Genesis · Chapter 4

V. 1. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, Genesis 5:4. But Cain and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve when she bare him said with joy and thankfulness, and great expectation, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Verse 1. I have gotten a man from the Lord.] Cain, ˆyq, signifies acquisition; hence Eve says tnq kanithi, I have gotten or acquired a man, hwhy ta eth Yehovah, the Lord. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the sense in which Eve used these words, which have been as variously translated as understood. Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. This exposition really seems too refined for that period. It is very likely that she meant no more than to acknowledge that it was through God’s peculiar blessing that she was enabled to conceive and bring forth a son, and that she had now a well-grounded hope that the race of man should be continued on the earth. Unless she had been under Divine inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under such an influence her mistake sufficiently proves, for Cain, so far from being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; 1 John 3:12. We may therefore suppose that hwyh ta eth Yehovah, THE LORD, is an elliptical form of expression for hwhy tam meeth Yehovah, FROM THE LORD, or through the Divine blessing.

Verses 1, 2. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, Genesis 5:4: but Cain and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve, when she bare him, said, with joy, and thankfulness, and expectation, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Abel signifies vanity. The name given to this son is put upon the whole race, Psalm 39:5, “Every man is, at his best estate, Abel, vanity.” Abel was a keeper of sheep — He chose that employment which did most befriend contemplation and devotion, for that hath been looked upon as the advantage of a pastoral life. Moses and David kept sheep, and in their solitudes conversed with God.

Verse 1. I have gotten. ytynq kaniti, from the root kana, he possessed. The LXX have betrayed their ignorance of the Eternal Word, or Wisdom, by frequently rendering this word created. God could no more create his own wisdom than Eve could create Cain. See Proverbs 8:22, and Ecclus. 24.

Cain; that is, a possession. Abel; that is, vanity. Augustine makes Cain to be a figure of the men of this world, who have their good things in the present life. Abel he regards as a figure of the children of God, who look on the present state as vanity, a shadow that passeth away, while they follow after the things of eternity.—De Civit. Dei.

CAIN AND ABEL, 1-15.

“The consequences of the fall now appear in the history of the first family. By careful attention to the record, we may learn the true nature of the primitive religion, its rites, its hopes, and faith. We may also see here most instructive traces of the primeval civilization. While fearful sin stains the firstborn of man, sadly crushing the joyful hopes of the first mother, a pious son also appears, setting forth thus early the contrast and conflict between good and evil, which is to run through human history. The good at first is overcome by the evil; Abel is slain by Cain; but another son (Seth, set or placed) is set in his place at the head of the godly line.” — Newhall.

In the following chapter the careful reader will note, 1) in the two types of men the first outward development of the two seeds — that of the serpent and that of the woman, (Genesis 3:15;) 2) agriculture and the keeping of flocks as the earliest employments of men; 3) the doctrine of sacrifices established at the very gate of Paradise: 4) God’s earliest manifestations of favour to the righteous and of displeasure towards the sinner; 5) the beginnings of polygamy; 6) art, culture, and human depravity and sinfulness keeping pace with one another; so that an advanced civilization, in spite of all the refining and ennobling tendencies of art and culture, may, without the divine favour, only serve to intensify the corruption and violence of men; 7) the Cainites, in founding the first city, and by worldly inventions and arts, lead the way in building up the godless kingdom of the beast, the world-power of Antichrist; the godly seed, by faith and piety begin to build the kingdom of heaven.

1. Adam knew Eve — A euphemism, based upon a profound conception of the marital relation. “Generation in man is an act of personal free-will, not a blind impulse of nature. It flows from the divine institution of marriage, and is, therefore, knowing the wife.” — Keil. Bare Cain — In the Hebrew the word Cain has the emphatic particle ta before it, the Cain. In these most ancient narratives names have special significance, and the name Cain is most naturally derived from the Hebrew ˆwq, kun, or hnq, kana, the word immediately used by Eve, and translated in our text, I have gotten. A better translation would be, I have begotten. The name Cain, then, would signify offspring, or one begotten, rather than possession, as held by many writers. See Furst’s Hebrews Lex. and T. Lewis’s note in Lange in loc. A man from the Lord — Literally, a man, the Jehovah. This exact rendering appears to us better than our common version, which follows the Targum of Onkelos; better than the Sept. and Vulg. by the Lord; better than any attempt to paraphrase the passage, or construe the ta as a preposition. With MacWhorter (see Bib. Sacra for January, 1857, and the volume entitled “Yahveh Christ, or, the Memorial Name”) and Jacobus, we understand Eve’s exclamation as a kind of joyful eureka over the firstborn of the race, as if in this seed of the woman was to be realized the promise of the protevangelium recorded in chap. 3:15. Keil’s objection to this view, on the ground that Eve knew nothing of the divine nature of the promised seed, and could not have uttered the name Jehovah, because it was not revealed until a later period, is unwarrantable assumption. The statement of Exodus 6:3, (where see note,) that the name Jehovah was not known to the patriarchs, does not mean that the name was never used before the days of Moses; and if these are not the very words of Eve, or their exact equivalent, why should we believe that she said any thing of the kind? If the name JEHOVAH was used at all by Eve, it is likely that something of its profound significance had been revealed in connexion with the first promise of the coming One. And it would have been very natural for the first mother, in her enthusiasm over the birth of her first child, to imagine him the promised Conqueror. But, as T. Lewis observes, “The greatness of Eve’s mistake in applying the expression to one who was the type of Antichrist rather than of the Redeemer, should not so shock us as to affect the interpretation of the passage, now that the covenant God is revealed to us as a being so transcendently different. The limitation of Eve’s knowledge, and perhaps her want of due distinction between the divine and the human, only sets in a stronger light the intensity of her hope, and the subjective truthfulness of her language. Had her reported words, at such a time, contained no reference to the promised seed of the woman, the Rationalist would doubtless have used it as a proof that she could have known nothing of any such prediction, and that therefore Genesis 3:15, and Genesis 4:1, must have been written by different authors, ignoring or contradicting each other.” Eve’s hasty and mistaken expectation of the coming Deliverer is a fitting type of the periodic but mistaken pre-millennialism of New Testament times, which has, with almost every generation, disturbed the Church with excitement over the expected immediate coming of Christ.

V. 2. Abel signifies vanity. The name given to this son is put upon the whole race, Psalm 39:5. Every man is at his best estate vanity; Abel, vanity. He chose that employment which did most befriend contemplation and devotion, for that hath been looked upon as the advantage of a pastoral life. Moses and David kept sheep, and in their solitudes conversed with God.

Verse 2. And she again bare his brother Abel.] Literally, She added to bear (tdll ãstw vattoseph laledeth) his brother. From the very face of this account it appears evident that Cain and Abel were twins. In most cases where a subject of this kind is introduced in the Holy Scriptures, and the successive births of children of the same parents are noted, the acts of conceiving and bringing forth are mentioned in reference to each child; here it is not said that she conceived and brought forth Abel, but simply she added to bring forth Abel his brother; that is, as I understand it, Cain was the first-born, Abel, his twin brother, came next.

Abel was a keeper of sheep] Adam was originally a gardener, Abel a shepherd, and Cain an agriculturist or farmer. These were the three primitive employments, and, I may add, the most rational, and consequently the best calculated to prevent strife and an immoderate love of the world.

Verses 1, 2. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, Genesis 5:4: but Cain and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve, when she bare him, said, with joy, and thankfulness, and expectation, “I have gotten a man from the Lord.” Abel signifies vanity. The name given to this son is put upon the whole race, Psalm 39:5, “Every man is, at his best estate, Abel, vanity.” Abel was a keeper of sheep — He chose that employment which did most befriend contemplation and devotion, for that hath been looked upon as the advantage of a pastoral life. Moses and David kept sheep, and in their solitudes conversed with God.

