain’s sacrifice can be seen by reference to Jude 11.
The entire understanding of the firstfruits system was evident from the beginning. Every facet of the plan and the Ten Commandments under the law was evident from the beginning here in Genesis. Even the name of Yahovah and hence the concept of the Third Commandment was known from the time of Adam and Seth (see v. 26) and not as is wrongly asserted when it was given to Moses at Sinai.
Cain’s rejection was based on the same attitude that saw Satan rejected in his greed for acquisition in merchandise or trade (cf. Ezek. ch. 28 and Isa. ch. 14). Here the concept of sin and rejection is put to Cain.
Sin is here attributed to Cain. God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice and His acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice was not arbitrary. Hence Cain had no right to jealousy. Moreover the capacity to amend the situation lay in Cain’s hands (cf. Sforno; Soncino).
If thou wilt amend thy ways, thy sins shall be remitted; but if thou wilt not amend thy ways, thy sin awaits thee for thy day of judgment, for thou wilt be punished if thou dost not repent; but if thou repentest, it shall be forgiven thee (cf. Soncino).
The question is here of the countenance being lifted up that was fallen (so says Rashi). Nachmanides holds it to mean that he would then be lifted up above his brother for he was the first born (cf. Soncino). Sforno holds it to mean that he could then reach the heights of exaltation. The rabbinical view is thus that obedience to God is the key to favour and acceptance.
And if thou doest not well sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him.
The Hebrew for sin is chat’a (cf. Comp. Bible) meaning sin offering. The term lieth is masculine, sin offering is feminine. The Hebrew reads At the entrance [a male] is lying, a sin offering. The rabbis hold that the door is the door of the grave (punishment awaits thee Rashi). Nachmanides holds that it stands at the door seeking to cause one to fall. Sforno holds it means that sin awaits thee and thou will add more to what thou has already committed. The phrase unto thee is its desire according to the Soncino is held to mean, The tempter seeks to entice thee (Rashi). Abraham ibn Ezra reverses the meaning however to read Sin offers thee its submission, if thou desirest it.
This is perhaps the key to the puzzle. The KJV rendering shows the complex meaning: Unto thee shall be his desire and thou shalt rule over him. This is the complex interaction between the fallen host and the Adamic creation. It was finally climaxed in the offer of Satan to Messiah in the temptation on the Mount that he could have it all then if he only worshipped Satan. This text regarding rulership is also reflected in Genesis 3:16. These texts and the relationships they state are at the heart of the entire dissent of the human system in enmity towards God and the structure He set up on this world through the sons of Adam. The effect was immediate. Cain did not repent and turn to God. The concept of the male lying at the entrance as a sin offering was pointing towards the Messiah and it was the Messiah speaking with Cain as Yahovah elohim.
Cain then acted as all have acted since. Cain spoke with Abel and then slew him. The way of unrighteousness is to justify itself and find fault. When no fault is proven, it turns to violence. That is what happened to Christ and why persecution accompanies the church. The elect by their existence stand as witness against the world. Abel (or Hebel) stood as witness against Cain. Cain slew Hebel as the Mainstream religions persecute and kill the elect.
Rashi holds that Cain started a conversation with Abel to draw him into a quarrel. This was away from the presence of their parents (Sforno; cf. Soncino). The word talked is ‘amar which in Hebrew must always be followed by the words spoken (as opposed to dabar) but these words have been deleted from the Masoretic Text (MT). The actual words of Cain have been preserved in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX), the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Targum, Jerome, and the MSS where the words are Let us go into the field. MSS which do not have the words have a hiatus indicating the omission (cf. Comp. Bible n. to v. 8).
That which was acquisitive slew that which was transitory (or which was like the wind and hence also vanity or emptiness).
There is significance in this man being named Hebel. For that was indeed his name (SHD 1893 which is the same as SHD 1892). The peace from Adam could not endure among the sons of Adam together with sin.
9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Yahovah elohim asked the question to enable Cain to confess his sin and repent (Rashi).
The term blood is plural in the Hebrew. The alternatives are seen firstly as being that the blood of Abel and the blood of his descendants cried out (cf. Mat. 23:35). Rashi holds it was because he was wounded many times as Cain did not know where it would be fatal (Soncino). 1 John 3:12 shows the reason for the killing.
