3. Adam and Eve's Family Outside the Garden (4:1–26)

Whereas Chaps. 2–3 recount the Life of Adam and Eve inside the garden, Chap. 4 will relate a new episode in the ongoing story of the first couple's experience—but now outside the garden. the abrupt announcement of cain and abel's birth (vv. 1–2) is told so as to show the linkage between Chap. 3's intimations of continued life and prosperity (3:15–16, 20) and the beginning realization of that hope despite human sin in the garden. Sadly, the optimism of the narrative turns to the sordid account of sin's continuing encroachment by the murder of abel at the hands of his elder brother (vv. 3–16). Remarkably, however, the grace of god toward cain enables adam's firstborn to survive and later father an impressive lineage whose members are remembered for notable cultural achievements. Unfortunately these achievements were overshadowed by their wicked accomplishments (vv. 17–24). The “tôlĕdôt of the heavens and earth” (2:4–4:26) concludes on the high note of another evidence of God's grace toward Adam and Eve. Seth, Adam's third son, replaces the murdered Abel and heads a new lineage that is remembered as the benchmark for “when men began to call on the name of the Lord” (4:25–26).

Eden held for the man and woman a blissful communion with god without mediation. When life outside the garden is first regarded by the narrative, cain and abel are depicted at worship presenting offerings before the lord. This early incident shows what is acceptable worship in the eyes of god. Mosaic custom took the matter of worship seriously, with its emphasis on the time, place, and means; consequently the cain-abel narrative held more importance for the ancient reader than it does in the church today, although it was a source of theological reflection in the writings of the new testament. The initial question in this chapter is why abel's offering was accepted and not cain's, but the larger issue is that of what will become of the promised blessing and deliverance (1:26–28; 3:15).

We also learn from this incident in adam's early heritage how sin has its sway over the human family as we see its expansion from the autonomous choices of adam and eve in the garden to the ruthless fratricide outside eden. God's response of “curse” against cain underscores the accountability of any person who would dare to tamper with the sacredness of human life, which exclusively bears the imago Dei (1:26–27; 9:5–6). The relationship between cain and brother abel impacts the relationship cain has with god: “Gen 4:1–16 makes it clear to sever the tie with one's sibling is to sever one's tie with yhwh and the earth.” From the genealogy of Cain (4:17–24), Genesis shows that human ruthlessness pervades a culture that lives outside the “presence of the Lord” (4:16).

Literary Structure and Origins. Structurally the cain-abel narrative (4:3–16) is sandwiched between two sections recounting the birth and genealogy of adam's eldest, cain (4:1–2, 17–22). The similarity in the naming formula of v. 17 and vv. 1–2 indicates that the two are interdependent sources. Cain's genealogy ends in the “song of lamech” (“song of the sword”), in which lamech boasts of his infamous career (4:23–24). This is followed by the announcement of seth's birth and a brief genealogical statement, concluding the tôlĕdôt section (2:4–4:26) with a note about worship of the lord (4:25–26). Thus the chapter begins and ends with the same subject matter of worship.260>

Cynicism concerning the literary unity of the chapter has been fueled by the diverse literary genres constituting the chapter (e.g., narrative, genealogy) and by seeming incongruities in the text. For example, Cain is punished as a wanderer in the narrative, but in the genealogy he is portrayed as a city-builder. Similarities in the genealogies of Cain (4:17–22) and Seth (5:1–32), plus the presence of two genealogies for Seth (also 4:25–26), are attributed by critical scholars to two sources (J and P, respectively); these sources are supposedly the garbled accounts of a prior composite or single genealogy. One tradition critic has described chap. 4 as an original myth of primeval setting that was joined by antiquarian stories about nomadic tribes, all placed in a genealogical framework that included the founders of the civilized arts. This rewriting of the biblical narrative, however, fails to appreciate the pressing evidence for the original unity of the passage that many recent interpreters have come to recognize. New literary studies and more favorable exegetical treatment of troublesome passages encourage confidence in the integrity of the text.

Some believe that the Cainite genealogy (vv. 1–2, 17–24) and narrative (vv. 3–16) originated from an imaginative tradition of the Kenites (qyny), according to which their eponymous head (from whom the name is derived) was Cain (qyn). The Kenites were a desert tribe which inhabited southern Judah (Gen 15:19; 1 Sam 27:10) and were the tribe of Moses’ father-in-law (Judg 4:11). The Kenite connection is based in part on etymological speculation that “Cain” (qyn) is related to the word meaning “smith” in Aramaic and Arabic, observing that his descendant Tubal-Cain founded metallurgy. Also “Kenite” (qyny) and “Kain” (qyn) have parallel meaning in Num 24:21–22 (NASB, NRSV; also Judg 4:11). But other etymologies for “Cain” have been proposed, and this uncertainty obstructs the proposal of an original Kenite source. Even if “Cain” were related to the term “smith,” there is no convincing connection between the genealogy of 4:17–24 and the Kenites or any other tribe. The interdependence of chap. 4's literary components, such as vv. 17–26, precludes that the genealogy ever circulated independently in its present form. Since the Kenite theory rests on the assumption that Cain is the eponymous head and since there is no linkage between the desert Kenites and the city-dwellers of 4:17–24, the theory remains a speculative reconstruction with little merit.

Beyond the supposed Cain-Kenite connection, the notion of a nomadic Cain who in fact fathers urban dwellers would be on the face of it a contradictory effort. This leads to diverse proposals about how this could have happened, including the suggestion that there were two different Cains of folklore: the one who is the farmer-turned-city-father and the other who is the ancestor of the Kenite tribe known for its nomadic life and metal work (cp. Tubal-Cain's metallurgy). If so, it is remarkable that the author of our account would be so unconscious of the problems created by this ill-fated aspiration as to have attempted it. We will speak in more detail of the genealogies and their problems at 4:17, but here we will present in a cursory way the indications of an original literary unity.

Chapter 4 fits harmoniously with the literary strategy of Genesis at large and within the tôlĕdôt section (2:4–4:26), especially chap. 3. It is routine in Genesis to include narrative expansions in the genealogies (e.g., Enoch, 5:22–24; Nimrod, 10:8–12), even lengthy ones as we find in 4:3–16 for the Cainite genealogy (cp. Noah's, 5:32–9:29). Also the nonelect line of descent appears first, followed by the elect lineage as we find here with Cain preceding Seth's lineage (e.g., Japheth and Ham before Shem, chap. 10). Chapter 4 can be regarded as a genealogy of Adam's family that would match the genealogical genre of chap. 5. In the former case the genealogy is branched, meaning that all three descendants of Adam are specified, whereas in chap. 5 the genealogy presents only the line of one son, Seth.

Internally 4:1–26 also possesses evidence of cohesion. (1) The birth announcements at the three seams of the chapter have similar language (e.g., “lay with his wife,” vv. 1, 17, 25). (2) The narrative is built on the numerical congruity of sevens and multiples of seven: the emphatic “seven” for Cain (v. 15) and Lamech (v. 24); “brother” is found seven times, “Cain,” fourteen and “Seth,” seven; the divine names “God,” “Lord God,” and “Lord” together in 2:4–4:26 occur thirty-five times (5 x 7), equaling the same number “God” appears in 1:1–2:3, and the seventieth (10 x 7) occasion of deity's name in Genesis is at 4:26b when men called on the “name of the Lord.” (3) The same Hebrew construction (participle) identifying the occupations of the participants is found for Cain and Abel (4:2), Cain as builder (v. 17), and Jabal as tent dweller (v. 20). Also the chiasmus of vv. 2–5 overlaps the genealogical notice of 4:1–2 and the narrative vv. 3–5, suggesting an interdependence in genealogy and narrative. F. I. Andersen has noted the alternation between the names “Abel” and “Cain” as well as their profession and acts of worship:

A   And became Abel a keeper of flocks

A´  And Cain became a worker of soil

B   Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord

B´  But Abel brought, also he, some of the firstborn of his flocks and their fat portions

C   And looked with favor the Lord on Abel and on his offering

C´  And on Cain and on his offering he did not look with favor.

