CHAPTERVII.FROM THE FALL TO THE FLOOD.1.Notes on special passages.InGen.4: 1 our English version stands—“I have gotten a manfromthe Lord.” Some critics construe these words of Eve to mean—By the help or blessing of the Lord; but the more direct and obvious sense of the original is this: “I have gotten a man, the Lord”—as if she assumed that this, her first-born son, was really the promised divine “seed of the woman” who was to bruise the serpent’s head. The current objection to this construction is that it is too far in advance of Eve’s theology:—to which however the obvious reply is—Who knows how far advanced Eve’s theology may have been? Her imagination may have outrun the actual revelation at that point made. All we can say is that these words are recorded as indicating her thought, and that this is the most natural sense of her words.In the Lord’s expostulation with Cain (4: 6, 7) we read: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” but better—Would there not be an elevation—i. e.of countenance, a cheerfullooking up, instead of that fallen, sullen look spoken of in the previous verse.——“And if thou doest not well, sin lies crouching at the door”—sin being personified and thought of as some animal, perhaps the serpent, ready to allure him on to deeper, more damning crime: “Andits(nothis) desire is toward thee”—its Satanic purpose is to ensnare and ruin thee: “but thou shouldst rule over it”—in the sense of mastering its temptations, commanding them down and ruling them out from thine heart.The speech or rather song of Lamech to his two wives (4: 23, 24) must be assumed to have a close connection with the occupation and skill of Tubal-Cain, “a workman in brass and iron.” Consciously strong and boldly overbearing in view of this new invention and production of death-weapons, he proudly sings: “I haveslain (or could slay) a man for wounding me—a young man—for any hurt inflicted upon me; and” (there being in this case some real provocation; Cain had none) “if Cain would be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven.” The lenity shown to Cain was bringing forth its fruits; the invention of improved death-weapons was also contributing to fill the earth with bloody violence.——These little facts indicate the state of society which culminated in so filling the earth with violence that God was compelled to wash out its blood-stains and its degenerate race with the flood.2.Abel’s offering, and the origin of sacrifices.Abel kept sheep; Cain tilled the ground. “In process of time” (Heb.“at the end of days”)—the stated time for worshiping God with offerings—Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground”—an unbloody offering: Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat.” The reference to their “fat” proves that these animals, lambs of the fold, were slain in sacrifice.——The record informs us that God looked with favor upon Abel’s offering, but not upon Cain’s. It does not concern us to knowhowGod signified his approval of Abel’s sacrifice, whether by fire from heaven consuming it, or otherwise; but it does concern us to ascertain if we canwhyhe approved it.We have some rays of light on this point from the writer to the Hebrews who says: “By faithAbel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.” Now the simplest idea of faith, the one element always present in it, isbowing to God’s authority with implicit confidence in his word. But in this case bowing to God’s authority implies that God had given some word in reference to bloody sacrifices—the offering of a lamb by shedding its blood upon the altar. And if God had given any such word of command, it is certainly to be presumed that he had also given at least this general idea, that the blood of the innocent lamb took, in some sense, the place of the blood of the guilty offerer, so that the sacrifice would imply the confession of guilt, and also faith in a bloody substitute of the Lord’s own providing.——Prosecuting our investigations we find this broad fact of history bearing on thecase,viz.that Noah, Abraham and Isaac built altars wherever they were sojourning and offered bloody sacrifices thereon. Further, God directed Noah to preserve in the ark clean animals by sevens, but animals not clean only in pairs—two of a species—a fact which can not be reasonably accounted for save with reference to their customary use in sacrifice. We have then before us the well-established fact of the early custom of bloody animal sacrifices.How came this custom into existence?It did not originatewith men—certainly not withgood men. Apart from divine suggestion, they could not have supposed that the slaughter of an innocent animal would be pleasing to God. The presumption would be utterly against this. They could not have thought out the divine idea of atonement for sin by the death of Christ, God’s own incarnate Son: the very supposition is absurd, for it supposes that men were able to sound the infinite depths of God’s wisdom and of his love, and to grasp the relations and bearings of his vast moral government with a reach of thought, not human but divine. Yet further; it is not supposable that, having excogitated and discovered the grand idea of atonement, they could have devised the plan of prefiguring this atonement by the bloody sacrifice of the most innocent, harmless and lovely of the animal races.——And further, if they could have thought out this miracle of God’s wisdom and love—both the divine idea of atonement, and the expediency of illustrating it for ages by a foreshadowing system of bloody sacrifices—it would still have been the height of presumption in them to have started this system of sacrifices without God’s special and sanctioning appointment.We are therefore shut up to this alternative: Either the whole system of altars and bloody sacrifices, as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham and Isaac, was an unmeaning farce—a thing of no significance, a mere amusement or fancy, meaning nothing and good for nothing; or, God himself originated the system and enjoined it, and these good men were observing it in obedience to special revelation from God.——Here it will be readily seen that the first side of this alternative is perfectly precluded by the fact that God approved theirsacrifices. God “had respect to the offering of Abel.” He “smelled a sweet savor” in the sacrifices offered by Noah (Gen.8: 20, 21.) The other alternative therefore,viz.that bloody sacrifices originated in a direct revelation from God—is the only supposition left us. We must adopt it.It can not be necessary to draw out an argument to prove that in instituting this system of bloody sacrifices God gave his people some notion of its significance. The whole record shows that he was on most familiar terms with them and therefore can not be supposed to have left a point of so much importance utterly blank. It is not too much to say that unless some light were thrown by the Lord himself upon the meaning and purpose of these bloody offerings, the command to make them would require some apology; for apart from their expiatory significance, they are most revolting to even human benevolence—most foreign to all just notions of what is due treatment of innocent lambs, bullocks and doves from our hand. It should also be considered that their moral value depends on their significance. All these bloody sacrifices must have been practically valueless unless their expiatory significance was in some good degree understood. That God ordained them for the sake of their moral value, who can for a moment doubt?——The conclusion, therefore, seems inevitable that God not only enjoined these bloody sacrifices, but gave his people to understand in general their significance to the extent of fulfilling that unconscious prophecy of Abraham (Gen.22: 8): “My son, God will provide for himself a lamb for a burnt-offering.”These views, if just, are of vast historic value as showinghow muchGod taught his people at that earliest day, pertaining to his great thoughts of redemption for a lost race.3.The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age.