Happily Ever After
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Genesis 4:26 NASB
To call upon – Everyone wants a fairytale, but we end up with stories. What’s the difference? In a fairytale, true love wins, evil spells are overcome and we live happily ever after. In stories the broken world is not reconciled, we suffer for things we did not do, we fall apart and miss the mark. In fairytales the world is the way we really want it to be. In stories the world comes as it is and we have to deal with it.
The Bible is a book of stories, not fairytales.
Why did men call on the name of the Lord, i.e., YHVH, at this time? Perhaps there is a clue in the son of Seth. His name is Enosh. The root of Enosh is ‘anash meaning weak or feeble. It is the word for “mortal,” as opposed to the word for “man.” Perhaps by the time Enosh is born men realize their mortality. After all, the story isn’t like our contemporary fiction. These men lived a very long time. Why should they imagine they would ultimate die of natural means? Punishment for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil doesn’t seem to have occurred, at least not in any noticeable way. But slowly men begin to see that death is a progressive detachment from life. It creeps up on you in ways you don’t expect. Broken relationships, broken promises, broken hopes—things that used to work that no longer work. Death comes by inches until one day we realize that everything is dying. In that day mortality takes center stage and we begin to cry out to the One Sovereign who may be able to undo the disaster. One day we wake up and realize that it isn’t going to be “happily every after.”
Maybe that’s why Genesis returns to us. az hoochai likro beshem YHVH. “At that time” or “Then began” the calling. What kind of calling was it? The Hebrew verb is qara’. It is primarily about a specific vocalization or message. It is usually addressed to a specific person and intended to receive a specific response. In other words, this is not simply a plaintive cry for help. This is not general woe, helpless moans or confused sobs. For all intents and purposes, qara’ is a technical term for specifically approaching God. This is an attempt to return to relationship with YHVH.
It took awhile. It took expulsion from the Garden, revenge motivated birth, fratricide, declarations of enormous ego, denial of God’s demands, and a host of destructive consequences, but at last men realized their intrinsic mortality and they turned to the Creator. It sounds like the beginning of a fairytale, doesn’t it? Starts good, goes bad, finds redemption, ends with bliss. Ah, but not quite. In the real story, the flood comes next. And everyone dies.
Where are you in the story? Living the fairytale or calling on the name YHVH?
Topical Index: call upon, qara’, Enosh, mortal, Genesis 4:26
Hmm, the first statement of true humility, which is the acknowledgement of What Is.
Seems every real encounter and every true relationship alike call for common ground. Even a genuine fight requires the same, for fights, after all, are about apples (or apple?); not apples on one side and oranges on another. The fight over who gets to determine what reality is – which, in one sense, is the fight about ultimate sovereignty – can be no different. The ability to choose seems to us to be the ability to determine what is, but I think it is not quite, for the choice to breathe is not quite the ability to breathe, now is it?
The young seem to still retain that same illusion; that sense of immortality. In my kids, it seems to be lasting until about their mid to late twenties, until one day they wake up and realize they’re mortal. Until then, it seems to not be a whole lot of use trying to talk to them, for they start out convinced that they are smarter, more able, and for goodness’ sake, certainly not OLD. Then one day, they wake up, and find that they are mortal. It is always a shock. The next thought: “I think I need to call Mom”! “Oh, hi”, I say. “Can we be friends now?” Ah, the common ground of What Is!
Some commentators of Torah are looking at this calling very differently, saying that this is the beginning of men being idolatrous. Up till Enosh people didn’t recognise even a possibility of being other than in state of awe before G-d. They knew His name very well and were not even able to pronounce it. Instead of YHWH we say Adonai or Hashem (the name). So did they, I suppose, therefore this verse indicates starting of something special, something new, what people didn’t do up till that time. Strange and different behavior, which ultimately leads to flood. But still very important event in the history of mankind! Men is the only part of creation, which can do what he is up to, even against G-d’s will! It is really amazing! B”H
~ We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him ~ (Romans 6.9)
Skip,
Strong’s identifies this word under H7121, and if we only look at those definitions, then your writing makes sense. However, within the first section of the definition in H7121, it says this word qara is identical to H7122. Looking at this definition, it includes: “…to encounter, whether accidentally or in a hostile manner…”.