The pairing of the lines and the alternation of the participants create the chiasmus: (1) Abel, Cain, Cain, Abel and (2) flocks, soil, soil, flocks. (4) The narrative in structure and language imitates what is found in chaps. 2–3. Chapters 2–3, and 4 show a chiastic pattern built around the interchange of dialogue and narrative with the central element serving as the dramatic turn in the story. In the Eden narrative 3:6–8 is the turning point, detailing the sin of Adam and Eve, and in the present narrative the centerpiece 4:8 records the murder of Abel:

A  4:2b–5       Narrative: Cain, Abel actors, Lord passive

B  4:6–7       Dialogue: Lord questions Cain

C  4:8        (dialogue) Narrative: Cain murders Abel

B´ 4:9–15a   Dialogue: Lord and Cain

A´ 4:15b–16   Narrative: Lord active, Cain passive

There are also many lexical similarities: divine questioning, “Where?” “What?” (4:9 with 3:9; 4:10 with 3:13); Adam's and the Lord’s replies, “I heard you [lit., your voice] in the garden” (3:10) and “Listen [lit., “voice”]! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground” (4:10); the curse against Cain (“You are cursed from the land [hā’ădāmâ],” 4:11) and the curses against the serpent (“You are more cursed,” 3:14) and the “ground” (hā’ădāmâ; 3:17); the protective “mark” of Cain and the provision of Adam's clothing (4:15 with 3:21); the divine forewarning of “desire” and “rule” (4:7 with 3:16); and the expulsion toward “east of Eden” by “driving” (gāraš) out the culprits (4:14 with 3:24). Thematically we find Adam and Cain have the same occupation (2:15; 4:2); both of their sins are related to the “fruit” (3:6; 4:3); their separation from God is brought on by the issue of “knowing” (yāda‘; 3:5–6, 22; 4:9); and they are questioned, sentenced, and punished in the same manner.

Clearly chap. 4 must be heard in partnership with chap. 3. We noted there that the theological import of this structural and lexical association is cause-effect. Chapter 4's events are seen as genetically related to the fall of Adam and Eve, and the actions of parent and child are viewed as an organic whole. This attributes the lamentable advances of sin in the Cain-Abel episode to the inception of sin inside the garden. Now Cain, Adam's firstborn, acts out the serpent's purposes by murdering the “seed” of the woman Eve (3:15). And, unlike his parents, there is no sense of shame or remorse; if anything, he is incensed that God would censure him. His aggression against Heaven's dictate is surpassed by the vitriolic voice of Lamech, who imitates his ancestor through murdering the vulnerable. Among all these bothersome noises, we never hear from poor Abel, except the unnerving sound of the blood-drenched ground that cries out for satisfaction.

(1) Cain and Abel's Birth (4:1–2)

1Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.” 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.

4:1 Adam “lay [yāda‘] with his wife” (lit., “knew his wife”), a common idiom for sexual relations in the Old Testament. But “knew” in its conjugal sense is limited to chap. 4 in the early history (chaps. 1–11), where it is found three times (4:1, 17, 25; cp. 4:9). This recurrence of “knew” in the Cain-Abel narrative probably is an allusion to the “tree of knowledge” and serves as a reminder of Adam's sin and its consequence (2:9, 17; 3:5, 22), especially the wordplay on the outcome of their eating: “they knew [yāda‘] that they were naked” (3:7). Cain's birth is the first indication that God's beneficent word would come to pass (3:15–16) and that Adam's faith was not misplaced (3:20). Divine superintendence assured for humanity what it could not achieve by itself. Eve acknowledges this when she attributes to the Lord's involvement her giving birth to Cain. The narrator reinforces this indirectly in referring to Adam's wife by the seldom-used “Eve,” not found again in the subsequent Old Testament, which echoed Adam's earlier confidence in God's provision for a future family (3:20; cf. 4:25).

The etymological history of the name “Cain” remains disputed (see introduction to this section), but the biblical narrative recounts the popular etymology for the name. Usually the name given to a child in Hebrew narrative conveys an interpretive significance, either explicitly stated in the narrative or by suggestion. By a play on the sound of the verb “brought forth” (qānîtî), Eve names her eldest “Cain” (qayin). The verb has two different meanings that are reflected in the English versions: (1) the more common meaning of obtain, as “acquired” (NJB), “gotten” (AV, NASB), or “gained” (NJPS); and (2) the infrequent sense of create, as “brought forth” (NIV, REB) or “produced” (NAB, NRSV). When used as “create,” God is its subject, but here we have the woman, Eve. Ugaritic qny, meaning “create” or “make” as in “procreate,” argues for “brought forth.” Also the context of creation and procreation supports this understanding. The unexpected use of “man” (’îš) to identify Cain, which is not used elsewhere for a child, rather than the routine term “son,” points up another allusion to chaps. 2–3. Eve is given the childbearing function (3:16, 20) in subduing the earth while Adam is ordained to work the “ground” whence he came (2:7, 15; 3:17). As the “ground” (’ădāmâ) with the help of the Lord had produced “man” (’ādām), so Eve the woman (’îššâ, 2:23) with divine help produced the “man” (’îš), Cain. She sees in creating Cain the realization of her divinely assigned role.

Her commentary on the birth of the child reflects her renewed dependence on the Lord. Eve had a rekindled faith in the goodness of God and the veracity of his word promised in 3:15. Luther (and others), however, attributes too much to Eve by reading the Hebrew “a man of the Lord,” as though Cain were the savior foreseen in 3:15. Rather, her exclamation acknowledges that this achievement came only by the assistance of the Lord. This first birth recorded in the Bible is consonant with all of remaining Scripture, which invariably attributes conception and life to the unique work of God and as evidence of his blessing (e.g., Pss 127:3–5; 139:13). From the outset of God's plan for the human family, procreation is the divine-human means whereby the man and woman might achieve the dominion that God has envisioned for them (1:28). This motif of children (“seed”) dominates Genesis and was critical to later Israel's understanding of its own destiny as it interpreted the life of the patriarchs (e.g., 12:7).

4:2 From the description of Abel as “his brother,” it is apparent that the story is told with Cain in focus. Its language underscores the despicable act of this murderer, who out of envy committed fratricide. “Abel” means “breath” (hebel), but since there is no play on his name, as there is with “Cain,” it is best to restrain from making more of its significance. At most the name may be an allusion to the brevity of life as a result of the fall. Introducing the two sons in terms of their occupations is more important for the narrator since it establishes the plot for the murder that follows. Abel's vocation is not anticipated in chaps. 2–3, though the garden narrative permits it, while Cain's is the one assigned to Adam (2:15; 3:17–19). Both professions were known in early society; sheepherding and agriculture provided an occasion for a natural rivalry. The Sumerian tale of Dumuzi and Enkimdu depicts a rivalry between the shepherd god and the farmer god over marriage to a woman, but it ends in a peaceful resolution. Some view this as a parallel motif to the Cain-Abel rivalry or see the substratum of the biblical account as mythological, but the dissimilarities are so great as to render such an analogy or dependence unwarranted. The biblical setting is worship, and the factor that led to Abel's death was Cain's exaggerated pride. Like his parents before him, Cain desired recognition that did not rightly belong to him (4:7). Pride dominates his lineage (Lamech) and is revisited among the “men of renown” in Noah's day (6:4) and the later builders of Babel's tower (11:4).

(2) Cain and Abel's Worship of God (4:3–7)

3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

6Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.”

After addressing their vocations, their parallel acts of worship are recited as well as the Lord’s reaction to their gifts (vv. 3–5). Cain's anger at the rejection of his gift provokes the interrogation and divine counsel that the Lord offers the downcast brother (vv. 6–7). Why God refuses Cain's offering is unspecified in the passage and is the subject of debate among commentators. Some contend that the story reflects a period in Israel's religion when the blood offering was preferred over the grain, but this would not be the case for the period of the Mosaic audience (who we assume would have understood God's disapproval of the offering) when both grain and animal offerings were honorable. Also it is interpreted as divine disapproval of the vocation of farmer versus that of shepherd, but this flatly contradicts the earlier garden narrative, which depicts cultivation as the divinely appointed assignment for Adam (2:15; 3:23). The intentional linkage between Adam and Cain would militate against viewing Cain's profession as dishonorable. If anything, he was carrying out “to the letter” God's exhortation to Adam.

Others suggest that the very absence of a rationale for God's actions shows that divine election is mystery and therefore must be viewed as capricious (from the human perspective), as “fated by God to be so.” This we find too pessimistic toward the text, for we think that the passage entails the reason for Cain's rejection (see below). Another finds the rationale for the rejection in the source of the fruit from the cursed “ground.” Cain is not initially condemned; only his offering is rejected. His unwillingness to cope with God's decision leads to murder and the divine curse. But if the problem were the source of the gift (“ground”), it does not square that God directed Adam vocationally to work the “ground,” which would inevitably mean the rejection of its food (3:23). The remaining resolutions involve either (1) a deficiency in the matter of the gift or (2) a flaw in the intention of the giver. We will show that the former reveals the latter.