The curse was from the ground indicating that it would not yield its strength. Here the ground was used to hide a crime and it would thenceforth be used as the instrument of punishment (cf. Nachmanides and Sforno; Soncino). Bullinger holds that the Hebrew accent after cursed indicates it was cursed more than the ground (cf. 3:17; n. to v. 11 Comp. Bible).
The concept is like that of justice in retribution. Life was taken and life was only then sustained by hard labour.
13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
The translation in the KJV and that of the Soncino is the interpretation of Abraham ibn Ezra. However, Rashi renders it as a question: Is my sin too great to be borne? and Nachmanides makes it a statement but my sin is too great to be forgiven (Soncino). Is mine iniquity too great to be forgiven is the reading of the Septuagint, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, Targum of Onkelos, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Greek and Latin fathers. Only the later MT agrees with, or forms the basis of, the KJV in its reading (cf. Comp. Bible n. to. v. 13). The concept here in verse 14 is that of being driven out from the face of the land and being deprived of one’s livelihood. He was cut off from the presence of God and the ability to offer sacrifice in shame (cf. Nachmanides).
Here there are a series of interesting problems. Everyone finding Cain and slaying him is a strange comment as Cain and His father Adam were ostensibly the only two males on the planet at the time. Obviously there was something else going on. Nachmanides and Rashi saw the obvious problem with the creation account and interpreted the text to mean whatsoever and explained v. 15 as referring to wild animals.
Nachmanides’ view was that Cain could not build a house for protection and without God’s protection he would be slain by wild beasts.
The comments made by Yahovah elohim here are interpreted in such a way by rabbinical Judaism, that they also indicate a view expressed in the NT.
Therefore whomsoever slayeth Cain shall be punished (this clause being unexpressed); as for Cain himself, vengeance shall be taken on him after seven generations (when he will be slain, but until then none must harm him). Ibn Ezra, Nachmanides and Sforno render it similarly but Sforno renders it seven two fold, ie. after fourteen generations. The sense is that God dealt with Cain and his generations after the seven generations. Fourteen generations are given from Abraham in sequences of three in the book of Matthew. But fourteen generations from Adam are in Sala the father of Heber and in this sense the Hebrews were named but there is no real connotation in this fourteen sequence. Sforno is thus incorrect. The seven generations are much more important. Sforno would be correct if it was held to imply that the seven generations referred to the two lines of Seth and Cain only.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 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.
So Cain dwelt in the land of Nod or nowd (SHD 5113) which is a land east of Eden. It is the same as SHD 5112 and means vagrancy or wandering. This has the opposite meaning of SHD 5115 and 5116 navah meaning to rest and hence a home and also by extension the temple of God and His rest. The sense of the words is to be cut off from God and the Hebrew language conveys these concepts where the English does not do so. The implications here regarding the land of wandering is important given the concepts of other beings on the planet. He was given a mark on his forehead and the various rabbinical authorities interpret it to mean that a sign was given to him as being a letter of His name. Rashi thinks that God restored the natural fear of man in the animals following the concept that it was they that threatened him. Ibn Ezra holds that the Lord gave Cain a sign that anyone who found him would not smite him. Thus we have people able to smite Cain alive at that time. Who were they?
Cain went out from the presence of the Lord. The text simply says that He knew his wife after his banishment in the land of Nod. He had children. After his son Enoch was born Cain built a city and named it after Enoch. Enoch means teaching or initiation; hence make a disciple of or to train up. The terms concerning the city are: was building in other words a continuous process. He was cursed and so he named the city after his son and hence sought to remove the curse (cf. Nachmanides; Soncino).
Bullinger holds this to have been the city found under the brick platform on which Nip[p]ur in South Babylonia was built (cf. n. to v. 17 Companion Bible). Bullinger holds that Cain’s posterity comes in the Generations of the Heavens and the Earth begotten after the slaying of Abel.
The names in this sequence are highly significant. Irad means fugitive (SHD 5897 cf. 6166). Bullinger notes this as City of Witness but it not sure on what basis. The structure of cities of refuge as found in the law may actually be as early as this activity of Cain.
This would then indicate levels of the ordinances were present in their entirety from the beginning. From out of the city of training or initiation, in separation from God, came the fugitive.
Mehujael (Heb. Mehijael cf. Soncino; SHD 4232 cf. 4229, 410) means Smitten of El, or of God. This then proceeds to Methusael (SHD 4967 cf. 4962) meaning Man who is of El or of God.
The lesson here seems to be that acquisition begets separation and then training in a system which results in being fugitive. By correction of God man is able to walk under God’s direction.
