Gen 4:1 and Luther Vs Expositors

[BJ Bear]

Exposition - an explanation

Apposition - a word or phrase set next to another that explains or clarifies the first, for example, "My doctor, Joe Feelgood, prescribed ..." Joe Feelgood clarifies my doctor

Reading Genesis 4:1 with an appositive has Eve saying something like, I have begotten the man, the Lord. Keil and Delitsch in their commentary on Gen 4:1 recognize that there can be an appositive in the passage but the reason they reject it is illogical.

The claim in the commentary is, "wherefore the child received the name Cain (קין from קוּן = קנה, κτᾶσθαι). So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression את־יהוה might be rendered, as in apposition to אישׁ, "a man, the Lord" (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now. את is a preposition in the sense of helpful association, as in Gen 21:20, Gen 39:2, Gen 39:21, etc. That she sees in the birth of this son the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise, and thankfully acknowledges the divine help in this display of mercy, is evident from the name Jehovah, the God of salvation. The use of this name is significant. Although it cannot be supposed that Eve herself knew and uttered this name, since it was not till a later period that it was made known to man, and it really belongs to the Hebrew, which was not formed till after the division of tongues, yet it expresses the feeling of Eve on receiving this proof of the gracious help of God." -KD Crosswire module

If Lord is excluded from Eve's vocabulary then Moses gave the Divine commentary as he did through out the works atrributed to him.

 

[BJ Bear]

John 5:46
For if you were believing Moses, you would then believe Me; for that one wrote concerning Me. - LITV

 

[BJ Bear]

Luke 24:44-48
Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things. - EMTV

When the Messiah opened the underatanding of thr disciples to rightfully understand the Scriptures the marks on the scrolls didn't change. It was their understanding of the writing that changed.

 

[BJ Bear]

The claim in the commentary is, "So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression את־יהוה might be rendered, as in apposition to אישׁ, "a man, the Lord" (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now. -KD Crosswire module

Adam and Eve were statistically perfect. That being the case, it isn't a stretch that Eve realized it would take someone who is more than them, more than a statistically perfect human, to bruise the Serpent's head and to destroy the work of the Devil. The KD claim is false.

 

[BJ Bear]

The point of the thread is not that exposition is bad or has no place but that exposition that tries to negate the text is bad and has no place. So when a student or disciple of a rank story teller exposits a text that is clear as it is written there is no logical or truhful reason to believe or credit their "explanation" or "exposition" that denies the text.

This is most certainly true regarding the universal justification which God wrought in the person and work of Christ which most Christians will observe tomorrow, the resurrection of Christ.

 

[BJ Bear]

Reading the Loci Theologici of Chemnitz reminded me that the in the time of Eve's grandson men were calling on the name of the Lord, Genesis 4:26.

It is no surprise that the Keil & Delitsch commentary makes no comment on that matter because to do so would make the reasoning they offer why Gen. 4:1 can't mean what it says even more obtuse.

K&D were writing after the forced Prussian union.

 

[BJ Bear]

Job 19:25-26
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:" -KJV

Job knew his redeemer lives and that in the latter days He will stand on the earth and Job will see God with his own eyes. But the K&D commentary will pretend that the Lord God only spoke to Adam and Eve about other things. Perhaps they thought it was justabout the weather or crop futures? Typical anti Evangelical reasoning.



That is the kind

 

[Nic]

Job 19:25-26
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:" -KJV

Job knew his redeemer lives and that in the latter days He will stand on the earth and Job will see God with his own eyes. But the K&D commentary will pretend that the Lord God only spoke to Adam and Eve about other things. Perhaps they thought it was justabout the weather or crop futures? Typical anti Evangelical reasoning.



That is the kind

That's hilarious, thanks and good point!

 

[BJ Bear]

Job 19:25-26
"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:" -KJV

Job knew his redeemer lives and that in the latter days He will stand on the earth and Job will see God with his own eyes. But the K&D commentary will pretend that the Lord God only spoke to Adam and Eve about other things. Perhaps they thought it was justabout the weather or crop futures? Typical anti Evangelical reasoning.



That is the kind

This doesn't apply to only Genesis 4:1 but it does show how the disciples were reading Moses and the OT even before Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. It was very differently than K&D.

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

 

[Nic]

This doesn't apply to only Genesis 4:1 but it does show how the disciples were reading Moses and the OT even before Jesus opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. It was very differently than K&D.