(1.) It may be regarded as God’s experiment of a very long life-probation for man. Of course this experiment is not to be thought of as made to satisfy himself as to its wisdom, but to satisfy created finite minds in this and in every other world. In a case where issues so momentous were pending on the results, it must be vital to the honor of Jehovah before all created mindsthat he should fix the average period of human probation in this earthly life at the best possible point. If he had begun with the same average limit which has obtained since the days of Moses (three-score years and ten), he must have anticipated the general impression that this is much too short for the decision of destinies so vast as the welfare of an immortal existence. It was therefore eminently wise that God should begin (as we see that he did) with a much longer, even a tenfold longer average life-period.——This very long life, moreover, carried with it an extraordinary physical vigor, apparently a very great exemption from sickness, frailty, suffering, save as induced by the violent and murderous passions of man toward his fellows. The discipline of suffering seems to have been at its minimum for all human history. The experiment of almost unimpaired physical well-being was afforded the freest scope for its manifestation.What was the result? The words of Solomon express it well: “Because vengeance against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl.8: 11). The mass of those generations sunk down morally to the lowest point possible, short of a general and promiscuous destruction. “All flesh had corrupted its way.” “Every imagination of the thought of man’s heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was filled with violence.” Human life had no sacredness; society, no safeguard; murderous passions, no restraint. The race were fast becoming too corrupt to live. If the Lord had not swept them by a flood, the earth would fain have opened her jaws to swallow them from the face of the sun.(2.) This social and moral degeneracy becomes a very instructive lesson for all time upon the results of the non-punishment of murder. It was doubtless wise for God to begin as he did with Cain; but it was not wise to continue that policy after such results had been brought out before both this world and the whole intelligent universe. What men socially related must needs do for their mutual protection in order not merely to make society a blessing but to make the existence of men in society a possibility, was precisely the problem to be solved; and to its solution this first period of human life—the antediluvian age—was definitelyadapted. It brought out the solution perfectly. No other experiment can ever be necessary. When the race started anew after the flood, the Lord advanced to the true doctrine and enjoined on social man the solemn duty of shielding human life by taking the murderer’s blood. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen.9: 6). This was one step of manifestprogressin the revelation of God’s will as to the responsibility and duty of men in their social and governmental relations. It was progress in the origination of society—progress built on the great lessons of human history.(3.) Here are also lessons of faith and of heroic virtue in the godly lives of the small and it would seem constantly diminishing group of pious men living among the multitudes of the ungodly. Here was Enoch, “the seventh from Adam,” who preached a righteous God and a coming judgment to a hardened generation, but seems to have met with only resistance, to the extent apparently of relentless persecution. The remark of the apostle (Heb.11: 5)—“He was notfoundbecause God had translated him,” may perhaps imply that his enemies sought him for purposes of bloody violence, from which the Lord took him away in his chariot of fire by translation to heaven!——Here too was Noah, also “a preacher of righteousness,” who “walked with God”—and was warned by him of the impending deluge of waters. He warned his fellow men of their threatened doom, but warned them only in vain. “They ate, they drank; they bought, they sold;” they revelled and scoffed—till the day that Noah entered into the ark—no longer!——But we speak now of the example of Noah’s faith in God. He saw no portents in the sky; heard no muttering thunders in the distant heavens; yet he held on year after year till the ark was ready—himself preaching and warning; fearlessly and heroically witnessing by his labors upon the ark to his positive faith in the forewarnings of God. Thus his faith rebuked the godless unbelief of his generation, and testifies to us of the wisdom and blessedness of taking God at his word and of adjusting our life to his command, though in the face of a scoffing world.(4.) Yet another point in this cluster of great moral lessons is indicated for us by Peter (2 Pet.2: 4–9);“For if God spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly:—the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to preserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” That awful word,retribution, gathers into itself the fearful significance of these stupendous events. They are God’s foregoing judgments, brought out in this world to foreshadow the sorer visitations of that coming day when God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, good or evil. God surely does take note of the sins of men, how long soever he may stay his uplifted hand and delay to smite. If wicked men were wisethey would believe God’s words of warning, and take care not to live over again the life of that doomed generation and meet a final judgment more awful even than theirs!(5.) Let us not fail to notice those wonderful and beautiful ways of God with his children, coming down in such condescending and most familiar communion, talking with them apparently almost as man talks with his dearest friend; and this not in Paradise only before the fall, but after the fall scarcely less; and onward as the narrative indicates in the case of Enoch and of Noah. What more could he have done to reveal apersonal Godto mortals? Surely the God who thus revealed himself in the fresh morning of our race is no dim abstraction, no impersonal Nature or Essence, diffused and diffusible throughout space, the ideal soul of all matter. This effort to dispose of a God with whom it is man’s privilege to walk in positive personal communion, but who also takes cognizance of man’s iniquity, and to transmute him into an empty, forceless ideality, finds not the least countenance in these earliest manifestations of himself to our race. Note how he dwells with men; how he walks with them and lets them walk with him! What is this but free and loving communion? What less can it imply than just what the narrative of man’s creation witnesseth,viz.that God “made manin his own image”—capable therefore of real and most intimate communion of spirit with his Maker? This lesson is written all the way through the Bible. It stands out here with beautiful prominence in this first great chapter of God’s revelation of himself to man.
1.Notes on special passages.
InGen.4: 1 our English version stands—“I have gotten a manfromthe Lord.” Some critics construe these words of Eve to mean—By the help or blessing of the Lord; but the more direct and obvious sense of the original is this: “I have gotten a man, the Lord”—as if she assumed that this, her first-born son, was really the promised divine “seed of the woman” who was to bruise the serpent’s head. The current objection to this construction is that it is too far in advance of Eve’s theology:—to which however the obvious reply is—Who knows how far advanced Eve’s theology may have been? Her imagination may have outrun the actual revelation at that point made. All we can say is that these words are recorded as indicating her thought, and that this is the most natural sense of her words.