The process then resulted in Lamech. Lamech is the seventh in line from Adam. SHD 3929 Lemek is an unused Hebrew root of uncertain meaning. It refers to two patriarchs, one from each line from Adam. In the line of Cain Lamech is the seventh in line from Adam. In the other line the seventh is Enoch which is also the name of the third generation and son of Cain. Thus the message is of the sequence and quality of learning as both mean to be trained up or initiated and made disciples. One, Enoch was righteous and the other was not. Thus the time and sequence of training is the critical factor.
Lamech in the line of Cain was the first recorded to have two wives. Rashi holds in relation to this text that the usual practice of the generation of the flood was understood as being that they had one wife for child rearing and the other for sterile cohabitation (cf. Soncino). This perhaps comes from the rabbinical views derived from the names.
According to Rashi, Adah indicates to turn away and hence she was for child bearing and allowed to grow ugly and hence her husband turned away from her (cf Soncino). The meaning of the term according to Strong is quite the reverse. The name is SHD 5711 which is held to mean Ornament and is derived from SHD 5710 ‘âdâh which has the meaning to advance and thus it has the meaning to pass on or continue and causatively to remove; specifically it means to bedeck or bring an ornament upon and can then mean to adorn, deck ones self, pass by, or take away.
Zillah (or Tsillâh SHD 6741) is held by Rashi to have been for pleasurable company and hence to have always been in his shadow (tsêl or being in his company). Hence her name means shade (cf. Soncino). This name is the feminine of SHD 6738 tsêl which is held to mean shade but can also mean defence. The names thus can mean attack and defence as well as the meanings given by Rashi. This has more to do with the spiritual problems of the host, which resulted in the flood and needs to be explored. This aspect carries on into the meaning of the names of the children.
20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. 21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
Jabal (SHD 2989) was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. This can hardly be the simple meaning as Abel was the first pastoralist as we have seen above and he offered sacrifice to the Lord, which was more acceptable than Cain’s offering of grain. The term relating to tents here is applied to temples of idols and the Midrash declares that he was the first to build temples to idols and offer sacrifice to them. Thus we see that Adah has the connotation to adorn in a negative sense with idols and thus to be passed by or to turn away (cf. the paper The Origin of the Wearing of Earrings and Jewellery in Ancient Times (No. 197)).
The name Jubal (SHD 3106) the father of those who handle the harp and the pipe comes from SHD 2986 and means a stream. SHD 2987 means to bring or carry and is the same as 2986. This has the same root as Jabal (SHD 2989) which has the same meaning as SHD 2988 a watercourse or stream.
Rashi follows on from the previous explanation and says that he was the first to introduce (bring or carry) music in the service of idolatry.
Given the explanations contained in the paper The Origins of Christmas and Easter (No. 235) and The Doctrine of Original Sin Part I The Garden of Eden (No. 246) we see that the Triune system was the most ancient form of idolatrous worship. It was employed by the antediluvian world as far as we can determine by their remains, such as Stonehenge.
Rashi’s explanation falls down here as Zillah has children also and the male’s name was Tubalcain although he does not seem to see that himself.
Rashi and Ibn Ezra render forger as the sharpener (cf. Soncino).
Tubal-cain improved on (tabal) Cain’s work, preparing weapons for bloodshed (every cutting instrument) according to Rashi, which meant swords and knives (cf. Soncino). The Soncino renders the text as the forger of every cutting instrument of brass and iron. The KJV and other texts show that there were other people instructed by him. Nachmanides takes the text literally and adds the explanation of the Targum that the father of means he was the first to make these implements (cf. Soncino). This is the case also where Satan is the father of lies being the first to make deceit and teach others to do so. It can be safely taken to mean that Tubalcain was instrumental in making weapons of war and teaching others to make weapons of war in the antediluvian world.
His sister was Naamah (SHD 5279) meaning pleasantness which is the feminine of SHD 5277 Na’am meaning pleasure. Rashi holds that Naamah was Noah’s wife (cf. Soncino). This name appears later among the Ammonites. The assertion that she was Noah’s wife is no doubt introduced to explain the problems with Canaan and his progeny. There seems no reason for her inclusion here other than to link her with the problems that arose through the false worship that came through the Triune god and the Moon, Sun and Venus Trinity that followed on after into Babylon (cf. The Golden Calf (No. 222)). The symbols for the planets also follow this form related to the Enclosed sun cross for the earth Å, with Venus as female and Mars as male (cf. part 1 and the paper The Cross: Its Origin and Significance (No. 39)). This sequence represents the quarternary division of the universe and hence the government centered on the earth.
