Lonang Commentary on Genesis 4

CHAPTER 4

Gen. 4:1-7 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

Cain and Abel

The scriptures don’t give us much information on the passage of time with respect to Cain and Abel. Presumably, Cain was Adam and Eve’s firstborn child, and Abel was second. Seth didn’t come along until Adam was 130 years old (Gen. 5:3), and before the first mention of Seth (Gen. 4:25) we are told of six generations of descendants of Cain. However, these events are not necessarily recorded chronologically, so it is anyone’s guess as to when Cain and Abel were born. The one thing we can presume is that no child of Adam and Eve was conceived or born before the Fall, for then it would call into question whether that child had been born with a sin nature. However, if Cain was indeed firstborn, there can be no doubt he was born with a sin nature.

Some commentators take Eve’s proclamation that “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD” to be an expression of hope that Cain would fulfill the prophecy of Gen. 3:15. But remember, this is the first birth of a human being in the entire history of the world – an event which was undoubtedly perceived as wondrous. Not fashioned from the dust of the earth, or taken from a rib, but born from the womb of a woman. I think it much more likely that Eve was just making an exclamation of joy and appreciation for God’s marvelous gift.

My assumption is that when we get to verse 3, Cain and Abel have both reached adulthood, being neither children nor teenagers. Plus, lifespans were so much longer back then for a variety of reasons, it seems likely that at least some decades have passed since they were born. Thus, when verse 3 says Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to God in the course of time, this was probably not a regularly occurring event, not even annually. There is no reason not to suppose that as adults, this is the first time Cain and Abel have ever done this. Otherwise, they might have had a better handle on what they were doing, if they had done it before.

So what went wrong? Scripture gives no indication that God had prescribed any rules as to where, when, or how to make an offering to Him. Nor are we ever told that Adam and Eve made offerings to God as an example to follow. It seems logical that Cain and Abel were operating under the laws of nature (no verbal laws for sacrifices and offerings being spoken yet). For me, this is a clear indication of the operation of Rom. 1:19-21:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

We can say with confidence that both Cain and Abel knew God. They both must have been aware of many of God’s invisible attributes, having heard about them from their parents, and having little in the way of distractions to keep them from noticing them. The question is, did they honor him as God or give thanks to him?

Abel, it would seem, clearly did, because he gave to God the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. In other words, the very best of what he had. Cain, on the other hand, gave merely an offering of the fruit of the ground – no firstfruits, and no choice portions. Or, simply not his best. This was the difference between them, and this is all derived from the laws of nature.

The results of which we know well. Abel’s offering was accepted, Cain’s was not. Cain then became very angry, or in the words of Romans, he became futile in his thinking, and his heart was darkened. The Lord’s response to Cain was to assure him that both repentance and acceptance were still possible, if he would only discipline himself and master the sinful desires within him. Nothing, at this point, was irreversible. Cain could still do the right thing. But that’s not the way it worked out.

---

Gen. 4:8-12 Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 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 First Bench Trial In History

The Crime. Here we have the account of the murder of Abel by Cain his brother – the killing of the second man born in the world by the first. And yes, it was murder in the legal sense, notwithstanding that God had never told the first family what murder was. We have already noted that the Ten Commandments are part of the eternal moral law built into the world at the creation, meaning that each commandment – such as “do not murder” – was fully disclosed to the first family through the things that have been made, as stated in Rom. 1:19-21. And that everyone, including Cain, was without excuse.

Therefore, Cain had all the knowledge he needed to have, to know the wrongfulness of his actions. The law of murder had been sufficiently published and promulgated by God, the Supreme Lawgiver, to give Cain all the advance notice he needed. And I suppose by the severity of his crime, and how remarkably little time it took for the first murder to be unleashed in the world, it shows that the corruption of human nature needed very little time to progress to committing one of the greatest offenses in human society. In other words, even the very first generation of people were all the way corrupt from the very start, requiring no time at all to mature to full-on evil behavior.

The Evidence. God, now acting in the capacity of the Supreme Judge of the World, comes to Cain and makes inquiry. Presumably, though not necessarily, Cain has either hidden Abel’s body or buried it. He assumes God only knows what Cain chooses to disclose, and feigns ignorance. But nothing is hidden from God’s sight, and Cain’s deceit is of no avail. God knows where the body is, where the murder happened, and He knows exactly how and by whose hand Abel died. So God has no need to show the body or disclose its location to Cain, nor to do an autopsy, because God is not a man, that he should be limited to this kind of evidence.