In the Lord’s expostulation with Cain (4: 6, 7) we read: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” but better—Would there not be an elevation—i. e.of countenance, a cheerfullooking up, instead of that fallen, sullen look spoken of in the previous verse.——“And if thou doest not well, sin lies crouching at the door”—sin being personified and thought of as some animal, perhaps the serpent, ready to allure him on to deeper, more damning crime: “Andits(nothis) desire is toward thee”—its Satanic purpose is to ensnare and ruin thee: “but thou shouldst rule over it”—in the sense of mastering its temptations, commanding them down and ruling them out from thine heart.
The speech or rather song of Lamech to his two wives (4: 23, 24) must be assumed to have a close connection with the occupation and skill of Tubal-Cain, “a workman in brass and iron.” Consciously strong and boldly overbearing in view of this new invention and production of death-weapons, he proudly sings: “I haveslain (or could slay) a man for wounding me—a young man—for any hurt inflicted upon me; and” (there being in this case some real provocation; Cain had none) “if Cain would be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and seven.” The lenity shown to Cain was bringing forth its fruits; the invention of improved death-weapons was also contributing to fill the earth with bloody violence.——These little facts indicate the state of society which culminated in so filling the earth with violence that God was compelled to wash out its blood-stains and its degenerate race with the flood.
2.Abel’s offering, and the origin of sacrifices.
Abel kept sheep; Cain tilled the ground. “In process of time” (Heb.“at the end of days”)—the stated time for worshiping God with offerings—Cain “brought of the fruit of the ground”—an unbloody offering: Abel “brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat.” The reference to their “fat” proves that these animals, lambs of the fold, were slain in sacrifice.——The record informs us that God looked with favor upon Abel’s offering, but not upon Cain’s. It does not concern us to knowhowGod signified his approval of Abel’s sacrifice, whether by fire from heaven consuming it, or otherwise; but it does concern us to ascertain if we canwhyhe approved it.
We have some rays of light on this point from the writer to the Hebrews who says: “By faithAbel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts.” Now the simplest idea of faith, the one element always present in it, isbowing to God’s authority with implicit confidence in his word. But in this case bowing to God’s authority implies that God had given some word in reference to bloody sacrifices—the offering of a lamb by shedding its blood upon the altar. And if God had given any such word of command, it is certainly to be presumed that he had also given at least this general idea, that the blood of the innocent lamb took, in some sense, the place of the blood of the guilty offerer, so that the sacrifice would imply the confession of guilt, and also faith in a bloody substitute of the Lord’s own providing.——Prosecuting our investigations we find this broad fact of history bearing on thecase,viz.that Noah, Abraham and Isaac built altars wherever they were sojourning and offered bloody sacrifices thereon. Further, God directed Noah to preserve in the ark clean animals by sevens, but animals not clean only in pairs—two of a species—a fact which can not be reasonably accounted for save with reference to their customary use in sacrifice. We have then before us the well-established fact of the early custom of bloody animal sacrifices.
How came this custom into existence?
It did not originatewith men—certainly not withgood men. Apart from divine suggestion, they could not have supposed that the slaughter of an innocent animal would be pleasing to God. The presumption would be utterly against this. They could not have thought out the divine idea of atonement for sin by the death of Christ, God’s own incarnate Son: the very supposition is absurd, for it supposes that men were able to sound the infinite depths of God’s wisdom and of his love, and to grasp the relations and bearings of his vast moral government with a reach of thought, not human but divine. Yet further; it is not supposable that, having excogitated and discovered the grand idea of atonement, they could have devised the plan of prefiguring this atonement by the bloody sacrifice of the most innocent, harmless and lovely of the animal races.——And further, if they could have thought out this miracle of God’s wisdom and love—both the divine idea of atonement, and the expediency of illustrating it for ages by a foreshadowing system of bloody sacrifices—it would still have been the height of presumption in them to have started this system of sacrifices without God’s special and sanctioning appointment.
We are therefore shut up to this alternative: Either the whole system of altars and bloody sacrifices, as practiced by Abel, Noah, Abraham and Isaac, was an unmeaning farce—a thing of no significance, a mere amusement or fancy, meaning nothing and good for nothing; or, God himself originated the system and enjoined it, and these good men were observing it in obedience to special revelation from God.——Here it will be readily seen that the first side of this alternative is perfectly precluded by the fact that God approved theirsacrifices. God “had respect to the offering of Abel.” He “smelled a sweet savor” in the sacrifices offered by Noah (Gen.8: 20, 21.) The other alternative therefore,viz.that bloody sacrifices originated in a direct revelation from God—is the only supposition left us. We must adopt it.
It can not be necessary to draw out an argument to prove that in instituting this system of bloody sacrifices God gave his people some notion of its significance. The whole record shows that he was on most familiar terms with them and therefore can not be supposed to have left a point of so much importance utterly blank. It is not too much to say that unless some light were thrown by the Lord himself upon the meaning and purpose of these bloody offerings, the command to make them would require some apology; for apart from their expiatory significance, they are most revolting to even human benevolence—most foreign to all just notions of what is due treatment of innocent lambs, bullocks and doves from our hand. It should also be considered that their moral value depends on their significance. All these bloody sacrifices must have been practically valueless unless their expiatory significance was in some good degree understood. That God ordained them for the sake of their moral value, who can for a moment doubt?——The conclusion, therefore, seems inevitable that God not only enjoined these bloody sacrifices, but gave his people to understand in general their significance to the extent of fulfilling that unconscious prophecy of Abraham (Gen.22: 8): “My son, God will provide for himself a lamb for a burnt-offering.”
These views, if just, are of vast historic value as showinghow muchGod taught his people at that earliest day, pertaining to his great thoughts of redemption for a lost race.
3.The great moral lessons of the antediluvian age.