4:3–4 Although this is the first recorded offering in the Bible, there is no indication that the narrative is announcing the first occasion of sacrifice. “In the course of time” (v. 3) is vague and may imply that the practice of giving offerings was customary for the brothers, perhaps learned from Adam. Cain and Abel's offerings were presented to the Lord according to their differing vocations. Cain's “offering” as well as Abel's is described with the same term minḥâ, which can be used as a general reference to any kind of “gift,” such as that given among brothers (Gen 32:13) or to a king (1 Sam 10:27), or it can be a technical term for the “cereal” offering presented to the Lord (e.g., Lev 2:1–7; 6:12–14; Num 15:1–16).

In addition to the Abel example, minḥâ also refers to an animal offering in 1 Sam 2:17. Our passage does not have the common language of the Mosaic sacrificial legislation, neither the general word “sacrifice” (zebaḥ) nor reference to the “sin,” “burnt,” “guilt,” or “peace” offerings. However, Cain did not bring the firstfruits (bikkûrîm; cp. Lev 2:14); he brought only “some” of his crop (v. 3). This is contrasted with the offering of Abel (“but Abel”), who brought not only “some” of his “firstborn” (bikkōrôt) but the best of the animal, the fatty portions (v. 4). Later Israel acknowledged the efficacy of both the grain and blood offerings, but of these particularly the firstfruits (e.g., Exod 23:16) and firstborn (Exod 13:2, 15; Lev 27:26; Deut 15:19) were reserved for God. Israel itself was regarded as God's firstfruit (Jer 2:3) and firstborn (Exod 4:22). This imagery shared by the church (e.g., Rom 11:16; Heb 12:23) and Christ (e.g., Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:20, 23) as the “firstborn” indicates the blessing of God and the veneration of the Lord by his people. It has been suggested that the parallel language “some of the fruits of the soil” and “some of the firstborn of his flock” insinuates that Cain also brought the best of his offerings. Yet the passage is intent on showing the contrast between the two men. Also interpreting Cain as stingy conforms with the narrative's depiction of his self-absorbed attitude (4:7) and his absence of conscience (4:13). We think the absence of “firstfruits” for Cain in juxtaposition with Seth's “firstborn” would not have been lost on the Mosaic audience.

God's response toward Cain and Abel, therefore, was not due to the nature of the gift per se, whether it was grain or animal, but the integrity of the giver. The narrative ties together the worshiper and his offering as God considers the merit of their individual worship: “The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor” (vv. 4–5). Both giver and gift were under the scrutiny of God. Cain's offering did not measure up because he retained the best of his produce for himself. For the writer to the Hebrews (11:4), Abel's offering was accepted because it was offered in faith. As Luther noted, “The faith of the individual was the weight which added value to Abel's offering.” Unlike a human observer, God sees the condition of the human heart and weighs the motive of the worshiper (e.g., 1 Sam 16:7). Elsewhere Scripture shows that the Lord requires of the giver an obedient and upright heart (e.g., 1 Sam 15:14; Hos 6:6; Matt 5:24).

4:5 Cain's anger revealed his true attitude, which resulted in his despondency. The characterization “very angry” (lit., “it burned to Cain exceedingly”) is similar to the Hebrew construction at Gen 34:7, which describes the “fury” of Jacob's sons upon learning of their sister's abuse (cp. 31:36; Jonah 4:1, 4, 9). Attempts to define Cain's reaction as “depression” rather than anger smacks of modern distinctions. His “downcast” face indicated a saddened visage (cp. Job 29:24). Approval is described elsewhere in Scripture as acceptance in a person's eyes; acknowledgment of Jacob's “gift” meant favor from brother Esau (“I have seen your face,” 33:10; cf. 1 Sam 1:18). For Cain his downward gaze told the whole story.

John's first epistle comments that Cain was of the “evil one” because he hated his brother and murdered him (3:11–12). By appealing to Cain as example, the apostle proved his premise: the one who hates a person is a murderer. In the New Testament, Cain is viewed as the forefather of an unrighteous seed who had drawn first blood in the perpetual struggle between the ungodly and the godly seed first anticipated in 3:15. According to the custom of primogeniture, the firstborn received the bounty of parental inheritance (Deut 21:17), but from the viewpoint of Genesis as a whole, it is not surprising that the firstborn in whom Adam and Eve had so much hope would be refused for another. This rejection of the firstborn for the younger son (in this case Seth) portends the common pattern witnessed among the patriarchs where the custom of primogeniture is superseded by divine election and the outworking of covenant promise. God's gracious dealings with Israel also were initiated by his elective love (Deut 4:37; 7:7–8), but the Mosaic covenant included moral demands. Israel's acceptance was not automatic due to their status as God's “firstborn.” Cain and his unrighteous offspring served as a reminder to Israel that its destiny was measured in the scales of ethical behavior.

4:6–7 God questions Cain for the same purpose he queried the man and woman in the garden (3:9, 11)—not to scold but to elicit Cain's admission of sin with the view to repentance. The REB's rendering, “Why are you scowling?” (v. 6) captures the visual grimace etched across Cain's face. Cain telegraphed by his facial expression the bitterness of his darkened soul.

Verse 7 presents the translator with a number of problems, so much so that Jewish tradition counted it as one of the indeterminate verses (b. Yoma 52a-b), and some modern commentators have given up on discovering its meaning. Proposed solutions, whether ancient or modern, commonly involve emending the text, but there is little agreement, and we can take meager solace in understanding the passage when the understanding is based on rewriting it. Despite the problems, we can achieve a credible understanding of the passage. “Accepted” translates the Hebrew word for “a lifting up” or an “exaltation”; this literal rendering is found in the awkward translation of the NJPS: “Surely, if you do right, there is uplift. … ” The implication is made explicit in the NASB's “If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted up?” and the REB's emended option, “You hold your head up.” In this understanding the expression reverses the earlier imagery of Cain's “downcast” face. When Cain practices what is right, there will be an uplifted face, meaning a good conscience before God without shame. Most versions offer the metaphorical sense “accepted,” referring to Cain and his offering (e.g., Vg; NIV, AV, RSV, NRSV). It is best to take the expression “lifting up” as figurative referring to the uplifted face, indicating acceptance from God that comes with a pure heart.

The Lord forewarned Cain that right action would be rewarded but a wrong course meant giving sin an opportunity to destroy him (v. 7a). The rhetorical question put to Cain has the same purpose as the exhortation of the later prophets: “Learn to do right!” (Isa 1:17; cf. Amos 5:14). The rationale of the Lord's question assumes a correspondence between doing “what is right” and receiving divine approval, but the very tenor of the question shows that Cain was not doing “what is right.” What is more important here for Cain, however, is what action he will take now that his sin has been found out (v. 7b). The consequences of his reaction to God's correction are more far-reaching than the initial sin itself, for if he pursues sin's anger, it will result in sin's mastery over him. This is his decision. It is possible for Cain to recover from sin quickly if he chooses the right thing.

Here we come to another interpretive obstacle in the verse, how to understand sin as “crouching” and what is meant by “door.” “Sin” is likened to an animal “crouching” or “lurking” (NRSV) at the “door,” meaning the animal's resting place, ready to stir if incited. “Crouch” (rābaṣ) is commonly used of domesticated animals in repose (i.e., 29:2; 49:9; Exod 23:5), including wild animals such as the lion (Gen 49:9). This pictures sin temporarily at bay and subject to its master but coming alive when stirred. Some commentators have compared the Hebrew rōbēṣ (“crouch”) to the cognate Akkadian term rābiṣum, a mythological demon attending the doorways of buildings to guard its inhabitants or conversely to threaten them. The REB thus reads, “Sin is a demon crouching at the door.” If there is an allusion to the door demon, then the narrative is personifying sin as a demonic spirit ready to pounce on Cain once he opens the “door” of opportunity. This may well correspond with the “seed” of the serpent in 3:15, which will do battle with the “seed” of the woman Eve. The imagery is effectively the same and the message clear: sin can be stirred up by wrong choices.