Rather, as God says, the voice of Abel’s blood cries to the Lord from the ground – wherever it was. It is the blood itself which speaks, and it is God alone who hears it. Which statement is no more or less true if we read it literally, symbolically or allegorically. For God is omniscient, even to the point of intimately knowing Cain’s evil thoughts and the guilt hiding in his heart. But there is another principle operating here, which is that all sinful activities of men leave traces, which is to say, the earth is not neutral towards sin, but is negatively affected by it. This is the operation of the law of the land. And regardless of whether people can track, sense or measure these traces, God most certainly can. Nothing escapes His notice.

The Verdict. God’s response to the testimony produced is to declare Cain guilty, and pronounce upon him a verdict. Now he will be cursed from the ground, and made a fugitive and wanderer (in other translations, a vagrant, vagabond, or a drifter) on the earth. That is, Cain’s curse is separate from, and in addition to, the curse of the ground pronounced against Adam. For Cain’s ability to take dominion will not merely be made more difficult, it will in some ways be fully denied to him, preventing him from settling down in one place. Plus, he will be in constant fear for his safety, if he does not receive some special protection from God.

Cain’s curse, unlike Adam’s, is personal to him as a murderer – no one else is directly affected by it, though his immediate family will of course be impacted by it. But we see here the formation of a pattern, that when people sin, the resulting sentence is not a spiritual penalty as it were (that is, condemnation), but a physical one. For in reality, by the Fall, all mankind is already under a universal condemnation and death sentence leading all unredeemed people inevitably to an eternity of punishment and separation from God. Cain’s act of murder does not in reality make him any more destined for eternal punishment than he was when he was born. Cain, for his act of murder, along with all those after him who will become murderers, will suffer consequences during this present life, not merely in the hereafter.

So the penalties we see God inflicting throughout scripture tend to be physical impairments of various kinds. Thus, we never see God sending a demon attack against someone, or sending someone to a different level of hell. But sickness, plague, disaster – these we see fairly often.

---

Gen. 4:13-16 Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

A Lesson In Jurisdiction

It’s no surprise that Cain, upon receiving his sentence from God, immediately complains that it is excessive. In a sense, any punishment short of death could be seen as leniency. But as this was a case of first impression – the first instance of punishment for a crime in history – perhaps it is fair to say that Cain would not have had any proper expectations of criminal punishment gained from experience. But he makes four allegations concerning his punishment: 1) he would be driven from the ground; 2) he would be hidden from God’s face; 3) he would be a fugitive and wanderer; and 4) whoever finds him will kill hem. The first and third statements were certainly true. The second – that he would be hidden from God’s face – was nowhere expressed, but perhaps it can be inferred that he would thereafter be out of God’s favor, at the very least.

But his last statement, that whoever finds him will kill him, seems a bit of a stretch. At this point in history, no one had ever been a blood avenger before – why on earth would Cain’s mind invent the possibility? But perhaps he knew that if the thought could occur to him, it could occur to anyone else. Yet practically speaking, there were on the earth at that time only Adam, Eve, Cain, and perhaps some other unnamed brothers and sisters, along with other children. Was he genuinely afraid someone from his own family would seek revenge?

Nevertheless, God gave credence to Cain’s complaint, and took action to prevent the possibility that someone might avenge Abel. ” Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.” Which begs the question – Why would God protect a murderer? And the answer is, the law of nature – with respect to all crimes, not just murder – only declares what is right and what is wrong. God has all authority, of course, to fully enforce his laws, even to the point of both physical death and spiritual (eternal) death. But the law of nature contains no delegation of law enforcement authority to mankind. At this early point in history, no one has law enforcement authority over crimes except the Lord God Himself. He has not appointed anyone among men to enforce laws on God’s behalf.

Thus, at this point in time, anyone who tried to enforce the law of murder by punishing a murderer would be acting without authority to do so.

People often have the wrong idea about the mark of Cain. The mark was not an additional punishment or an identification of evil, but a form of protection. Cain’s mark was God’s way of preventing a revenge killing. If you are inclined to look for an analogy in prophecy, the mark of Cain was more like the protective seal of God on the 144,000 (Rev. 14:1), than the mark of the Beast (Rev. 13:16-18). Don’t assume the mark of Cain was an indication of evil, just because that’s the way it is portrayed in popular culture.