(1.) It may be regarded as God’s experiment of a very long life-probation for man. Of course this experiment is not to be thought of as made to satisfy himself as to its wisdom, but to satisfy created finite minds in this and in every other world. In a case where issues so momentous were pending on the results, it must be vital to the honor of Jehovah before all created mindsthat he should fix the average period of human probation in this earthly life at the best possible point. If he had begun with the same average limit which has obtained since the days of Moses (three-score years and ten), he must have anticipated the general impression that this is much too short for the decision of destinies so vast as the welfare of an immortal existence. It was therefore eminently wise that God should begin (as we see that he did) with a much longer, even a tenfold longer average life-period.——This very long life, moreover, carried with it an extraordinary physical vigor, apparently a very great exemption from sickness, frailty, suffering, save as induced by the violent and murderous passions of man toward his fellows. The discipline of suffering seems to have been at its minimum for all human history. The experiment of almost unimpaired physical well-being was afforded the freest scope for its manifestation.
What was the result? The words of Solomon express it well: “Because vengeance against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil” (Eccl.8: 11). The mass of those generations sunk down morally to the lowest point possible, short of a general and promiscuous destruction. “All flesh had corrupted its way.” “Every imagination of the thought of man’s heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was filled with violence.” Human life had no sacredness; society, no safeguard; murderous passions, no restraint. The race were fast becoming too corrupt to live. If the Lord had not swept them by a flood, the earth would fain have opened her jaws to swallow them from the face of the sun.
(2.) This social and moral degeneracy becomes a very instructive lesson for all time upon the results of the non-punishment of murder. It was doubtless wise for God to begin as he did with Cain; but it was not wise to continue that policy after such results had been brought out before both this world and the whole intelligent universe. What men socially related must needs do for their mutual protection in order not merely to make society a blessing but to make the existence of men in society a possibility, was precisely the problem to be solved; and to its solution this first period of human life—the antediluvian age—was definitelyadapted. It brought out the solution perfectly. No other experiment can ever be necessary. When the race started anew after the flood, the Lord advanced to the true doctrine and enjoined on social man the solemn duty of shielding human life by taking the murderer’s blood. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen.9: 6). This was one step of manifestprogressin the revelation of God’s will as to the responsibility and duty of men in their social and governmental relations. It was progress in the origination of society—progress built on the great lessons of human history.
(3.) Here are also lessons of faith and of heroic virtue in the godly lives of the small and it would seem constantly diminishing group of pious men living among the multitudes of the ungodly. Here was Enoch, “the seventh from Adam,” who preached a righteous God and a coming judgment to a hardened generation, but seems to have met with only resistance, to the extent apparently of relentless persecution. The remark of the apostle (Heb.11: 5)—“He was notfoundbecause God had translated him,” may perhaps imply that his enemies sought him for purposes of bloody violence, from which the Lord took him away in his chariot of fire by translation to heaven!——Here too was Noah, also “a preacher of righteousness,” who “walked with God”—and was warned by him of the impending deluge of waters. He warned his fellow men of their threatened doom, but warned them only in vain. “They ate, they drank; they bought, they sold;” they revelled and scoffed—till the day that Noah entered into the ark—no longer!——But we speak now of the example of Noah’s faith in God. He saw no portents in the sky; heard no muttering thunders in the distant heavens; yet he held on year after year till the ark was ready—himself preaching and warning; fearlessly and heroically witnessing by his labors upon the ark to his positive faith in the forewarnings of God. Thus his faith rebuked the godless unbelief of his generation, and testifies to us of the wisdom and blessedness of taking God at his word and of adjusting our life to his command, though in the face of a scoffing world.
(4.) Yet another point in this cluster of great moral lessons is indicated for us by Peter (2 Pet.2: 4–9);“For if God spared not the old world, but saved Noah, the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly:—the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to preserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.” That awful word,retribution, gathers into itself the fearful significance of these stupendous events. They are God’s foregoing judgments, brought out in this world to foreshadow the sorer visitations of that coming day when God shall bring every work into judgment with every secret thing, good or evil. God surely does take note of the sins of men, how long soever he may stay his uplifted hand and delay to smite. If wicked men were wisethey would believe God’s words of warning, and take care not to live over again the life of that doomed generation and meet a final judgment more awful even than theirs!
(5.) Let us not fail to notice those wonderful and beautiful ways of God with his children, coming down in such condescending and most familiar communion, talking with them apparently almost as man talks with his dearest friend; and this not in Paradise only before the fall, but after the fall scarcely less; and onward as the narrative indicates in the case of Enoch and of Noah. What more could he have done to reveal apersonal Godto mortals? Surely the God who thus revealed himself in the fresh morning of our race is no dim abstraction, no impersonal Nature or Essence, diffused and diffusible throughout space, the ideal soul of all matter. This effort to dispose of a God with whom it is man’s privilege to walk in positive personal communion, but who also takes cognizance of man’s iniquity, and to transmute him into an empty, forceless ideality, finds not the least countenance in these earliest manifestations of himself to our race. Note how he dwells with men; how he walks with them and lets them walk with him! What is this but free and loving communion? What less can it imply than just what the narrative of man’s creation witnesseth,viz.that God “made manin his own image”—capable therefore of real and most intimate communion of spirit with his Maker? This lesson is written all the way through the Bible. It stands out here with beautiful prominence in this first great chapter of God’s revelation of himself to man.