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.
This puzzling text has a few possibilities. The traditions of the rabbis hold that Lamech was blind and led by Tubalcain. One day Tubalcain, on seeing Cain, told Lamech that there was a deer in front of him and bade him shoot an arrow, which killed him. When Lamech learned what he had really done he killed his son. This angered his wives who denied themselves to him. Rashi holds that he then tried to win them back. Others, such as Nachmanides and Sforno, hold that the wives were afraid that he would be punished and he reassured them (cf. Soncino).
This sequence then runs from Adam to Lamech through Cain as seven generations cut off from God and then Cain was killed by the seventh generation from Adam at the instigation of the seventh generation from Cain namely Tubal-Cain. Thus the sequence was repeated again. Lamech was in effect claiming innocence and thus to be avenged seventy-seven times. The rabbinical renderings are that it is a rhetorical question and disclaims responsibility for the slaying in that Cain was slain by Lamech accidentally. The argument is such that whatever the case Cain had a mark of protection on him put there by God and so the one who killed him would be punished seven fold.
Lamech merely carried out the sentence of God. This is another application of the law relating to the fifth commandment. The Soncino holds that in all the explanations man is held to allude to Lamech and young man to Tubalcain. However that seems absurd. The context is that the man slain for wounding Lamech was Cain and the young man for bruising him was Tubal-Cain. Lamech was wounded in his line being cut off from God and bruised because his own son was the instrument of him killing Cain. The seventh generation of Adam was the instrument of the death of Cain and the instigator was also killed.
Rashi holds a very important point in relation to this text. He states that it means that if the punishment was delayed for seven generations for Cain then in his case it would be delayed seventy-seven generations. The flood occurred not long after and there is no further explicit record of the generations of Lamech through these idolatrous sons of Adah.
The false religion of the Triune system certainly carried on seventy-seven generations entering and finally taking over Christianity three thousand years later in the seventh and eighth centuries of the current era. The implications seem to carry on here regarding the false religious system. Certainly the lines of Cain and the Nephilim were to be wiped out in the flood. No more is really said here of the line of Cain until we get to the texts of the Nephilim in Genesis 6:4. The assertion of the marriage of Naamah and Noah is perhaps also based on this prophecy having some foundation in fact.
In like manner Seth lived alongside “Adam” his father and mother for hundreds of years. Seth was substituted or in place of Abel the transitory being who was killed. Enos was the first born son of Seth and his name means a mortal (cf. Strong’s HD 582 ‘enôwsh and 583) and is less dignified that the SHD 120 Adam meaning also man. Thus there is a change in the status of the line of Adam because of the original sin.
Cainan (SHD 7018 Qêynân) was the son of Enos. His name is derived from the same as SHD 7064 a contraction of 7077 meaning to erect in the sense of building or occupying as a nest.
12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel: 13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters: 14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
His son was named Mahalaleel which is a combination of two words SHD 4110 fame or praise and 410 el or God. Hence the name means praise of God. We see the sense here that from the proper erection of a home and the raising of young the praise of God is correctly established.
Jared was the first son of Mahalaleel. His name Yered (SHD 3382) means a descent. Through the correct raising of the home and family the descent and restoration of God is made possible.
Yered begat Enoch which as we have seen means to be initiated or trained (SHD 2585 Chanowk which is derived from SHD 2596 to narrow meaning to initiate or discipline). Thus through the descent of God the training of the human structure is made possible. Thus is man perfected. This is in contrast to the placement of the name in the sons of Cain where Enoch was the progeny of Cain through seizure and grasping at God. This is the distinction between the two lines. In the one God was to extend Himself by willing self-revelation and elevate man to Himself. On the other hand Cain sought to grasp that condition and killed to do it. This is the distinction made between Christ and Satan in Philippians 2:5-8.
Adam and that line through Seth also were in the form of God but did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. That was the original sin and it was not Adam’s sin alone. That sin was committed by Satan who then persuaded Eve to do the same. She in turn persuaded Adam. Thus the entire line was affected and became lesser than it might have been. Only then in the line through a new process would man be able to succeed and that through the descent and intervention of Yahovah-elohim who became a man at the direction of God Most High, the Eloah, the One True God who sent Messiah to redeem the creation (cf. Jn. 17:3). Thus experiential mysticism which lies at the heart of the triune and Babylonian mystery system is in opposition to the will of God and His self revelation. It seeks to elevate the self to unification with God on an arbitrary and a mystical or ecstatic basis.