The authority to punish murder and other crimes would not be granted until more than 1,600 years later, after the great flood. (Gen. 9:6). However, it’s not as though a revenge killing would be just as bad as what Cain did – it would be seven times as bad. Yes, that’s what sevenfold means. Which, if nothing else, shows how seriously God takes the whole issue of authority. Questions of authority are not merely a passing concern with God. Authority questions cut to the very core of what we can and cannot do in life. So we had better pay attention.

Gen. 4 exemplifies what I call the two Supreme Rules of Authority.

• First, God’s laws determine what is right and wrong, and man’s laws must conform to God’s.
• Second, it is never enough to merely know right from wrong. One must also determine to whom, and to what extent, God has granted enforcement authority.

Unfortunately, no one ever asks the second question. However, the second question is more important to God than the first – arguably seven times more important. For in this text we see that human authority extends only to that which God expressly gives us. No person’s authority originates with themselves. Everything we have authority to do must be given to us by the Creator. The logical extension of this line of reasoning is that unless a specific authority has been delegated to us, we don’t have it. This is the universal Law of Enumerated Powers.

You may be familiar with this idea as a principle of constitutional interpretation. If a power isn’t expressly delegated, it does not exist. However, the law of enumerated powers (broadly speaking) is not only a constitutional principle, it is the way the universe works, because that is the way God made it. Thus, I suppose one could say God was protecting His own exclusive right to enforce the law of murder, until such time as He authorized people to enforce that law.

The exact opposite of the law of enumerated powers is the assertion of men that they can do anything they want, unless God has expressly forbidden it. Thus, instead of men having an inherently limited authority, the presumption is that man’s authority is unlimited, which always leads to abuse and usurpation. And the extreme denial of God’s authority was succinctly expressed by Alistair Crowley, an occultist and alleged satanist, that “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” In other words, man’s will is everything, and God’s will is nothing. But to those who are inclined to follow Crowley’s example, I caution that God considers issues of authority to be more important than people generally believe, and His priorities will not be ignored.

When the kingdom of darkness eventually reaches its zenith and the Antichrist is unleashed – that penultimate enemy of God – he will not be known as the man who rejected Christ, or as the man who would not be saved. Rather, he will be known as the Man of Lawlessness (2 Th. 2:3), that is, the man who would not submit to God’s authority. So don’t ever think that God will eventually let go’ of the importance of authority. What was true at the beginning of history will be true at the end of it, and all the while in between.

---

Gen. 4:17-21 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. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.

The Line of Cain

Let me briefly comment on a teaching that is all too common, springing from the account of Cain and Abel and the genealogy “of the generations of Adam” in the next chapter. Namely, the claim is often made that the genealogy in Gen. 5, tracing from Adam through Seth and down to Noah, is the “godly line of Seth.” This is contrasted with the supposed “ungodly line of Cain,” described here in Gen. 4. But this whole idea is based on a set of assumptions which simply are not true.

For one thing, the scriptures never declare Seth to be righteous. Yes, his mother regarded him as a replacement for Abel, but the circumstances of his birth hardly qualify as establishing that he later had faith as an adult. And yes, the line of Seth contains two individuals scripture identifies as being righteous (Enoch and Noah). Which is only 2 out of 9 generations. But more than that, surely each of the named individuals had hundreds or thousands of siblings, cousins and other relatives, all descended from Seth. It’s not like the nine guys listed in Gen. 5:6-32 are the only descendants of Seth. Nor are the six generations of the line of Cain listed here in Gen. 4 his only descendants.

The scriptures are only giving us the name of the first-born male in each generation. We have to assume for each person listed that there are many unnamed brothers and sisters in each generation. Some scholars estimate that there were 200,000,000 people living on the earth when Noah’s flood came. All of whom, except for eight people in Noah’s immediate family, perished in the flood along with their sins. On what basis can it be declared that any appreciable percentage of Seth’s descendants were righteous? And what is the assumption here, anyway? It is not as though righteousness or belief can be inherited from father to son. Let me rephrase that: righteousness cannot be inherited.

