DOCSLIB.ORG

God's Rejection of Cain Outside the Garden of Eden (Genesis 4:1-16)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
God's Rejection of Cain Outside the Garden of Eden (Genesis 4:1-16) Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary Master of Sacred Theology Thesis Concordia Seminary Scholarship Spring 5-18-2018 Falling Far from the Tree? God's Rejection of Cain outside the Garden of Eden (Genesis 4:1-16) Mark Remington Squire Concordia Seminary - St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/stm Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christianity Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, History of Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Squire, Mark Remington, "Falling Far from the Tree? God's Rejection of Cain outside the Garden of Eden (Genesis 4:1-16)" (2018). Master of Sacred Theology Thesis. 395. https://scholar.csl.edu/stm/395 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Sacred Theology Thesis by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FALLING FAR FROM THE TREE? GOD’S REJECTION OF CAIN OUTSIDE THE GARDEN OF EDEN (GENESIS 4:1–16) A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Department of Exegetical Theology in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Sacred Theology By Mark Remington Squire April 2018 Approved by Dr. David L. Adams Advisor Rev. Thomas J. Egger Reader Dr. Joel C. Elowsky Reader © 2018 by Mark Remington Squire. All rights reserved. ii CONTENTS PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... v ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... vi ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ viii INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................ 8 TRANSLATION AND NOTES (GENESIS 4:1–16) ........................................................... 8 TRANSLATION OF GENESIS 4:1–16 ............................................................................... 8 TRANSLATION NOTES FOR GENESIS 4:1–16 .............................................................. 9 CHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................................... 28 BAD APPLES: WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH CAIN’S SACRIFICE? ................ 28 WAS IT THAT CAIN BROUGHT A ‘SACRIFICE’ AND NOT A ‘GIFT’? ................... 29 WAS IT THAT CAIN’S TIMING WAS WRONG AND ABEL’S RIGHT? .................... 33 WAS IT THAT CAIN BROUGHT SOMETHING LIFELESS AND ABEL SOMETHING LIVING? ............................................................................................................................. 33 WAS IT THAT CAIN BROUGHT SOMETHING PRODUCED BY FORCE AND ABEL SOMETHING THAT GREW OF ITSELF ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL, GOD- MADE PROCESSES? ........................................................................................................ 35 WAS IT THAT CAIN BROUGHT FROM FRUIT OF THE CURSED GROUND AND ABEL ANIMALS? ............................................................................................................. 38 WAS IT THAT CAIN BROUGHT ‘SOME’ AND ABEL THE ‘BEST’? ........................ 41 CHAPTER THREE ..................................................................................................................... 45 BAD APPLE: WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH CAIN HIMSELF? ......................... 45 WAS IT THAT CAIN WAS EVIL, A SON OF THE DEVIL, AND ABEL RIGHTEOUS? (ORIGIN) ............................................................................................................................ 45 WAS IT THAT CAIN WAS A FARMER AND ABEL A SHEPHERD? (OCCUPATION) iii ............................................................................................................................................ 47 WAS IT THAT CAIN WAS GREEDY AND ABEL GENEROUS? (VIRTUE) .............. 52 WAS IT THAT CAIN WAS FAITHLESS AND ABEL FULL OF FAITH? (FAITH) .... 66 CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................................ 79 CRAB APPLE: IS GOD TO BLAME? .............................................................................. 79 WAS IT THAT GOD WAS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY IN FAVORING ONE OVER THE OTHER?..................................................................................................................... 80 WAS IT THAT GOD SIMPLY FAVORS THE YOUNGER BROTHER? ...................... 85 WAS IT THAT GOD WAS TESTING CAIN? ................................................................. 87 CHAPTER FIVE ......................................................................................................................... 