For me, this makes more sense, for as you pointed out, the next story is The Flood (after the section of the generations/toldot of Adam). Why would YHVH, have to kill everyone off if they were turning to Him? And within the Flood narrative, it says that men’s hearts were only evil continually.
When we do look at the toldot, we see Enosh was about 800 years before Noah. Is it possible in the time of Enosh men were “turning to YHVH,” and then by the time of Noah their hearts were constantly evil? Yes. I guess we could say this is just another “story” of how man is still the same.
TWOT notes that there are TWO roots spelled this way. The first, the one I reference, is used in Gen 4:26, but the second is as below.
2064 קָרָא (qārāʾ) ll, encounter, against, befall. (ASV and RSV translate similarly, with the latter offering some improved renditions (Ex 5:20; I Sam 25:20.)
This root denotes a planned encounter wherein the subject intentionally confronts the object. It is a by-form of qārâ (q.v.). Compare the following synonyms: yāʿad “meet by appointment,” pāgaʿ “come or fall upon, reach to,” pāgaš “to meet, encounter” (of hostile or opposing subjects), māṣāʾ (a close cognate including reach, find), and nāgaš. Our word occurs 137 times (120 times as an infinitive with lamed).
This word can represent friendly encounters like that of a host rushing out to meet a prospective guest (Gen 18:2; Jud 4:18), or going out to meet someone in order to recognize or gain (II Sam 19:15 [H 16]) him as an ally (cf. Josh 9:11; II Kgs 10:15; Ps 59:4 [H 5]). Such meetings are purposeful and intentional. In the cultic use the subject confronts the divine (Ex 5:3; 19:17; Num 23:3).
Coppes, L. J. (1999). 2064 קָרָא. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (811). Chicago: Moody Press.
Thanks for the clarification! We tend to read the Bible and gloss over the fact that Gen 4:26, is talking about Enosh, and the Flood narrative in Gen 6, is approx. 800 years later. So, my last paragraph above is a better understanding and is more in line with your TW. I will have to change the notes in my Bible — and that won’t be the first time!
I also heard it taught that it was a call of defiance.
Does this have something to do with the two creations?
I doubt it. That theory is rather recent.
You can have the fairy tale. Illusions. Delusions. I’ll take YHVH and Yeshua any day, over anyone or anything. Well maybe that is easier said than done. But, I’m certainly going to give it my best shot. What can compare with having the Spirit breathed back into very dry bones?
One other thought in terms of fairy tales…
I had a pastor preach that the OT was nothing more than stories with a moral point. Considering most in the “Church” are mired in a Greek mindset, this is nothing more than turning God’s Word into Aesop’s fables.
the invention of allegory was a major blow to accurate and practical biblical exhortation, but a useful tool for reinterpreting the text according to a preconceived paradigm. Your pastor is just following a long tradition of avoiding the plain meaning because he doesn’t like it.
We could talk about what happens after the flood and how this flood story differs from other flood stories. The first covenant between God and all living creatures.
Skip, this verse is a ‘puzzlement’. 🙂 You have TWd this verse before.
In Hebrew ‘began’ is חָלַל chalal
The KJV translates Strongs H2490 in the following manner: begin (52x), profane (36x), pollute (23x), defile (9x), break (4x), wounded (3x), eat (2x), slay (2x), first (1x), gather grapes (1x), inheritance (1x), began men (1x), piped (1x), players (1x), prostitute (1x), sorrow (1x), stain (1x), eat as common things (1x).
Shouldn’t this verse mean- men was at that period profaning, defiling, and so forth, the Name YHWH? Therefor, came the flood thereafter?
I so believe in “happily every after” when our tears will be wiped off our faces!
Shalom!
refer to TWOT #661 to see the derivative meaning “begin.” But your point is well taken. As a verb perhaps we should use the meaning “to defile, to profane.” The context could go either way, but the connection with the Flood is instructive.
Thank you, Skip. You have solved my ‘puzzlement’. :- )
Appreciate your time and reply. Shalom!