John 1:45
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

I haven't considered why the K & D is strictly an OT commentary, is there a known reason as to why that is?

Nic

 

[BJ Bear]

I haven't considered why the K & D is strictly an OT commentary, is there a known reason as to why that is?

Nic

If there is then I don't know it. Just guessing, two factors do come to mind. One of them, Delitsch(?), was known for his knowldege of Hebrew. The other is that it was sometimes customary to sell subscriptions to finance the work. It may be that was the sweet spot for sales.

 

[Nic]

If there is then I don't know it. Just guessing, two factors do come to mind. One of them, Delitsch(?), was known for his knowldege of Hebrew. The other is that it was sometimes customary to sell subscriptions to finance the work. It may be that was the sweet spot for sales.

Hmm fair enough. I know the K & D from my former fundamentalism days was regarded highly. There were a few other commentaries also considered must haves for a library.

 

[BJ Bear]

Hmm fair enough. I know the K & D from my former fundamentalism days was regarded highly. There were a few other commentaries also considered must haves for a library.

Yes, there is some good stuff in the commentary. I am picking on this aspect because it is so fundamental (no pun intended ) and if it leads someone to start out on the wrong foot can that person really get back in step without acknowledging this error?

At one time I considered purchasing a hard copy of the entire set. A local used theological bookstore was selling individual volumes of K&D at a greatly reduced price, but I wouldn't use it enough to justify the purchase..

 

[RiJoRi]

?? I guess they couldn't just say, "We have no idea what this means!"?

--Rich

 

[BJ Bear]

?? I guess they couldn't just say, "We have no idea what this means!"?

--Rich

lol! I would have preferred that or silence to the outrageously false reason they gave.

 

[BJ Bear]

Matthew Henry's Commentary treated Genesis 4:1 in a more even handed and rational manner than K&D.

"Many suppose that Eve had a conceit that this son was the promised seed, and that therefore she thus triumphed in him, as her words may be read, I have gotten a man, the Lord, God-man."

Genesis 4 Bible Commentary - Matthew Henry (complete)

Study Genesis 4 using Matthew Henry Bible Commentary (complete) to better understand Scripture with full outline and verse meaning.

www.christianity.com

Makes me wonder if the King of Prussia or his minions had a role in the creation and publication of the K&D Commentary On The OT. In any case, trying to force one faith out of two left the Evangelical Church wide open to the errors soon to come.

 

[rakovsky]

Genesis 4:1 has Eve say that she begot a man "et" the Lord, with "et" being a Hebrew preposition, so it's not an appositive for the man being the Lord like the OP is suggesting:

Strong's Hebrew: 854. אוֹת (eth) -- with (denoting proximity)

However, I think that really more needs to be said about the passage's meaning than just what I wrote above.

The implication seems to be that she begot Cain with God's help or with God or from God:

One meaning of the Hebrew et is:

d. of intercourse of different kinds with another, e.g. after verbs of making a covenant or contract, or (less often) of speaking or dealing: (α) Genesis 9:9; Genesis 15:18; Genesis 17:4 (Ezekiel 16:60; Isaiah 59:21 -אוֺת) Joshua 10:4; 1 Kings 3:1 etc.; compare 1 Samuel 2:13 (but here הַכֹּהֵן מֵאֶתֿ is probably to be read with ᵐ5 ᵑ6 ᵑ7 Ke We etc., compare Deuteronomy 18:3). (β) Genesis 17:3; Genesis 42:30 דִּבֶּר אִתָּנוּ קָשׁוֺת, 1 Kings 8:15; Psalm 109:2, & especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (as Jeremiah 1:16; Jeremiah 4:12 [Jeremiah 52:9 אִתּוֺ] Jeremiah 5:5; Jeremiah 12:1; Ezekiel 2:1; Ezekiel 3:22,24,27; Ezekiel 14:4; Ezekiel 44:5 — all -אוֺת); Genesis 24:49 to perform kindness אֵת (עִם is here more Genl.), 2 Samuel 16:17 זֶה חַסְדְּךָ אֶתרֵֿעֶךָ֑, Ruth 2:20; Zechariah 7:9; Jon 11:27 וְאַתָּה עשֶֹׁה אִתִּי רָעָה, Deuteronomy 1:30; Deuteronomy 10:21; 1 Samuel 12:7 b, (-אוֺת) Jeremiah 21:2; Jeremiah 33:9; Ezekiel 7:27; Ezekiel 16:59; Ezekiel 22:14; Ezekiel 23:25,29; Ezekiel 39:24; absolute Ezekiel 17:17; Ezekiel 20:44; Psalm 109:21; Zephaniah 3:19; (γ) in a pregnant sense, (in dealing) with, i.e. towards (rare): Isaiah 66:14; Psalm 67:2 יָאֵר מָּנָיו אִתָּנוּ make his face to shine with (= toward) us (varied from אֶל Numbers 6:25) Deuteronomy 28:8; faithful with Psalm 78:8 (compare Psalm 78:37 נָכוֺן עִם); Ezekiel 2:6 (אוֺתָ֑ךְ); Judges 16:15 וְלֹבְּךָ אֵין אִתִּי. (δ) often with verbs of fighting, striving, contending, as Genesis 14:2,8,9; Numbers 20:13; Isaiah 45:9; a Isaiah 50:8; Psalm 35:1; Proverbs 23:11; with בָּא בְמִשְׁמָּט Psalm 143:2 (Isaiah 3:14 and elsewhere עִם).