Ver. 2. Bare—Abel; it is generally allowed that Cain and Abel were twins. Eve bare many daughters, who are not named in sacred history, and they of necessity became wives to their brothers, nephews, &c. That she also bare many sons before Seth, there can be no doubt; for Moses names only the greater patriarchs of the earth.

2. She again bare — Literally, she added to bear; which expression has usually been construed to mean that Cain and Abel were twins; but such meaning is not necessarily in the words. They simply mean that Eve bore another son. Nor is it necessary to suppose that Abel was born next after Cain; between the two, Adam and Eve may have begotten many sons and daughters. Genesis 5:4. The name Abel, (which means a breath, a vapour, vanity, or nothingness,) suggests that the mother, so joyful and hopeful over her firstborn, had now perceived her error, and the vanity of hopes of human birth. Or, perhaps, the name Abel was given with a fearful presentiment of his lamentable death. A keeper of sheep… a tiller of the ground — Thus the occupations of shepherding and agriculture appear side by side in this most ancient history. The notion that man’s primitive condition was that of savagery, in which he lived by hunting, and from which he subsequently advanced into nomadic pursuits, and later still into the pursuits of agriculture, has no support here. Adam was put in the garden to dress and keep it, (Genesis 2:15,) and on his expulsion thence he was probably instructed to keep sheep for sacrifice and clothing, (Genesis 3:21.) But there is no evidence that the first generation of men were endued with any superior gifts or with a high civilization. The conditions of such a civilization were, from the nature of the case, wanting. The first men were neither savages nor barbarians; but their numbers were limited, and their habits and pursuits of the most simple kind.

V. 3. In process of time-At the end of days, either at the end of the year when they kept their feast of in-gathering, or at the end of the days of the week, the seventh day; at some set time Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God’s favour notwithstanding their apostacy.

Verse 3. In process of time] ימים xqm mikkets yamim, at the end of days. Some think the anniversary of the creation to be here intended; it is more probable that it means the Sabbath, on which Adam and his family undoubtedly offered oblations to God, as the Divine worship was certainly instituted, and no doubt the Sabbath properly observed in that family. This worship was, in its original institution, very simple. It appears to have consisted of two parts: 1. Thanksgiving to God as the author and dispenser of all the bounties of nature, and oblations indicative of that gratitude. 2. Piacular sacrifices to his justice and holiness, implying a conviction of their own sinfulness, confession of transgression, and faith in the promised Deliverer. If we collate the passage here with the apostle’s allusion to it, Hebrews 11:4, we shall see cause to form this conclusion. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering] hjnm minchah, unto the Lord. The word minchah is explained, Leviticus 2:1, &c., to be an offering of fine flour, with oil and frankincense. It was in general a eucharistic or gratitude offering, and is simply what is implied in the fruits of the ground brought by Cain to the Lord, by which he testified his belief in him as the Lord of the universe, and the dispenser of secular blessings.

Verse 3. In process of time — After many years, when they were both grown up to man’s estate; at some set time, Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God’s favour, notwithstanding their apostacy.

3. In process of time — Heb, at the end of days. Of how many days is not specified, and some understand at the end of the year, or at the time of the gathering of fruits; others explain the phrase indefinitely, as our version, or as Keil: “After a considerable lapse of time.” It seems better, however, to understand it of the days of the week — that is, at the end of the ordinary and well-known week of seven days. In this sense we have here another trace of the original institution of the Sabbath as a day of worship. Cain brought of the fruit — A most natural offering for a tiller of the ground to bring, and a gift sufficiently proper in itself. But his failure to bring also a bleeding sacrifice may well be looked upon as evidence of a want of faith in the doctrine of sacrifices, and a disposition to substitute what was most convenient to him for all that the law of sacrifice required.

V. 4. And the Lord God had respect to Abel and to his offering, and shewed his acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven but to Cain and to his offering he had not respect. We are sure there was a good reason for this difference: that Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, doth not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns. 1. There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering: Cain was a wicked man, but Abel was a righteous man, Matthew 23:35. 2. There was a difference in the offerings they brought. Abel’s was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s; Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: but Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God’s wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God’s will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.

Verse 4. Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock] Dr. Kennicott contends that the words he also brought, הוא גם aybh hebi gam hu, should be translated, Abel brought IT also, i.e. a minchah or gratitude offering; and beside this he brought of the first-born (twrkbm mibbechoroth) of his flock, and it was by this alone that he acknowledged himself a sinner, and professed faith in the promised Messiah. To this circumstance the apostle seems evidently to allude, Hebrews 11:4: By FAITH Abel offered pleiova qusian, a MORE or GREATER sacrifice; not a more excellent, (for this is no meaning of the word pleiwn,) which leads us to infer, according to Dr. Kennicott, that Abel, besides his minchah or gratitude offering, brought also qusia, a victim, to be slain for his sins; and this he chose out of the first-born of his flock, which, in the order of God, was a representation of the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world; and what confirms this exposition more is the observation of the apostle: God testifying roiv dwpoiv, of his GIFTS, which certainly shows he brought more than one. According to this interpretation, Cain, the father of Deism, not acknowledging the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice, nor feeling his need of an atonement, according to the dictates of his natural religion, brought a minchah or eucharistic offering to the God of the universe. Abel, not less grateful for the produce of his fields and the increase of his flocks, brought a similar offering, and by adding a sacrifice to it paid a proper regard to the will of God as far as it had then been revealed, acknowledged himself a sinner, and thus, deprecating the Divine displeasure, showed forth the death of Christ till he came. Thus his offerings were accepted, while those of Cain were rejected; for this, as the apostle says, was done by FAITH, and therefore he obtained witness that he was righteous, or a justified person, God testifying with his gifts, the thank-offering and the sin-offering, by accepting them, that faith in the promised seed was the only way in which he could accept the services and offerings of mankind. Dr. Magee, in his Discourses on the Atonement, criticises the opinion of Dr. Kennicott, and contends that there is no ground for the distinction made by the latter on the words he also brought; and shows that though the minchah in general signifies an unbloody offering, yet it is also used to express both kinds, and that the minchah in question is to be understood of the sacrifice then offered by Abel. I do not see that we gain much by this counter-criticism. See Genesis 4:7.

Verse 4. And the Lord God had respect to Abel and to his offering — And showed his acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven; but to Cain and his offering he had not respect. We are sure there was a good reason for this difference: that the Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, doth not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns. 1st, There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering: Cain was a wicked man, but Abel was a righteous man, Matthew 23:35. 2d, There was a difference in the offerings they brought: Abel’s was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s; Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: but Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God’s wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator: but the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God’s will as his rule, and in dependance upon the promise of a Redeemer: but Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.

Ver. 4. The firstlings of his flock. He approached his Maker by an atoning victim for sin which God had enjoined on man, though the injunction is not named, being known and understood. To this, at the close of the service, the Mincha was added, consisting of flour, oil, and wine; part of which was burned on the altar, and the rest was a meat-offering. Cain, a mere unitarian, failed in this, and dared to approach without atonement for his sin.

4. Abel… brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof — The best and most complete offering which he could make, not the most convenient, or the ones that came first to hand. He seems to have apprehended something of the profound doctrine, afterward made so prominent, that without shedding of blood there is no remission, and hence especially the reason why the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. In what way this respect, or favourable look, was shown is not recorded, but the ancient and prevailing opinion is, that God sent down fire from heaven to consume the sacrifice. Comp. Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; 1 Kings 18:38. Jehovah’s look was thus a fire-glance from heaven that set the offering aflame. The word translated offering (hjnm) is always used in the Mosaic laws of a “meat offering,” or bloodless sacrifice; but here it is applied to Abel’s gift as well as to Cain’s.

V. 5. And Cain was wroth, and his countenance fell-Not so much out of grief as malice and rage. His sullen churlish countenance, and down-look, betrayed his passionate resentment.