CHAPTERVIII.THE FLOOD.1. FIRST, let us note itsmoral cause—the reason why God swept off the living from the face of the earth by a deluge of waters.——It was essential to the moral results which God sought that this reason should be given very definitely. So we find it given (Gen.6: 5–13): “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with violence.” These points are reiterated in most distinct and emphatic terms, showing that, outside of the household of Noah, the whole living race had deeply apostatized from God and were boldly and even defiantly irreligious. Eliphaz in Job (22: 15–17) gives the tradition current in his time, thus: “Who said unto God, ‘Depart from us,’ and, ‘What can the Almighty do for them’”—i. e.for Noah and his godly associates? Despite the words of Noah who bore to them God’s awful forewarnings and preached the righteousness of repentance, they pressed on in their sins unmoved and reckless—“till mercy reached its bound and turned to vengeance there”! It was a whole generation hopelessly corrupt, daring the Almighty to make good his awful words of warning! The result is on record that all sinners of every age, tempted to like hardihood and defiance of God, may study it with profound consideration.2. Theantecedent occasionsof this deep apostasy from God as given in the narrative, next demand our attention. They are(1.)The pious families intermarry with the godless.——(2.)The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is withdrawn.(1.) “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.” The “sons of God” were his professed children of the godly race of Seth, Enos and Enoch. The “daughters of men” were of the Cainites, culturedprobably in music (Gen.4: 21); attractive in person, fascinating in manners—but alas, all corrupt in heart as toward God!——The Jews have a tradition that these “sons of God” were fallen angels, once first-born sons of God, who by intermarriage with man’s fair daughters, intensified this fearful corruption of the race. This tradition we must reject for the following as well as other reasons:(a.) Nothing is said here about angels. The record gives us no word which legitimately designates angels—least of all, the fallen angels.(b.) According to the Scriptures, angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” The tradition is therefore not onlywithoutScripture authority butagainstit.(c.) If this extreme demoralization had been caused by the marriage connection of fallen angels with the daughters of men, those angels should certainly have come in for their share of the visible retribution. God gave Satan his share of the curse for his agency in the first great sin. The same justice would have made the fallen angels visibly prominent under this curse of the flood.——Either of these reasons singly would be sufficient ground for rejecting this tradition; much more must they suffice, combined.(2.) The withdrawal of the divine Spirit is the second assigned antecedent of this fatal degeneracy. In our English version we read—“And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’”——As to the meaning of “My Spirit,” we must reject the sense—animal life—that which God breathed into man to make him “a living soul” (Gen.2: 7), as being incongruous with the verb “strive”: also the sense—rational soul—that which makes man a rational being; and must accept the sense so amply sustained by Scripture usage—the divine Spirit, sent by Christ to transform human hearts.——Theword “strive” to translate the Hebrewverb22is not bad. We must reject the construction of some of the old versions,dwell, as not in the original, and as too tame: also the turn given it by Gesenius—to be humiliated, put down—as not borne out well by the original; and say that theverb is currently used of judicial transactions—searching out, convincing, convicting; and seems to have a striking analogy in that leading word given us by Christ; “When he is come, he shallreprovethe world”—enforce conviction upon the world—as to sin and righteousness.The next clause is more difficult and perhaps more controverted: “For that he also is flesh.” Why is the word “also” here? And what is the logic indicated by “for that”? Can it mean that God withdraws his Spirit because man ishuman—with a body of “flesh”? Our translators separated the main Hebrew word into three—the preposition meaningin, the relative written elliptically, and the particle meaningalso. The construction of Fuerst is better—“In their wandering, he is flesh,”i. e.their degeneracy has brought flesh completely into the ascendant: warring against the spirit, the flesh is absolute victor in the fight. Henceforth all further conflict is hopeless. Hence God may righteously say—nay must in honor to himself say—My Spirit shall not plead my cause in man forever. He is utterly gone over to the flesh, and nothing remains but that he must perish.One hundred and twenty years of mercifulrespite23for patient warning and exhaustive trial must suffice:—then, if no penitence appear, judgment must fall, and that without remedy!——Thus God places on record the moral causes and antecedents of this fearful visitation, that its moral lessons may go down to distant ages for their admonition to the end of time.The hour of doom draws nigh. The Lord gave Noah definite notice to enter his ark (7: 1) and allowed him seven days time (7: 4) to gather in all whom the ark was provided to save. Then “the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.” Of small avail for safety then was the gigantic frame of the giants of those days or the defiant heart of unbelieving scoffers!It is scarcely needful to speak of the physical meanswhich God employed to produce this flood. The agencies which appear in the volcano and in the earthquake and which God holds imprisoned at no great depth below the earth’s surface, are all-sufficient for these results. We may suppose that they lifted the bed of the adjacent seas, upheaving their waters into the atmosphere to descend in torrents of rain, and sinking for the time the inhabited lands—and the work is done. Such alternate upheavals and depressions are, we may say, chronic to the crust of the earth. The ancient records of geology bear this testimony. It was not strange therefore but was merciful that God should allay human fears by his promise to drown the earth no more. His bow in the cloud, seen when the sun shone forth after the shower, became by God’s special appointment the sign and pledge of this covenant.——I see no good reason to suppose that the rainbow never existed before. It must have existed by the laws of nature, unless those laws were greatly changed at the flood—a change which should not be assumed without sufficient reason. No such reasons are apparent. It is better therefore to construe the promise—The well known bow in the cloud I give and ordain to be my sign and pledge that the earth shall be deluged with water no more.——Beautiful symbol, kindly and lovingly ordained; and as we look upon it, delighted with both its beauty and its significance, let it heighten our joy that God says of himself, “I will look upon it and remember my covenant.”Was this flood universal?1. Was it universalgeographically, overspreading the entire globe?2. Was it universal as to allliving men, leaving absolutely none alive on the face of all the earth, except those in the ark?1. That the deluge was of limited extent geographically, and not universal, may be fairly assumed on the following grounds:(1.) The moral reasons for a deluge do not seem to require it to be universal, since obviously that corrupt generation whose sins demanded such a judgment did not overspread all the continents and lands of theglobe, but appear to have been confined within a quite limited area in Western Asia.(2.) While on the one hand we may not limit the miraculous power of the Almighty; on the other hand, it is not legitimate to assume an expenditure of miraculous power indefinitely beyond what the occasion demands.——This objection is designed to apply, not specially to the supply of water requisite to flood the whole earth at once, for there is water enough in the oceans and seas to submerge the continents, provided only that the ocean beds be temporarily uplifted and the continents relatively depressed: but it does apply with great force to the preservation of the living animals and plants of the whole world. The narrative assumes that the deluge will destroy the land animals and the fowls of the air unless they are protected in the ark. It also gives us the dimensions of the ark, and leaves us to estimate proximately how many could be saved alive in it. The narrative, therefore, does not authorize us to resort to miracle for the preservation of these animal races.