Bible Commentaries

12. when thou tillest, &c.] The meaning is, that when, or if, after this curse, Cain continues to till the ground, the ground will refuse to give a return for his labour. Therefore, he will not be able to live on the cultivated ground. He must leave it and wander forth.

her strength] That is, “her fruits.” So the Vulg. “fructus suos.” The word “strength” is used in this sense for the produce of the soil in Job 31:39, “If I have eaten the fruits (marg. Heb. strength) thereof (i.e. of the land) without money.”

a fugitive and a wanderer] The alliteration of the two words in the original (n‘â vâ-nâd) is difficult to reproduce in English. The word for “a fugitive” means “one who staggers, or reels,” from weakness, faintness, or weariness.

“Weary and wandering,” or “staggering and straying” would be attempts at reproducing the original. The LXX στένων καὶ τρέμως = “groaning and trembling,” is more of a comment than a translation; and the Lat. “vagus et profugus,” like the English version, is inexact.

Two points are to be noticed in this sentence upon Cain:

(1) He is sent forth from the cultivated soil: in other words, he is banished into the desert. He is to lead the life, neither of the shepherd, nor of the tiller of the soil, but of the roaming Bedouin of the desert.

(2) His wandering is not the result of a guilty conscience, but of a Divine sentence. It is his penalty to lead the nomad life of the desert, homeless and insecure and restless. Whereas Adam was banished from the garden to till the soil (Genesis 3:17), now that soil is to refuse its fruits to Cain, and he must fly into the desert.

13. And Cain said] The bitter cry of Cain is not that of repentance for his sin, but of entreaty for the mitigation of his doom.

My punishment] Better than marg. mine iniquity. The Hebrew word is used to denote both guilt and its penalty, and consequently is sometimes ambiguous, e.g. 1 Samuel 28:10, “And Saul sware to her by the Lord, saying, As the Lord liveth, there shall be no punishment happen to thee (marg. guilt come upon thee) for this thing.” In our verse the rendering “punishment” is to be preferred. Cain in Genesis 4:14 is thinking of his sentence, not of his sin.

than I can bear] The rendering of the margin, than can be forgiven, which is that of the versions, though possible, is not to be preferred. It has sometimes been advocated on the ground that the “iniquity” of Cain was typical of the sin “that is unto death” (1 John 5:16), and that cannot be forgiven (St Mark 3:29). LXX μείζων ἡ αἰτία μου τοῦ ἀφεθῆναί με. Lat. major est iniquitas mea quam ut veniam merear. Similarly Targum of Onkelos: cf. Psalm 38:4, “As an heavy burden, they [mine iniquities] are too heavy for me.”

14. Behold, thou hast, &c.] Cain accepts Jehovah’s sentence as a banishment from the cultivated ground. “And from thy face shall I be hid,” Cain recognizes that banishment from the land, in which Jehovah’s presence was manifested, implied expulsion from Jehovah’s presence. In the desert to which he was to flee, Jehovah would not be found: Cain would be hidden from His face. The early Israelites believed that, if a man was driven from the land in which Jehovah was worshipped, he was no longer in the presence of Jehovah, but of other gods. Thus David says, 1 Samuel 26:19, “they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave unto the inheritance of the Lord, saying, Go, serve other gods.” The desert to which Cain would be driven was a region believed to be haunted by the demon Azazel (Leviticus 16:8) and dangerous spirits.

whosoever findeth me, &c.] Of whom was Cain afraid? Different answers have been given. 1. The wild beasts (Josephus). 2. A pre-Adamite race of Man 1:3. Other sons of Adam. 4. It has been suggested that the present story formed part of a tradition originally referring to a later time, when the earth was numerously inhabited, and has been adapted, on account of its moral significance, to the story of the first family. But it is unreasonable to expect from the detached narratives of early folk-lore the logical completeness of history. Cain’s words are rightly understood as a reference to the custom of blood-revenge, which went back to the remotest prehistoric age. The cultivated land was regarded as the region in which there prevailed social order and regard for life; but in the desert there would be none of the restrictions which regulated the existence of settled communities.