So when Gen. 6:5-6 says that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth” and “the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth,” this included both the line of Seth and the line of Cain, as well as the descendants of all of Adam and Eve’s other children. For all of the descendants of Adam, through Seth, Cain, or otherwise, would have equally been born with a sin nature, equally born separated from God, and equally prone to sin.

For that matter, the scripture never says Cain was an unbeliever who never repented. Sure he was a murderer, but he bore his punishment. Plus, King David was a murderer – did that prevent him from being a believer? No – David had a heart after God’s. Acts 13:22. Yes, Cain “went away from the presence of the Lord.” But that’s because God made him a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth. Cain’s punishment was to be ostracized. What else could he do, but leave town and build his own city? It doesn’t mean he never repented. And it doesn’t mean he did – we simply don’t know.

The scripture is very clear. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23). That means all of the descendants of Seth, and all of the descendants of Cain, were equally born with an inherited sin nature. Every one of them, regardless of who their father was, was born separated from God. So what is this baloney about the godly line of Seth and the ungodly line of Cain? To attribute godliness to the line of Seth, and ungodliness to the line of Cain, is simply ridiculous. All descendants of both Seth and Cain were born with the exact same sin nature.

---

Gen. 4:22 Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

The Bronze and Iron Ages

Just a brief comment here on how standard histories compare with the scriptures. The Bronze Age is typically regarded as having begun around 3300 BC, where bronze is a mixture of copper and tin. The Iron Age is generally regarded as coming to the fore 2,000 years later around 1300 BC. Iron has a higher melting point than copper and tin, so it is generally regarded as beyond the capability of early societies and primitive furnaces. Although it is recognized that meteoric iron, a natural iron-nickel alloy, was smelted by people as early as 3200 BC.

Whereas, Gen. 4:22 indicates that iron and bronze were smelted by the same people at the same time. When you line up Tubal-cain with biblical genealogies, it turns out he was in the same generation as Methusaleh, who lived around 3300 BC, only 700 years or so after creation. Now it is certainly possible that with the effects of the flood, etc. on later generations, this early knowledge may have been partially lost, or shifted to some societies at different times than other societies, accounting for the evidence extant today.

But what impresses me is that Tubal-Cain, only the 8^th generation of men, already had the intellect, capacity and know-how to forge both bronze and iron long before the flood. Early man was no dummy, for they were as much made in the image of God as people are today.

---

Gen. 4:19 And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Gen 4:23-24 Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”

Lawlessness Increases

Here we have the account of Lamech, a descendant of Cain and the father of Tubal-Cain. He is known for two things – he is the first recorded bigamist, and he purported to raise the Lord’s vengeance on anyone who struck down Cain by 1100%. Both of which things were lawless. I want to say these things were exceptionally lawless, but the reality is He was just manifesting the inherent lawlessness of all human beings at a very early stage, demonstrating the almost unlimited capacity people have for lawlessness, and have always had, ever since the very beginning.

It is one of the easiest arguments to make from an observation of the law of nature in the created order that God only ever designed the institution of marriage to include one man and one woman. He did not make two wives for Adam, even though she was essentially charged with the responsibility of populating the entire human race to the point of filling the earth. One woman for each man is sufficient to serve all the purposes of God’s design for families and for dominion. I daresay as well that one woman is plenty enough for any man to show his love toward her, and for him to be all that God desires him to be. I can find no evidence anywhere in scripture that having a second wife fulfills any godly purpose that God has imposed on men. All it does is fulfill the very human desire to expand one’s prowess, and cause a man to overestimate his importance in the world.

There are numerous instances of bigamy in the scriptures, including among the patriarchs of the faith, such as Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon. But the mere fact these men did these things and God did not immediately strike them dead, does not mean their behavior was approved by God, that is, obedient to the laws of God in nature. As we have seen in the case of Cain, just because God withholds or defers judgment does not mean the behavior was lawful. Abraham is an interesting case, in that when he fathered Ishmael through Hagar, she was not legally (by custom or by nature) his wife, since they never held themselves out to others as being married. So, was Abraham a bigamist (if somehow Hagar is regarded as his wife), or is he merely an adulterer?