94 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 97 iv PREFACE It would be difficult to point to what anyone might call the ‘beginning’ of my love and enjoyment for Biblical theology. I was blessed to begin attending Saint John Lutheran School in Fraser, MI my second grade year, where I was taught the accounts of Scripture, most importantly the good news of Jesus Christ. There, I was mentored by faithful men and women who had dedicated their lives to Christian education. Pastors John Merrill and Eric Majeski, and later, Pastor Brad Smith, all fanned the flame of my love for the Bible and for theology. This only continued at Lutheran High School North in Macomb, MI. There, I learned how to put theology into practice from men like Steve Garrabrant and Brian Horvath. Without them, I may not have found myself entering the seminary four years later. In addition, it was John Brandt who sharpened my skills with pen and paper. I attribute my writing abilities to his tutelage (and I apologize for any stray use of the word “thing” in this thesis paper). Naturally, it was upon entering higher education that my love for Biblical theology blossomed. At Concordia University River Forest, I began studying the Biblical languages, learning Hebrew and Greek from Rev. Drs. Andrew Steinmann, Michael Eschelbach, and Charles Froehlich. Once I entered Concordia Seminary, my Biblical interests only grew deeper, as I was fortunate to study with many faithful pastors and doctors of theology, including Rev. Drs. Andrew Bartelt, Reed Lessing, Jeffrey Kloha, Paul Raabe, Robert Kolb, Timothy Saleska, David Schmitt, Joel Okamoto, Joel Biermann, and others, including Rev. Thomas Egger, my fourth year faculty advisor. I thank him for his time, patience, and wise counsel imparted to me during our meetings in his office. During my vicarage year, my supervisor, Rev. Dr. Mark Hoehner, always encouraged me to “read my Bible.” In particular, I thank Rev. Dr. Jeffrey Gibbs for instructing me on the vital importance of the text of Scripture. Indeed, “grammar saves lives.” It is much easier, though, to identify the beginning of my interest in the account of Genesis 4. In 2011, I came across Frank Anthony Spina’s article on the subject of Cain’s disregard in the context of Gen 1–11. As I dug deeper into the question, I was amazed at how wide-ranging various historical interpretations were regarding the question of God’s disregard for Cain. It was clear that, despite the vast number of interpretations, that there appeared to be only three broad categories of interpretation. With this newfound understanding, the question at hand served as a natural place to dig deeper into the text of Scripture, as well as its historical interpretation. Having a full-time call as a pastor makes researching and writing a paper like this quite difficult. Adding to it the call away from the seminary for my original advisor, Reed Lessing, my path was much longer and full of more twists and turns than I had ever imagined. However, as I have found myself at the end of one journey and the beginning of another, I am very thankful for my advisor, Rev. Dr. David Adams. Though I was never fortunate to have a class with him at Concordia Seminary, he has labored to make my thesis better through his feedback and support. I thank him for sharpening my focus, helping me in my research, and providing support in any number of other ways. I would also be remiss not to thank Rev. Dr. Joel Elowsky and Rev. Thomas Egger for serving as readers for my thesis. Their time and effort will not be overlooked, and I thank them for their feedback and contributions to the final paper. Most of all, I am so greatly indebted to my wife, Emma. She has been a rock for our family and in our marriage, giving me opportunity to write and research, sacrificing her own time, and helping to hold everything together over these several years. I cannot imagine finishing this without her love, support, and encouragement. I dedicate this paper to you, my beloved. v ABBREVIATIONS Ant Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities. In The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Garment of Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Tradition
    24 The Garmentof Adam in Jewish, Muslim, and ChristianTradition Stephen D. Ricks Although rarely occurring in any detail, the motif of Adam's garment appears with surprising frequency in ancient Jewish and Christian literature. (I am using the term "Adam's garment" as a cover term to include any garment bestowed by a divine being to one of the patri­ archs that is preserved and passed on, in many instances, from one generation to another. I will thus also consider garments divinely granted to other patriarchal figures, including Noah, Abraham, and Joseph.) Although attested less often than in the Jewish and Christian sources, the motif also occurs in the literature of early Islam, espe­ cially in the Isra'iliyyiit literature in the Muslim authors al­ ThaclabI and al-Kisa'I as well as in the Rasii'il Ikhwiin al­ ~afa (Epistles of the Brethren of Purity). Particularly when discussing the garment of Adam in the Jewish tradition, I will shatter chronological boundaries, ranging from the biblical, pseudepigraphic, and midrashic references to the garment of Adam to its medieval attestations. 1 In what fol­ lows, I wish to consider (1) the garment of Adam as a pri­ mordial creation; (2) the garment as a locus of power, a symbol of authority, and a high priestly garb; and (3) the garment of Adam and heavenly robes. 2 705 706 STEPHEN D. RICKS 1. The Garment of Adam as a Primordial Creation The traditions of Adam's garment in the Hebrew Bible begin quite sparely, with a single verse in Genesis 3:21, where we are informed that "God made garments of skins for Adam and for his wife and clothed them." Probably the oldest rabbinic traditions include the view that God gave garments to Adam and Eve before the Fall but that these were not garments of skin (Hebrew 'or) but instead gar­ ments of light (Hebrew 'or).