The Lord instructed Cain that though sin “desires” him he can still “master” it (4:7b). This language is a lexical allusion to the judgment oracle against the woman (3:16b), reminding Cain of the earlier consequences of sin's realization. By this divine analysis we learn that sin has a pervasive power that seizes occasion to enslave its victims (cp. Rom 3:9; 1 Cor 15:56; 1 John 5:19). But Cain is urged to repent lest he be consumed; he cannot claim helplessness nor ignorance, for he has divine counsel. The apostle Paul testified to the inner struggle against the power of sin and conceded that the power of Christ alone could liberate him (Rom 7:15–25). Cain's refusal to deal rightly with his sin permitted his anger to fester into murder.

(3) Cain's Murder of Abel (4:8–16)

8Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let's go out to the field.” And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

9Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

þþ“I don't know,” he replied. “Am I my brother's keeper?”

10The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”

13Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”

15But the Lord said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

This second half of the Cain-Abel narrative turns on the disastrous deed of Abel's murder (v. 8). It is followed by the Lord's interrogation of Cain, the culprit's evasive response, and the judgment of “curse” mitigated by divine mercy (vv. 9–15a). It closes with Cain's expulsion “from the Lord’s presence” (vv. 15b–16). The section brings the Cain-Abel narrative full circle but with surprising results. Cain's birth is by the agency of the Lord, and he is a tiller of the soil (vv. 1–2a); but by the end Cain is driven from the Lord's presence and must live apart from the land. He is no longer a farmer enjoying sanctuary, but now he is a city-builder ostracized from the land of his birthright (v. 17).

Three recurring words of the section encapsulate what this passage concerns: “brother” (vv. 8[2x], 9[2x], 10, 11), “kill” (vv. 8, 14, 15), and “ground” (vv. 10, 11, 12). This chapter is about Cain, not Abel, for Abel is always described as Cain's brother (“his, your brother”). He has no standing other than what the Lord gives him. Moreover, Abel never speaks with God or anyone for that matter; it is only Cain and the Lord who dialogue. But what is at issue is Cain's responsibility for his “brother.” His treatment of brother Abel is intrinsically related to his relationship with God and the divine disposition toward Adam's eldest. Cain exchanges that privilege for anger's expression by ambushing the weaker brother. But Cain discovers that as the instigator of the first killing he can be the object of the second and thus protests that he is precariously left without defense. The Lord intervenes by establishing a boundary protecting Cain so that no one exercises a personal vendetta against him. This is bound up with the significance of “ground” in 2:4–4:26, which is integral to understanding Cain's punishment. Cain, as Adam, is a tiller of the “ground,” but Cain exceeds the transgression of his father by profaning the ground with spilt blood. Thus the “ground” would no longer give its produce as it had for Adam, and Cain is forced to abandon it for a vagabond life. His destiny is found further “east” of Eden, removed that much more from the blessing of the Lord. Cain is the disowned son.

4:8 Now we come to the fulcrum of the Cain-Abel narrative, but again we come up against a dilemma for the interpreter. In the Hebrew text there is no dialogue where we expect it following the customary introduction to conversation, “Cain said [wayyō’mer] to his brother Abel.” The AV's translation “Cain told Abel” (also NASB) is unlikely from the Hebrew, and it implies that the foregoing words of the Lord were reported to Abel, a position held by some commentators but which is inconsistent with Cain's disposition. Ancient versions, followed by many English versions, supply “Let's go out to the field” (SP, LXX, Vg, Syr.,

Throughout chap. 4 change in speaker is marked by the expression “[he] said (wayyō’mer)” followed by dialogue (4:6, 8–10, 13, 15). This argues that some textual problem has arisen in the Hebrew text at 4:8, which the early versions clearly are filling out. Commentators have recommended alternative meanings for the Hebrew term used or have made a variety of proposed emendations. Others have explained the omission on literary grounds, noting that the abrupt account of the murder fits with the parallel brevity in 3:6 and reflects the haste of the author to get to the nefarious deed.

This despicable act is underscored by the repeated phrase “Abel, his brother” (also vv. 9–11). Such rivalry is rehearsed time and again among the patriarchs: first with Ishmael, who lived in “hostility toward all his brothers” (16:12; 25:18); Esau's perpetual strife with Jacob, where repeatedly the narrative has the phrase “his brother” yet ends in peaceful separation (36:6); and Jacob's sons, who plot against “brother” Joseph, where again repeatedly “his brothers” is found, but gladly it concludes with a happier resolve (45:15). If the variant “Let's go out to the field” is correct, it makes Cain's action all the more repugnantly calculated and his disobedience all the more rabid. Structurally, as we noted earlier, 4:8 parallels the morbid act of the first disobedience (3:6). The virus of sin has infected the parent's children; Adam and Eve do not have to await their own death to experience the devastating effects of their rebellion in the garden. They witness the murder of their youngest and the exile of their firstborn.

4:9 God's question “Where is your brother Abel?” echoes the inquiry put to Adam in the garden, “Where are you?” (3:9). Both acts of disobedience are thus tied together, indicating that Cain's murderous act had its antecedents in the sin of his father. Unlike his father, who admitted his crime (though reluctantly), Cain adds to his condemnation by lying. He attempts to elude the question and absolve himself of responsibility by his question, “Am I my brother's keeper?” Cain intends it as a rhetorical question requiring a negative reply, but the response from God discloses otherwise. Adam was appointed “keeper” (šōmēr) of the garden (2:15), but here the issue involves responsibility for another human being. The definitive reply to Cain's question is found in the later Noahic covenant when the Lord formally sanctions retributive justice against murderers (9:5–6).

The Mosaic law would have given an affirmative answer to Cain's question. His crime would have been recognized as a particularly heinous violation of community solidarity, which was highly esteemed among the Hebrews. Community presupposed mutual responsibility that was foundational to covenant commitment (e.g., Lev 19:18; Gal 5:14). Even death did not obviate family obligations to a deceased family member (e.g., Num 35:19, 21; Deut 25:5–10). Community responsibility took priority over individual preferences or rights. Kinship terms such as “brother” characterized those who entered into a mutual covenant agreement. “Brother” is used of fellow Israelites (e.g., Deut 1:16; 15:12) who are protected from exploitation of any kind (e.g., Lev 25:35–43; Deut 23:19); aliens who live within the community are treated as “native-born” (Lev 19:33–34). Human morality assumes an unstated covenant between persons that is grounded in the intrinsic imago Dei (9:5–6). The Christian community followed the same pattern of solidarity as in Israel, including corporate guilt (e.g., 1 Cor 11:30; Gal 6:1–2). While individuality was not denied, individualism in the sense of an autonomous person having privilege in opposition to or at the expense of the familial group was not practiced. The church was spoken of and addressed as a collective body or a gathered people in union (e.g., 1 Pet 2:9–10). In describing the relationship of the individual to the whole, it was common to draw on metaphors of the body (e.g., Rom 12:3–8; Eph 4:12) where the particular entity is circumscribed by its contribution to the whole.

Cain abrogates this sacred obligation of kinship loyalty by the appalling crime of fratricide. Because Cain commits this “family scandal,” he loses the protection of the family bond and thus fears for his life. Fratricide was so repugnant to Reuben that he opposed his brothers and intervened in behalf of Joseph (37:21). This explains why special treatment was required of Israel toward groups whose family origins were connected with their own, such as Lot's descendants (Moabites and Ammonites, Deut 2:9) and Esau's offspring (Edomites, Deut 23:7). The violence promulgated by Cain and championed by Lamech reaches its peak in the days of Noah when God exercises vengeance by the unprecedented destruction of all human society (6:7).

4:10 The second question, “What have you done?” is reminiscent of 3:13 where the Lord asks the same of the woman. As in a criminal trial, God presents condemning testimony against Cain: “your brother's blood” refutes Cain's protestations. Our passage depicts Abel's postmortem call for vindication by this eerie personification: “The voice of your brother's blood cries out.” Adam also hears the “voice” (“sound”) of God and is called to account for his actions (3:8). The source of the disquieting cry is the “ground” that is cursed because of Adam's sin (3:17) and is now polluted by the spilling of innocent blood. Later Israel was forewarned that murder defiled its land, and for such crimes there was no exoneration for the nation except through retribution against the malefactor (e.g., Num 35:33; cf. Gen 9:5). Collective guilt required just and prompt action by the community against the culprit. When a murder victim was found in the open field and the crime could not be solved, the community still made atonement by ritual involving a heifer “so you will purge from yourselves the guilt of shedding innocent blood” (Deut 21:1–9).