Enoch walked with God and he was not for God took him. Enoch was shown the end process and taken to perform another function. So also was Elijah and these are the only two human beings to be removed and not see death. Ibn Ezra sees his removal as an honour.
Yet they will die as it is appointed unto all men once to die (Heb. 9:27 cf. the paper The Witnesses (including the Two Witnesses) (No. 135)). Enoch pointed in this way also to Messiah as also did Elijah. Enoch was the father of Methuselah. According to tradition his wife was named Edna (cf. M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 85:2, Vol. 2, Oxford Clarendon 1982 p. 195). Methuselah (SHD 4968 methûwshelach) means man of a dart. It is derived from a combination of 4962 and 7973. 4962 Math (from the same as 4970) means an adult from the proposition of reaching full length. He reached full length of years. The word 7973 shelach means a missile of attack i.e. a spear. Thus it is a man of a dart. This would be puzzling if it were not for the fact that it also means a shoot of growth from the same concept of a spear of a plant and hence it means a Branch and thus is a dart or growth. It also has the meaning of man of a Branch. The meaning then takes on new significance when we realise that Christ was God’s servant the Branch (SHD 6780 tsemach meaning to sprout or a shoot or bud).
Like Enoch Christ was acceptable to God and God took him. His progeny, the Church thus were men of the dart or the sprout or branch. The earth will not be destroyed until the church has fulfilled its days and the 144,000 are sealed and they and the multitude are taken out of the world. Then the end will come.
The significance is that of being pleasing to God and accepted and prolonging one’s days and the days of one’s progeny. The church is the family and progeny of the elect. Thus the child breeding is not a requirement to salvation. The elect are however, required to raise and train their successors and support the nation. This sequence then has direct application to the church. The earth that then was as it was called was not destroyed until Methuselah had fulfilled his days and the year he died the flood came. The Ethiopic Book of Enoch seems to relate the entire story back to the fall of the host and the interbreeding of the angelic system with men and then relates it to the White sheep and the twelve sheep (one of which was given to the other forces i. e. Judas) and the many sheep that sprang from them. This seems to be a direct allusion to the church (Knibb ibid., p. 195-202ff.).
25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: 26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: 27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Methuselah outlived his son Lamech. The meaning of Lamech has been lost in antiquity. They are both seen however as the terminus of the antediluvian world. The Lamech of Methusaleh being the father of Noah and the Lamech of the line of Cain is also the father of Naamah, which Rashi holds to be the wife of Noah and hence he combines both lines. The apostate idolatrous sons of Adah are held to have died and she alone of that line survived. This is probably a rabbinical device of Rashi to explain the later occurrence of the Nephilim after the flood.
The days of Lamech are stylised into seven hundred and seventy seven years which is a complete sequence and stands in direct contrast to the number of the beast or satanic system of six hundred and sixty six. The numerical sequence of the Triune or beast system is not simply a device of the first century church. The contrast thus stands as Satan and his system against the church and God’s system under Messiah. The end result of that lineage was the perfect sequence of the sons of God.
As He did with the flood, God will act to destroy the world at the end of this age and the entire story is consistent from start to finish and easily understood in context of the later prophets and the Church. The time sequence however completes the plan of the creation in the sequence of the seven Millennia.
The understanding of the Fall of the Host is inextricably wound up with the human creation and the fornication with the daughters of men. This is examined at length in the paper The Nephilim (No. 154) but it is examined here in relation to the Genesis text and the rabbinical view of the text and its implication to the Doctrine of Original Sin.
The Text in 5:32 shows Noah was five hundred years old when he fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth. There are various rabbinical explanations for the delayed reproduction of Noah. The most rational centre around the delay being for reasons of the clean break between the new and old systems and their integrity within one system under Noah. Rashi holds that while Japheth was the firstborn Shem is mentioned first because he was righteous and it was understood that he had been born circumcised (cf. Soncino). This is a reflection of the covenant with Abraham and shows that relationship was understood rabbinically to precede the flood. On this ground also the Noahide system is incorrect (cf. also the paper Melchisedek (No. 128)).