    [Show full text]
  • Most Common Jewish First Names in Israel Edwin D
    Names 39.2 (June 1991) Most Common Jewish First Names in Israel Edwin D. Lawson1 Abstract Samples of men's and women's names drawn from English language editions of Israeli telephone directories identify the most common names in current usage. These names, categorized into Biblical, Traditional, Modern Hebrew, and Non-Hebrew groups, indicate that for both men and women over 90 percent come from Hebrew, with the Bible accounting for over 70 percent of the male names and about 40 percent of the female. Pronunciation, meaning, and Bible citation (where appropriate) are given for each name. ***** The State of Israel represents a tremendous opportunity for names research. Immigrants from traditions and cultures as diverse as those of Yemen, India, Russia, and the United States have added their onomastic contributions to the already existing Jewish culture. The observer accustomed to familiar first names of American Jews is initially puzzled by the first names of Israelis. Some of them appear to be biblical, albeit strangely spelled; others appear very different. What are these names and what are their origins? Benzion Kaganoffhas given part of the answer (1-85). He describes the evolution of modern Jewish naming practices and has dealt specifi- cally with the change of names of Israeli immigrants. Many, perhaps most, of the Jews who went to Israel changed or modified either personal or family name or both as part of the formation of a new identity. However, not all immigrants changed their names. Names such as David, Michael, or Jacob required no change since they were already Hebrew names.
    [Show full text]
  • December 6 2009
    SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSONS Commentary by Michael Sigler December 6, 2009 The Lineage of David Ruth 4:13-17 & Matthew 1:1-6 Key verse: “The women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, ‘A son has been born to Naomi.’ They named him Obed; he became the father of Jesse, the father of David” (Ruth 4:17). What parts of the Bible do you skip over? Most people rarely read the genealogies—“so-and-so begat so-and-so who begat so-and-so.” Granted, these passages might not offer the most exciting reading. But with just a little study, the genealogies of the Bible offer great spiritual treasures! This week’s lesson dips into the genealogy of Christ as presented in Matthew’s Gospel. The lesson also looks back to two ancient women of faith whose lives play an integral part in God’s great plan for humanity—Naomi and Ruth. Their story as told in the Book of Ruth is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. The story focuses on Naomi first, a Hebrew woman whose family has lost everything because of a famine. Trying to find a way to survive, Naomi, her husband and their two sons move to the nearby country of Moab. There the two sons find wives. But before long, bad times are back. Naomi’s husband and both of her sons die, leaving her with few prospects for support. Hearing that the famine in Judah has ended, Naomi decides to go home. The second part of the story focuses on Naomi’s daughter-in-law, Ruth.
    [Show full text]
  • Eve's Answer to the Serpent: an Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology
    Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998) : 399-420 Copyright © 1980 by Calvin Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. Scholia et Homiletica Eve's Answer to the Serpent: An Alternative Paradigm for Sin and Some Implications in Theology P. Wayne Townsend The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, `You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die. "' (Gen. 3:2-3) Can we take these italicized words seriously, or must we dismiss them as the hasty additions of Eve's overactive imagination? Did God say or mean this when he instructed Adam in Genesis 2:16-17? I suggest that, not only did Eve speak accu- rately and insightfully in responding to the serpent but that her words hold a key to reevaluating the doctrine of original sin and especially the puzzles of alien guilt and the imputation of sin. In this article, I seek to reignite discussion on these top- ics by suggesting an alternative paradigm for discussing the doctrine of original sin and by applying that paradigm in a preliminary manner to various themes in the- ology, biblical interpretation, and Christian living. I seek not so much to answer questions as to evoke new ones that will jar us into a more productive path of the- ological explanation. I suggest that Eve's words indicate that the Bible structures the ideas that we recognize as original sin around the concept of uncleanness.
    [Show full text]
  • Latter-Day Saint Liturgy: the Administration of the Body and Blood of Jesus
    religions Article Latter-Day Saint Liturgy: The Administration of the Body and Blood of Jesus James E. Faulconer Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Latter-day Saint (“Mormon”) liturgy opens its participants to a world undefined by a stark border between the transcendent and immanent, with an emphasis on embodiment and relationality. The formal rites of the temple, and in particular that part of the rite called “the endowment”, act as a frame that erases the immanent–transcendent border. Within that frame, the more informal liturgy of the weekly administration of the blood and body of Christ, known as “the sacrament”, transforms otherwise mundane acts of living into acts of worship that sanctify life as a whole. I take a phenomenological approach, hoping that doing so will deepen interpretations that a more textually based approach might miss. Drawing on the works of Robert Orsi, Edward S. Casey, Paul Moyaert, and Nicola King, I argue that the Latter-day Saint sacrament is not merely a ritualized sign of Christ’s sacrifice. Instead, through the sacrament, Christ perdures with its participants in an act of communal memorialization by which church members incarnate the coming of the divine community of love and fellow suffering. Participants inhabit a hermeneutically transformed world as covenant children born again into the family of God. Keywords: Mormon; Latter-day Saint; liturgy; rites; sacrament; endowment; temple; memory Citation: Faulconer, James E. 2021. Latter-Day Saint Liturgy: The In 1839, in contrast to most other early nineteenth-century American religious leaders, Administration of the Body and Joseph Smith, the founder of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints1 said, “Being Blood of Jesus.
