1 CHRONICLES 1
Adam was contemporary with Methuselah, and Methuselah with Shem, and Shem with Isaac; hence it required but two persons intermediate between Adam and Isaac to recount to the fathers of Israel the history of the world to their own time. Isaac could tell his grandson Levi, and Levi his grandson Moses, and the latter has delivered it unto us, having been guided into all the truth by the Spirit of God.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, Aug 1857
1 Adam, Sheth [Shet], Enosh,
"Is it possible to be of Adamic nature and not to be under Adamic condemnation? Or is the Adamic nature under condemnation wherever found?"
Answer.-It depends upon the meaning intended by "Adamic." If it means the nature hereditarily derived from Adam, the answer is clear:
"That which is born of (Adamic) flesh is (Adamic) flesh,"
and since Adamic flesh is characterised by the quality of death physically implanted (2 Cor. 1:9; Rom. 7:24; 2 Cor. 5:2-4: Rom. 5:12) it follows that it is in this sense;
"under condemnation wherever found,"
which harmonises with universal experience. Adamic nature in the sense of a nature like that produced in Eden could be produced again. God who made an uncondemned Adamic nature from the ground could make another Adam in the same way, and we should then have Adamic nature not under condemnation.
But such a case is not before your mind. You are thinking of Christ. He was not made of the ground, but "made of a (condemned) woman," and being born of her, was what she was, on the principle defended above and illustrated in other Scriptures.-(Job 14:4; Ps. 51:5.)
If Renunciationist contention were right, Christ ought to have been made straight from the ground as Adam was.
The Christadelphian, Feb 1875
Adam and Christ in Contrast
To bring the substance of the foregoing article into a condensed form, we present the following list of contrasts between the First and Last Adams.
Adam was created from the ground by the Elohim.
Jesus was begotten of the Father direct by the Holy Spirit-not out of the ground, but of a mortal sinful woman.
Adam was a son of God.
Jesus was the only begotten and beloved Son of God.
Adam had no mother.
Jesus had a Jewish Virgin for his mother.
Adam was created free from law.
Jesus was born under the law of Moses.
Adam was never circumcised.
Jesus was circumcised the eighth day.
Adam had no need for baptism.
Jesus was baptised with John's baptism, which was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sin.
Adam came on the scene with relations limited to himself and posterity.
Jesus came into the world for a purpose having reference to a pre-existing race, and having particular reference to the conditions existing among them before he was born.
Adam's sonship was of God only.
Jesus was a Son of Man as well as a Son of God.
Adam was free to live for ever if obedient.
Jesus came into the world for the express purpose of dying.
Adam disobeyed God.
Jesus obeyed in all things.
Adam was the descendant of no one.
Jesus was the Son of David.
Adam was heir to nothing.
Jesus was heir of all things.
Adam was created "very good."
Jesus had to be made physically perfect through sufferings.
Adam having "free life" brought sin and death.
Jesus, made subject to death, brought righteousness and life.
Adam's innocency was untried.
Jesus Christ's innocency was subjected to severe tests.
Adam was created free from any sentence of death.
Jesus was the member of a race which was sentenced to death on account of sin.
Adam, when created, was a natural body free from the principle of death.
Jesus was made of flesh and blood in that state which Paul calls a "body of death."-(Rom. 7:20.)
Adam came into existence before sin.
Jesus was born when sin had been in the world 4,000 years.
Adam was made subject to death by sin.
Jesus was saved from death by righteousness.
Adam, if obedient, could have been immortalised without dying.
Jesus Christ, although obedient, was under the necessity to die before receiving immortality.
Adam had dominion given him over every living creature on the earth, and lost it.
Jesus took upon himself the form of a servant and was at last exalted to be King of kings and the head of all nations.
Adam was not a life-giver.
Jesus was the bread of life sent down from heaven.
Adam, though made in the image of the Elohim, was not a manifestation of God.
Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh.
Adam knew no evil till he disobeyed.
Jesus was a man of sorrows until he was highly exalted through loving righteousness and hating iniquity.
Adam brought a free life into the bondage of death.
Jesus Christ abolished death and brought life and immortality to light.
Adam had no mental sorrow or physical pain in his state of innocency.