Keep in mind that in any case, Sarai’s consent or permission is irrelevant, for neither she nor Abram had any authority to set aside the law of nature of marriage, nor to make any exceptions to it. Just because Abraham was a man of faith, doesn’t mean everything he did was righteous, nor does it mean he gets a free pass. Even people of faith sin, and it is still as much sin for them as anyone else. There are no excuses, even for a man after God’s own heart (i.e., David), who coveted another man’s wife and had him killed so he could have her. It might make for a terribly interesting human interest story, but at root it is just another form of immorality.

The other notable accomplishment of Lamech was to self-declare that not only was he more important than Cain, but he could perform for himself what only God could perform. For Cain’s protection from revenge was limited to a sevenfold penalty, by God’s declaration and the benefit of a mark of protection from God Himself. But here, Lamech announces a promise to exact revenge eleven times greater than any revenge of Cain. But whereas Cain’s revenge would be limited to instances of someone killing him, Lamech’s would extend revenge for merely being wounded. Plus, Cain’s revenge was announced by God, and presumably, that revenge would be carried out by God Himself. Whereas Lamech fully intended to carry out his own revenge on his own behalf, and without any prior actual or implied authorization by God.

So in his extreme hubris, Lamech declared things above and beyond the revenge of Cain, took the matter into his own hands instead of leaving anything to God, and proclaimed his own self-importance to the world. All the while totally unaware that his entire lineage and legacy would be completely wiped out in Noah’s flood, and be brought to nothing.

---

Gen. 4:25-26 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

The Name of the Lord

According to the genealogy in chapter 5, Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old. The scriptures never tell us Adam’s age when Cain and Abel were born, but because of Eve’s belief that Seth was a replacement for Abel, he was presumably the third child, or at the very least, the next male child. And since Seth was the only child whose male descendants survived the great flood, out of all of Adam and Eve’s children, he is important not only to the genealogy of Christ, but he is in fact an ancestor of us all. Enosh similarly, as the descendant of Seth, is also a common ancestor of all people alive today. He was born, as Gen. 5:6 tells us, when Seth was 105 years old.

Which means that when people started calling on the name of the Lord, it was about 235 years or so – presumably sometime early in Enosh’s life – post-creation. The word used for “Lord” here, as it is used throughout Genesis with only a few exceptions, is the Tetragrammaton, or YHWH, usually pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah, the proper name of the God of Israel. Of course, Israel did not exist before the flood, and the scriptures nowhere tell us how people suddenly knew what the name of the Lord was at this early date. Did Adam suddenly decide to tell his descendants what to call God, or was it revealed in some other way? We don’t know.

It is curious that Moses, when he learns the name of the Lord for the first time at the burning bush (Exo. 3:14-15), he was apparently ignorant of it. Was this knowledge lost among people after the flood? Or was Moses ignorant of it merely because he had been raised as an Egyptian in Pharaoh’s household? Did the rest of the Israelites know God’s name even though Moses did not? In Exo. 3:14-15 it is implied that when Moses tells the Israelites God’s name, they will perhaps recognize it. Of course, it could also be Moses’ performance of signs that convinces the people that the name given to Moses is correct. Exo. 4:29-31.

The Lord specifically told Moses to say to the people that he had been sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, so they would know he had met with the one true God of Israel. Yet in Gen. 14:17-22, when Abraham met with Melchizedek (understood by many to be a theophany of Jesus Christ), Melchizedek is only mentioned as being a priest of the God Most High (Elohim Elyon), not a priest of Jehovah, as such. Yet, Gen. 14:22 records Abraham as stating that, “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High,” that is, “Yahweh, Elohim Elyon.” So, did Abraham know the proper name for God, or not? And if so, why did Moses and/or the Israelites not know it? Or did Moses, in compiling and/or writing the Torah later in life, merely use his later acquired knowledge of God’s name in referring to past events?

[Note: Some people view the different names for God used in Genesis as indicative of different authors for the texts associated with each name. However, I do not subscribe to the JEDP Theory of the authorship of Genesis, as discussed in the next section.]

For me the bottom line is that Gen. 4:26, when read in the light of Exo. 3:14-15, means that we as creatures do not name the Creator. God names Himself and reveals it to us, consistent with the law of naming authority. The one who names has authority over the one who is named. God names us, his creation – we do not name him. Only God has authority to name Himself, as the uncreated Creator. And God has not named Himself as Allah, Vishnu, or any other name not found in the Bible. To the same effect, “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved,” (Acts 4:12) except the name of Jesus Christ – a name chosen by God, not man.