Verse 5. Unto Cain] As being unconscious of his sinfulness, and consequently unhumbled, and to his offering, as not being accompanied, as Abel’s was, with faith and a sacrifice for sin, he had not respect-He could not, consistently with his holiness and justice, approve of the one or receive the other. Of the manner in which God testified his approbation we are not informed; it was probably, as in the case of Elijah, by sending down fire from heaven, and consuming the sacrifice.

Cain was very wroth] That displeasure which should have been turned against his own unhumbled heart was turned against his innocent brother, who, though not more highly privileged than he, made a much better use of the advantages which he shared in common with his ungodly and unnatural brother.

Verses 5-7. Cain was very wroth — Full of rage against God and his brother. His countenance fell — His looks became sour, dejected, and angry. The Lord said unto Cain — to convince him of his sin, and bring him to repentance, Why art thou wroth? What cause has been given thee, either by me or thy brother? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? — Either, 1st, If thou hadst done well, as thy brother did, thou shouldest have been accepted as he was. God is no respecter of persons; so that, if we come short of acceptance with him, the fault is wholly our own. This will justify God in the destruction of sinners, and will aggravate their ruin. There is not a damned sinner in hell, but, if he had done well, as he might have done, had been a glorified saint in heaven. Every mouth will shortly be stopped with this. Or, 2d, If now thou do well — If thou repent of thy sin, reform thy heart and life, and bring thy sacrifice in a better manner; thou shalt yet be accepted. See how early the gospel was preached, and the benefit of it offered even to one of the chief of sinners! He sets before him also death and a curse; but, if not well — Seeing thou didst not do well: not offer in faith, and in a right manner; sin lieth at the door — That is, sin only hinders thy acceptance. All this considered, Cain had no reason to be angry with his brother, but at himself only. Unto thee shall be his desire — He shall continue to respect thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the firstborn, shalt rule over him as much as ever. God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering did not transfer the birthright to him, (which Cain was jealous of,) nor put upon him that dignity and power which are said to belong to it, Genesis 49:3.

5. But unto Cain… not respect — Why? From Hebrews 11:4, we infer that it was because of some lack of faith, for “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Cain’s, then, was not the blossomings or the fruit of faith in Jehovah. It sprung from no profound conception of the grounds or need of sacrifice. And, perhaps, as suggested above, Cain’s lack of faith was evinced by his neglect to bring a bleeding victim. If animal sacrifices were of divine institution, (see note on 3:21,) Cain must have known the fact and the mode; but so far from regarding it, he seems not to have been even careful to bring the firstfruits of the ground. Hence his offering was not a doing well. Verse 7. Cain was very wroth — Manifestly yielding to passions of jealousy and anger. His countenance fell — Like a sullen, spoiled child, pouting with bad passion, and waiting for an opportunity of revenge.

Verse 6. Why art thou wroth?] This was designed as a gracious warning, and a preventive of the meditated crime.

Verses 5-7. Cain was very wroth — Full of rage against God and his brother. His countenance fell — His looks became sour, dejected, and angry. The Lord said unto Cain — to convince him of his sin, and bring him to repentance, Why art thou wroth? What cause has been given thee, either by me or thy brother? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? — Either, 1st, If thou hadst done well, as thy brother did, thou shouldest have been accepted as he was. God is no respecter of persons; so that, if we come short of acceptance with him, the fault is wholly our own. This will justify God in the destruction of sinners, and will aggravate their ruin. There is not a damned sinner in hell, but, if he had done well, as he might have done, had been a glorified saint in heaven. Every mouth will shortly be stopped with this. Or, 2d, If now thou do well — If thou repent of thy sin, reform thy heart and life, and bring thy sacrifice in a better manner; thou shalt yet be accepted. See how early the gospel was preached, and the benefit of it offered even to one of the chief of sinners! He sets before him also death and a curse; but, if not well — Seeing thou didst not do well: not offer in faith, and in a right manner; sin lieth at the door — That is, sin only hinders thy acceptance. All this considered, Cain had no reason to be angry with his brother, but at himself only. Unto thee shall be his desire — He shall continue to respect thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the firstborn, shalt rule over him as much as ever. God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering did not transfer the birthright to him, (which Cain was jealous of,) nor put upon him that dignity and power which are said to belong to it, Genesis 49:3.

6. The Lord said unto Cain — By an angel or by the lips of Adam, or by one of Cain’s brothers or sisters. Why… wroth — A question and an appeal that might well have wrought in Cain a conviction of his wrong.

V. 7. If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted?-Either, 1. If thou hadst done well, as thy brother did, thou shouldest have been accepted as he was. God is no respecter of persons; so that if we come short of acceptance with him, the fault is wholly our own. This will justify God in the destruction of sinners, and will aggravate their ruin. There is not a damned sinner in hell, but if he had done well, as he might have done, had been a glorified saint in heaven. Every mouth will shortly be stopt with this. Or, 2. If now thou do well: if thou repent of thy sin, reform thy heart and life, and bring thy sacrifice in a better manner; thou shalt yet be accepted. See how early the gospel was preached, and the benefit of it here offered even to one of the chief of sinners.

He sets before him death and a curse; but, if not well-Seeing thou didst not do well, not offer in faith, and in a right manner, sin lieth at the door-That is, sin only hinders thy acceptance. All this considered, Cain had no reason to be angry with his brother, but at himself only.

Unto thee shall be his desire-He shall continue in respect to thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the first-born, shall rule over him as much as ever. God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering did not transfer the birth-right to him, (which Cain was jealous of) nor put upon him that dignity, and power, which is said to belong to it, Genesis 49:3.

Verse 7. If thou doest well] That which is right in the sight of God, shalt thou not be accepted? Does God reject any man who serves him in simplicity and godly sincerity? But if thou doest not well, can wrath and indignation against thy righteous brother save thee from the displeasure under which thou art fallen? On the contrary, have recourse to thy Maker for mercy; xbr tacj jtpl lappethach chattath robets, a sin-offering lieth at thy door; an animal proper to be offered as an atonement for sin is now couching at the door of thy fold.

The words tacj chattath, and tacj chattaah, frequently signify sin; but I have observed more than a hundred places in the Old Testament where they are used for sin-offering, and translated amartia by the Septuagint, which is the term the apostle uses, 2 Corinthians 5:21: He hath made him to be sin (amartian, A SIN-OFFERING) for us, who knew no sin. Cain’s fault now was his not bringing a sin-offering when his brother brought one, and his neglect and contempt caused his other offering to be rejected. However, God now graciously informs him that, though he had miscarried, his case was not yet desperate, as the means of faith, from the promise, &c., were in his power, and a victim proper for a sin-offering was lying (xbr robets, a word used to express the lying down of a quadruped) at the door of his fold. How many sinners perish, not because there is not a Saviour able and willing to save them, but because they will not use that which is within their power! Of such how true is that word of our Lord, Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life!

Unto thee shall be his desire, &c.] That is, Thou shalt ever have the right of primogeniture, and in all things shall thy brother be subject unto thee. These words are not spoken of sin, as many have understood them, but of Abel’s submission to Cain as his superior, and the words are spoken to remove Cain’s envy.

Verses 5-7. Cain was very wroth — Full of rage against God and his brother. His countenance fell — His looks became sour, dejected, and angry. The Lord said unto Cain — to convince him of his sin, and bring him to repentance, Why art thou wroth? What cause has been given thee, either by me or thy brother? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? — Either, 1st, If thou hadst done well, as thy brother did, thou shouldest have been accepted as he was. God is no respecter of persons; so that, if we come short of acceptance with him, the fault is wholly our own. This will justify God in the destruction of sinners, and will aggravate their ruin. There is not a damned sinner in hell, but, if he had done well, as he might have done, had been a glorified saint in heaven. Every mouth will shortly be stopped with this. Or, 2d, If now thou do well — If thou repent of thy sin, reform thy heart and life, and bring thy sacrifice in a better manner; thou shalt yet be accepted. See how early the gospel was preached, and the benefit of it offered even to one of the chief of sinners! He sets before him also death and a curse; but, if not well — Seeing thou didst not do well: not offer in faith, and in a right manner; sin lieth at the door — That is, sin only hinders thy acceptance. All this considered, Cain had no reason to be angry with his brother, but at himself only. Unto thee shall be his desire — He shall continue to respect thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the firstborn, shalt rule over him as much as ever. God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering did not transfer the birthright to him, (which Cain was jealous of,) nor put upon him that dignity and power which are said to belong to it, Genesis 49:3.