    [Show full text]
  • Tamar: Conscious Choices and Choosing One's Own Destiny
    Tamar: Conscious Choices and Choosing One’s Own Destiny Parashat Vayeishev (Genesis 38: 1 – 30) Do you make conscious choices? One of our Torah heroines surely did. Tamar made a conscious choice following the deaths of her husband, Judah’s son Er, Judah’s next son Onan, and Judah’s wife Hirah. Tamar became a childless widow and it seemed as though Judah had no plan to allow his youngest son Shelah to marry Tamar, as biblical law mandated. Judah claimed that Shelah was too young and he could not risk losing another son. However, our heroine Tamar needed a child in order to claim a true stake in the household of Judah. So, she tricked her father-in-law Judah into sleeping with her during his bereavement. Posing as a harlot, Judah solicited Tamar’s services, willingly giving Tamar his signet seal, his cord and his staff, all of which clearly identified him when she would later proclaim Judah’s paternity for her twin sons Perez and Zerah. Not for love or for lust, but rather for a legacy into the future, Tamar made a conscious choice. She took initiative. She changed destiny. And, ironically, Judah admitted, “She is more in the right than I!” (Genesis 38:26) Judah had refused the rights of levirate marriage to Tamar. It all returns to making choices. Each woman on our sisterhood roster has made a conscious choice to join sisterhood. We are grateful to the women who choose to join sisterhood and our congregation, for choosing the path of leadership, and for sharing mitzvah time.
    [Show full text]
  • God Made Eve and Ordained Marriage
    GGOODD MMAADDEE EEVVEE aanndd oorrddaaiinneedd mmaarrrriiaaggee Several thousand years have passed since Adam and Eve became man and wife, but God hasn’t changed what he first instructed mankind regarding marriage in the Bible. Did you know that God was the One who decided that man and woman should marry? In Genesis 2 we find part of the wedding service spoken in many wedding ceremonies today. Men and women and marriage and children are very important to God. Marriage is not just a good idea… it’s a “God Idea”! But some people don’t know or don’t believe what God says about marriage. They say that marriage is something to be tried out to see if it will work—depending upon how you feel about it. Many folks are even suggesting that the idea of marriage is outdated. But what does the Bible say about marriage? Let’s take a look and find out! God decided that Adam needed a wife to help him and to be his companion. Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” God decided that Adam should not live alone. - God was his Creator and knew what was best for him. - God didn’t ask Adam what he wanted or thought best. - God made the decision to make a wife for Adam. God loved Adam and wanted him to be complete. - God knew that Adam wouldn’t continue to be happy if he remained alone. - Because God loved Adam and wanted what was best for him, he decided to make a wife for him.
    [Show full text]
  • Another Look at Cain: from a Narrative Perspective
    신학논단 제102집 (2020. 12. 31): 241-263 https://doi.org/10.17301/tf.2020.12.102.241 Another Look at Cain: From a Narrative Perspective Wm. J McKinstry IV, MATS Adjunct Faculty, Department of General Education Presbyterian University and Theological Seminary In the Hebrew primeval histories names often carry significant weight. Much etymological rigour has been exercised in determining many of the names within the Bible. Some of the meaning of these names appear to have a consensus among scholars; among others there is less consensus and more contention. Numerous proposals have come forward with varying degrees of convincing (or unconvincing as the case may be) philological arguments, analysis of wordplays, possi- ble textual emendations, undiscovered etymologies from cognates in other languages, or onomastic studies detailing newly discovered names of similarity found in other ancient Semitic languages. Through these robust studies, when applicable, we can ascertain the meanings of names that may help to unveil certain themes or actions of a character within a narrative. For most of the names within the primeval histories of Genesis, the 242 신학논단 제102집(2020) meaning of a name is only one feature. For some names there is an en- compassing feature set: wordplay, character trait and/or character role, and foreshadowing. Three of the four members in the first family in Genesis, Adam, Eve, and Abel, have names that readily feature all the elements listed above. Cain, however, has rather been an exception in this area, further adding to Genesis 4’s enigmaticness in the Hebrew Bible’s primeval history. While three characters (Adam, Eve, and Abel) have names that (1) sound like other Hebrew words, that are (2) sug- gestive of their character or actions and (3) foreshadow or suggest fu- ture events about those characters, the meaning of Cain’s name does not render itself so explicitly to his character or his role in the narrative, at least not to the same degree of immediate conspicuousness.
