Chuck Larsen

The last part of Genesis chapter four tells us all about the children of Cain but focuses attention on the line of Lamech. Mays summarizes what is coming in the rest of this chapter by saying, “Among Cain’s descendants are Jabal the ancestor of pastoral nomads, Jubal the ancestor of musicians, and Tubal-Cain, the originator of metallurgy. Over against these descendants of Cain is set Lamech, who boasts of his vengeful reign of terror. This dark story of violence ends with a genealogy that moves from murderer to murderer; the framing of a genealogy by two acts that bring death stands in contradiction to the genealogical record of the continued life of a family. In sharp contrast to the surrounding darkness is the light that dawns in the announcement of the birth of Seth, who fathers Enosh and a family of those who calls upon Yahweh’s name, a family that will include Abram, who will call upon that same God.”^[1]

Genesis 4:20 tells us that Lamech’s first wife had a son. We don’t know a lot about the sons of Lamech, but the text does give us a little information. It says, “Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock.” Freeman suggests, “…the term father is used to denote the author or beginner of something. It is frequently used this way throughout the Bible. Undoubtedly, Jabal was the first to dwell in tents and had cattle; therefore, he is called the father of all those who dwell in tents and have cattle. In other words, he was the progenitor of tent dwellers and herdsmen, and probably was a nomad and lived a wandering life.”^[2] Based upon one noun from Ezekiel chapter 8 that also appears in this verse, Carasik tells us that “…the midrash interprets this verse to mean that he built temples for idolatry.” This maintains the idea of the degenerating nature of the line of Cain, but it seems a little far-fetched for me. Carasik also adds that Jabal’s “…brother Jubal is similarly understood to be playing ‘the lyre and the pipe’ (v. 21) as part of idolatrous worship.”^[3] I could not find anything in the language or in the ancient or modern commentaries that suggested what Jabal did was idolatry. However, the idea has some merit when we consider the direction Cain’s line takes.

Most Christian commentators see Jabal as the first nomad. Abel raised sheep, but Jabal tended to “herds.” Wenham says, “…that term covers all animals that are herded—sheep, goats, cattle, asses, or camels. Whereas Abel merely lived off his flocks, Jabal could trade with his beasts of burden, and this represents a cultural advance.”^[4] It’s more sophisticated than what might first meet the eye. Walton says that “Raising livestock is the first stage in animal domestication, which involves human control of breeding, food supply, and territory. Sheep and goats were the first livestock to be domesticated, with the evidence extending back to the ninth-millennium BC. Larger cattle came later, and evidence for pig domestication began in the seventh millennium.”^[5] Interestingly, Cain taught his sons and grandsons how to raise animals like their uncle Abel had done. Most likely, this was the result of the ground not producing for Cain and his descendants according to God’s curse on them. Lamech’s sons improved civilization in their respective fields. But it appears that the improvements were at the expense of a relationship with God and healthy relationships with each other. Many, even today, will fill their lives with accomplishments at the neglect of more important things. Jesus asked, “What will it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul?”

^[1] Mays, James Luther, ed. 1988. Harper’s Bible Commentary. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

^[2] Freeman, James M., and Harold J. Chadwick. 1998. Manners & Customs of the Bible. North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos Publishers.

^[3] Carasik, Michael, ed. 2018. Genesis: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Michael Carasik. The Commentators’ Bible. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

^[4] Wenham, Gordon J. 1987. Genesis 1–15. Vol. 1. Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

^[5] Walton, John H. 2001. Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Not a lot is said about Cain’s sons, but we get some details every once in a while. When the generations brought us to Lamech in Genesis 4:19, we read, “Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.” Lamech “took” two wives. This is the first mention of bigamy in the bible and is accompanied by violence. The progression and increase of violence in the world will eventually lead to the flood and the destruction of all humanity. Philo suggested that the deterioration of society can be seen in the names of Cain’s other sons that came before Lamech, but Hughes argues that this is the first sign of the decline. He writes, “Here we see in the initial growth of civilization the first sign of degeneration (civilization’s demise in its rise) with the tragic institution of polygamy. God’s will had been given to Adam and Eve as part of creation: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Polygamous departures from the divine norm came to dominate both Cainite and Sethite cultures, as the rest of Genesis records. And its disastrous effects are often seen in Genesis. So, note well that as civilization advanced, rebellion against God’s word advanced.”^[1]

Midrash is an ancient Jewish commentary on the Hebrew scriptures, often attached to the biblical text. We have copies of it that date back as far as the 2^nd century of the current era, but the content of its teachings is considered to be much older. One Midrash claims that each of Lamech’s wives served a different purpose. Adah was to bear his children. Zillah was to satisfy Lamech’s unbridled sexual urges. One blogger said, “She drank a contraceptive elixir so that unwanted pregnancy did not ruin her appeal. She adorned herself like a harlot.” Some claim that her name, Zillah, actually means “seductress.” The writer of this web sermon said, “A late Midrashic work notes that Esau took multiple wives, Adah for procreation and Oholibamah for gratification (Genesis Rabbati Vaylishlach 160). In both Lamech’s (4:20) and Esau’s (36:4) cases, respectively, the wife named Adah is recorded as the first wife to give birth, implying that that was her purpose.” The second wife was to fulfill the lust of the flesh. This is what brought King David down. He “saw” lusted and then took Bathsheba. His many wives marred Solomon’s reign!