——Now it is entirely certain that only an exceedingly small part of all the land animals, insects and birds of the whole world were saved in the ark. Men versed in natural science estimate the living species of vertebrate animals at 21,000; of articulates, 300,000—numbers by far too great to be provided for in Noah’s ark.——Yet again: To a great extent the “fauna” (as they are called)—the animal species of the several continents—differ widely from each other. South America has its families, many of them unknown to other continents; Australia has its special group, and Africa its own. It is simply incredible that all or even the mass of these animals came to Noah and were preserved in the ark. If they had been destroyed by the flood, there should be traces of their sudden annihilation in the drift of that flood, and geological research might trace the introduction of new races by special creation to repeople those continents. No such line of proofs for a universal deluge is found. The absence of such traces of destruction and of new creation makes it far more than probable that the flood was limited in extent and not universal.Still further it is urged against a universal deluge—and for aught that appears conclusively—that volcaniccones exist—of Etna in Sicily and of Auvergne in Southern France—which, being composed of loose scoriæ and ashes, must have been washed away by any deluge that should reach them. The cones of Etna are estimated to be 12,000 years old.(3.) The apparently universal language of the narrative may be readily explained as other similar language must be in the Scriptures, without assuming a range of meaning beyond the writer’s personal knowledge. The writer of this narrative (Gen.chaps.6–9) speaksas an eye-witness, especially of the great rain; of the ark borne up upon the waters; of the surging back and forth of the billows, and of their covering “the high hills under the whole heaven,”i. e.as far as the eye could reach. The same style of universal language appears frequently in the Scriptures, yet subject to limitations from the known nature of the case;e. g.Deut.2: 25: “This day will I begin to put the fear of thee” [Israel] “upon the nationsthat are under the whole heaven;” Acts 2: 5—“There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, outof every nation under heaven.”Mat.3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem, andall Judea, andallthe region round about Jordan.”——It is in point to notice also that the word “the earth,” so frequently used in this narrative, very often has the sense—the land. It should manifestly have a meaning as broad when used of the extent of the judgment as when used of the extent of the sin, and not necessarily any more broad. Of the sin it is said repeatedly—“Theearthwas corrupt before God;” “theearthwas filled with violence.” Obviously this same “earth,” to the same geographical extent and not apparently any thing more, was destroyed by the flood. It may be noticed also that the word “ground” [Heb.adamah] is used (Gen.7: 23) as a synonym for “earth”—“every living substance which was upon the face of theground”—but this carries with it no sense of universality as to this globe.There is every reason to suppose that at this time both the righteous descendants of Seth and the wicked descendants of Cain were living in the great basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris—with great probability not reaching out beyond the area bounded by the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian, Black, Mediterraneanand Red Seas. This, therefore, we may assume to have been the area submerged by this deluge, and we have no occasion to look for its traces beyond these limits.2. Whether the deluge destroyed all living men from the face of the whole geographical earth except those in the ark, it is perhaps impossible to decide with absolute certainty. If any were not reached, they must have been such as had wandered early, far from their native home, suppose into China or Africa, where neither the corruption which became the moral cause of the deluge nor the deluge itself reached them. The question is one of probabilities only, for we have no certain knowledge on the subject and can not have. The probabilities are in my view quite against the supposition.Traditions of a Great Deluge.All the great nations of history have traditions more or less definite of a vast deluge in the days of their fathers. As should be expected, these traditions compared with the Bible record are variously modified, corrupt we might say, mixed with fable, magnified as great stories are wont to be in passing from lip to lip through many generations. In general those are most pure which are found nearest the locality of Eden and which were earliest committed to writing. Some authors classify them into theWest Asiatic, including the Babylonian, that of the Sibylline books, the Phrygian, the Armenian, and the Syrian, some of which are remarkably close to the truth. TheEast Asiatic, including the Persian, the Chinese, and the Indian; theGrecian, found in Plato, Pindar, Apollodorus, Plutarch, Lucian and Ovid; and those ofpeoples and tribes outside of the old world—the Celts of Northern Europe, the Mexicans, the Peruvians, the Indians of America and the tribes upon the Pacific Islands. Lange remarks that the ethical idea of the flood as a judgment upon men for their sins is every-where apparent. The Chaldean traditions, brought down in the writings of Berosus (wrote B. C. 260), are singularly minute and quite in harmony with the scriptural account in its main outlines, some of which are as follows:Giving the name of Xisuthrus to the last of the primitivekings, it sets forth that he was warned of the flood in a dream; was commanded to write down all the sciences and inventions of mankind and preserve them; to build a ship and save therein himself and his near friends, and take in also animals with suitable food. After the flood had somewhat subsided, he let fly a bird which came back; a second which returned with slime on its foot; a third which never returned. Then seeing land visible, he opened his vessel and came forth with his wife and children; built an altar and offered sacrifice to the gods. They found the country to be Armenia. Portions of the ark were long in existence, sought for as amulets and charms.The Chinese story may be taken as a sample of those more remote from the locality of Noah. As given by the Jesuit, M. Martinius, the Chinese date this great flood B. C. 4000; say that Fah-he, the reputed author of Chinese civilization, escaped the flood, and together with his wife, three sons and three daughters, repeopled the renovated world.Dr.Gutzlaff communicated a paper to the Royal Asiatic Society (as in their Journalxvi: 79) in which he stated that he saw in one of the Buddhist temples in beautiful stucco the scene where Kwanyin, the Goddess of Mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his ark amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming around as his last means of safety and the dove with an olive-branch in his beak flying toward the vessel.Nothing could exceed the beauty of theexecution.24Those which are found among the ancient people of the Western Continent—the Cherokees, Mexicans and Peruvians—have special interest as proving that, remote as these tribes were from the locality of Noah, they must have had a common origin and must have received this common tradition of the flood from the valley of the Euphrates.
1. FIRST, let us note itsmoral cause—the reason why God swept off the living from the face of the earth by a deluge of waters.——It was essential to the moral results which God sought that this reason should be given very definitely. So we find it given (Gen.6: 5–13): “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thought of his heart was only evil continually.” “The earth was corrupt before God; and the earth was filled with violence.” These points are reiterated in most distinct and emphatic terms, showing that, outside of the household of Noah, the whole living race had deeply apostatized from God and were boldly and even defiantly irreligious. Eliphaz in Job (22: 15–17) gives the tradition current in his time, thus: “Who said unto God, ‘Depart from us,’ and, ‘What can the Almighty do for them’”—i. e.for Noah and his godly associates? Despite the words of Noah who bore to them God’s awful forewarnings and preached the righteousness of repentance, they pressed on in their sins unmoved and reckless—“till mercy reached its bound and turned to vengeance there”! It was a whole generation hopelessly corrupt, daring the Almighty to make good his awful words of warning! The result is on record that all sinners of every age, tempted to like hardihood and defiance of God, may study it with profound consideration.