In the text of Genesis 6:1 we see the rabbinical system has an each way bet. In the first verse Rashi explains the sons of God were the sons of the elohim and in this sense Rashi confines it to the sons of the princes and judges where elohim implies standing in God’s stead and hence rulership and refers to Exodus 4:16; 7:1. They should have defended the system but openly committed violence. Nachmanides accepts this view (cf. Soncino). This is the usage of Elohim where all stand in the stead of Eloah. The understanding is thus that the elohim is a plural extension of God.
Rab. Judan holds by a play on words that the rights of ius primae noctis was enforced by the chieftains; who took by force whoever they chose (Nachmanides cf. Soncino).
The rabbinical view was that God stated that the Divine Spirit could no longer remain with men because of this contention. Man was given 120 years as a span of repentance. Hence from adulthood he had two full jubilees before destruction. This time frame will again be introduced at the second resurrection to allow all to repent (cf. Isa. 65:20).
Genesis 6:4 then proceeds to deal with the Nephilim and here the rabbinical authorities refer back to the original understanding of the text as referring to the fallen Host. Rashi holds they are called Nephilim because they “fell” (naphal) and also caused the world to fall. Ibn Ezra holds also that the heart of those who saw them fell in wonder at their enormous stature.
The term in those days refers to the generations of Enosh and the children of Cain. Rashi refers back to an ancient legend that the terms relate also to the destruction in the generation of Enosh and that a third of the world was destroyed by the ocean breaking its bounds and they still did not repent. Ibn Ezra defines the phrase as after the flood. Nachmanides holds the view that either the wives of Noah’s sons were descended from them so that the children they bore were giants or it accords with the view that Og king of Bashan was one of them and he escaped the flood and many with him (cf. Soncino).
Nachmanides interprets the passage as indicating that Adam and Eve were designated the sons or children of God as well as Seth and Enoch and he holds the point that the Nephilim were “inferior ones.” He quotes also and approves the comments of R. Eliezar the Great, which are found in the Midrash, that the Nephilim were angels who fell from heaven the place of their sanctity and considers this the most likely meaning. Sforno attempts to limit the terms of those days to the days of repentance.
Rashi holds that the term came in to the daughters of men means that they begot giants like themselves. The “mighty men” means that they were mighty in their rebellion against God (Rashi; cf. Soncino).
The term men of renown (shem) means they were men who brought desolation (shemamon) upon the world.
Rashi holds that the term it repented (wayinnachem) the Lord in verse 6 means it was a consolation to him that he had not created men as celestial beings as that would have instigated revolt among the angels. The phrase is understood by others as an anthropomorphism. The Koran holds that Iblis (Satan) rebelled because of the creation of man. Man was not created a celestial being so that the Host could be tested by faith.
Nachmanides explains that the term in His heart means He did not send a prophet to warn them. The term both man and beast is held alternatively to mean that the beasts had also been corrupted. Only Noah had found mercy or grace in the eyes of God (Nachmanides cf. Soncino).
The rabbinical authorities then proceed at the end of verse 8 to insert the Haphtarah Bereshith taken from Isaiah 42:5 - 43:10 beginning “Thus saith God the Lord.” This text is an important text dealing with the redemption and the restoration of Israel. Clearly in this structure the restoration of Israel in the last days is seen as the factor of the sequence of understanding in the creation up to the flood and the cleansing of the earth. This matter is a study in its own right.
What we have here in the text of Genesis is that the entire lineage of the sons of Adam had been corrupted by the fallen Host and that they had to be destroyed and Noah was pure in his generations.
The concept was here that the woman fell and was saved in her child bearing.
We have seen that salvation is not dependent upon childbearing simply in the individual it refers to the church and the raising of the nation and the training of the elect within that structure. God puts us in families (Mat. 12:50; Eph. 3:15).
There is no doubt from here and the verses in Jude 6 and also 1Corinthians 11:10 (cf. Gen. 24:65) the angels were understood to have corrupted the creation. Women were veiled because of this original sin as early as the texts in Genesis and the interaction of all angels with the human creation.
The purpose of the creation was so that God could extend Himself and become all in all in the creation as it was to be extended in the structure of the family without angelic interference. The structure of original sin was initially in corruption of the creation and thus Augustine of Hippo was wrong in his understanding of the purpose and intent of the texts in the first six chapters of Genesis. The sequence of the generations of Adam show that the salvation is of an adult form moving over a sequence of generations taught father to son. Thus the concept of original sin is not salvageable within an infant structure. We will next examine the standard Doctrine.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.