Jesus was a man of sorrows, and suffered both mental anguish and physical weariness.
Adam required no clothing before transgression, as a protection either from the weather or from the eyes of others.
Jesus required clothing for both objects.
Adam did not earn his bread by the sweat of his brow in the Garden of Eden.
Jesus laboured at the carpenter's bench during his private life.
Adam was a living soul before the devil entered the world.
Jesus was manifested to destroy, by means of his death, the devil which existed before he was born.
Adam could not say to Eve, "In seeing me you see my father."
Jesus Christ did say, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Adam's flesh was not diabolos flesh until after the Fall.
Jesus Christ's flesh was diabolos flesh from his birth to his death.
Adam was not tempted in all points like as we are before the serpent spake to the woman.
Jesus was tempted in all points like as we are in the days of his flesh.
Adam was tempted from without when he partook of the forbidden tree; subsequently he was, doubtless, subject to inward temptation.
Jesus Christ, without being a personal transgressor, was tempted from within and without.
Adam, before the Fall, could not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.
Jesus felt these infirmities all his life, and the remembrance of them enables him now to have compassion on his brethren.
Adam was unfit to be a high priest for sinners before he was tempted to sin.
Jesus Christ, having been tempted, but having resisted all temptation, is enabled to intercede for the fallen sons of Adam.
Adam was not, and could not have been, subjected to a condemnation of sin in the flesh before sin entered therein.
Jesus was subjected to such a condemnation, and was sent expressly that sin might be condemned in the flesh. This was possible, because sin was an element of his mother Mary's flesh, and, therefore, of his.
Adam could not have been offered up as a sacrifice for sin before its consequences existed in him, and he could not be so offered up afterwards, because he was a personal sinner.
Jesus had neither of these disqualifications, and, therefore, he was constituted the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world.
Adam's uncleanness was covered by the shedding of animal blood.
Jesus Christ's uncleanness was taken away by a righteousness which comprised the shedding of his own blood.
Adam is now in the dust of the earth.
Jesus Christ is now in heaven.
Adam was not God with Eve.
Jesus was "God with us" (the Jews.)
J. J. Andrew.
The Christadelphian, March 1874
2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,
2 Kainan, Mahalal'el, Yered,
3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,
3 Chanoch, Metushelach, Lemech,
4 Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
In chapter one, we begin the history of the world. The history of God's purpose-Adam to Abraham, and Abraham's miscellaneous descendants-Ishmael, Esau, etc. From Adam to Noah-1600 years-in the first 3 verses. Three verses for 1600 years; 20 chapters for David. And 10 names in this list, the barest thing, the crown of darkness of much interesting human history and accomplishment, a time as long as from Constantine down to the present, but meaningless to God, except for a few righteous men aligned with His purpose.
Mankind got worse and worse, more and more violent and evil, and doubtless more scientific and learned. And finally God blotted them all out. We are told the last days will be the same. And we see it coming to pass on earth with ever increasing momentum.
"As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the Son of Man."*
Of the three divisions of mankind from the sons of Noah, the descendants of Japheth populated Europe and West Asia - all to the north. The descendants of Ham populated Africa to the south, and also at the beginning, Palestine, Babylonia and Assyria.
The descendants of Ham were clearly the early leaders of the world. Nimrod, the Hamite, founded the great cities of Babylon and Nineveh, and the other great original cities of Mesopotamia. Archeological research has shown these are the oldest known cities and that the original inhabitants were not, as later, Semetic.
At first, in accord with Gen 10, it was the Hamites in Mesopotamian and in Egypt that dominated the world. Then, the Semites-Babylon, Assyria, Persia, Israel-became dominant.
And finally, the Japheth nations - Greece, Rome, and the European nations - spread over all the earth. This is the root of all history, according to Genesis and Chronicles.*
5 The Bnei of Japheth [Bnei Yephet]; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal [Yavan, and Tuval], and Meshech, and Tiras.
6 And the [Bnei] Gomer; Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.
7 And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.
7 And the [Bnei] Yavan: Elishah, and Tarshishah, Kittim, and Rodanim.
This is from Genesis chapter 10 - the basic framework of the division of the nations of the earth. Young's Concordance calls Gen.10 "the table of nations." It says that it is one of the most remarkable and unique documents in all literature. It points out that 19 names of people and places in it, mentioned no where else in all known writings, are identified by archeological research.
