Saturday, April 3, 2021

Protestant Mart-Jan Paul: The Book of Genesis Evidences there being Revelation which was never written down and is now lost

  

In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel are described as sons of Adam and Eve. In the course of time, Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to YHWH, and Abel brought some of the firstborn animals of his flock. How would they have known it was good to do that? Was offering a spontaneous action on their part, or did they follow an already established custom? And, why was the offering of Abel received with favor by YHWH and the offering of Cain not? Were these unexpected outcomes or did the brothers know beforehand what was acceptable to God? The most likely answers we choose depend heavily on how we view the origin of the book of Genesis. The reader assuming a late origin of the book in the time of the kings of Israel may interpret the cultic activity as a retroprojection of later practices. However, he then has to deal with a distinction in the meaning of the word mincha. This term is used in Genesis 4 for typifying both offerings, while in Leviticus the usage of the word is restricted to non-bloody offerings.

 

Another possibility is a depiction of a spontaneous, internal compulsion of both brothers to give something to God. However, that would make God’s negative reaction to Cain’s offer difficult to understand. We do better to seek an answer in already existing practices. The Book of Genesis tells us that God spoke many times with Adam and Eve. Therefore, it is probable that He also gave instructions concerning worship service and related cultic activities to be carried out by humanity. Would the God who gave Noah detailed instructions for building the ark (6:14-16) have neglected to give Adam, Cain, and Abel any verbal instructions regarding sacrifice? Also we note that the text introduces the episode of the offering rather casually so that one could believe that this depiction might not have been the first time the brothers had brought sacrifices. Another presupposition of the existence of earlier divine communication and an oral tradition is likely with regard to events at the end of the same chapter. We read that Seth had a sone and named him Enoch. “At that men began to call on the name of the LORD” (4:26). This seems the origin of a specific and regular cult practice.

 

In the New Testament we read that Abel was reckoned amongst the prophets (Luke 11:50-51). Although this is a later text, it points to the understanding of Abel as a receiver of God’s revelations. In the same way, Enoch being another descendant of Adam (Gen. 5:19-24) is also considered a prophet (Jude 14-15). Although in the Book of Genesis these titles are lacking, yet it is possible to assume that more traditions about God’s speaking survived, for instance, taking into account practices understood in the word: “Enoch walked with God” (5:22).

 

A second example is a precept about the animals in the ark. Noah received the command to take pairs of animals with him, as depicted by seven pairs of the clean and one pair of the unclean animals (7:2). The distinction between clean and unclean animals is an issue here. The Jewish exegete Umberto Cassuto asks the question how it is possible to speak of animals that are clean and not clean at a time when the Torah laws distinguishing between these categories had not yet been formulated? He suggests that the concepts of clean and unclean animals would already have been in existence prior to the Torah, even among the Gentiles, particularly in relation to sacrifices (Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 11 [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974], 75). Also, Bruce Waltke suggests that Noah may have known of the distinction through his walks with God, whereby this author argues that the fundamental institutions of the ‘ceremonial laws’ reach back to the original creation (Waltke, Genesis, 138). Both Cassuto and Waltke assume a revelation that as such is not mentioned in Genesis.

 

A third example concerns Abraham and obedience of practice. His son Isaac had received the promise that he and his descendants will be blessed, “because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (26:5). Here legal language of later books, especially Exodus and Deuteronomy, is used. We do not know exactly which instructions are supposed in the cited passages (Waltke writes: “The narrator means either the teachings of piety and ethics known by the patriarchs prior to Moses or more probably the whole law of Moses. Genesis is part of the Pentateuch and should be interpreted within that context. In Deut. 11:1 the same list of terms refer to the whole law of Moses.” Genesis, 368). Somewhat earlier in the book, God declares that He had chosen Abraham “so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just” (18:19; cf. the expression “righteous” in Gen. 6:9). The terms ‘right’ and ‘just’ are not explained. However, the reader may gain a general impression from the later descriptions. For instance, Genesis18 clearly shows that the attitude of Abraham is in stark contrast to the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, thereby suggesting an attitude of obedience to what YHWH had previously revealed.

 

My point is that an earlier revelation can be presupposed in several instances in the Book of Genesis, while the content of that revelation has not been written down in this book. (Mart-Jan Paul, “Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism,” in Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels, eds., Sola Scriptura: Biblical and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics [Studies in Reformed Theology 32; Leiden: Brill, 2018], 123-36, here, pp. 123-26, emphasis added)

 

Further Reading


Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura