CAIN LAY WITH his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.
19Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.
23Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.
24If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
25Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
5:1This is the written account of Adam’s line.
When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them “man.”
3When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh. 7And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29He named him Noah and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed.” 30After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
THIS SECTION CONTAINS the linear genealogies of Cain and of Seth. The long genealogy in Genesis 5 is that of the line of Seth. What becomes clear is that the human situation is degenerating, a factor that reaches its nadir in Genesis 6.
Arts of Civilization (4:17–22)
IN CAIN’S LINE we find record of the first building of a city as well as the earliest development of the arts of civilization. In Mesopotamian tradition the first city was Eridu. Consequently, some have attempted to construe verse 17 in such a way that Enoch names the city after his son Irad (whose name can easily be associated with Eridu). This is not impossible, but the present Hebrew text is an awkward way of saying such a thing. It is better to see Enoch as the one whose name the city bore. The arts of civilization include animal domestication, invention of musical instruments, and the development of metal technology. Archaeology has investigated each of these areas with the following results.1
Animal domestication. Raising livestock is the first stage in animal domestication, which involves human control of breeding, food supply, and territory. Sheep and goats were the first livestock to be domesticated, with the evidence extending back to the ninth millennium B.C. Larger cattle came later, and evidence for pig domestication began in the seventh millennium.
Musical instruments. Musical instruments were among the first inventions of early humans. In Egypt the earliest end-blown flutes date to the fourth millennium B.C. A number of harps and lyres as well as a pair of silver flutes were found in the royal cemetery at Ur dating to the early part of the third millennium. Flutes made of bone or pottery date back at least to the fourth millennium. Musical instruments provide entertainment as well as background rhythm for dances and ritual performances, such as processions or cultic dramas. Other than simple percussion instruments (drums and rattles), the most common instruments used in the ancient Near East were harps and lyres. Examples have been found in excavated tombs and painted on the walls of temples and palaces.
Ancient metal technology. Copper tools, weapons, and implements began to be smelted and forged in the fourth millennium B.C. Subsequently, alloys of copper, principally bronze, were introduced in the early third millennium as sources of tin were discovered outside the Near East and trade routes expanded to bring them to Egypt and Mesopotamia. Iron, a metal that requires much higher temperatures and skin bellows (portrayed in the Egyptian Beni-Hasan tomb paintings) to refine and work was the last to be introduced (toward the end of the second millennium B.C.). Hittite smiths were the first to exploit it; then the technology spread east and south. Meteorite iron was cold forged for centuries prior to its smelting. That would not represent as large an industry as the forging of terrestrial deposits, but it does explain early references to iron prior to the Iron Age.
These archaeological data cannot be linked with the information in this chapter about the line of Cain, and they do not provide any basis for chronological statements to be made. They only offer the information that is currently known about the development of these arts of civilization.
From a literary standpoint, the development of the arts of civilization in the ancient Near East was typically attributed to the gods. They were then introduced to the human race by the seven sages (Adapa being the first of them). In the Myth of Inanna and Enki, Inanna, the patron goddess of Uruk, attempts to procure the arts of civilization (identified by the Sumerian term, ME) from Enki, the lord of Eridu. Among the ninety-four ME mentioned in the text are offices such as kingship and priesthood; objects such as sword and quiver; actions such as running, kissing, and lovemaking; qualities such as heroism or dishonesty; and abstractions such as understanding and knowledge. But pertinent to this passage, the list also includes the craft of the coppersmith (along with other crafts), the resounding lute and the art of singing, and the sheepfold.2
Is there any significance to city-building and technological development being linked to the line of Cain? Perhaps no more than to demonstrate the time-honored maxim that necessity is the mother of invention. Because Cain and his family were forced to their extremities, they could only survive by means of human advancement. There is nothing to reflect rebellion here, only an indication that even Cain’s line continues to enjoy the blessing by subduing and ruling.
Lamech’s Boast (4:23–24)
THE MOST NOTABLE member of Cain’s descendants is boastful Lamech. The twenty-one words of his speech constitute what is often considered an example of earliest poetry.3 The parallelism makes it clear that a single incident of combat is the subject of the triumphant declaration, so that the “man” and the “young man” are one and the same.4 Since the beginning of various aspects of civilization is highlighted in this section, the exchange of blows perhaps marks the beginning of battle among humans. The sevenfold retribution attached to Cain is then associated with vengeance that takes place to right a wrong within a family, while the seventy-seven fold retribution is reflective of the escalated effects of warfare. When there are cities and technological advances, there are inevitably societal tensions that can easily erupt into war.
It is interesting that with all of the “beginnings” that are mentioned in this passage, there is no beginning of kingship. This is of special interest since in the records from the ancient Near East, kingship was one of the most important developments within civilization. In fact, city-building, multiple wives, and initiation of warfare—all present in this passage—are three of the elements most consistently associated with kings in the ancient Near Eastern literature. Adding to this is the startling realization that kings are mentioned nowhere in Genesis 1–11. In chapter 10 Nimrod is identified as a warrior and hunter and as having a kingdom, but he is not called a king. The Tower of Babel likewise has no king mentioned in charge of the project.5
This is much different from the ancient Near Eastern accounts of the development of civilization, which focus almost entirely on kings.6 These kings are seen in the positive role of the preservers of civilization. In Genesis 4, Lamech is most closely associated with typical actions linked with kingship, yet these are seen in negative terms. But the focus of the passage is personal rather than institutional, for kingship is not criticized or even mentioned. The text has moved from unrepentant Cain to defiant Lamech. Violence is glorified, and the mark of Cain no longer stands as a stigma of exile but as a badge of honor that brings protection equivalent to invulnerability. The human situation is degenerating.
Calling on the Name of the Lord (4:25–26)
IN THESE VERSES we encounter the first example of a literary device that is typical of the narrative style of Genesis. The text has followed the genealogical line of least interest first (here, the line of Cain) and now goes back to pick up the line that is of most significance. Once it does this, it is done with the unimportant line and does not pick it up again. The only beginning associated with the line of Seth is associated with religious practice.
Just as there is no implication that only Cain’s line had cities and the arts of civilization, so the text does not imply that only the line of Seth called on the name of the Lord. It is vague with regard to the time (cf. the disjunctive “then”) and subject of the verb (passive verb form with no subject or agent in sight). Therefore, unlike the advances connected to the line of Cain, this advance is not attributed to a particular individual.
What sort of advance is referred to here? The phrase “to call on the name of the LORD” is not unique. People call on the name of the Lord when they worship him at an altar (Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 26:25; 1 Kings 18:24; Ps. 116:17) or any other sacred spot (tamarisk, Gen. 21:33). They call on the name of the Lord for deliverance (2 Kings 5:11; Ps. 99:6; 116:4; Joel 2:32). Calling on his name involves proclaiming his reputation and attributes (Ex. 34:5–6; 1 Chron. 16:8; Ps. 105:1; Isa. 12:4; notice the parallel in many of these to “making known his deeds”). It is equated to taking hold of him (Isa. 64:6), aligning with his cause (Isa. 44:5–6), and acknowledging him as one’s God (Zech. 13:9).
When God calls on the name of someone, he appoints or designates that person for a particular role (Bezalel in Ex. 31:2; Cyrus in Isa. 45:3–4; stars in Isa. 40:26). When people call on the name of the Lord, this similarly constitutes a designation and recognition of Yahweh as God. This is the beginning of worship and shows that the development of civilization did not bring a total abandonment of the Lord. It can nevertheless be seen in contrast to the description of the situation at the end of the genealogies, when no one but Noah finds favor with God.
Genealogy (5:1–32)
ENOCH. Just as Lamech, the seventh from Adam in Cain’s line, was the focus of narrative attention, so Enoch, the seventh from Adam in Seth’s line, attracts attention. As a result of walking with God (a phrase expressing piety), he was “taken”—an alternative to dying, the stated fate of all the others in the genealogy. The text does not say where he was taken, a possible indication that the author did not profess to know. We can properly assume that he was believed to have been taken to a better place, for this fate was seen as a reward for his close relationship to God, but the text stops short of saying he went to heaven or to be with God. Heaven is the usual assumption, for taking someone prematurely to Sheol (even understood as a neutral netherworld) would not be seen as a positive act.
In the Mesopotamian lists of pre-Flood sages, the seventh in the list, Utuabzu, is said to have ascended to heaven. In the Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Shu, the god of the air, is instructed to take the king to heaven so that he does not die on earth. This simply represents the transition from mortality to immortality. Jewish writings after the time of the Old Testament offer extensive speculation about Enoch and portray him as an ancient source of revelation and apocalyptic visions (1, 2, 3 Enoch).
Names in the genealogies. Personal names serve as an important key to language, culture, and theology. The giving of names in the ancient world was a significant act. Often a name expressed hopes or blessings. The name was expected to play a role in the unfolding destiny of the individual and to take on additional significance and appropriateness throughout one’s life, though the direction of that appropriateness was impossible to foresee.
Most names in the ancient world make statements. That is, they are self-contained sentences. Many of these statements are about a deity. One can easily recognize a deity name in names such as Ashurbanipal, Nebuchadnezzar, or Ramesses. Anyone even casually familiar with the Bible has noticed how many Israelite names end in -iah or -el or start with Jeho- or El-. All of these represent Israel’s God. This type of name is called a theophoric name and affirms the nature of the deity, proclaims the attributes of the deity, or requests the blessing of the deity. As a result, a list of personal names often indicates the language of the speakers, the god(s) they worshiped, and their beliefs about deity.
The initial names in Genesis (Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Enosh) are all clearly Hebrew but are not theophoric. The only theophoric names in the genealogy in Genesis 5 (Mehujael, Methushael, and Mahalalel) feature the divine name El,7 which indicates a Semitic language setting. Indications of Mesopotamian (Akkadian) include the use of the term mutu, “man,” in Methushael and Methuselah. Most of the names can be explained using Hebrew etymologies. Current scholarly consensus accepts that Hebrew did not develop as a language until the first half of the second millennium B.C.,8 in which case it is logical to conclude that these are translations from a language used in earlier sources.
The most significant name in the list is Noah because of the reason given for the name: “He will comfort [nḥm] us in the labor and painful toil [ʿiṣṣabon9] of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed [ʾrr]” (5:29). This hope has been thought to find its complement in 8:21, where the Lord says, “Never again will I curse [qll] the ground because of man.” As discussed earlier, the root ʾrr expresses removing something or someone from the protection and favor of God (see p. 229). God is almost always the grammatical subject of this verb (in the exceptions the subject is a mediator on behalf of God, e.g., Balaam, who attempts to ʾrr Israel). God is never the object of this verb. In contrast, the root qll usually has people as the grammatical subject.10 The action involves invoking words of power against someone (e.g., Ex. 22:28). When the object is God, it is usually translated “blaspheme” (Lev. 24:11). When God is the subject of this verb, it involves taking punitive action against someone or something (only in Gen. 8:2111).
It may have been Lamech’s hope that Noah would somehow bring about the reversal of the curse (ʾrr), but the Flood’s destruction does not accomplish this end in that every intention of humanity was evil. Noah’s sacrifice, however, does result in God’s restraining himself from ever again cursing (qll) the ground. This is sufficient to accomplish rest (equilibrium, nwḥ, cf. Noah’s name), a condition described in 8:22, even if it does not accomplish comfort (nḥm) as Lamech had hoped (5:29). As a side note, it is intriguing that in the Flood accounts from Mesopotamia, the gods saw the Flood as a means by which they would receive rest for themselves.12
Long life spans. The long life spans have been a continual curiosity among Bible readers. But if these numbers sound incredible, the years attributed to the antediluvian Mesopotamian kings make Methuselah seem but an infant. In the Sumerian king list the shortest reign is 18,600 years, while the longest stretches to 43,200. Eight kings compile 241,200 years between them. This text uses the standard Sumerian sexagesimal system.13 If the notation is read with decimal values rather than sexagesimal values, the numbers are in the same range as the biblical numbers, and the totals of the lists are nearly identical.14
Have the numbers been misrepresented or misunderstood? Are they symbolic? Did the antediluvians simply live longer?15 There have been many attempts to account for the numbers through mathematical gymnastics, but none of the proposals has been able to provide a solution that encompasses all of the data. It is impossible to understand the numbers in terms of something other than base ten, both because base ten is the norm for Semitic civilizations (except Sumerian-based Akkadian) as far back as records are available, and because any other system results in men fathering children at age six or seven years old.16 The latter consequence also makes it impossible that a “year” represents a cycle of the moon rather than a cycle of the sun.
If, then, we accept the biblical account at face value, there are reasons one might expect long lives in the shadow of Eden. Whether one would speculate that the long lives testify to the gradual penetration of sin (and death) or to the enduring effect of Adam and Eve’s temporary (pre-Fall) diet from the tree of life, the accuracy of these numbers can be defended. Those who are more inclined to take them as symbolic must provide an explanation of how the numbers are operating on the symbolic level and how genealogies were understood by the biblical authors that allow us to consider a symbolic view as representing the face value of the text.
Bridging Contexts
COMPARISON OF LINES of Cain and Seth. The text never explicitly compares the lines of Cain and Seth; it merely juxtaposes the accounts of them. Some infer from this an implied comparison. Whether or not such a comparison exists depends on the degree to which the lines are seen as separated and stereotyped. That is, did the descendants intermarry? Was Cain’s line monolithic in its wickedness while Seth’s was distinctly godly?
The only elaboration with the Cainite line comes in connection to Lamech. The text portrays him first as a polygamist. Does it denounce his behavior? He is the father of those who brought the arts of civilization. Is that viewed negatively? Is his violence an indication of his own wickedness, the wickedness of the entire line, or simply a sign of how violent the world has become? Is Enoch’s godliness intended to make a statement about the Sethite line as a whole? How could such an assessment be sustained when only Enoch and Noah are singled out for their unique godliness?
I find it difficult to substantiate the idea that the text is juxtaposing a wicked line against a godly line. The penetration of sin is not just in one line but reaches throughout the human race. Both blessing and death find berth in both ancestral lines. There is no indication of an election of Seth’s line, and there is no statement of their overall faithfulness to God—with the exception of Enoch, who is presented exactly as that, an exception.
Purpose and function of genealogies. Genealogies represent continuity and relationship. Often in the ancient Near East they are used for purposes of power and prestige. Linear genealogies start at point A (e.g., creation of Adam and Eve) and end at point B (Noah and the Flood). Their intention is to bridge a gap between major events. Alternatively they can be vertical, tracing the descendants of a single family (Esau in 36:1–5, 9–43). In the case of linear genealogies, the actual amount of time represented by these successive generations does not seem as important as the sense of completion or adherence to a purpose (such as the blessing to be fertile and fill the earth). Vertical genealogies focus on establishing legitimacy for membership in the family or tribe (as in the case of the Levitical genealogies in Ezra 2).
Mesopotamian sources do not offer many genealogies, but most of those that are known are linear in nature. These are by and large either of royal or scribal families, and most are only three generations, with none more than twelve. Egyptian genealogies are primarily of priestly families and are likewise linear. They extend as long as seventeen generations but are not common until the first millennium B.C. Genealogies are often formatted to suit a literary purpose. So, for instance, the genealogies between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham (11:10–27) are each set up to contain ten members, with the last having three sons. Comparing biblical genealogies to one another shows that there are often several generations skipped in any particular presentation. This type of telescoping also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records. Thus, we need not think that the genealogy’s purpose is to represent every generation as our modern family trees attempt to do.
The Cain and Seth genealogies in Genesis share a number of similarities with the lists of antediluvian kings and sages (apkallu) in the Mesopotamian traditions.17 In both cases there are parallel lists (each king is accompanied by an apkallu), and the number seven is featured prominently in each. Both Genesis and the antediluvian traditions from Mesopotamia record the development of the arts of civilization. As mentioned above, the seventh apkallu ascends to heaven just as Enoch is taken. Nevertheless, differences need also to be recognized.
In addition to questions that may arise from literary studies in terms of identifying where genealogies may be found in Genesis 1–11 and where they begin and end, there is also the problem of attempting to compare what are primarily Ancient Near Eastern king lists with the genealogies. The differences in the form and function of these two collections of texts suggest that attempts to make comparisons proceed with caution and that the context of the texts themselves, within their particular literary and cultural world, be the controlling factor in interpretation.18
Above and beyond these comparisons, it is important to understand that the genealogies in Genesis preach a message that is the polar opposite to Mesopotamian thinking. In the Mesopotamian traditions, overpopulation was considered a major problem. As we saw in our discussion of Genesis 1:14–31, the Atrahasis Epic indicates that overpopulation contributed to the noise of humanity and brought on the Flood. Before the Flood was sent, the gods had tried several other means to try to reduce the population.19 In contrast, Genesis sees the burgeoning population as anticipated and planned by God and interpreted it as the most recognizable remnant of the original blessing given to humanity.
Blessing and curse. In my view, the main purpose for including the present section in Genesis is to track the blessing and curse. We see the blessing in generation after generation as people are fruitful and multiplying. But the countertheme resounds in each generation, “and then he died.” Likewise as people multiply, the sin problem multiplies. The advances in civilization may enhance the ability to procure food, but they do nothing to stem the tide of death and sin. Instead of the blessing resulting in subduing and ruling (which I interpreted as expanding sacred space), it is the curse that is spreading. Rather than conquering chaos and claiming it for sacred space, sacred space is gone, and chaos is rapidly infiltrating ever deeper with tendrils that penetrate and enfold everything they encounter.
This emphasis is highlighted in the conclusion of the passage when Noah’s name is given and explained. The painful awareness that people are living under the curse haunts the inexorable march of the blemished blessing. Birth and death march on, and the burden of the curse on the ground weighs heavily on a tired humanity looking for relief and equilibrium in an increasingly hostile world.
It should be noted that this understanding of Genesis 4–5 comes through a combination of contextual and comparative methods. Through the contextual information we can understand the way that this material contributes to the themes of blessing and curse. Through the comparative study we can see the contrasts and similarities that help us to understand the significance of genealogies in the ancient world and the unique ways that the Israelite understanding of population growth differed from other traditions.
Contemporary Significance
PARALLEL TRACKS OF good and evil. Why does God allow evil? This question has plagued philosophers of all cultures and all eras. We, no less than the antediluvians, are living under the curse, and the paradox of a God who extends blessing on the one hand but perpetuates the curse on the other is often baffling. The proliferation of evil seems always to surpass what feeble attempts are made to staunch its influence or reclaim sacred space. Good is often accompanied and tainted by evil.
These chapters illustrate how, from nearly the beginning, the conditions existed for good and evil to flourish in one another’s company. The influences of good (represented by the blessing) and of evil (represented by the curse) are so intertwined as at times to become inseparable. History is full of examples of this phenomenon. Biblical examples include individuals such as Solomon and Ahab, who were both successful in worldly terms but suffered from fatal flaws that ultimately undid them. Perhaps no one balances on the peak of contradiction as much as Herod the Great does. His reputation with Rome was such that he earned unprecedented freedom, and the building projects with which he beautified Jerusalem gained him respect throughout the Roman world and among the Jewish leaders and population, who were the beneficiaries of his largesse. Nevertheless, it was not healthy to be related to him. His paranoid protection of power led him to execute even those whom he appeared to have truly loved.
The period of the Reformation had many examples of the same sort of incongruity. Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), King Henry VIII (1491–1547), and Cardinal Richelieu (Prime Minister of France, 1624–1642) are all notable examples of those who were extremely successful politically and could boast of great accomplishments. Yet each was strikingly reprobate in his abuse of power and moral turpitude. In modern times one can even point to Adolf Hitler as a statesman who brought great prosperity and unity to Germany even as he engaged in senseless invasions, brutal repression, and finally attempted genocide.
Our modern U.S. history has also been torn by the contradictions in its leaders. We have had to cope with the philandering of the popular John F. Kennedy, the dishonesty of the master of foreign affairs, Richard Nixon, and the moral degradation of William Clinton (despite which his popularity rating continued to climb, due in no small part to the flourishing economy). We need also look beyond individuals to the fatal flaws that weaken our society. Democracy may arguably be the political system least vulnerable to corruption, but time reveals its susceptibility as evil finds its roots in the same soil of all that can be lauded. Freedom and rights are valuable ideals, but both can be pursued to extremes that make them frightful specters. Indeed, Chesterton has observed that “the modern world is full of the Old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.”20 Even our churches can be plagued with indecision as pastors or church leaders prove to be effective shepherds, yet at times are unwise or insensitive in the ways they conduct their lives and ministries.
Yet this is how God works in a fallen world. Since he has chosen not to eradicate a fallen race but to redeem it, he does his work in an imperfect context. Until the final blow is struck, evil will always find ways to pervert that which has the potential to do good and will prosper under the umbrella of protection created by the aura of that which is good.
Curse turned to blessing. Even as we realize that good is often haunted by evil, so we must recognize that God is able to turn curse to blessing. The most obvious and ubiquitous element of the curse is death, and the genealogies have shown us that death reigned. In contrast, the benefit of death is that it brings release from a cursed world. This is beautifully illustrated from the story of a Chinese saint whose husband had been put in prison in 1965 because of his Christian testimony. One morning God impressed on her that her husband was going to die. Her response was remarkable:
She got up early, sang songs, and had a happy face. Others [in the prison in which she was kept] felt this was strange, saying, “Why is this old lady so happy?” Afterwards, the prison authorities informed her that her husband had died, and she could come to get his body. She went, singing all the way, and got her husband’s body, still singing and laughing. The people who saw her thought she was crazy, or that she must have had a terrible relationship with her husband. But she answered them, “When a hen gathers her newly hatched chicks, she certainly won’t cry over the broken eggshells; she can only be happy for the chicks. Now my husband has left the shell of his body and has gone to the most beautiful place there is. Why shouldn’t I be happy?” The others silently acknowledged that she was right.21
Though we cling tenaciously to life, there is something better awaiting those with faith in Christ. Thus Paul reminds us that “to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Phil. 1:21) and that death has lost its sting (1 Cor. 15:55). Those of Adam’s race in Genesis did not have the comfort of this knowledge, but they did come to understand that the curse of the ground drives one to dependence on God. In this sense, both we and they can adopt the viewpoint that though sin has the ability to taint good with evil, our God is able to salvage a blessing from any curse.
This principle is illustrated by a study of the church in Communist China. Paul Kauffman, founder of Asian Outreach, reported in the early 1980s that
despite, or possibly because of, thirty years of widespread repression, persecution, and martyrdom, the Christian community in China is now many times larger than during the peak years of missionary endeavor. In fact, at no period of China’s ancient history have the Chinese people been so responsive to the Gospel.22
After the communist takeover of China in 1949, it took about a decade for the church to be brought fully under the control of the government. It does not take much imagination to view this as part of the curse of sin reflected in human governments. Churches were closed down, pastors were moved off into factories, farms, or prisons, and church leaders found themselves under accusation if they failed to cooperate with the government. Many wondered if Christianity could survive under such duress.
The second decade of communist rule saw continued suppression. State supervised churches remained open but had little opportunity to promote Christian ideals. Christians for the most part chose to meet in secret in small house churches as they began to gather together to encourage and comfort one another.