Ver. 7. Sin lieth at the door. To understand this text of a sin-offering lying at the door, seems to promise Cain acceptance whether he did well or ill. It undoubtedly means that iniquity should be visited on himself and his children, as the events proved.

7. Shalt thou not be accepted — Rather, is there not an uplifting, that is, of the countenance. The downcast, sullen look is not a mark of him that doeth well. Sin lieth at the door — In the Hebrew sin is a feminine noun, and lieth is a masculine participal, because, says Keil, with evident allusion to the serpent, “sin is personified as a wild beast, lurking at the door of the human heart, and eagerly desiring to devour his soul.” 1 Peter 5:8. But we cannot, with Keil and others, understand that which follows, unto thee shall be his desire, as referring also to sin personified, for the words as used can scarcely justify the paraphrase: sin, lying at the door of thy heart, has strong desire to enter in and control thee; nevertheless, if thou do well, thou shalt obtain the mastery, and rule over sin. The better interpretation is that which refers the pronouns his and him to Abel. The Lord thus assures Cain that he has nothing to fear from Abel, whose hqwvt, desire, (tender and loyal devotion,) is strong and fervent towards him as his elder brother, and, therefore, certain to attempt no interference with Cain’s right of primogeniture to rule over him, and thus enjoy all the privileges of his natural pre-eminence.

V. 8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother-The Chaldee paraphrast adds, that Cain, when they were in discourse, maintained there was no judgment to come, and that when Abel spoke in defence of the truth, Cain took that occasion to fall upon him. The scripture tells us the reason wherefore he slew him, because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous; so that herein he shewed himself to be a child of the devil, as being an enemy to all righteousness. Observe, the first that dies is a saint, the first that went to the grave, went to heaven. God would secure to himself the first fruits, the first born to the dead, that first opened the womb into another world.

Verse 8. Cain talked with Abel his brother] ˆyq rmayw vaiyomer Kayin, and Cain said, &c.; not talked, for this construction the word cannot bear without great violence to analogy and grammatical accuracy. But why should it be thus translated? Because our translators could not find that any thing was spoken on the occasion; and therefore they ventured to intimate that there was a conversation, indefinitely. In the most correct editions of the Hebrew Bible there is a small space left here in the text, and a circular mark which refers to a note in the margin, intimating that there is a hiatus or deficiency in the verse. Now this deficiency is supplied in the principal ancient versions, and in the Samaritan text. In this the supplied words are, LET US WALK OUT INTO THE FIELD. The Syriac has, Let us go to the desert. The Vulgate Egrediamur foras, Let us walk out. The Septuagint, dielqemen eiv to pedon, Let us go out into the field. The two Chaldee Targums have the same reading; so has the Coptic version. This addition is completely lost from every MS. of the Pentateuch now known; and yet it is sufficiently evident from the Samaritan text, the Samaritan version, the Syriac, Septuagint, and Vulgate, that it was in the most authentic copies of the Hebrew before and some time since the Christian era. The words may therefore be safely considered as a part of the sacred text, and with them the whole passage reads clear and consistently: “And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go out into the field: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up,” &c. The Jerusalem Targum, and the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, pretend to give us the subject of their conversation: as the piece is curious, I shall insert the substance of it, for the sake of those who may not have access to the originals. “And Cain said unto Hebel his brother, Let us go out into the field; and it came to pass that, when they were in the field, Cain answered and said to Hebel his brother, I thought that the world was created in mercy, but it is not governed according to the merit of good works. nor is there any judgment, nor a Judge, nor shall there be any future state in which good rewards shall be given to the righteous, or punishment executed on the wicked; and now there is respect of persons in judgment. On what account is it that thy sacrifice has been accepted, and mine not received with complacency? And Hebel answered and said, The world was created in mercy, and it is governed according to the fruit of good works; there is a Judge, a future world, and a coming judgment, where good rewards shall be given to the righteous, and the impious punished; and there is no respect of persons in judgment; but because my works were better and more precious than thine, my oblation was received with complacency. And because of these things they contended on the face of the field, and Cain rose up against Hebel his brother, and struck a stone into his forehead, and killed him.”

It is here supposed that the first murder committed in the world was the consequence of a religious dispute; however this may have been, millions since have been sacrificed to prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. Here, certainly, originated the many-headed monster, religious persecution; the spirit of the wicked one in his followers impels them to afflict and destroy all those who are partakers of the Spirit of God. Every persecutor is a legitimate son of the old murderer. This is the first triumph of Satan; it is not merely a death that he has introduced, but a violent one, as the first-fruits of sin. It is not the death of an ordinary person, but of the most holy man then in being; it is not brought about by the providence of God, or by a gradual failure and destruction of the earthly fabric, but by a violent separation of body and soul; it is not done by a common enemy, from whom nothing better could be expected, but by the hand of a brother, and for no other reason but because the object of his envy was more righteous than himself. Alas! how exceeding sinful does sin appear in its first manifestation!

Verse 8. Cain talked with Abel his brother — Either familiarly or friendly, as he used to do, with a view to make him secure and careless, or by way of expostulation and contention. The Chaldee paraphrast adds, that Cain, when they were in discourse, maintained there was no judgment to come, and that when Abel spoke in defence of the truth, Cain took that occasion to fall upon him. The Scripture tells us the reason wherefore he slew him, “because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous;” so that herein he showed himself to be a “child of the devil,” as being “an enemy to all righteousness.” Observe, the first that dies, is a saint; the first that went to the grave, went to heaven. God would secure to himself the first-fruits, the firstborn to the dead, that first opened the womb into another world.

Ver. 8. Cain talked. The Samaritan text reads here, “Let us go out, &c.;” words which seem requisite to complete the sense; they are found also in the Vulgate. He advised his brother to go with him to a secret place, and slew him in about the 128th year of his age, when they were both fathers of families.

8. Talked with Abel — Rather, said to Abel. The Septuagint, Samaritan, Syriac, and Vulgate supply: Let us go into the field; but the Hebrew text does not relate what he said, but, as in Genesis 3:22, 23, hastens to the sequel, the bloody action in the field. The repetition of the words, his brother, seems designed to impress the awful wickedness of the deed. Slew him — The first death was by violence; the first murder a fratricide. “And wherefore slew he him?” inquires the apostle. 1 John 3:12. “Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” “Cain was of that wicked one,” whom the Lord declares (John 8:44) to have been “a murderer from the beginning,” “a liar, and the father of it.” By his lying he deceiveth the whole world and makes himself the murderer of man. Cain identified himself with that wicked one, became a child of the devil, and representative of the seed of the serpent. The first murder sprung from jealousy; jealousy begat hatred, and hatred beget murder. Hence the apostle says: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 John 3:15.

V. 9. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother?-God knew him to be guilty; yet he asks him, that he might draw from him a confession of his crime; for those who would be justified before God, must accuse themselves.

And he said, I know not-Thus in Cain the devil was both a murderer, and a liar from the beginning.

Am I my Brother’s keeper?-Sure he is old enough to take care of himself, nor did I ever take charge of him. Art not thou his keeper? If he be missing, on thee be the blame, and not on me, who never undertook to keep him.

