Commentary
Skeptic's Annotated Bible
4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Cain is a farmer and Abel is a shepherd. Abel brings God an "offering" of sheep and fat (presumably this is an animal sacrifice); and Cain brings crops. For some reason God likes the dead animal offering but not the produce. Why? I wonder if this is ever explained anywhere. Just on the surface of it, there's no particular reason why one is preferable as an offering than the other; both represent the product of honest labor. Perhaps it's because working the earth was part of God's punishment of Adam, and God's disfavor is part of that punishment? (Or more practically, so that people will bring meat as offerings to their rabbis, rather than bread.)
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Because I worked my ass off tilling the earth to produce this harvest and you pissed on it; while my brother gets your approval for killing some innocent animals, that's why. For an all-knowing being, you're not that smart, are you?
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Now here's a strange line. If you don't do well, sin is at the door, sin will desire you, and you will rule over sin. The commentary is not helpful here; Jamieson infers some pre-existing arrangement regarding offerings that Cain has neglected; because Cain is a sinner and has not performed his offering correctly, the rights he had as A&E's firstborn are forfeited and given instead to Abel (who gave his animal sacrifice correctly). There's nothing here to justify this reading, of course, but I suppose you have to do something to make sense of the line.
4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Overreact much? This is the behavior of a crazy person.
4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
Again, don't you KNOW what he did?
4:11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
No more farming for you!
4:13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
God exiles Cain for the murder of Abel, and Cain complains that anyone that sees him will want to kill him. So God marks Cain so that presumably anyone who sees this mark will know not to kill him, and warns that anyone who kills Cain will receive 7-times the vengeance (and I'm not sure what this means: will be killed 7 times? Will have 7 family members killed? Will have 7 generations killed? In any case, it's bad.)
But more to the point, what a strange view of justice. The sentence for murder is you can no longer be a farmer and you're under my protection. Yeah, great view of morality here, God.
4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
As far as we knew up to this point, there were only four people: Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel (deceased). Who is Cain's wife? One of the soulless creatures from Gen 1:27?
4:18 And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat Lamech.
Sounds like Cain is prospering pretty well, despite God's punishment.
4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Wait, what? TWO wives? Just a brief moment ago in Gen 2:24 we were learning about marriage between one man and one woman. Now Lamech has two wives? That didn't take long.
Okay, maybe you can say that somehow the non-traditional examples of marriage in Genesis are not meant to inform modern views of marriage. But then you also cannot refer to the examples of marriage that are consistent with modern views either. Otherwise you're cherry-picking. If you do this, you're defining your own view of morality justified by the pieces you accept, and ignoring the pieces you don't like. But if the Bible is supposed to be your morality guide, you can't really pick and choose, you have to use the whole thing; otherwise it's not acting as a guide, and you can justify anything.
From Jamieson's commentary: "This is the first transgression of the law of marriage on record, and the practice of polygamy, like all other breaches of God's institutions, has been a fruitful source of corruption and misery." On the contrary; there's nothing written here that indicates that this was looked on dis-favorably by God; in fact, the various children of these two spouses are described below in favorable terms. Also, there is no evidence presented that polygamy is a "fruitful source of corruption and misery," it's just asserted as fact without comment. I'm sure that's your world view, but I don't think it's actually true. (Hmm, are there any studies that measure general contentment of polygamists vs monogamists?) I'm not arguing for polygamy vs. monogamy here; I'm just pointing out that the Bible isn't arguing for one or the other either, and it's dishonest to assert that something is implied here that's not supported by the text.
If this were really a big deal to the author of Genesis, this would have been a good opportunity to point out that polygamy is wrong, or to speak about it in negative terms, as being against God's view of marriage, or any of a number of possible warnings. But there's not a single negative word here; it's presented as if it's normal and natural, nothing to be concerned about at all. The commentator is imposing a view that is not apparent in the text, because it's convenient to his beliefs.
4:20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.
4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.
4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
Lamech, the great great great grandson of Cain, is also a murderer.
4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
Yeah, that makes sense. This was a strange aside to add here, that Lamach killed somebody to his sorrow, and that he is thus even MORE protected by God than Cain was (another strange view of morality). But that's the end of the commentary on Lamach's murderous ways; I wonder if it comes up again? If not, what was the point?
4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
If the great great great grandson of Eve is old enough to be committing murders, I'm surprised that Eve is still young enough to bear children.
4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
And who is Seth's wife? Two points here: (1) we tend to only look at the sons in a family line; who are all these men married to? And (2), where did the wives for these men come from? There's really only two choices here; either Cain married his (unmentioned) sister, or he had sex with his mother. And so on down the line. Perhaps there's a reasonable explanation for what the author meant to happen, but it's not provided here.
It's also strange to me (again, more one-dimensional thinking) that entire groups of people are considered to have descended from individuals in this family tree: Jabal is the father of tent-dwellers (Arabs? Gypsies?); Jubal is the ancestor of all musicians; Tubalcain, of metalworkers.
No comments:
Post a Comment