The web article I’ve been referring to adds this to the discussion: “Generations of readers of Scripture, Jew and gentile alike, have looked upon Lamech with a jaundiced eye. If ever there were a religious figure likely to reread the Lamech pericope with a benevolent hermeneutic, it would have been Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism. He was a staunch believer in, and practitioner of, plural marriage. Yet even Smith wrote of his lecherous predecessor: “For Lamech having entered into a covenant with Satan, after the manner of Cain, wherein he became Master Mahan, master of that great secret which was administered unto Cain by Satan (Book of Moses 5:49).”[2] One of Satan’s tools is the “lust of the flesh.” He uses it to destroy politicians, religious leaders, kings, and presidents. Courson leaves the readers of his commentary with a warning. He writes, “If you’re toying with an affair, an infatuation, a fantasy, a pictorial excursion on the Internet, understand this: the degree to which anyone else becomes attractive to you is the degree to which your spouse will become increasingly unattractive. No man can serve two masters. That’s just the way the human soul is made.”^[3]

^[1] Hughes, R. Kent. 2004. Genesis: Beginning and Blessing. Preaching the Word. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

[2] https://anshesholomnewrochelle.org/sermons/lamech-and-his-wives/

^[3] Courson, Jon. 2005. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary: Volume One: Genesis–Job. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

In Genesis 4:17 Cain is said to have built a city that he named after his son Enoch. Cain was banished from the presence of God to spend his life wandering in the land of Nod. The Hebrew word for Nod is very close to the one for “Toss, tossed, or tossing.” Probably the earliest allegorical interpreters of the Scriptures, Philo of Alexandria, makes this relevant to his readers and those in every generation since. He suggests that Cain and those who follow from him are “…of wavering and unsettled impulses.”  They are “…subject to tossing and tumult, like the sea lashed by contrary winds when a storm is raging, and  has never even in fancy had experience of quietness and calm. And as at a time when a ship is tossing at the mercy of the sea, it is capable neither of sailing nor of riding at anchor, but pitched about this way and that it rolls in turn to either side and moves uncertainly swaying to and fro; even so the worthless man, with a mind reeling and storm-driven, powerless to direct his course with any steadiness, is always tossing, ready to make shipwreck of his life.”[1]

The city that Enoch built has all the elements of a city. It has walls, buildings, inhabitants and an organized system of laws. It was constructed of walls of deceit, false notions, myths that were all designed to fortify his own alienation from God. Philo says, “Cain’s buildings are demonstrative arguments. With these, as though fighting from a city-wall, he repels the assaults of his adversaries, by forging plausible inventions contrary to the truth.  His inhabitants are the wise in their own conceit, devotees of impiety, self-love, arrogance, false opinion: men ignorant of real wisdom, who have reduced to an organized system ignorance, lack of learning and of culture, and other pestilential things.  His laws are various forms of lawlessness and injustice, unfairness, licentiousness, audacity, senselessness, self-will, immoderate indulgence in pleasures … Of such a city every impious man is found to be an architect in his own miserable soul, until such time as God takes counsel (Gen. 11:6), and brings upon their sophistic devices a great and complete confusion.”

Although Philo doesn’t say so, it seems the chief characteristic of the city built by Enoch is one described well by James 1:6-8. James says that “…the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” There are many citizens of that same city today. It’s named after themselves and consists of all the walls and buildings that build up arguments against God and his benevolent reign in our world. The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God.”