Verse 9. Where is Abel thy brother? — Not that God was ignorant where he was, but he asks him that he might convince him of his crime, and bring him to a confession of it; for those that would be justified before God, must accuse themselves. And he said, I know not — Thus in Cain, the devil was both a murderer and a liar from the beginning. Am I my brother’s keeper? — Is he so young that he needs a guardian? Or didst thou assign any such office to me? Surely he is old enough to take care of himself, nor did I ever take charge of him.

9. Where is Abel — God’s judgment with Cain, as with Adam, begins with the searching WHERE? Comp. Genesis 3:9. I know not — It is easy for a murderer to lie. I my brother’s keeper — Am I his shepherd, to watch over him? A word of daring impudence and defiance; a sort of retort on the Lord’s care of Abel. “How is it that thou, who hadst delight in him, and didst show him such favouritism, hast not watched over him!”

V. 10. And he said, What hast thou done?-Thou thinkest to conceal it, but the evidence against thee is clear and uncontestable, the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth-He speaks as if the blood itself were both witness and prosecutor, because God’s own knowledge testified against him, and God’s own justice demanded satisfaction. The blood is said to cry from the ground, the earth, which is said, Genesis 4:11, to open her mouth to receive his brother’s blood from his hand. The earth did as it were blush to see her own face stained with such blood; and therefore opened her mouth to hide that which she could not hinder.

Verse 10. The voice of thy brother’s blood] It is probable that Cain, having killed his brother, dug a hole and burled him in the earth, hoping thereby to prevent the murder from being known; and that this is what is designed in the words, Thy brother’s blood crieth unto me FROM THE GROUND-which hath opened her mouth to receive it from thy hand. Some think that by the voice of thy brother’s blood the cries of Abel’s widow and children are to be understood, as it is very probable that he was father of a family; indeed his occupation and sacrifices seem to render this probable, and probability is all we can expect on such a subject. God represents these as calling aloud for the punishment of the murderer; and it is evident that Cain expected to fall by the hands of some person who, from his consanguinity, had the right of the avenger of blood; for now that the murder is found out, he expects to suffer death for it. See Genesis 4:14.

Verse 10. What hast thou done? — Thou thinkest to conceal it; but the evidence against thee is clear and incontestable: the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth from the ground — He speaks as if the blood itself were both witness and prosecutor, because God’s own knowledge testified against him, and God’s own justice demanded satisfaction.

10. What hast thou done — In this verse it is well to emphasize and compare together the words thou, thy brother, me. The guilt of the bloody deed rests upon Cain’s dark soul; the brother’s blood cries to heaven; God hears, and will not ignore the cry. “The pious Abel had pleaded with his fierce brother in vain, but the great God hears the cry of injured innocence. He is the God of those whom men forget and scorn. Every groan and cry that tyranny and persecution crush from broken hearts are gathered up in the all-embracing heaven, and poured into that ever-listening ear.” — Newhall. The Hebrew words for blood and crieth are in the plural, as if to suggest that all the drops or streams of blood thus violently shed took on so many imploring tongues. “The blood, as the living flow of the life, and the phenomenal basis of the soul, has a voice which is as the living echo of the blood-clad soul itself. It is the symbol of the soul crying for its right to live.” — Lange.

V. 11. And now art thou cursed from the earth-1. He is cursed, separated to all evil, laid under the wrath of God, as it is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. 2. He is cursed from the earth. Thence the cry came up to God, thence the curse came up to Cain. God could have taken vengeance by an immediate stroke from heaven: but he chose to make the earth the avenger of blood; to continue him upon the earth, and not presently to cut him off; and yet to make even that his curse. That part of it which fell to his share, and which he had the occupation of, was made unfruitful, by the blood of Abel. Besides, A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. By this he was here condemned, to perpetual disgrace and reproach, and to perpetual disquietment and horror in his own mind. His own guilty conscience should haunt him where ever he went.

Now to justify his complaint, Observe his descants upon the sentence. 1. He sees himself excluded by it from the favour of his God; and concludes, that being cursed, he was hid from God’s face, and that is indeed the true nature of God’s curse; damned sinners find it so, to whom it is said, Depart from me ye cursed. Those are cursed indeed that are for ever shut out from God’s love and care, and from all hopes of his grace. 2. He sees himself expelled from all the comforts of this life; and concludes, Genesis 4:14. Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth-As good have no place on earth as not have a settled place. Better rest in the grave than not rest at all.

And from thy face shall I be hid-Shut out of the church, not admitted to come with the sons of God to present himself before the Lord. And it shall come to pass that every one that finds me shall slay me-Wherever he wanders he goes in peril of his life. There were none alive but his near relations, yet even of them he is justly afraid, who had himself been so barbarous to his own brother.

Verse 11. And now art thou cursed — 1st, Separated to all evil, laid under the wrath of God, as it is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. 2d, He is cursed from the earth. Thence the cry came up to God, thence the curse came up to Cain. God could have taken vengeance by an immediate stroke from heaven: but he chose to make the earth the avenger of blood; to continue him upon the earth, and not presently to cut him off; and yet to make even that his curse. That part of it which fell to his share, and which he had the occupation of, was made unfruitful, by the blood of Abel. Besides, 3d, A fugitive and a vagabond (says God) shalt thou be in the earth — By this he was condemned to perpetual disgrace and reproach, and to perpetual disquiet and horror in his own mind. His own guilty conscience would haunt him wherever he went.

11. Cursed from the earth — The curse shall seem to come forth out of the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood. As the next verse further explains, the ground, which so readily drank the innocent blood, will not be fruitful to the murderer’s tilling. The earth, cursed by reason of Adam’s sin, (iii, 17,) will seem to pour forth special judgments upon Cain. Others explain, less in keeping with the natural meaning of the words and the context: Thou art cursed away from the land; that is, banished out of this land, or district, where thy father and brothers dwell.

Verse 12. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be] Thou shalt be expelled from the presence of God, and from thy family connections, and shalt have no fixed secure residence in any place. The Septuagint render this stenwn kai tremwn esh, thou shalt be groaning and trembling upon the earth-the horror of thy crime shall ever haunt thee, and thou shalt never have any well-grounded hope that God will remit the punishment thou deservest. No state out of endless perdition can be considered more awful than this.

12. Not henceforth yield — Not add, or continue to yield, so abundantly as in the past. How much has righteousness in man to do in securing bountiful harvests, and averting pestilence and famine! Her strength — Her full fruitage, as the forceful and legitimate outcome of her fertility. In Job 31:39, the word (jk) is translated fruits. A fugitive and a vagabond — The Hebrew words here form a paranomasia, dnw [n, na’ wa-nadh, something like plodding and nodding. The first word means a restless wanderer, the second a roving fugitive.

Verse 13. My punishment is greater than I can bear.] The margin reads, Mine iniquity is greater than that it may be forgiven. The original words, awcnm ynw[ lwdg gadol avoni minneso, may be translated, Is my crime too great to be forgiven? words which we may presume he uttered on the verge of black despair. It is most probable that ˆw[ avon signifies rather the crime than the punishment; in this sense it is used Leviticus 26:41, 43; 1 Samuel 28:10; 2 Kings 7:9; and acn nasa signifies to remit or forgive. The marginal reading is, therefore, to be preferred to that in the text.

Verses 13, 14. Cain said, My punishment (Hebrews my sin) is greater than I can bear — Sin, however, seems to be put for punishment, as it is verse 7, and in many other places. For Cain was not so sensible of his sin, as of the miserable effects of it, as appears from the next verse, where, to justify his complaint, he descants upon the sentence, observing, 1st, That he was excluded by it from the favour of God: that, being cursed, he was hid from God’s face, which is indeed the true nature of God’s curse, as they will find to whom God shall say, Depart from me, ye cursed. 2d, That he was expelled from all the comforts of this life; driven out from the face of the earth, and hid from God’s face — Shut out from the church, and not admitted to come with the sons of God to present himself before the Lord. And, adds he, every one that finds me shall slay me — Wherever he goes, he goes in peril of his life. There were none alive but his near relations, yet even of them he is justly afraid, who had himself been so barbarous to his own brother.