In the desert Cain, as the murderer, would be destitute of the protection of Jehovah. He would have no rights of kinship: anyone might slay him with impunity. He would find no friendly tribe; he would be an outlaw.

15. Therefore] i.e. on account of Cain’s entreaty, Jehovah’s mercy is shewn to the first murderer. Cain has no friend: Jehovah, by an act of benevolence and authority, will protect him, and undertake his cause even in the desert.

A slight variation in text accounts for LXX οὐχ οὕτως, Lat. Nequa-quam ita fiet.

vengeance … sevenfold] i.e. if Cain were killed, seven deaths would be exacted in retaliation; the murderer and six of his family would forfeit their lives, cf. 2 Samuel 21:8. The words of Jehovah are noticeable, because (1) they emphasize the corporate responsibility of family life, which so often meets us in the O.T.; and (2) they recognize, but regulate, blood-revenge, as a disciplinary primaeval custom of Semitic life. This Oriental custom, while recognized in the O.T. as part of Israelite institutions, is continually being restricted by the operation of the spirit of love, gradually revealed by prophet and by law, in the religion of Jehovah.

the Lord appointed a sign for Cain] The popular expression “the brand of Cain,” in the sense of “the sign of a murderer,” arises from a complete misunderstanding of this passage. The object of the sign was to protect Cain. It was a warning that should prevent the avenger of blood from slaying him. Even in the desert Jehovah would be Cain’s champion. We have no means of knowing what the sign was. The words imply that some visible mark, or badge, was set upon Cain’s person. If so, it may have some analogy to the totem mark of savage tribes. “There seems little doubt, that the sign which Jahveh gave to Cain … was a tattoo mark, probably on his forehead (cf. Ezekiel 9:4; Ezekiel 9:6), to show all men that Cain was under His protection, and thus to save his life. In all probability the mark was the ‘sign of Jahveh,’ the tav (Ezekiel 9:4; Ezekiel 9:6)—which was once doubtless worn quite openly by His devotees, and only afterwards degenerated into a superstition.” (Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, p. 211.)

16. from the presence of] Cf. 14, “from thy face.” Cain going out “from the presence of” Jehovah, quits the land in which that presence was revealed. Jonah in fleeing from Palestine fled “from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3).

in the land of Nod] That is, Wandering, cf. the word “wanderer” (nâd) in Genesis 4:12; Genesis 4:14. This region cannot be identified; it serves as a vague designation for all the country in the unknown East, which was thought to be inhabited only by nomads.

on the east of] This rendering, like the Lat. ad orientalem plagam, is preferable to that of the marg. in front of (LXX κατέναντι). See notes on Genesis 2:14 and Genesis 3:24.

17. his wife] On the question, Who was Cain’s wife? see note at the beginning of the chapter. If the narrative be homogeneous, she must have been either a daughter of Eve, or of a family of whose contemporaneous origin and existence this narrative in Genesis gives no account. But the compilation of our primitive story from different sources necessarily leaves many questions unanswered. No attempt is made to remove this and similar obvious inconsistencies.

Enoch] Heb. Ḥănôkh = “dedication”: the same name occurs in Genesis 4:18; see note. It is also the name of a Midianite clan, Genesis 25:4; 1 Chronicles 1:33; and of a Reubenite clan, Genesis 46:9; Exodus 6:14.

builded a city] It seems strange that we should have the mention of a city at a time when the inhabitants of the world were so few. But the purpose of this section is evidently to trace back to the Cainites, in the antediluvian period, the origin of early institutions. To the Hebrew the “city,” that is to say, a town community, represented the nucleus of civilized life, and hence the building of a city is ascribed to the father of the line from which emanated the various callings of civilization. It is needless to say that this tradition is devoid of scientific value for any enquiry into the progress of civilization in prehistoric times. Its interest lies in the record of the belief, that urban life could be dated back into the most primitive age. The site of the city is not indicated.