[1] https://catholicgnosis.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/cain-city-descendants/

Beginning in Genesis 4:17, we learn about Cain and his family. It says, “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.” R. A. Torrey says, “In almost every place that I have visited in going around the world, I have given skeptics and others an opportunity of asking questions at one or two meetings. I do not think that I have ever held a question meeting at which someone has not put in the question ‘Where did Cain get his wife?’ This seems to be a favorite question with unbelievers of a certain class. I have also met young Christians who have been greatly puzzled and perplexed over this question. But if one will study his Bible carefully and note exactly what it says, there is really no great difficulty in the question.”^[1] Notice that the text does not say he went out from his family and “Got” a wife. It says he “knew” her. That means he had sexual relations, and she conceived. Cain most likely already had a wife. Where did she come from? Courson rightly answers, “Because Adam lived to be 930 years old, he and Eve had many, many children. Therefore, Cain married one of his own relatives because mankind had not yet gone down the road of depravity long enough chronologically to cause the kinds of problems now present in intermarriage.”^[2] When he deals with the issue of Cain’s wife, Cassuto (A Jewish Commentator) says, “His wife] One of his sisters, of course, is meant; this explanation is given by all the commentators from Talmudic times to our own day.”^[3]

Although banished to wander, verse 17 might present us with a contradiction. It says, “Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” Gill argues that Cain settled in contrast to God’s curse. He says, “Rather, the first city is built by Cain the murderer, the rejector of the word and presence of the Lord (Gen. 4). Instead of wandering under the protection of God, Cain chooses to settle in the land of Nod and build a city (that he names after his son Enoch; see verse 17). The city becomes a sign of fallen man’s quest for security apart from God.”^[4] This has some merit. God did expel Cain from His presence along with the presence of his family. Other family members must have intended to take vengeance on Cain’s act against Abel because of Cain’s fear of such retaliation. The city building could have been, as suggested, another act of rebellion by Cain, or possibly God had permitted Cain and his family to build the city.

Considering the reality of Abel’s other relatives who appeared to want to exact justice on Cain, the city might be the first city of refuge that we will see provided for later in the Old Testament. John Sailhamer says, “In the present shape of the text, Cain’s city may have been intended as the ‘sign’ that gave divine protection to Cain. One element of the narrative that seems to be in favor of such a reading is the fact that, within the narrative itself, the purpose of the ‘sign’ was to provide protection for Cain from anyone who might attempt to avenge Abel’s death. Such was the express goal of the ‘cities of refuge’: ‘They will be places of refuge from the avenger so that a person accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly’ (Num. 35:12). The subsequent narrative testifies to the association of Cain’s sign and the cities of refuge in that even in Lamech’s day, Cain’s city was a place of refuge for the ‘manslayer.’ Thus, within the narrative as a whole, Cain’s city may be viewed as a ‘city of refuge’ given to him by God to protect him and his descendants from blood revenge (see Deut. 19:11–13). The importance the author attaches to the ‘city’ that Cain built can be seen in the fact that the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the ‘culture’ that developed in the context of that city.”[5]

^[1] Torrey, R. A. 1998. Difficulties in the Bible: Alleged Errors and Contradictions. Willow Grove: Woodlawn Electronic Publishing.

^[2] Courson, Jon. 2005. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary: Volume One: Genesis–Job. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

^[3] Cassuto, U. 1998. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part I, From Adam to Noah (Genesis I–VI 8). Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The Hebrew University.

^[4] Gill, D. W. 1979–1988. “City, Biblical Theology of.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1:713. Wm. B. Eerdmans.

[5] https://www.harvestbiblechurch.net/blog/cainite-city

I remember thinking that Cain’s punishment for murder wasn’t very severe. Murder, as a capital crime, should carry a much more severe penalty. But Cain did not think God’s punishment was too light. In Genesis 4:13, we read, “Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’” Banishment of Cain is no light thing. Westermann researched this issue and quotes from several experts. He concludes, “W. Schottroff, following Musil, O. Procksch, J. Scharbert, and others, points out ‘that it is the practice among the Arab Bedouin even to the present day to punish one who sheds the blood of a member of the family by outlawing him.’ This punishment could be regarded as the equivalent of the death penalty.”^[1]

However, there is some serious discussion over the Hebrew word that is translated as “punishment” in the English Standard Version as quoted above. It is frequently translated as “iniquity.” Cain is either sorry that he got caught and must pay the “penalty” and focuses on the penalty itself, or he is overcome with grief because of his sin. Most seem to see it as the first option. Leupold says, “Cain’s answer, however, gives no indication of a repentant spirit. There is no grief over sin in the word, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear.’ Cain is very sorry to have gotten into such a mess. He does deplore the set of miserable consequences that he has brought down upon his head. All he speaks about is the punishment that has fallen to his lot.” Leupold acknowledges that it could mean “guilt,” but “here the context demands the common enough meaning ‘punishment for sin.’ Cain merely cringes at the thought of what he must bear. This is a relatively common experience in the psychology of sinners: bold impudence becomes a whining fear and complaint.”^[2]

Some will argue that the verse should say, “My iniquity is greater than I can bear.” M’Caig prefers this translation and says, “… his iniquity became his punishment.”^[3]Robinson expands on this view and writes, “When sin makes a man a burden to God, he is likely to become a burden to himself. A sinner left to himself is the greatest burden that can be laid upon him. Suffering is often a heavy burden; sin a thousand times more so.” He then quotes Luther, who takes this view also. Luther said, “I had rather go into hell without sin, than into heaven with it.” This kind of burden is what Judas carried after selling Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. Robinson continues, “Judas thought to throw off the burden by hanging himself, but only made it faster and heavier.”^[4]