The open TSPM [Three-Self Patriotic Movement] churches could not do things according to the demands of Scripture, and the believers in the underground house churches could not do things openly according to their consciences. House church activities were considered illegal, and violators were prosecuted, which often resulted in long years of imprisonment, or back-breaking hard labor. Forbidden to have visitors, deprived of the privilege of Bible reading, and isolated from their friends and relatives, these saints suffered ten to twenty years of internment. However, what was meant for evil turned to good, as most learned to witness Christ to their fellow prisoners, which resulted in many secret prison fellowships.23
The situation was destined to get worse before it got better. The year 1966 brought the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which resulted in a crackdown on Christianity. Along with government offices and universities, churches were attacked, Christians arrested and persecuted, and Bibles and hymnals burned.
In Xiamen, southeast China, the Red Guards gathered all the Bibles that they could find, piled them up into a great heap in the public square, and set fire to them. Believers were rounded up and forced to kneel in front of that pillar of fire. In those days practically all Christians, including TSPM leaders, were attacked, publicly “struggled against,” and forced to parade the streets. Some of the believers were literally beaten to death. Others suffered permanent paralysis. Not a few house church leaders who propagated the Gospel were sent to labor camps. After the first wave of attack, all traces of visible Christian activity were removed from the face of Chinese society. All Christians had to go through the baptism of suffering and humiliation. For a while even clandestine house church activities were suspended. The church in China was dead and buried.24
How could blessing survive in the presence of curse? In the late 1970s, after the death of Mao, policies against the church were gradually relaxed. Political relations with the West improved little by little, and the stories of the survival of the church began to emerge from their decade of extreme persecution. Despite several significant backward moves in the 1980s, statistics compiled both internally and externally confirmed that Christianity in China had grown from about one million in 1949 to somewhere between fifty to sixty million in 1989, regularly meeting in perhaps as many as 150,000 gathering places.25 Blessing had indeed flourished in the shadow of curse. The sin of governmental repression had been turned to the beneficial advance of the gospel. In the words of the well-known Beijing pastor Wang Mingdao, who spent over twenty-three years in a communist prison, “The work that I did by staying in prison is greater than what I could have done by not being in prison.”26
Beyond the growth of the church, the cause of Christ was served by many of the improvements brought about by the communist government. In 1980 a report in the Far East Economic Review offered some interesting statistics:
In 1949 there were about 75,000 kilometers of serviceable roads in China. Today there are over 890,000 kilometers of roads for transportation. Thanks to Mao, the country is wired for radio. In 1949, China had 300 main languages and many minor dialects. Today, thanks to Mao, there is one major language: Mandarin. What the Romans and Greeks did for the New Testament church, Mao did for the twentieth-century church in China. There are few illustrations in the world today as vivid as China in explaining the fact that “surely the wrath of men shall praise You” (Ps. 76:10, NKJV).27
Technological advance. The past century and a half has been a time of industrial, technological, medical, and electronic revolution. This passage demonstrates what we all need often to be reminded of, that technology may be able to bring some relief from the curse, but there is no salvation from the curse to be found there. The same human tendency that instigated the ancients to think mistakenly that the arts of civilization proceeded from the gods deludes us into thinking that our advances of civilization are redemptive.
The human genome project has come to a conclusion with every link on the DNA chain having been mapped. The evening news daily offers astounding medical breakthroughs that offer hope against diseases that have long dangled their doom over our heads. Computerized diagnostics allows for earlier and earlier recognition and treatment of the scourges that plague us. Even if we could succeed in eliminating every disease from the record and eradicating all threats to our health, the world would still be fallen. Even if we could isolate the genetic triggers for aging and slow them down or reverse them, sin would not be eliminated. All of the advances that our technological world has to offer may make our lives easier and longer, but they cannot cure the human spirit.
C. S. Lewis puts all of this in perspective as he observes, “I care far more how humanity lives than how long. Progress, for me, means increasing goodness and happiness of individual lives. For the species, as for each man, mere longevity seems to me a contemptible ideal.”28 Technological advance, unfortunately, can do nothing to improve goodness and happiness or to undo the curse, yet God is capable of bringing blessing alongside the curse and cultivating good from evil.