Ironically, though Abel never talks in Genesis, his testimony of faith continues to speak, and his voice cries out for revenge against the unrighteous who oppose God's work among the saints (Heb 11:4). Although it is Abel's blood that convicts the sinner, it is the blood of Christ that makes adequate reparations for the sins of the unrighteous, offering forgiveness and not vengeance, speaking a better word (Heb 12:24).

4:11–12 Like the serpent, Cain is placed under a curse; this is the first occasion in Scripture where a human is cursed. This curse indicates the gravity of his crime against God and creation. Cain's culpability is emphasized by the direct accusation “from your [own] hand.” The language “you are under a curse” is the same as the oracle delivered against the serpent: “Cursed are you above [min] all the livestock” (3:14) is parallel to “cursed are you from [min] the ground” (4:11). This linkage shows that like father like “seed,” both the serpent and Cain are murderers who receive the same retribution. Because Cain has polluted the ground with innocent blood, he is “driven” from it as his parents were from the garden (3:24).

As a fitting punishment Cain the farmer no longer enjoys the fruit of the ground and is thus by necessity consigned to live as a vagrant. This is a significant departure from God's punishment against Adam; while made difficult by the curse, the Lord preserves Adam's agricultural life (3:18–19). But here, by the failure of the land to respond to Cain's cultivation, his sentencing of perpetual exile is much more severe, which explains Cain's complaint. For later Israel a household's tract of land signified its covenant union with God, for the Lord as owner had generously bequeathed it to Israel as his tenants (e.g., Lev 14:34; 25:23; Deut 32:49). Because God owned and occupied the land among his people, it was declared holy in covenant-law, requiring ceremonial provisions; a dead body must be buried by nightfall lest its corpse offend God and defile the land (Deut 21:23). Abel's corpse is left rotting in the open field. Cain's expulsion from the tainted land has its later parallel in Israel's experience of exile as the just deserts for choosing to live immorally (e.g., Lev 18:24–28; 26:33–35; Deut 28:64). Moses’ Israel was consigned to a life of wandering because of disobedience at Kadesh (Num 14; Deut 2:14–15). But unlike Cain's family, the subsequent generation emerged from the desert and possessed Canaan (Deut 32:10). Nevertheless the threat of expulsion remained for later Israel all its days, and the desert memory haunted them; for the Mosaic community and generations to come, early Genesis depicted what awaited those who transgressed covenant.

4:13–14 Does Cain lament his condition, or does he ask for forgiveness (v. 13)? Early versions have, “My guilt is too great to forgive” (LXX, Tg.Onq., Vg), which is also followed by Luther and some modern commentators. In this case Cain is expressing remorse over his sin and requesting God's forgiveness. Rabbinic interpretation took the verse in this way but as a question, “Is my guilt too great to be forgiven?” (b.Sanh. 101b). This idea of “forgive” reads the opposite of the sense found in most English versions. The problem is the meaning of the two words: Hebrew ‘ăwōnî may be translated “my iniquity” or “my punishment,” and nāśā’ likewise is ambiguous, meaning “forgiveness” or “bear.”

The sense of bearing away sins (forgiveness) is found when these terms occur together (e.g., Exod 34:7; Ps 85:2[3]; Isa 33:24), but the expression can also refer to the punishment for those sins (e.g., Exod 28:43; Num 5:31; 14:34–35). In Lev 20:19 “bear their iniquity” (AV) is sufficient alone to indicate “punishment,” which is otherwise cited specifically in 20:17–18, 20. “Iniquity” and its “punishment” are both indicated by the one term, so the context determines which is in view. The context of v. 14 is more in keeping with complaint than request. Cain protests that his penalty is too harsh; he argues that isolation from God's protective presence effectively results in a death sentence. “Under the weight of this curse, Cain goes to pieces, though not in remorse.” There is a decided difference between his response to God's decree and that of Adam (cp. 3:20). Cain expresses no inkling of remorse, only self-pity and resentment. That Cain does not receive divine forgiveness is shown by his expulsion “from the Lord's presence” (v. 16).

Cain's complaint (“you are driving me”) repeats the description in 3:24, where God “drove” (the same verb, gāraš) his parents out of the garden, but Cain adds that he will be left to himself and forgotten by God (“hidden”; cf. the psalmist's tormenting fear of lonely abandonment by God in Pss 13:1[2]; 22:1, 24[2, 25]). Cain's fear for his life presupposes the expansion of civilization over the course of his long life during which there will be many opportunities for retribution by a blood-avenger (e.g., Seth lives 912 years, 5:8). Without God's protection he is left to his own devices to survive. But despite his deserved expulsion, the Lord does not leave him helpless.

4:15–16 How does God respond to Cain's complaint? The Hebrew MT, followed by the AV (also NASB), has “therefore” (“very well,” NJB), indicating that God concedes to Cain's objection that his punishment is too severe (vv. 13–14). Thus the Lord promises in a formal declaration to preserve his life. Other versions have the negative “Not so!” which reads with the LXX tradition (Syr, Vg; NIV, NRSV, REB, NAB); thus the Lord's response is a corrective to Cain's fearful outburst, not the expulsion. This makes better sense in the passage because earlier God also corrects Cain (4:6–7, 10), and his expulsion “from the presence of the Lord” (v. 16) shows that the sentence is not mitigated. Nothing more than the original sentence (banishment)will occur. To insure this and to diminish Cain's fears, he safeguards the impenitent Cain as though he were his kinsman or protector (gō’ēl). This provision is twofold: (1) God warns that Cain's murder will be avenged seven times over (v. 15a), and (2) he marks Cain with a protective sign (v. 15b).

“Vengeance” (nāqam) usually speaks of divine retribution against the Lord's enemies or those of his people (e.g., Deut 32:35, 43), though it may describe retaliation by civil authority (e.g., Exod 21:20). Covenant law prohibited personal revenge (Lev 19:18). Reprisal is God's business. Individuals, in exceptional cases, were commissioned to carry out divine sanctions (2 Kgs 9:7). “If anyone kills” (literally, “anyone killing”) is forensic language found in the Mosaic law (e.g., Exod 22:19[18], literally, “anyone lying”). “Kills” (hārag) frequently describes private violence or warfare. Although it may concern divine judgment (e.g., 20:4; Amos 4:10), it is seldom used for judicial execution with God's authority. Its recurrence five times in chap. 4 underscores the violence Cain has introduced to the human family (vv. 8, 14–15, 23, 25). “Seven” as a figure of speech meaning completeness or fullness expresses the certainty and severity of God's vengeance against a vigilante. This incident probably motivated Peter's thought when he quizzed Jesus about forgiving “my brother” seven times. Jesus’ unexpected response of “seventy-seven times” punctured the contemporary notion (b. Yoma 86b, 87a) that three times were all that was required (Matt 18:21–22).

This “mark of Cain,” as it is popularly known, has proven to be a seedbed for confusion (v. 15b). “Mark” is the common word for “sign” (’ōt); the exact nature of the sign or its place on the body (“on Cain”) is unknown. One Jewish tradition pointed to Cain himself as the “sign” who served to admonish others to repentance (Gen.Rab. 22.12). In effect this has become true for later generations, if not his own, for Cain the man has become a token of sin's fruit and divine retribution (1 John 3:12; Jude 11). Although “sign” is used figuratively in several passages (e.g., Exod 13:9; Deut 6:8; 11:18), the only parallel is Ezek 9:4, where certain men receive a mark on the forehead. But even there it is in an extended vision in which it only has symbolic force. What is important here is its purpose: “so that no one who found him would kill him” (v. 15). “Mark” in our passage is not a sign of the “curse”; in fact, it assures Cain's safety rather than acts as a reproach. The mark in Ezekiel's vision had the same effect; it distinguished those who bore the brand and gave them protection.

Why does God preserve the life of this murderer? This is particularly perplexing since Torah requires capital punishment for murder. No substitute for this crime, such as monetary penalty, was acceptable (e.g., Num 35:32). Perhaps the answer is that by the “sign” God prevents the spread of bloodshed that otherwise would escalate. Moreover, God is declaring that life and death are his prerogative, which he does not share with anyone except by divine sanction (cp. 9:5–6). God's judgment against the culprit is restrained by his grace. His promise of procreation is not thwarted even by human murder (1:28; 3:15, 20).