This is the foundation - the beginning point of all TRUE history and geography. This is dependable. This is the Word of God, as contrasted with all the vain and pompous theorizing of the wise of the world. It is very interesting and significant that many of these names of the original distribution of mankind occur again in the prophetic picture of the end of man's national history upon the earth.
The great crisis of Armageddon described in Ezekiel 38 -Gomer, Magog, Tubal, Meshech, Togarmah, and also Tarshish, Sheba and Dedan - names from the very beginning - the beginning of the divisions of the nations.
Surely, this tells us to apply these names given by Ezekiel on a broad world-wide pattern, as at the beginning of the nations. The scriptures many times tell us that all nations will participate in the final conflict.*
Tarshish is a proper name, occurring first in Gen. 10:4, designating the second son of Javan, who was the fourth son of Japheth, eldest son of Noah.
Alexander the Great is styled by Daniel "King of Javan," melech yavan; and it is worthy of note that the Hindoos call the Greeks Yavanas, which is the ancient Hebrew appellation.
Tarshish was, then, the second son of him from whom the Greeks descended. He was doubtless an important personage in the original settlement of the coasts, which are always colonized before the interior of new countries. Coasts and islands are represented by the same word in Hebrew, Javan is in apposition with "the isles afar off," in the last chapter of Isaiah.
His descendants are a maritime people to this day inhabiting the isles and coasts of the Archipelago, &c. The Javanese settled the coasts of the Mediterranean, the Adriatic, and the Atlantic region above the Straits of Gibraltar. It is to be expected, therefore, that the settlements would be originally named after their patriarchs, namely,
"Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim."
The Mediterranean was named the Sea of Tarshish, because, it is probable, his settlements were more commercial and enterprising than those of his other brethren. The southern coast of Spain, abutting both on the Atlantic and Mediterranean, is considered as peculiarly his.
One of his Atlantic settlements was called Tartessus, Ταρτησσοζ, or, as it occurs in Polybius and Stephanus Byzantinus, Ταρσηιον, Tarseı̈on. Tartessus is probably a contraction for Ταρσου ́ησοζ, Tarsou nasos, Tar shish's Island, for Tartessus was originally an island formed by the two mouths of the Bœtis, or Guadalquiver, and the Atlantic: one of the channels is dried up, so that it is now a part of the peninsula.
Having arrived at the westernmost coasts from Ararat, the sons of Tarshish would extend settlements wherever the land line would indicate. Following this in a northerly direction, it would at last lead them in view of Britain, along whose southern coast they might spread themselves to the Land's End, a part of the island abounding in tin.
These Spanish and British coasts are indicated as the settlements of Tarshish, or some of "the isles," or coasts, "afar off," by the articles they brought for sale at the Tyrian fairs. Addressing himself to Tyre, a famous city on the coast of the Holy Land, and styled by Isaiah "the mart of nations," Ezekiel says,
"Tarshish was thy merchant by reason of the multitude of all riches; with silver, iron, tin, and lead, they traded in thy fairs."
These are products of the mines of Spain and Britain, which were brought to Tyre in "the ships of Tarshish," which saith the prophet,
"did sing of thee (Tyre) in thy market; and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the midst of the seas."
From this it appears, that the Tarshish branch of the Javanese had become an eminently maritime and commercial people of the west and north west from Tyre. "Silver spread into plates," says Jeremiah, "is brought from Tarshish;" and he adds, "and gold from Uphaz," or Ophir.
Tyre was the strength of Tarshish, for it was by the Tyrian trade that Tarshish maintained its maritime ascendancy. Tyre was the mart for the products of the coasts and isles afar off brought in the ships of Tarshish; hence as a commercial city she is styled the "daughter of Tarshish." The relations between the coasts of the Tarshish people and the city of Tyre, were very profitable and intimate. The rejoicing between the two was reciprocal; for Tyre sang as a harlot, and the mariners from Tarshish sang the praises of the customer that enriched them.
Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, March 1858
38 And the Bnei Seir: Lotan, Shoval, Tziveon, Anah, Dishon, Etzer, and Dishan.
Seir, who gave his name to Mt. Seir, is not called a Horite here, but in the parallel record in Gen 36, he is. These were not Semites. They were part of the original Hamite rulers of this area. Now, why is this information given about the original inhabitants of Edom? Especially, these details concerning a people who were absorbed and died out, disappeared from history.
First, all real history must have a practical framework and background. The Bible is real history. It is by genealogies that it is interrelated and interconnected. Until the BC-AD system of dating all history from one central event was invented in the 6th century AD, and gradually adopted by all nations, unifying history, there was no way of tying history together and relating its parts except by lists of people and events-genealogies.
Much if not all of the meaning of Bible events would be lost, if we did not know what order they came in and how they were related to each other in time. We may not see the value of some particular items of this record-like this list of the original inhabitants of Seir, or Edom. But we can see that the record as a whole is vitally necessary. And we often come to see the value of a part that previously seemed valueless.
This list here is a perfect example. If we look at any Bible dictionary, older than about 30 or 40 years, we shall read that Horites means "cave dwellers", that they were just a local group and that nothing is known concerning them. I would like to read from two Bible dictionaries: One dated 1885 and one 1960. The particular people are not very important, but the principle is very and vitally important. It is typical of how God's Word has been repeatedly confirmed in the face of skepticism. And how what seems meaningless takes on a meaning. It gives one very good reason for this obscure reference and our careful study of them.
The Imperial Bible Dictionary of 1885 says of the Horites:
"Horite - from hor, an opening of any sort; a cave. A Horite was an inhabiter of caves, instead of houses. It appears to have been especially appropriated to the earlier occupants of Mt. Seir, as being peculiarly distinguished for that mode of life (Gen 14:6). The original inhabitants, or Horites, distinctively so called, were afterwards dispossessed by the Edomites (Deut 2:12). Nothing is known as to the origin of that primitive race…"
Unger's Bible Dictionary of 1960, on the Horites:
"This unknown people used to be thought of as a very local and restricted group of cave-dwellers, named 'Horites,' being thought of as derived from Heb. hor, cave. The Horites remained completely obscure, not appearing in extra-Biblical literature (anything outside the Bible). Within the past forty years, however, archaeology has brought to light evidences of the Hurrians (the Biblical Horites), who now occupy a prominent place on the stage of ancient history.
This ethnic group is now known not only to have existed but to have played a far-reaching role in ancient Near Eastern cultural history. Thousands of clay tablets were uncovered at Nuzu. Remarkable parallels from Nuzu tablets concerning marriage, adoption and social customs, such as those that prevailed in the patriarchal period of Genesis, occur. Scholars are still busy translating. As this material becomes accessible, the puzzle of the Biblical Horites is becoming solved."
For two thousand years, only the Bible knew about them.
We should immediately be reminded of the similar story of the Hittites. How, for long, the learned scoffed at the Bible references to them. For instance, ridiculing the statement in II Kings 7:6 that the Syrians could be frightened away by such an insignificant people as the Hittites, which they thought was just a local tribe. Again, the Imperial Bible Dictionary of 1885 on the Hittites:
"The Hittites - one of the tribes that possessed the land of Canaan at the time of the conquest. Their chief settlement seemed to have been in the south in the neighborhood of Hebron. The tribe, as a whole, long retained a distinctive place and possessions though probably of limited compass."
That was all they knew about the Hittites.1960, the Unger's Bible Dictionary about the Hittites:
"A people mentioned frequently in the Old Testament, 47 times under their own name and 14 times as descendants of Heth. These various Biblical allusions used to be treated with great skepticism, but the Hittites offer an example of archaeology's resurrection of an ancient people. The center of Hittite power was in Asia Minor.
There, an empire that once vied with Egypt and Assyria, but had been long forgotten, has been discovered by modern archaeologists. Many scholars consider the Hittites as the third most influential of ancient peoples of the Middle East, rivaling the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians."
So, when we come in our readings to these obscure and apparently meaningless and useless genealogies, let us not neglect nor despise them. They may hold very interesting treasures, waiting for the proper time to be revealed to the confusion of the wise of the world.
Bro Growcott - The words of the Days