13. My punishment is greater than I can bear — The words thus rendered will bear two interpretations, that given in the text, and that of the margin: My sin is greater than can be forgiven. Both interpretations are very ancient, and both yield a pertinent sense; but the next verse, in which Cain goes on to bewail the greatness of his curse, sustains the view that Cain deplored his punishment more than his sin. Both views, however, may be so far united as to show that in the murderer’s soul there was a mingling of guilt, sorrow, and dismay.

Verse 14. Behold, thou hast driven me out] In Genesis 4:11, 12, God states two parts of Cain’s punishment: 1. The ground was cursed, so that it was not to yield any adequate recompense for his most careful tillage. 2. He was to be a fugitive and a vagabond having no place in which he could dwell with comfort or security. To these Cain himself adds others.

1. His being hidden from the face of God; which appears to signify his being expelled from that particular place where God had manifested his presence. in or contiguous to Paradise, whither our first parents resorted as to an oracle, and where they offered their daily adorations. So in Genesis 4:16, it is said, Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and was not permitted any more to associate with the family in acts of religious worship. 2. The continual apprehension of being slain, as all the inhabitants of the earth were at that time of the same family, the parents themselves still alive, and each having a right to kill this murderer of his relative. Add to all this, 3. The terrors of a guilty conscience; his awful apprehension of God’s judgments, and of being everlastingly banished from the beatific vision. To this part of the punishment of Cain St. Paul probably alludes, 2 Thessalonians 1:9: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power. The words are so similar that we can scarcely doubt of the allusion.

Verses 13, 14. Cain said, My punishment (Hebrews my sin) is greater than I can bear — Sin, however, seems to be put for punishment, as it is verse 7, and in many other places. For Cain was not so sensible of his sin, as of the miserable effects of it, as appears from the next verse, where, to justify his complaint, he descants upon the sentence, observing, 1st, That he was excluded by it from the favour of God: that, being cursed, he was hid from God’s face, which is indeed the true nature of God’s curse, as they will find to whom God shall say, Depart from me, ye cursed. 2d, That he was expelled from all the comforts of this life; driven out from the face of the earth, and hid from God’s face — Shut out from the church, and not admitted to come with the sons of God to present himself before the Lord. And, adds he, every one that finds me shall slay me — Wherever he goes, he goes in peril of his life. There were none alive but his near relations, yet even of them he is justly afraid, who had himself been so barbarous to his own brother.

14. Thou hast driven — Cain seems to charge all his curse on God, as if ignoring that he himself was the guilty cause. From the face of the earth — Special reference to the district of Eden. Compare verse 16. His sentence to be a vagabond and a fugitive involved this separation from Eden. From thy face — From that hallowed spot on the east of the garden of Eden where the symbols of the divine Presence were set, (Genesis 3:24,) and where, probably, all sacrifices to Jehovah had hitherto been offered. Comp. verse 16. Every one… shall slay me — Thus in that first age we note how the guilty conscience fears the avenger of blood. It has been plausibly supposed that the murder of Abel occurred not long before the birth of Seth, (see verse 25,) when Adam was one hundred and thirty years old, (Genesis 5:3;) at which time there was probably a considerable population in man’s primeval seat. “By every one we are not to understand every creature, as though Cain had excited the hostility of all creatures, but every man. Cain is evidently afraid of revenge on the part of relatives of the slain, who were either already in existence or yet to be born.” — Keil.

V. 15. Whosoever slayeth Cain vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold-God having said in Cain’s case Vengeance is mine, I will repay; it had been a daring usurpation for any man to take the sword out of God’s hand.

And the Lord set a mark upon Cain-To distinguish him from the rest of mankind. What the mark was, God has not told us: therefore the conjectures of men are vain.

Verse 15. The Lord set a mark upon Cain] What this mark was, has given rise to a number of frivolously curious conjectures. Dr. Shuckford collects the most remarkable. Some say he was paralytic; this seems to have arisen from the version of the Septuagint, stevev kai tpemov esh, Groaning and trembling shalt thou be. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel says the sign was from the great and precious name, probably one of the letters of the word [Samaritan] Yehovah. The author of an Arabic Catena in the Bodleian Library says, “A sword could not pierce him; fire could not burn him; water could not drown him; the air could not blast him; nor could thunder or lightning strike him.” The author of Bereshith Rabba, a comment on Genesis, says the mark was a circle of the sun rising upon him. Abravanel says the sign was Abel’s dog, which constantly accompanied him. Some of the doctors in the Talmud say that it was the letter t tau marked on his forehead, which signified his contrition, as it is the first letter in the word hbwvt teshubah, repentance. Rabbi Joseph, wiser than all the rest, says it was a long horn growing out of his forehead! Dr. Shuckford farther observes that the Hebrew word tya oth, which we translate a mark, signifies a sign or token. Thus, Genesis 9:13, the bow was to be tyal leoth, for a sign or token that the world should not be destroyed; therefore the words, And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, should be translated, And the Lord appointed to Cain a token or sign, to convince him that no person should be permitted to slay him. To have marked him would have been the most likely way to have brought all the evils he dreaded upon him; therefore the Lord gave him some miraculous sign or token that he should not be slain, to the end that he should not despair, but, having time to repent, might return to a gracious God and find mercy. Notwithstanding the allusion which I suppose St. Paul to have made to the punishment of Cain, some think that he did repent and find mercy. I can only say this was possible. Most people who read this account wonder why Cain should dread being killed, when it does not appear to them that there were any inhabitants on the earth at that time besides himself and his parents. To correct this mistake, let it be observed that the death of Abel took place in the one hundred and twenty-eighth or one hundred and twenty-ninth year of the world. Now, “supposing Adam and Eve to have had no other sons than Cain and Abel in the year of the world one hundred and twenty-eight, yet as they had daughters married to these sons, their descendants would make a considerable figure on the earth. Supposing them to have been married in the nineteenth year of the world, they might easily have had each eight children, some males and some females, in the twenty-fifth year. In the fiftieth year there might proceed from them in a direct line sixty-four persons; in the seventy-fourth year there would be five hundred and twelve; in the ninety-eighth year, four thousand and ninety-six; in the one hundred and twenty-second they would amount to thirty-two thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight: if to these we add the other children descended from Cain and Abel, their children, and their children’s children, we shall have, in the aforesaid one hundred and twenty-eight years four hundred and twenty-one thousand one hundred and sixty-four men capable of generation, without reckoning the women either old or young, or such as are under the age of seventeen.” See Dodd.

But this calculation may be disputed, because there is no evidence that the antediluvian patriarchs began to have children before they were sixty-five years of age. Now, supposing that Adam at one hundred and thirty years of age had one hundred and thirty children, which is quite possible, and each of these a child at sixty-five years of age, and one in each successive year, the whole, in the one hundred and thirtieth year of the world, would amount to one thousand two hundred and nineteen persons; a number sufficient to found several villages, and to excite the apprehensions under which Cain appeared at this time to labour.

Verse 15. Whosoever slayeth Cain, &c. — God having said, in Cain’s case, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, it had been a daring usurpation for any man to take the sword out of God’s hand. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain — To distinguish him from the rest of mankind. What the mark was, God has not told us: therefore the conjectures of men are vain.

15. Therefore — Because there was just reason for such fear of the blood-avenger, and in order to save Cain from such death, the Lord uttered what follows in the text. Vengeance… sevenfold — Judgment and penalty of the most extreme character, passing down, perhaps, to children’s children through many generations. God takes the punishment of Cain into his own hands, not because he was not deserving of death, but because in that early time it were better to preserve Cain a living monument of the curse of blood-guiltiness. Set a mark upon Cain — Some sign by which he would be everywhere known as the cursed man, and which also might serve as a token to him that he should not fall by the avenger of blood. But the exact nature of the mark no one now knows, and conjectures are worthless.