Cain will live outside “the Lord’s presence,” which is another narrative reminder of Adam's crime and penalty (3:22). This same expression also describes Jonah, who fled the Lord's presence (Jonah 1:3, 10). In the Mosaic community “the Lord’s presence” often referred to the sacred tabernacle (e.g., Lev 9:24; 22:3; Num 20:9; 1 Sam 21:7). Routinely, the garden tōlĕdōt (2:4–4:26) has employed the same language and imagery associated with the tabernacle. Here the setting is reminiscent of biblical excommunication, requiring death (e.g., Exod 31:14; Lev 18:29) or quarantine (e.g., Lev 13:46; 15:31). Cain's residing in “the land of Nod, east of Eden,” implies that he is further removed from the garden than Adam. “Nod” is a play on the word nād, meaning “wanderer,” which refers to the sentence against Cain in 4:11–12, 14. Scripture does not speak again of “Nod,” and no specific locale is known. It may be that Nod is simply meant to say that wherever Cain sojourned could be called the “land of the Wanderer.”

(4) Cain's Family (4:17–24)

17Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

19Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute. 22Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.

23Lamech said to his wives,

“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;

wives of Lamech, hear my words.

I have killed a man for wounding me,

a young man for injuring me.

24If Cain is avenged seven times,

then Lamech seventy-seven times.”

By tracing the lineage of Cain immediately following God's promise (vv. 15–16), the mercy and faithfulness of the Lord are aptly demonstrated. Cain survives and founds an impressive posterity. But lest we forget the evil character of Adam's firstborn, his progeny will also testify to the villainy of Cain. This contrasts with the following lineage of Seth, which is presented twice— an abbreviated form (vv. 25–26) and its fuller, formal presentation (chap. 5). In both cases the righteous conduct of the appointed line versus that of Cain's family is accentuated. Whereas Cain's progeny founded the civilized arts, Seth's era is remembered as the time mankind worshiped the Lord (v. 26b). Also chaps. 4 and 5 intentionally contrast the parade examples of each lineage: Lamech, the polygamist and murderer, versus righteous Enoch, who walked with God (5:22).

Cain's genealogy entails an irony that speaks to the personality of this family tree. Genealogies are designed to celebrate life and accomplishment by tracing the continuation of family from one ancestor to the next, but Cain's record involves the cessation of life, as represented by the murderers Cain and Lamech. Whereas Seth's genealogy shows the orderly progress of creation through procreation and the succession of the “image” (5:1b–3), Cain's descendants contradict the order given to creation and history. What has disrupted this orderly progression? As the garden story of Adam and Eve showed, Cain's family likewise attests incipient human sin.

Although the genealogy succeeds in demonstrating how sin disqualified Cain's household as the lineage of blessing, it shows conversely that God's promise of preservation for Cain was honored (vv. 15–16). Generously, the Lord grants even the wicked Cainites the power of propagation, and therefore they too share (partially) in the blessing of all those who bear the “image” of God (1:26–28). This mitigating grace typifies God's dealing with the excluded lineage both in early humanity (e.g., Japheth and Ham's families, chap. 10) and the subsequent history of the patriarchal families (e.g., Ishmael and Esau). It will be left to the Sethite lineage to perpetuate the blessing through Adam's thirdborn (chap. 5).

Another evidence of God's grace may well be the advancements that the Cainite family achieve in the development of three aspects of civilization: animal breeding, music, and metallurgy. Even these elements of human experience, while truly mortal, owe themselves ultimately to Israel's God, who enables human life to discover and “rule” the earth (1:28). Yet just as the blessing of progeny by Cain is shadowed by Abel's murder and the antics of Lamech, the blessing of the learned arts is sullied by the embarrassment of Lamech's polygamy and the weaponry developed by his son Tubal-Cain, who also bears the name of his infamous ancestor.

Beginning with Cain, the lineage consists of ten members (including Naamah) and seven generations (vv. 17–18). It is linear in construction, where one descendant alone is named to represent each successive generation. The lineage concludes with the offspring of Lamech, whose four children are presented in a segmented form of genealogy (vv. 19–22). Segmented genealogies include more than one descendant and create a family “tree” by branching (e.g., the Table of Nations, chap. 10). This formal presentation of Cain's ancestry is followed by the lyrical “Song of the Sword,” as it is sometimes identified (vv. 23–24), in which the descendant Lamech revels in his heinous deeds and intimidates any challengers.

Both form and content in Cain's lineage attract a comparison between his descendants and chap. 5's line of Seth (see following chart). Cain and Seth's lines have identical names twice and several similar-sounding names, and both genealogies are linear, concluding with a segmented branching that gives three sons. Also the order of several of the names are close. Moreover, there is the repetition of the names and sequence Adam-Seth-Enosh, which concludes chap. 4 and begins chap. 5, suggesting the same source of information. Some scholars consequently have argued that the two genealogies evidence two parallel literary traditions, both derived from the same, original source.

Although their similarities seem to argue for dependency, there are significant distinctions between the two genealogies that manifest originally different sources. Of the names in the lists, only two are actually the same spelling (Enoch and Lamech, excluding Adam). The genealogies show different numbers and sequences of names. More important, however, are those divergences that cannot be attributed to confusion or fluidity between two lists. Chapter 4 does not exhibit knowledge of the flood and stops short of the parade descendant of Adam's line, “Noah.” Absent in chap. 5 are the segmented genealogy of names after Lamech and the woman “Naamah.” Also the biographical information clearly distinguishes the “Enoch” and “Lamech” of Seth from that of Cain. Additionally chap. 4 does not use the stereotypical language of Seth's family record in chap. 5, especially the important feature of the patriarchs’ ages. Also Seth's genealogy is anchored in the setting of creation (cf. 5:1–3), while the background for Cain's genealogy is the garden expulsion. It is best to explain chaps. 4 and 5 as two independent accounts.

We have seen that the juxtaposition of the two lists in chaps. 4 and 5 attracts a comparison of the two lines of Cain and Seth. When we include Adam as the head of Cain's line (v. 1), “Lamech” occupies the seventh position. Correspondingly, “Enoch” holds the honored position of seventh in the Sethite parentage. Structurally the two genealogies provide a striking contrast by highlighting Lamech and Enoch, and they elaborate on the careers of these two commanding figures. Lamech is a transitional figure who closes out the Cain line and initiates his own genealogy, boasting of his own accomplishments and indelibly marking his heritage by perpetuating the infamous name “Cain” (Tubal-Cain). The rhetorical-theological effect of this parallel is to call attention to the moral character of each line of descent. Lamech is the epitome of Cain's corrupt family. As the seventh name in the genealogy, the number for completeness, Lamech's notorious career attests to the peculiarly wicked life of the Cainites. Chapter 5 shows that Adam was also survived by a righteous line of descendants (Seth) through whom God would choose to preserve and bless the earth's inhabitants (i.e., Seth-Noah).

The advent of urban life with the emergence of Cain's wicked progeny served as a warning against building cities independently of God. Noah's later descendants constructed such a city and its tower (11:1–9) in defiance of God's injunction to settle throughout the world (9:1, 7). It was only after God's intervention that the nations “scattered” by necessity (9:19; 11:9; cf. 10:32). Both Cain's antediluvian lineage and the postdiluvian Babel cautioned later Israel that cities founded upon arrogance resulted in violence and ultimately destruction. The Israelites of Moses’ day faced the ominous cities of the Canaanites with their developed but oppressive culture (e.g., Num 13:26–33; Deut 7:1–6; 20:1–20). These Hebrew descendants of slaves, born and reared in the desert, were admonished by specific injunction (e.g., Deut 7:7–16) to avoid the allurement of Canaan's cultural strongholds. Cities with their highly dense populations are commonly reputed to behave wickedly (as Sodom and Gomorrah). Yet God does not abandon Canaan's cities to evil. He transforms such cities by populating them with his own people. This was the hope of conquest under Joshua, and for the Christian church it is accomplished through the preaching of the gospel (e.g., Matt 9:35). Although the first city was built by evil Cain, the final estate of the redeemed is described in terms of God's city, the “Holy City, the new Jerusalem” (Rev 21:2).

4:17–18 The birth of Cain's son is reported in language similar to the account of his own conception and birth (v. 1), except that Cain's wife is not named. We must assume that Cain's wife was one of Adam's “other daughters” (5:4). Later, sibling marriage was unnecessary, and it was soundly denounced in Mosaic tradition (e.g., Lev 18:9).