17–24. The Descendants of Cain: The Genealogy of the Cainites. (J.)

See the Special Note on “the Antediluvian Patriarchs,” see below. The traditions preserved in this section probably belong to a different J source from that of the verses immediately preceding. This will explain how it is that Cain, who has just been condemned to a nomad life and has withdrawn into the land of “Wandering” (Nod), is in Genesis 4:17 described as the founder of a city, and as the ancestor of men who originated the industries and callings of civilization.

NOTE ON THE ANTEDILUVIAN PATRIARCHS

According to chap. 5 (P), the interval of time between the work of Creation (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a) and the visitation of the Flood (Genesis 6:9 ff.) is occupied by a list of ten Patriarchs.

The chronological scheme of P, according to the Hebrew text, makes this period to consist of 1656 years (in the Samaritan text, it is 1307 years; in the LXX, 2242). The description given of the ten Patriarchs is precise and formal. It is limited in each case to the bare formulae narrating facts respecting (i) the age of the Patriarch at the birth of his firstborn, (ii) the number of his remaining years, and the fact that he was the father of other children, (iii) his age at the time of his death.

The account which is thus given furnishes an explanation of the great population of the earth which is overthrown in the Flood. The chapter, however, contains no mention of the growing wickedness of the race. And it does not appear that P takes any account of the Narrative of the Fall (chap. 3 J). Budde, indeed (Urgesch. 93–103), contends that the names of the Patriarchs are intended to symbolize the condition of their age, the names Jared (= descent), Methuselah (= the man of the weapon, or the man of violence) denoting its deterioration.

The ten names represented the history of the human race before the Flood. The distribution of these ten names over the period of 1656 years implies a minute and elaborate calculation by the chronologists and chroniclers, whose work has been employed in P.

I. Ten Babylonian Kings

It is impossible to resist the conclusion that there is some sort of connexion between the ten Antediluvian Patriarchs of Genesis 5 and the ten kings before the Flood in the Babylonian Legends. The names of the ten kings are as follows:

(A. According to Berossus.)  (B. According to cuneiform inscriptions.)

1. Alôrus.  1.   Arûru.

2.   Alaparos.  2.   Adapa.

3.   Amêlôn.  3.   Amêlu (= Man, ? = Enosh).

4.   Ammenôn.  4.   Ummanu (= Master-crafts-man, ? = Kenan).

5.   Megalâros.

6.   Daônos.

7.   Euedôrachos.

8. Amempsinos.  7.   Enmeduranki (?=Enoch).

9. Amel-Sin (= Man of the god Sin, ? = Methuselah).

10. Ôtiartes.  9.   Ubara-Jutu.

10 .  Xisûthros.  10.   Ḥasisatra (?=Noah).

In this list there may possibly be discerned some points of correspondence with the Hebrew. (a) In No. 3 Amelu (= Man) may be translated in Enosh=Man. (b) In (4) Ummanu (= Workman), in Kenan; and in (8) Amel-Sin (Man of Sin), in Methuselah (= Man of Shelah). (c) No. 7, Enmeduranki (king of Sippar, the city of the Sun-god, Shamash), who was the friend of the gods Ramman and Shamash, looks as if he must stand in some close relation to Enoch, whose life was 365 years and who walked with God. (d) The 10th in the list, Xisuthros or Ḥasisatra, the Ut-napishtim of the Epic, is the hero of the Babylonian Flood, and corresponds to Noah in the Hebrew list.

In the Babylonian list, the ten kings are assigned a period of 432,000 years.

II. Sethite and Cainite Genealogies

It is important to compare the two lists of the Sethite (P) and Cainite (J) Genealogies.

Sethite (chap. 5).  Cainite (chap. Genesis 4:17-24).