 

[BJ Bear]

Genesis 4:1 has Eve say that she begot a man "et" the Lord, with "et" being a Hebrew preposition, so it's not an appositive for the man being the Lord like the OP is suggesting:

Strong's Hebrew: 854. אוֹת (eth) -- with (denoting proximity)

Says who? And when?

 

[BJ Bear]

@rakovsky

The literal translation of Genesis 4:1 was around long before the sixteenth century. The following excerpt is from an article on Genesis3:15 but in support of that passage being Messianic it refers to the literal translation of Gen. 4:1 using modern scholars.

"Secondly, in Boice’s judgment, the translation rendered ‘I have brought forth the Lord’ “should be preferred for linguistic as well as theological reasons.”[37] It is apparent that ʾeth is part of a parallel formation, appearing before ‘Cain’ previously in the sentence and before ‘Yahweh’ later in the sentence. The sentence thus reads, “‘She bore ʾeth-Cain, and she said, I have brought forth a man, ʾeth-Yahweh.’”[38] It would require durable linguistic evidence to purpose different translations for equivalent constructions in the same sentence.


Being that “the Hebrew construction for Yahweh is the same as in the previous phrase: bore Cain,” there is a clear implication in Eve’s statement.[39] The same meaning expressed in Eve’s birthing Cain is equivalently articulated in her claim to have ‘gotten a man: Yahweh.’ “It is because of this very obvious connotation that attempts are made to redo the obvious meaning of the verse.”[40] The prepositional translations of ʾeth are thus wrongfully deduced, which conversely ensures the accuracy of the literal rendering."

Genesis 4:1

THE MESSIANIC EXPECTATION OF GENESIS 4:1 AND ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE PROTOEVANGELIUM Taylor E. Terzek Presented at the College of Arts & Sciences’ Research Symposium Liberty University,…

taylorterzek.wordpress.com

 

[rakovsky]

Says who? And when?

I don't know Hebrew and would need to study the issue more to have a strong opinion.

Bible Hub says that Et Cain means Cain in the accusative, whereas Et Yahweh means a preposition (eg. with/from Yahweh).

Comapre Strong's Hebrew numbers 853 Et vs 854 Et.

Word by Word analysis is here:

Genesis 4:1 Hebrew Text Analysis

853 is here:

Strong's Hebrew: 853. אוֹת (eth) -- untranslatable mark of the accusative case.

854 is here:

Strong's Hebrew: 854. אוֹת (eth) -- with (denoting proximity)

Bublehub is taking it to mean Adam knew (Et accusative) Eve and Eve bore (Et Accusative) Cain and said that she got a man from/with (Et preposition) Yahweh.

With that construction, there is no apposition. If you want to switch Et Yahweh to accusative Et, then why is there no Et in front of "a man"? Why put Et as an accusative in front of Yahweh if Et as an accusative is not needed in front of a man? Apposition I think would need a parallel construction if we are going to say that Yahweh is an apposition of Man, and even if the construction of the apposition was not parallel, I would guess that the Et would be in front of Man if Et was going to be used.

Here is how the LXX translators took it:
Αδαμ δὲ ἔγνω Ευαν τὴν γυναῗκα αὐτοῦ καὶ συλλαβοῦσα ἔτεκεν τὸν Καιν καὶ εἶπεν ἐκτησάμην ἄνθρωπον διὰ τοῦ θεοῦ
Brenton's translation of the LXX: And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and brought forth Cain and said, I have gained a man through God.