We have commented that the members of Cain's genealogy are remembered for their cultural advancements, including the building of cities. The NIV's rendering, “Cain was then building a city” (also NAB, REB), identifies Cain as the first builder (v. 17b). The Hebrew construction “he was building,” however, is ambiguous, permitting Cain or Enoch as the subject. Since the name of the city is “Enoch” (v. 17b), the traditional rendering has attributed the building of the first city to Cain, who names it after his firstborn. If this reading is followed, Cain's action is in direct violation to the injunction of God that has restricted him to the life of a vagabond. However, there are two alternative understandings: (1) although Cain built the city, it is for Enoch to inhabit; or (2) as mentioned, the subject of the verb may be taken as “Enoch,” who would then be the first builder. The advantage of this latter interpretation is that “Enoch” is the nearer antecedent for the subject of the verb (“was building,” v. 17b). But if Enoch is the builder, the city's name “Enoch” is problematic. To surmount this problem emendations have been suggested, including the excising of “Enoch” at the end of the verse as a secondary gloss. There is, however, no textual warrant for such emendations, and the Hebrew is not so difficult as to require it. Moreover, Cain's disobedience in this matter is consistent with what we know of his previous behavior.

The etymology of Enoch probably is related to Hebrew ḥānak, “train up, dedicate,” or West Semitic ḥnk, meaning “introduce, initiate.” Those who interpret Enoch as the first builder understand the name “Enoch” as derived from “dedicator” or “founder” of cities. Alternatively, since we take Cain as the builder, Cain “dedicated” his city to his son “Enoch,” after whom he names it. “Enoch” not only is the name of the famous figure in Seth's lineage (5:18–24) but also the name (“Hanoch,” NIV) of a grandson of Abraham (25:4) and a grandson of Jacob (46:9).

Verse 18 recounts four successive descendants: Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, and Lamech. Nothing is said of the initial three other than their names. The attention of the account turns to the infamous Lamech, who holds center stage for the author.

4:19–22 Lamech is the seventh from Adam in his genealogy, and his children, who instigate major advances in urban life, are listed in the seventh position from Cain. The first alarming evidence of Lamech's moral decline is his inauguration of polygamy, a dismal departure from the divine norm (2:23–24). Although Genesis does not condemn the patriarchs for their practice of polygamy, it is transparent from Genesis itself that such practices resulted in painful consequences. In Mosaic legislation it was assumed that polygamy produced troubling home life (Deut 21:15–17).

Lamech's wives (having the names of a rhyming couplet, Adah and Zillah) appear in both the narrative and the “Song of the Sword,” for which they are the audience of Lamech's prideful boasts. This probably explains why chap. 4 includes women's names, whereas chap. 5 does not specify a wife or daughter's name (“other sons and daughters,” 5:4, etc.). The meaning of their names is uncertain, but “Adah” usually is associated with ‘ădî, meaning “ornament”; and “Zillah” (ṣillâ) with Hebrew ṣēl, “shadow, shade,” or ṣll, “shrill, tinkle.” Some have related the latter to the Hebrew word for “cymbal” (ṣilṣûl), suggesting that the two are praised for their beauty and sweet voice (as Song 2:14).

Each wife bears two children; Adah has two sons, and Zillah has a son and daughter. The three sons are presented in the same way; each one's birth and name is given, followed by his profession. In the case of Lamech's daughter, Naamah, nothing is said of her contribution to social achievement (v. 22). Inclusion of her name gives symmetrical balance to the number of children born to Lamech, with two children from each wife. Jewish imagination explains her inclusion by identifying her as Noah's wife (Gen.Rab. 23.3).

Adah births “Jabal,” who is the ancestor of pastoral life that involved animal husbandry (v. 20). There is no contradiction with Abel's profession since his occupation was with “sheep” (ṣō’n), and Jabal's trade was broader (miqneh, “livestock”). Jabel's maternal brother bears the rhyming name “Jubal,” who commenced the art and crafts of musicology (v. 21).

Their half-brother, born by Zillah, was Tubal-Cain, who was recognized as the inventor of metalwork (v. 22). He differs from his brothers in the text by his compound name and the absence of “father of” (’ăbî), meaning “progenitor.” The context, as with his brothers (vv. 20–21), indicates Tubal-Cain was one of the founders of civilization's technologies. The NIV's rendering “forged” suggests the advanced science of smelting, but lāṭaš only means “hammer, sharpen.” Although bronze was refined as early as the late fourth millennium, the developed science of iron metallurgy was not widely used until about 1200 B.C. There is some evidence that terrestrial iron was used earlier on a limited basis, but meteoric iron was worked early and probably is intended here. Tubal-Cain's metallurgy probably included weapons as well as agricultural tools. Bearing his ancestor's name, “Cain,” and his descent from murderous Lamech suggest that his craft could be used for ill. With the appendage of “Cain” the grim side of his craft comes to mind first. “Cain's family is a microcosm: its pattern of technical prowess and moral failure is that of humanity.”

The similarity in the names of Lamech's sons draws attention to their role as founders and to their kinship. “Jabal” and “Jubal” have been related to yĕbûl, meaning “produce,” and the rhyming “Tubal” is a continuing sound play. Thus the associative sounds imply that they are inventors (“producers”). The name “Jubal,” the father of musical instruments, also corresponds closely in sound to the melodic ram's horn (yôbēl), which in later Israel announced the Year of Jubilee and other special occasions (e.g., Exod 19:13; Lev 25:9). Specifically, however, the text refers only to the widely known harp (lyre) and flute (pipe).

Moreover, the names of the brothers have a fascinating linkage with both Abel and Cain. All three have a similar sound to “Abel” (hebel), but as the father of herding, “Jabal” particularly echoes the name and career of Abel. This surprising juxtaposition of Lamech's sons and Abel may be anticipatory of vv. 25–26, where we learn that Seth takes the place of Eve's slain son. The point is that the progeny of Cain cannot take the place of fallen Abel; it is left to Seth to perpetuate the best of the Adamic line. Also Cain (qayin) is subtly referred to in the case of his descendants, Jabal and Jubal, by the repetition of Hebrew sounds q and n in their professions and, of course, explicitly in the compound Tubal-Cain. Jabal is the father of tending “livestock” (miqneh), and Jubal's innovation of harp and flute alludes to Hebrew qīnâ (“lament/ dirge”). This further cements the union of ancestor and posterity, suggesting that their forefather's wickedness has poisoned their achievements.

4:23–24 In Lamech's poem, the so-called “Song of the Sword,” he boasts before his wives his prowess as a combatant, and he revels in the glory of his victims (vv. 23–24). It indicates that violence encircles Cain's lineage since Lamech claims that he is provoked by another who injured him. Although no weapon such as a sword is stated in the poem, Tubal-Cain's industry of forging metal objects implies weaponry that in the hands of evil men resulted in escalating violence. Lamech thinks himself invincible with his newly acquired weapons as he asserts his domination over anyone who might trouble him. The poetic arrangement (displayed in a literal translation) presents parallel members:

Adah and Zillah//wives of Lamech
listen to me//hear my words
a man for wounding//a young man for injuring me
seven times//seventy-seven times

Reference to his wives in this alarming setting probably indicates the worse consequence of the judgment oracle in 3:16b, where the woman suffers under a despotic husband. In this case the women experience the humiliation of polygamy and the violent spectacle of a savage killing. His repeated exhortation demands their acquiescence: “Listen to me” renders “hear my voice,” another possible allusion to Adam's sin (3:10, 17) and the murder of Abel (4:10). The demand “hear my words” is captured in the REB's “mark what I say.”

It is uncertain whether the boast concerns a specific incident, as most conceive, “I have killed a man” (AV, NIV, NASB NRSV, NJPS, NJB, NAB), or a threat that is generally directed to anyone, “I kill a man” (REB). In this latter case it is not so much a boast of an act already committed but a warning that anyone opposing him does so at his peril. “Kill” (hārag), a clear allusion to Cain, is found four more times in our narrative, all in connection with him (vv. 8, 14–15, 25). Poetic parallelism shows that only one “man,” not another “young man,” is meant. The term for “young man” (yeled) commonly refers to the very young such as the infant Isaac (21:8; cf. 2 Sam 12:15) but also to the teenager Ishmael (21:16) and sometimes to young male adults (e.g., Ruth 1:5; 1 Kgs 12:8). The NASB's rendering “boy” presumes too much (“lad,” NJPS). Though we cannot determine the age of the victim, yeled probably indicates that the “man” was a younger person and therefore vulnerable, making Lamech's aggression all the more repugnant. The ostensible reason for Lamech's retaliation was his own harm suffered at the hands of the “young man.” “Wounding” and “injuring” are likewise in parallel and refer to the same incident, but the circumstances are not forthcoming. Both “wounding” (peṣa‘) and “injuring” (ḥabbûrâ) are found in tandem twice more where punishment is inflicted for crime: the classic passage calling for talionic justice, “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth … wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exod 21:25), and the wisdom saying, “Blows and wounds cleanse away evil” (Prov 20:30). In Lamech's case, his reprisal is excessive since he kills the youth for the cause of a mere wounding.