1.   Adam  1.   Adam

2.   Seth  

3.   Enosh  

4.   Kenan  2.   Cain

5.   Mahalalel  3.   Mehujael

6.   Jared  4.   Irad

7.  Enoch  5.   Enoch

8.   Methuselah  6.   Methushael

9.   Lamech  7.   Lamech

10.   Noah  " Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain.

" Shem, Ham, Japheth.  

(a) The general resemblance in the names is very striking. (b) One list contains the perfect number ten, the other the perfect number seven. (c) Each list concludes in a family of three sons. We have to deal either with two variants of the same tradition; or with two distinct traditions, in which the same stock of primitive legendary names is found very closely repeated.

III. Different Chronologies

The Chronology of the Antediluvian Patriarchs varies in the three principal sources for the text, (1) the Massoretic (Hebrew), (2) the Samaritan, (3) the Septuagint. They are presented in the following Table.

  Massoretic Text  Samaritan  LXX  Year (Anno Mundi) of Death

  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Firstborn  Remainder  Total  Mass. Text  Samaritan  LXX  

1.  Adam  130  800  930  130  800  930  230  700  930  930  930  930  

2.  Seth  105  807  912  105  807  912  205  707  912  1042  1042  1141  

3.  Enosh  90  815  905  90  815  905  190  715  905  1140  1140  1342  

4.  Kenan  70  840  910  70  840  910  170  740  910  1235  1235  1534  

5.  Mahalalel  65  830  895  65  830  895  165  730  895  1290  1290  1696  

6.  Jered  162  800  962  62  785  847  62  785  847  1422  1307  1923  

7.  Enoch  65  300  365  65  300  365  165  200  365  987  887  1484  

8. Methuselah  187  782  969  67  653  720  167*  802*  969  1656  1307  2256  

9.  Lamech  182  595  777  53  600  653  188  565  753  1651  1307  2204  

10.  Noah  500      500      500            

Till the Flood  100      100      100            

Year of the Flood  1656      1307      2242            

These different figures are not due to errors in the text. They seem to arise from the adoption of differing systems for the calculation of the chronology.

It has commonly been supposed that the Hebrew figures (1656) are part of a scheme which calculated 2666 years to have been the interval between the Creation and the Exodus, and that 2666 years represented two-thirds of a cycle of 4000 years.

The 2666 years are computed as follows:

1656  Creation to Flood

290  Flood to birth of Abraham

100  To birth of Isaac (Genesis 21:5)

60  To birth of Jacob (Genesis 25:26)

130  To Jacob’s descent into Egypt (Genesis 47:9-28)

430  Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus 12:40)

2666  

The Samaritan figure of 1307 is part of a system which calculated 3007 years to intervene between the Creation and the entrance into Canaan. The calculation was as follows:

Creation to Flood  =  1307  years

Flood to birth of Abraham  =  940  years

Birth of Abraham to descent into Egypt  =  290  years

Sojourn in Egypt  =  430  years

Wandering in Wilderness  =  40  years

    3007  years

Skinner (in loc.) points out, that, if the calculation be made in round numbers=3000, the entire period may then be divided into three decreasing periods of 1300, 940, 760 years, of which the second exceeds the third by 180 years, and the first exceeds the second by twice 180 years (2x180) = 360 years.

The LXX figure of 2240 is the equivalent of the Samaritan calculation from the Creation to the Flood (1300 years) + the Samaritan calculation from the Flood to the birth of Abraham (940 years). But whether this be the result of accident or design, it is impossible to say.

IV. Longevity of Patriarchs

The Hebrew tradition evidently assumed that human vitality, in the era immediately following upon the Creation, was at its highest point, and that, in consequence, immense longevity was to be expected in the lives of the Antediluvian Patriarchs.

