Genesis 4:25

"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son and called his name Seth: For, she said, God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah."

The purpose of the narrator here is to introduce the institution of public worship and to announce the appearance of the Messianic line in the person of Seth and his posterity. It is clear that the evil course of mankind had already been charted by the godless behavior of the descendants of Cain; and this is the introduction of a new and higher element into the history of mankind.

"God hath said ..." The name Eve used here for God was "[~'Elohiym]"; however, she used the word "[~Yahweh]" (Jehovah) in speaking of God in Genesis 4:1. One of the great misassumptions of the current crop of Bible-splitters is that the name Yahweh (Jehovah) was unknown until God revealed it to Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3). But right here in this chapter Eve used two different names for God: [~Yahweh] (Genesis 4:1) and [~'Elohiym] (Genesis 4:2). The Exodus account, however, says nothing whatever about God's revelation to Moses concerning the sacred name being the first time that it had been known on earth, but merely reveals that the children of Israel at this stage of their development after four hundred years of slavery in a pagan land were at that time totally ignorant of that holy name. Nor could it be safe to suppose that Moses, before the burning bush event, had knowledge of it. If he knew it, where had he learned it? At the court of Pharoah? Nothing in Exodus denies that Eve knew the names of God, at least two of them, for she walked with God Himself in the garden of Eden. And, furthermore, Moses in this very passage reveals that Eve knew at least two names for God including both [~Yahweh] and [~'Elohiym]. This, to be sure, is proof that, "There is no basis for using the names ascribed to God as grounds for dividing sources."[28]

"Another seed instead of Abel ..." What seems to be indicated here is that, following the death of Abel, Seth was the next man-child born to Eve, not that Seth was the next child born after the birth of Abel.

"He called his name Enosh ..." This is different from the name Enoch in Genesis 4:17; and there are a number of reasons why the two genealogies visible here refer to two different lines of people and are not inaccurate accounts of one line. (See note on this below.)

Of course, the great reason for the introduction of Seth and his posterity lies in the fact of their being the line through whom the Messiah would eventually be born, but there is another significant thing here:

"Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah ..." What a hullabaloo the critics make of this! The verse flatly contradicts their notion that mankind knew nothing at all about the name of [~Yahweh] (Jehovah) until long centuries afterward (at the burning bush). So what do they do? Instead of correcting their false views, they merely try to get rid of this verse, or the whole chapter, or move the troublesome passage to a point in time far removed from where the Sacred Scriptures place it. The documentary evidence upon which such an arbitrary decision is postulated is nil!

But what does Genesis 4:26 mean? It has no reference whatever to anyone's becoming aware of the name [~Yahweh] for the first time, a thought absolutely foreign to the verse, but it is a reference to the beginning of the public worship of God. As Yates put it, "Seth was the originator of public prayer and spiritual worship."[29] Dummelow allowed the meaning to be that, "In his day men began to worship Jehovah by public invocation and sacrifice."[30] Kline summarized it thus: "Now the religious worship of the community of faith was organized for their corporate covenant consecration to the name of Jehovah."[31] Full agreement with these views is felt. Thus, two great streams of humanity become visible in this chapter - the descendants of Cain rushing headlong to destruction, and the feeble beginnings in the descendants of Seth (whose very name meant weakness) of the followers of God.

A NOTE ON GENEALOGIES

The postulation by some that the genealogies of Cain and Seth are but garbled accounts of a single genealogy is an example of a favorite device of Bible critics who like to meld similar parables, or merge two miracles into one, or two anointings into one, etc. Whitelaw outlined the reasons why these genealogies must be viewed as pertaining to two different lines of people thus:[32]

1. Similarity of names does not mean definitely identical persons.
2. Similarity of names signifies a social connection between groups of people, not identical groups.
3. The similarity of names was due to the shortage of names at that period.
4. The particulars related of Enoch and Lamech in line of Cain absolutely forbid their identification with those of similar names in the line of Seth.