2. Theantecedent occasionsof this deep apostasy from God as given in the narrative, next demand our attention. They are
(1.)The pious families intermarry with the godless.——
(2.)The Spirit of God, persistently resisted, is withdrawn.
(1.) “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose.” The “sons of God” were his professed children of the godly race of Seth, Enos and Enoch. The “daughters of men” were of the Cainites, culturedprobably in music (Gen.4: 21); attractive in person, fascinating in manners—but alas, all corrupt in heart as toward God!——The Jews have a tradition that these “sons of God” were fallen angels, once first-born sons of God, who by intermarriage with man’s fair daughters, intensified this fearful corruption of the race. This tradition we must reject for the following as well as other reasons:
(a.) Nothing is said here about angels. The record gives us no word which legitimately designates angels—least of all, the fallen angels.
(b.) According to the Scriptures, angels “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” The tradition is therefore not onlywithoutScripture authority butagainstit.
(c.) If this extreme demoralization had been caused by the marriage connection of fallen angels with the daughters of men, those angels should certainly have come in for their share of the visible retribution. God gave Satan his share of the curse for his agency in the first great sin. The same justice would have made the fallen angels visibly prominent under this curse of the flood.——Either of these reasons singly would be sufficient ground for rejecting this tradition; much more must they suffice, combined.
(2.) The withdrawal of the divine Spirit is the second assigned antecedent of this fatal degeneracy. In our English version we read—“And the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.’”——As to the meaning of “My Spirit,” we must reject the sense—animal life—that which God breathed into man to make him “a living soul” (Gen.2: 7), as being incongruous with the verb “strive”: also the sense—rational soul—that which makes man a rational being; and must accept the sense so amply sustained by Scripture usage—the divine Spirit, sent by Christ to transform human hearts.——Theword “strive” to translate the Hebrewverb22is not bad. We must reject the construction of some of the old versions,dwell, as not in the original, and as too tame: also the turn given it by Gesenius—to be humiliated, put down—as not borne out well by the original; and say that theverb is currently used of judicial transactions—searching out, convincing, convicting; and seems to have a striking analogy in that leading word given us by Christ; “When he is come, he shallreprovethe world”—enforce conviction upon the world—as to sin and righteousness.
The next clause is more difficult and perhaps more controverted: “For that he also is flesh.” Why is the word “also” here? And what is the logic indicated by “for that”? Can it mean that God withdraws his Spirit because man ishuman—with a body of “flesh”? Our translators separated the main Hebrew word into three—the preposition meaningin, the relative written elliptically, and the particle meaningalso. The construction of Fuerst is better—“In their wandering, he is flesh,”i. e.their degeneracy has brought flesh completely into the ascendant: warring against the spirit, the flesh is absolute victor in the fight. Henceforth all further conflict is hopeless. Hence God may righteously say—nay must in honor to himself say—My Spirit shall not plead my cause in man forever. He is utterly gone over to the flesh, and nothing remains but that he must perish.One hundred and twenty years of mercifulrespite23for patient warning and exhaustive trial must suffice:—then, if no penitence appear, judgment must fall, and that without remedy!——Thus God places on record the moral causes and antecedents of this fearful visitation, that its moral lessons may go down to distant ages for their admonition to the end of time.
The hour of doom draws nigh. The Lord gave Noah definite notice to enter his ark (7: 1) and allowed him seven days time (7: 4) to gather in all whom the ark was provided to save. Then “the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened.” Of small avail for safety then was the gigantic frame of the giants of those days or the defiant heart of unbelieving scoffers!
It is scarcely needful to speak of the physical meanswhich God employed to produce this flood. The agencies which appear in the volcano and in the earthquake and which God holds imprisoned at no great depth below the earth’s surface, are all-sufficient for these results. We may suppose that they lifted the bed of the adjacent seas, upheaving their waters into the atmosphere to descend in torrents of rain, and sinking for the time the inhabited lands—and the work is done. Such alternate upheavals and depressions are, we may say, chronic to the crust of the earth. The ancient records of geology bear this testimony. It was not strange therefore but was merciful that God should allay human fears by his promise to drown the earth no more. His bow in the cloud, seen when the sun shone forth after the shower, became by God’s special appointment the sign and pledge of this covenant.——I see no good reason to suppose that the rainbow never existed before. It must have existed by the laws of nature, unless those laws were greatly changed at the flood—a change which should not be assumed without sufficient reason. No such reasons are apparent. It is better therefore to construe the promise—The well known bow in the cloud I give and ordain to be my sign and pledge that the earth shall be deluged with water no more.——Beautiful symbol, kindly and lovingly ordained; and as we look upon it, delighted with both its beauty and its significance, let it heighten our joy that God says of himself, “I will look upon it and remember my covenant.”
Was this flood universal?
1. Was it universalgeographically, overspreading the entire globe?
2. Was it universal as to allliving men, leaving absolutely none alive on the face of all the earth, except those in the ark?
1. That the deluge was of limited extent geographically, and not universal, may be fairly assumed on the following grounds:
(1.) The moral reasons for a deluge do not seem to require it to be universal, since obviously that corrupt generation whose sins demanded such a judgment did not overspread all the continents and lands of theglobe, but appear to have been confined within a quite limited area in Western Asia.