    [Show full text]
  • PART TWO Critical Studies –
    PART TWO Critical Studies – David T. Runia - 9789004216853 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 02:06:05PM via free access David T. Runia - 9789004216853 Downloaded from Brill.com10/05/2021 02:06:05PM via free access . Monique Alexandre, ‘Du grec au latin: Les titres des œuvres de Philon d’Alexandrie,’ in S. Deléani and J.-C. Fredouille (edd.), Titres et articulations du texte dans les œuvres antiques: actes du Colloque International de Chantilly, – décembre , Collection des Études Augustiniennes (Paris ) –. This impressive piece of historical research is divided into three main parts. In a preliminary section Alexandre first gives a brief survey of the study of the transmission of the corpus Philonicum in modern scholarship and announces the theme of her article, namely to present some reflections on the Latin titles now in general use in Philonic scholarship. In the first part of the article she shows how the replacement of Greek titles by Latin ones is part of the humanist tradition, and is illustrated by the history of Philonic editions from Turnebus to Arnaldez– Pouilloux–Mondésert. She then goes on in the second part to examine the Latin tradition of Philo’s reception in antiquity (Jerome, Rufinus, the Old Latin translation) in order to see whether the titles transmitted by it were influential in determining the Latin titles used in the editions. This appears to have hardly been the case. In the third part the titles now in use are analysed. Most of them were invented by the humanists of the Renaissance and the succeeding period; only a few are the work of philologists of the th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Temple Symbolism in the Conflict of Adam and Eve
    Studia Antiqua Volume 2 | Number 2 Article 7 February 2003 Temple Symbolism in The onflicC t of Adam and Eve Duane Wilson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua Part of the Biblical Studies Commons BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Wilson, Duane. "Temple Symbolism in The onflC ict of Adam and Eve." Studia Antiqua 2, no. 2 (2003). http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/studiaantiqua/vol2/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the All Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studia Antiqua by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Temple Symbolism in The Conflict of Adam and Eve Duane Wilson The Conflict of Adam and Eve is a fascinating pseudepigraphic work that tells the story of the couple after they are cast out of the Garden of Eden. After they left the garden, God commanded them to live in a cave called the Cave of Treasures. This paper explores the function of the Cave of Treasures as a temple to Adam and Eve. Some of the aspects of temple worship discussed include the gar- ment, the use of tokens, and aspects of prayer and revelation. The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is a pseudepigraphic work of unknown authorship that was written in Arabic between the seventh and ninth centuries a.d.1 It was later translated into Ethiopic. The text is divided into three parts, the first of which contains a lengthy story about Adam and Eve after they were cast out of the Garden of Eden.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Ezekiel 28:11–19 Affirm the Fall of Satan in Genesis 1:1–2 As Claimed in the Gap Theory?
    VIEWPOINT || JOURNAL OF CREATION 32(3) 2018 Does Ezekiel 28:11–19 affirm the fall of Satan in Genesis 1:1–2 as claimed in the gap theory? Joel Tay and KeeFui Kon The gap theory claims that Ezekiel 28:11–19 and Isaiah 14:12–15 refer to the fall of Satan in the mineral Garden of Eden before Creation Week. This event is said to have occurred in between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Gap proponents are intimidated by secular geologists who claim that the earth is billions of years old. By inserting billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, gap proponents assume that this allows them to reconcile Scripture with the idea of long ages. This paper demonstrates that the passage in Ezekiel 28 cannot relate to this supposed time gap even if the passage refers to the fall of Satan. If the text is understood as a reference to the fall of Satan, we would still be required to interpret the timing of Satan’s fall as an event that occurred after the sixth day of creation, and the final judgment of Satan is reserved for fire rather than water. We show that the gap theory is an extrabiblical and artificial construct that has been imposed upon the text of Genesis 1:1–2, and that Ezekiel 28 is actually problematic for the gap theory. ap theory claims that there was a previous earth that was 5. God destroyed the earth and everything in it with a Gcreated and then destroyed billions of years ago because worldwide Flood that produced the fossils and rock layers of the rebellion of Lucifer.
    [Show full text]
  • Luke 3 Pt 5 Luke 3: 23-38 23 Now Jesus
    Luke 3 pt 5 Luke 3: 23-38 23 Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Janna, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathiah, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathiah, the son of Semei, the son of Joseph, the son of Judah, 27 the son of Joannas, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmodam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Jose, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonan, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menan, the son of Mattathah, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.
    [Show full text]