The immense duration of life assigned to these ten Patriarchs has always been the occasion of difficulty. Attempts have been made to explain away the figures. (a) It has been suggested that the names of the Patriarchs represent dynasties. But the mention of the first-born and of other children obviously refers to personal history. Nor does the transference of these enormous figures to the duration of dynasties greatly diminish the improbability of their literal historicity. (b) It has been suggested that the Hebrew word for “year” (shânah) is used in this chapter to denote a shorter period of time. But this arbitrary solution is devoid of any evidence in its favour. Familiar Hebrew words, like “years” in this chapter, or like “day” in chapter 1, must not be supposed, because of our difficulties in interpretation, to require new meanings.

There is no reason not to interpret the statements respecting the longevity of the ten Antediluvian Patriarchs quite literally. The account of them belongs to the domain of primitive tradition. It would be strange, if the primitive unverifiable tradition were not accompanied by the exaggerations which popular legend weaves around prehistoric names.

It is instructive to compare the ages of the Antediluvian and Postdiluvian Patriarchs with those of the famous Israelites of more historic times.

Adam, the first of the Antediluvians, lived  930 years

Seth, the second of the Antediluvians, lived  912 years

Noah, the tenth of the Antediluvians, lived  950 years

Shem, the first of the Post-diluvians, lived  600 years

Arpachshad, the second of the Post-diluvians, lived  408 years

Terah, the tenth of the Post-diluvians, lived  205 years

Abraham  lived  175 years

Isaac  lived  180 years

Jacob  lived  147 years

Joseph  lived  110 years

Moses  lived  120 years

Joshua  lived  110 years

David reigned  40 years  

Solomon reigned  40 years  

Rehoboam lived  58 years  (2 Chronicles 12:13)

Hezekiah lived  54 years  (2 Chronicles 29:1)

Manasseh lived  67 years  (2 Chronicles 33:1)

It is clear that this descending scale, in the duration of life, corresponds to the stages of transition from legend to history.

There is no evidence to shew that the earlier phases of civilization were more favourable to longevity than the later.

18. And unto Enoch, &c.] The genealogy of Cain is a framework of names, each of which may have been connected with traditions that either had been forgotten, or were not deemed suitable for preservation in this context. It is a mistake, into which some commentators have been betrayed, to endeavour to extract meanings from the proper names of the antediluvian patriarchs. It is very doubtful, whether the original names would have conveyed the same thoughts which their later Hebraized pronunciation has suggested to devout, but fanciful, imagination. The facts of history are not to be spelt out from the obscure etymology of primaeval proper names. These well-meaning endeavours have sometimes been based on the assumption that Hebrew was the original language.

The most that can be said is that these names preserve the recollection of legendary persons, and that they have received a Hebraized form which rendered them easier of pronunciation and facilitated a symbolical interpretation.

Irad] The name occurs in 1 Chronicles 4:18; see note on Jared, Genesis 5:16.

Mehujael] Cf. Mahalalel, Genesis 5:12. If a Hebrew word, it may mean “blotted out by God.” Cf. Genesis 6:7, where “destroy” is in the marg. blot out.

The LXX Μαίηλ must have read Mahyiel = “God maketh me to live.”

Methushael] Cf. Methuselah, Genesis 5:21. Assyriologists say that the name means “Man of God,” and is the same as Mutu-sha-ili.

19. Lamech] The seventh of the Cainite line has three sons, as Noah, the tenth of the Sethite line, has three sons.

two wives] Lamech is the first recorded instance of polygamy. The custom, prevalent in patriarchal times and in the days of the kings (e.g. David, Solomon), was recognized in the Law of the Pentateuch and placed under restrictions, Deuteronomy 21:13-23, Leviticus 18:6-20.

On the ideal of monogamy, from which Israel fell far short, see note on Genesis 2:24. Lamech, the Cainite, is its first transgressor.

Adah] The name appears in Genesis 36:2 as that of one of Esau’s wives. If of Hebrew origin, possibly connected with the word meaning “adornment,” but also possibly derived from a root = “brightness,” found in Arabic and Assyrian, and, if so, may mean “the dawn.”

Zillah] Probably from the Heb. ṣêl = “shade” or “shadows,” implying “comfort” and “coolness” in the glare of a day in the desert.