Lamech's gloating over a reputation more ruthless than infamous Cain's shows the disparagement of human life among Cain's seed that was fostered by his murder of Abel. God's promise to avenge Cain's life “seven times” (v. 15) is interpreted by Lamech as a badge of honor for Cain rather than as a merciful provision by God for a shameful criminal (v. 24). Lamech contends that if Cain's value is reprisal seven times, then his acclaimed deeds merit much more. This also fits the first context, which serves as a warning against any who would seek vengeance against Cain. Lamech's boast therefore has the same concomitant message for any future avenger, but in Cain's case it is the Lord who pronounces vengeance. “Is avenged” (yuqqam) renders the same form translated “suffer vengeance” in v. 15 and is one of several references in the poem to Cain's deed and the divine provision promised. Here Lamech in his twisted logic may presume upon divine protection, or he may imply in a sarcastic tone his lack of need for it. This is the first recorded incident in the Bible where crime is venerated by the culprit.

(5) Seth's Birth and Family (4:25–26)

25Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord.

4:25 The birth of Seth is interpreted by Eve as God's response to the loss of righteous Abel. By bearing “again,” the hope of a “another seed” (literally) born to Eve meant a righteous lineage is possible through Adam's son Seth (cf. 3:15). Abel was dead, and Cain was disqualified. As in the case of naming “Cain” (see 4:1), Eve explains theologically the choice of Seth's name. “Seth” (šēt) is related by sound (if not etymology) to “granted” (šāt). Eve attributes the birth of the child to the mercy of God, who has provided her a third son. It would seem that the first round is won by the serpent in the murder of righteous Abel, but the gift of Seth insures that the promise will stay alive through Eve, who is found after all to be the “mother of all living” (3:20). Although our verse bears remarkable similarities in language with 4:1a, it possesses a significant deviation in having the name Elohim rather than the customary Yahweh. Quite apart from the problems that Elohim presents to source critics since it occurs in the imagined Yahweh (J) source, the name must be an echo of the dialogue between the serpent and Eve (3:1–5), which is the other place in the garden tōlĕdōt where “God” alone occurs. There it is found in the setting of deception and distrust, but now it appears to be Eve's deliberate, though late, rejoinder to the serpent's cynicism toward God's goodness.

4:26 Hope for this “seed” lives with the announcement of Seth's firstborn “son,” Enosh (4:26a), who parallels Cain's firstborn “son,” Enoch (4:17). Again the narrator returns to the importance of Seth as substitute for deceased Abel (v. 25) by the subtle linkage of language with 4:4: “Abel, he also [gam hû’] brought … ” and “Seth also [gam hû’] had a son.” The name “Enosh” (’ĕnôš) in Hebrew can function both as a common noun and as the name of an individual, like the word for “man” or “Adam” (’ādām; 4:26; 5:6–7, 9–11; 1 Chr 1:1). As a common noun it may indicate an individual “man” in a general sense (e.g., Job 5:17) or collective “mankind,” where it is synonymous with ’ādām (e.g., Job 36:25; Ps 8:4[5]). “Enosh” then is the new “Adam” who heads a new line that will receive the blessing and survive the flood (5:1–11, 29). Though the etymology of Hebrew ’ĕnôš is uncertain, its usage often refers to the frailty and insignificance of “man.” Perhaps Seth's naming of Enosh reflects his own sense of mortality and in light of the murder of Abel the tenuous character of human life.

Enosh's birth marks an important point in the development of the righteous lineage of Adam. At this time people “began to call on the name of the Lord” (v. 26b). This concluding remark to the tōlĕdôt section (2:4–4:26) serves as a linkage with the following genealogy, which formally presents Adam's lineage through Seth down to the flood survivor, Noah (5:1–32). We have already commented on the contrast between Cain's line (chap. 4) and Seth's family history (chap. 5). This is sharpened by v. 26b. Here Enosh and his descendants contrast with Cain's descendants, who are remembered for their urbanization of society and the vices introduced by Lamech. Moreover, the reference to “calling on the name of the Lord” links 4:25–26a with the succeeding material at 5:2–3, where the “naming” formula reappears, “And she/he called his name … ” This same formula is reserved for the naming of the final patriarch “Noah” in 5:29. Thus while the Sethite members give birth and name their offspring, they also give homage to the Lord by calling on his name. Sadly this cannot be said of Noah's contemporaries who take up the ways of Cain.

A number of exegetical difficulties are faced in the latter half of this verse (v. 26b), resulting in conflicting translations in the ancient versions. These created a host of varying interpretations of the verse and the man Enosh. First, the Hebrew text has an indefinite construction (literally, “it was begun to call … ”), resulting in no stated subject. The modern versions rightly supply the subject, such as “men” (NIV, NASB, NJPS) or “people” (NRSV, REB). The LXX and Vg, however, attributed to Enosh himself the innovation of calling on the “name of the Lord.” Such a translation does not require too great a change in the Hebrew text and therefore may reflect a real difference in the Hebrew textual history. Yet this reading may have been influenced by the listing of Cain's descendants, who were recognized as founders of the arts and sciences (vv. 20–22), making it secondary. In effect, by attributing to Seth's first genealogical descendant the innovation of public worship, the versions draw an even sharper distinction between Cain's offspring and that of Seth: Cain's firstborn and successors pioneer cities and the civilized arts, but Seth's firstborn and successors pioneer worship. Is it coincidental that the next utterance of the name “Lord” is Lamech's prayer concerning Noah's birth and role (5:29)?

For the earlier Jews, based on the LXX, Enosh was viewed as a righteous hero, Philo's “ideal man.” In the Christian tradition he foreshadowed the church since his hope in the name of the Lord was prophetic of the Christian's faith in Christ. Luther, too, commented that the wording “name of the Lord” referred ultimately to Jesus Christ, and thus Enosh exhorted the people to look toward their redemption. The Jewish targums, however, reflect the opposite opinion of Enosh. They rendered the Hebrew “began” but also took it as the verb “pollute.” Thus the verse referred to the defilement of the name Yahweh by the making of an idol and giving it the sacred name. Enosh then was viewed not as the paradigm of antediluvian godliness but the beginning of moral degradation. The infamous “Generation of Enosh” was degenerate and initiated a string of wicked generations that resulted in the flood.

“Called” (qārā’) can be taken as “invoking” the Lord in prayer and worship (as NRSV, REB) or as “proclaiming ” in the sense of declaring the revelation of God (e.g., Exod 33:19; 34:5; Deut 32:3). “Began” (ḥālal) appears in Genesis 1–11 to mark strategic new features in the progress of the narrative (6:1; 9:20; 10:8; 11:6). Although worship through offerings was practiced by Cain and Abel (4:1–4), Gen 4:26b announces a new direction in formal worship as in Abram's building of an altar upon arriving in Canaan, where the same descriptive phrase, “called on the name of the Lord,” occurs (12:8). By inaugurating altar worship in Canaan, a historic significance for the family of faith occurred. Even so, worship at the birth of Enosh was not new to the Adamic family, and “Yahweh” was already heard from the lips of Eve (4:1); but it was taken up in a decisive way for the Sethite generations.

“Called on the name of the Lord” in 4:26b unites the Lord of the patriarchs and of Moses with the Lord of the antediluvian line of promise through Seth and shows thereby that the spiritual ancestors of Abraham's family were those descended through Noah, the survivor of the flood's purge. Whereas Cain was alienated from the “Lord’s presence” (4:16), the Sethite clan practiced and declared the word of the Lord. The account infers that the Cainite family perished altogether in the catastrophic flood, but the tiny remnant of the Sethite line emerged from the ark to perpetuate its spiritual birthright (9:1–17). This final note in the tōlĕdōt section of 2:4–4:26 offers at last a bright spot among the dim accounts of sin and death that have dominated the garden story. There is yet hope for sinful humanity.