V. 16. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt on the east of Eden-Somewhere distant from the place were Adam and his religious family resided: distinguishing himself and his accursed generation from the holy seed;

in the land of Nod-That is, of shaking or trembling, because of the continual restlessness of his spirit. Those that depart from God cannot find rest any where else. When Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, he never rested after.

Verse 16. The land of Nod] As dwn nod signifies the same as dn, a vagabond, some think this verse should be rendered, And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, from the east of Eden, and dwelt a vagabond on the earth; thus the curse pronounced on him, Genesis 4:12, was accomplished.

Verse 16. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt on the east of Eden — Somewhere distant from the place where Adam and his religions family resided: distinguishing himself and his accursed generation from the holy seed; in the land of Nod — That is, of shaking or trembling, because of the continual restlessness of his spirit. Those that depart from God cannot find rest anywhere else. When Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, he never rested after.

THE CAINITES, 16-24.

16. Cain went out from the presence of the Lord — From that sacred spot on the east of the garden, where Jehovah had revealed his presence and glory to Adam and his sons. Comp. verse 14. Land of Nod — The word Nod means wandering, and is from the same root as that translated vagabond in verses 12 and 14. It probably took this name from Cain’s fleeing and dwelling there, and the writer uses it here proleptically. Its location, on the east of Eden, may serve to suggest the contrast between Nod (flight, banishment, wandering) and Eden, (delight, pleasure.) Arabia, Susiana, India, and other countries have been fixed upon as the land of Nod, but these are mere conjectures.

V. 17. And he builded a city-In token of a settled separation from the church of God. And here is an account of his posterity, at least the heirs of his family, for seven generations. His son was Enoch, of the same name, but not of the same character with that holy man that walked with God. The names of more of his posterity are mentioned, and but just mentioned, as those of the holy seed, Genesis 5:1-32. They are numbered in haste, as not valued or delighted in, in comparison with God’s children.

Verse 17. She-bare Enoch] As Ëwnj Chanoch signifies instructed, dedicated, or initiated, and especially in sacred things, it may be considered some proof of Cain’s repentance, that he appears to have dedicated this son to God, who, in his father’s stead, might minister in the sacerdotal office, from which Cain, by his crime, was for ever excluded.

17. Cain knew his wife — See on verse 1. “The text assumes it as self-evident that she accompanied him in his exile; also that she was a daughter of Adam, and, consequently a sister of Cain. The marriage of brothers and sisters was inevitable in the case of the children of the first men, if the human race was actually to descend from a single pair, and may, therefore, be justified in the face of the Mosaic prohibition of such marriages, on the ground that the sons and daughters of Adam represented not merely the family, but the race, (genus,) and that it was not till after the rise of several families that the bonds of fraternal and conjugal love became distinct from one another, and assumed fixed and mutually exclusive forms, the violation of which is sin.” — Keil. Enoch — Meaning initiated, as if with this son, and the city called after his name, Cain was instituting a new order of things. He builded — Literally, he was building. He began to build the city, perhaps before Enoch was born, and he continued building it long after. “The word city is, of course, not to be interpreted by modern ideas; a village of rude huts, which was distinguished from the booths or tents of the nomads, would satisfy all the conditions of the text.” — Speaker’s Com. And yet something more pretentious than mere huts may well be understood. Nor is it far-fetched and irrelevant to trace in this first city-building the earliest attempt to centralize worldly forces, and construct something like world-empire, one of the outward forms of the later Antichrist. For the “mystery of iniquity” was already working in this very line of Cain, “who was of that wicked one.” 1 John 3:12. The location of this city named Enoch is, like the land of Nod, unknown.

18. Irad… Mehujael… Methusael — Compare the similar names in the Sethite genealogy recorded in the next chapter, Jared, Mahalaleel, and Methuselah. Hence some have supposed a confusion growing out of two forms of one and the same old legend. But why may not different families have adopted similar or identical names in that as in later ages? Enoch and Lamech are names that occur in both genealogies, but the piety of the sons of Seth, bearing these names, is in notable contrast with the worldliness of Cain’s Enoch and the polygamy of Cain’s Lamech. This contrast seems to have been drawn out, as if to prevent the possibility of confounding the two genealogies.

V. 19. And Lamech took two wives-It was one of the degenerate race of Cain who first transgressed that original law of marriage, that two only should be one flesh.

1. Jabal was a famous shepherd; he delighted much in keeping cattle, and was so happy in devising methods of doing it to the best advantage, and instructing others in them, that the shepherds of those times, nay, the shepherds of after-times, called him Father; or perhaps his children after him, being brought up to the same employment: the family was a family of shepherds.

2. Jubal was a famous musician, and particularly an organist, and the first that gave rules for that noble art or science of music. When Jabal had set them in a way to be rich, Jubal put them in a way to be merry. From Jubal probably the Jubilee trumpet was so called; for the best music was that which proclaimed liberty and redemption.

Verse 19. Lamech took-two wives] He was the first who dared to reverse the order of God by introducing polygamy; and from him it has been retained, practised, and defended to the present day.

Verse 19. Lamech took two wives — It was one of the degenerate race of Cain who first transgressed the original law of marriage, that two only should be one flesh, and introduced a custom which still subsists in many parts of the world. Christ fully laid open the iniquity of this practice, and restored marriage to its first form, Matthew 19:8.

19. Lamech took… two wives — Here is the first recorded instance of bigamy, and it is here noted as originating in the race of Cain. “The names of the women,” says Keil, “are indicative of sensual attractions, Adah, the adorned; and Zillah, the shady, or the tinkling.”

Verse 20. Jabal-was the father] The inventor or teacher, for so the word is understood, 1 Samuel 10:12. He was the first who invented tent-making, and the breeding and managing of cattle; or he was, in these respects, the most eminent in that time. Though Abel was a shepherd, it is not likely he was such on an extensive scale.

Verse 20. He (Jabal) was the father of such as dwell in tents — That is, he taught shepherds to dwell in them, and to remove them from place to place for conveniency of pasture. The first authors of any thing are commonly called its fathers.

20. Jabal… father of… tents… cattle — Though descended from a city-builder, he adopted the nomadic life; but, unlike Abel, who probably held to a settled habitation and kept only sheep or small cattle, Jabal led a wandering life, living in tents, which were easily pitched and easily removed from place to place. Thus he was the originator of genuine nomadic life.

Verse 21. Jubal-the father] i.e. The inventor of musical instruments, such as the rwnk kinnor, which we translate harp, and the bgw[ ugab, which we render organ; it is very likely that both words are generic, the former including under it all stringed instruments, and the latter, all wind instruments.

Verse 21. The harp and organ — The word rendered organ here means a lovely instrument; but what kind of an instrument this was, the Jews themselves do not know. This Jubal was the inventor of such musical instruments, and of music itself.

21. Harp and organ — Here used as general names of stringed and wind instruments of music. “That the inventor of musical instruments should be the brother of him who introduced the nomad life is strictly in accordance with the experience of the world. The connexion between music and the pastoral life is indicated in the traditions of the Greeks, which ascribed the invention of the pipe to Pan and of the lyre to Apollo, each of them also being devoted to pastoral pursuits.” — SMITH’S Dictionary of the Bible.

V. 22. From Tubal-Cain, probably the Heathen Vulcan came. Why Naamah is particularly named, we know not: probably they did, who lived when Moses wrote.

Verse 22. Tubal-cain] The first smith on record, who taught how to make warlike instruments and domestic utensils out of brass and iron. Agricultural instruments must have been in use long before, for Cain was a tiller of the ground, and so was Adam, and they could not have cultivated the ground without spades, hooks, &c. Some of these arts were useless to man while innocent and upright, but after his fall they became necessary. Thus is the saying verified: God made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions. As the power to get wealth is from God, so also is the invention of useful arts.