(2.) While on the one hand we may not limit the miraculous power of the Almighty; on the other hand, it is not legitimate to assume an expenditure of miraculous power indefinitely beyond what the occasion demands.——This objection is designed to apply, not specially to the supply of water requisite to flood the whole earth at once, for there is water enough in the oceans and seas to submerge the continents, provided only that the ocean beds be temporarily uplifted and the continents relatively depressed: but it does apply with great force to the preservation of the living animals and plants of the whole world. The narrative assumes that the deluge will destroy the land animals and the fowls of the air unless they are protected in the ark. It also gives us the dimensions of the ark, and leaves us to estimate proximately how many could be saved alive in it. The narrative, therefore, does not authorize us to resort to miracle for the preservation of these animal races.——Now it is entirely certain that only an exceedingly small part of all the land animals, insects and birds of the whole world were saved in the ark. Men versed in natural science estimate the living species of vertebrate animals at 21,000; of articulates, 300,000—numbers by far too great to be provided for in Noah’s ark.——Yet again: To a great extent the “fauna” (as they are called)—the animal species of the several continents—differ widely from each other. South America has its families, many of them unknown to other continents; Australia has its special group, and Africa its own. It is simply incredible that all or even the mass of these animals came to Noah and were preserved in the ark. If they had been destroyed by the flood, there should be traces of their sudden annihilation in the drift of that flood, and geological research might trace the introduction of new races by special creation to repeople those continents. No such line of proofs for a universal deluge is found. The absence of such traces of destruction and of new creation makes it far more than probable that the flood was limited in extent and not universal.
Still further it is urged against a universal deluge—and for aught that appears conclusively—that volcaniccones exist—of Etna in Sicily and of Auvergne in Southern France—which, being composed of loose scoriæ and ashes, must have been washed away by any deluge that should reach them. The cones of Etna are estimated to be 12,000 years old.
(3.) The apparently universal language of the narrative may be readily explained as other similar language must be in the Scriptures, without assuming a range of meaning beyond the writer’s personal knowledge. The writer of this narrative (Gen.chaps.6–9) speaksas an eye-witness, especially of the great rain; of the ark borne up upon the waters; of the surging back and forth of the billows, and of their covering “the high hills under the whole heaven,”i. e.as far as the eye could reach. The same style of universal language appears frequently in the Scriptures, yet subject to limitations from the known nature of the case;e. g.Deut.2: 25: “This day will I begin to put the fear of thee” [Israel] “upon the nationsthat are under the whole heaven;” Acts 2: 5—“There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, outof every nation under heaven.”Mat.3: 5: “Then went out to him Jerusalem, andall Judea, andallthe region round about Jordan.”——It is in point to notice also that the word “the earth,” so frequently used in this narrative, very often has the sense—the land. It should manifestly have a meaning as broad when used of the extent of the judgment as when used of the extent of the sin, and not necessarily any more broad. Of the sin it is said repeatedly—“Theearthwas corrupt before God;” “theearthwas filled with violence.” Obviously this same “earth,” to the same geographical extent and not apparently any thing more, was destroyed by the flood. It may be noticed also that the word “ground” [Heb.adamah] is used (Gen.7: 23) as a synonym for “earth”—“every living substance which was upon the face of theground”—but this carries with it no sense of universality as to this globe.
There is every reason to suppose that at this time both the righteous descendants of Seth and the wicked descendants of Cain were living in the great basin of the Euphrates and the Tigris—with great probability not reaching out beyond the area bounded by the Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian, Black, Mediterraneanand Red Seas. This, therefore, we may assume to have been the area submerged by this deluge, and we have no occasion to look for its traces beyond these limits.
2. Whether the deluge destroyed all living men from the face of the whole geographical earth except those in the ark, it is perhaps impossible to decide with absolute certainty. If any were not reached, they must have been such as had wandered early, far from their native home, suppose into China or Africa, where neither the corruption which became the moral cause of the deluge nor the deluge itself reached them. The question is one of probabilities only, for we have no certain knowledge on the subject and can not have. The probabilities are in my view quite against the supposition.
Traditions of a Great Deluge.
All the great nations of history have traditions more or less definite of a vast deluge in the days of their fathers. As should be expected, these traditions compared with the Bible record are variously modified, corrupt we might say, mixed with fable, magnified as great stories are wont to be in passing from lip to lip through many generations. In general those are most pure which are found nearest the locality of Eden and which were earliest committed to writing. Some authors classify them into theWest Asiatic, including the Babylonian, that of the Sibylline books, the Phrygian, the Armenian, and the Syrian, some of which are remarkably close to the truth. TheEast Asiatic, including the Persian, the Chinese, and the Indian; theGrecian, found in Plato, Pindar, Apollodorus, Plutarch, Lucian and Ovid; and those ofpeoples and tribes outside of the old world—the Celts of Northern Europe, the Mexicans, the Peruvians, the Indians of America and the tribes upon the Pacific Islands. Lange remarks that the ethical idea of the flood as a judgment upon men for their sins is every-where apparent. The Chaldean traditions, brought down in the writings of Berosus (wrote B. C. 260), are singularly minute and quite in harmony with the scriptural account in its main outlines, some of which are as follows:
Giving the name of Xisuthrus to the last of the primitivekings, it sets forth that he was warned of the flood in a dream; was commanded to write down all the sciences and inventions of mankind and preserve them; to build a ship and save therein himself and his near friends, and take in also animals with suitable food. After the flood had somewhat subsided, he let fly a bird which came back; a second which returned with slime on its foot; a third which never returned. Then seeing land visible, he opened his vessel and came forth with his wife and children; built an altar and offered sacrifice to the gods. They found the country to be Armenia. Portions of the ark were long in existence, sought for as amulets and charms.
The Chinese story may be taken as a sample of those more remote from the locality of Noah. As given by the Jesuit, M. Martinius, the Chinese date this great flood B. C. 4000; say that Fah-he, the reputed author of Chinese civilization, escaped the flood, and together with his wife, three sons and three daughters, repeopled the renovated world.
Dr.Gutzlaff communicated a paper to the Royal Asiatic Society (as in their Journalxvi: 79) in which he stated that he saw in one of the Buddhist temples in beautiful stucco the scene where Kwanyin, the Goddess of Mercy, looks down from heaven upon the lonely Noah in his ark amidst the raging waves of the deluge, with the dolphins swimming around as his last means of safety and the dove with an olive-branch in his beak flying toward the vessel.Nothing could exceed the beauty of theexecution.24
Those which are found among the ancient people of the Western Continent—the Cherokees, Mexicans and Peruvians—have special interest as proving that, remote as these tribes were from the locality of Noah, they must have had a common origin and must have received this common tradition of the flood from the valley of the Euphrates.