I’m not sure which commentators Ibn Ezra was reading in his day, but he gives another dynamic to the translation of verse 13. Cain is not complaining about the punishment, and he’s not lamenting his guilt. Instead, he’s acknowledging the severe nature of his crime. Ibn Ezra says, “All the commentators agree that he is confessing and saying, ‘My sin is too great to be forgiven!’” Nahmanides agrees, “In fact, Cain is confessing. ‘It’s true! My sin is too great to be forgiven! For, ‘You are righteous, O Lord; Your rulings are just’ [Ps. 119:137], even though You have punished me so severely.’”^[5]

^[1] Westermann, Claus. 1994. A Continental Commentary: Genesis 1–11. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

^[2] Leupold, H. C. 1942. Exposition of Genesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

^[3] M’Caig, Archibald. 1915. “Retribution.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr, John L. Nuelsen, Edgar Y. Mullins, and Morris O. Evans, 1–5:2570. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.

^[4] Robinson, Thomas. 1892. Job. The Preacher’s Complete Homiletic Commentary. New York; London; Toronto: Funk & Wagnalls Company.

^[5] Carasik, Michael, ed. 2018. Genesis: Introduction and Commentary. Translated by Michael Carasik. The Commentators’ Bible. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

The ground had opened its mouth to receive the blood of Abel from the hand of his brother Cain. God cursed Cain. In Genesis 4:12, God told him, “When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” The literal reading of God’s curse on Cain, which began in verse 11, says that Cain is cursed, “From the ground.” The curse “from the ground” could mean several different things. Some suggest that it might mean that the ground will not produce crops for Cain anymore, which would amount to something like, “You are placed under a curse and can no longer farm the soil.” Others suggest that God is telling Cain that he is “more” cursed than the ground, which was cursed after his father’s sin. Connecting it with verse 12, it seems best to understand this as cursing Cain’s production when he farms. The ground from which he produced his living before was the ground that received his brother’s blood, and now, because of his sin, the ground will not readily yield its crops to him. This seems to be why he is also cursed to be a “fugitive and wanderer on the earth.” Cain and his family appear to be the first Nomads on the earth. He becomes a people who live chiefly by hunting and fishing and harvesting wild food. Thus, he must follow the game and move from field to field to find food.

Walton sees this likewise. He writes, “In the garden, there was the lush provision of food; outside the garden (where Adam and Eve were sent) there was arable land with cultivation being possible; Cain is driven to a place that has no hope of agriculture so that one must survive by hunting and gathering. Thus, food provision again takes a central place as the blessing becomes more and more difficult to attain. Likewise, since Cain denies responsibility for the family, he is deprived of the family (the other component of the blessing).”^[1] Wiersbe says, “Cain had defiled the ground with his brother’s blood, and now the ground wouldn’t work for him. If Adam toiled and struggled day after day, he would get a harvest (Vv. 17–19); but there would never be fruit from his labors for Cain. So, he couldn’t continue as a farmer. All he could do was wander from place to place and eke out a living.”^[2]

The curse of becoming a fugitive contains more negative implications. He is not only wandering from place to place; he is running and hiding from something. Some think that God should have been harder on Cain for his sin. Matthew Henry compares the movement of Satan on the earth as described in the book of Job with Cain’s curse. Job says that Satan told God that he had been “moving to and fro throughout the earth.” Henry says, “Perhaps it is spoken fretfully, and with discontent. He had been walking to and fro and could find no rest but was as much a fugitive and a vagabond as Cain in the land of Nod. (3.)”^[3] God did not exact the death penalty on Cain. He will give man the right to protect the innocent with the death penalty for murderers after the flood, but he did not exact that penalty on Cain. Shakespeare Said, “A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. It seems to me most strange that men should fear, seeing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.” Anna Desai blogged, “It is a moral statement. If one is brave, one maintains one’s dignity, fights injustice and even dies for a cause, once and for all having lived a virtuous life. For cowards, they are unable to face difficult situations for themselves and their families; they are prepared to lose dignity. which is comparable to death every time they shamefully run away from a problem.”[4] Cain would run!

^[1] Walton, John H. 2001. Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[2] Wiersbe, Warren W. 1998. Be Basic. “Be” Commentary Series. Colorado Springs, CO: Chariot Victor Pub.

^[3] Henry, Matthew. 1994. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Peabody: Hendrickson.

[4] https://www.quora.com/What-figure-of-speech-is-cowards-die-many-times-before-their-death