M. De Lavaur, in his Conference de la Fable avec l’Histoire Sainte, supposes that the Greeks and Romans took their smith-god Vulcan from Tubal-cain, the son of Lamech. The probability of this will appear, 1. From the name, which, by the omission of the Tu and turning the b into v, a change frequently made among the Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, makes Vulcain or Vulcan. 2. From his occupation he was an artificer, a master smith in brass and iron. 3. He thinks this farther probable from the names and sounds in this verse. The melting metals in the fire, and hammering them, bears a near resemblance to the hissing sound of hlx tsillah, the mother of Tubal-cain; and llx tsalal signifies to tinkle or make a sound like a bell, 1 Samuel 3:11 2 Kings 21:12. 4. Vulcan is said to have been lame; M. Deuteronomy Lavaur thinks that this notion was taken from the noun alx tsela, which signifies a halting or lameness. 5. Vulcan had to wife Venus, the goddess of beauty; Naamah, the sister of Tubal-cain, he thinks, may have given rise to this part of the fable, as her name in Hebrew signifies beautiful or gracious. 6. Vulcan is reported to have been jealous of his wife, and to have forged nets in which he took Mars and her, and exposed them to the view of the whole celestial court: this idea he thinks was derived from the literal import of the name Tubal-cain; lbt tebel signifies an incestuous mixture of relatives, Leviticus 20:12; and anq kana, to burn with jealousy; from these and concomitant circumstances the case of the detected adultery of Mars and Venus might be easily deduced. He is of opinion that a tradition of this kind might have readily found its way from the Egyptians to the Greeks, as the former had frequent intercourse with the Hebrews.

Of Naamah nothing more is spoken in the Scriptures; but the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel makes her the inventress of funeral songs and lamentations. R. S. Jarchi says she was the wife of Noah, and quotes Bereshith Rabba in support of the opinion. Some of the Jewish doctors say her name is recorded in Scripture because she was an upright and chaste woman; but others affirm that the whole world wandered after her, and that of her evil spirits were born into the world. This latter opinion gives some countenance to that of M. Deuteronomy Lavaur.

22. Tubal-cain — It is quite natural to compare this name and character with the Vulcan of Roman mythology, but the names have no necessary connexion. Instructor of every artificer — Rather, a forger of all that cuts brass and iron. The invention of metal instruments marks an advancing civilization, but is no evidence in itself that the previous times were barbarous or savage. Their wants were fewer, but increasing population, pursuing new arts and enterprises, furnishes the conditions of many inventions. Naamah — This name of Tubal-cain’s sister, which means the lovely, or the beautiful, is apparently introduced as further showing the worldly spirit and tastes of the Cainites. According to the Targum of Jonathan, she was the mistress of sounds and songs — a poetess.

V. 23. This passage is extremely obscure. We know not whom he slew, or on what occasion: neither what ground he had to be so confident of the Divine protection.

Verse 23. And Lamech said unto his wives] The speech of Lamech to his wives is in hemistichs in the original, and consequently, as nothing of this kind occurs before this time, it is very probably the oldest piece of poetry in the world. The following is, as nearly as possible, a literal translation:

“And Lamech said unto his wives,

Adah and Tsillah, hear ye my voice;

Wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech;

For I have slain a man for wounding me,

And a young man for having bruised me.

If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold,

Also Lamech seventy and seven.”

It is supposed that Lamech had slain a man in his own defence, and that his wives being alarmed lest the kindred of the deceased should seek his life in return, to quiet their fears he makes this speech, in which he endeavours to prove that there was no room for fear on this account; for if the slayer of the wilful murderer, Cain, should suffer a seven-fold punishment, surely he, who should kill Lamech for having slain a man in self-defence, might expect a seventy-seven-fold punishment.

This speech is very dark, and has given rise to a great variety of very strange conjectures. Dr. Shuckford supposes there is an ellipsis of some preceding speech or circumstance which, if known, would cast a light on the subject. In the antediluvian times, the nearest of kin to a murdered person had a right to revenge his death by taking away the life of the murderer. This, as we have already seen, appears to have contributed not a little to Cain’s horror, Genesis 4:14. Now we may suppose that the descendants of Cain were in continual alarms, lest some of the other family should attempt to avenge the death of Abel on them, as they were not permitted to do it on Cain; and that in order to dismiss those fears, Lamech, the seventh descendant from Adam, spoke to this effect to his wives: “Why should you render yourselves miserable by such ill-founded fears? We have slain no person; we have not done the least wrong to our brethren of the other family; surely then reason should dictate to you that they have no right to injure us. It is true that Cain, one of our ancestors, killed his brother Abel; but God, willing to pardon his sin, and give him space to repent, threatened to punish those with a seven-fold punishment who should dare to kill him. If this be so, then those who should have the boldness to kill any of us who are innocent, may expect a punishment still more rigorous. For if Cain should be avenged seven-fold on the person who should slay him, surely Lamech or any of his innocent family should be avenged seventy-seven-fold on those who should injure them.” The Targums give nearly the same meaning, and it makes a good sense; but who can say it is the true sense? If the words be read interrogatively, as they certainly may, the sense will be much clearer, and some of the difficulties will be removed:

“Have I slain a man, that I should be wounded?

Or a young man, that I should be bruised?”

But even this still supposes some previous reason or conversation. I shall not trouble my readers with a ridiculous Jewish fable, followed by St. Jerome, of Lamech having killed Cain by accident, &c.; and after what I have already said, I must leave the passage, I fear, among those which are inscrutable.

Verses 23, 24. This passage is extremely obscure. We have no information whom he slew, or on what occasion, neither what ground he had to be so confident of the divine protection. The original words indeed may be rendered, Have I slain a man to my wounding? &c. — And perhaps the best key to their meaning may be to suppose that his wives were convinced he had sinned in marrying them both, and introducing polygamy, and were afraid that the judgments of God would fall upon him for that crime, and upon themselves, for his sake. And he might say these words with a view to comfort them. As if he had said, Why should I fear, or you fear for me? Have I slain a man to my wounding? &c. That is, that I should deserve a wound or death to be inflicted on me? You have no cause to fear for me, or for yourselves on my account. For if Cain shall be avenged seven-fold — If God engaged to protect him, although he murdered his innocent brother, he will much more defend me, who have committed no such wickedness.

23. Lamech said — This father of skilful inventors was himself a genius, and the author of this oldest fragment of poetical composition, of which the following is a literal translation:

Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

O wives of Lamech, listen to my saying;

For a man have I slain for my wound,

And a child for my bruise.

For sevenfold avenged should Cain be,

And Lamech seventy and seven.

It is not strange that this mere fragment of antediluvian song is obscure and difficult of explanation. The common version conveys the idea that Lamech was smitten with remorse over the murder of a young man, and this is the explanation of some of the older expositors. But the language of verse 24 illy accords with such a view, and the entire passage breathes the spirit of violence and confident boasting rather than of remorse. A better interpretation is, that which supposes Lamech to have slain a man in self-defence. The words “for my wound” and “for my bruise” would then be equivalent to “for wounding me,” “for bruising me,” and the song is Lamech’s attempt to comfort his wives in view of the manslaughter, and assure them that no one would dare avenge the deed.

Others make the poem a sort of triumphant exultation over Tubal-cain’s invention of brass and iron weapons, and translate the past tense of the verb slay as future, or else as present, expressing confident assurance: “I will slay the man who wounds me, and the youth who presumes to harm me.” Verse 24 is understood to express the boast that he could now avenge his own wrongs ten times more completely than God would avenge the slaying of Cain. This interpretation accords with the context, and brings out the spirit of the passage, but has against it the perfect tense of the verb I have slain, ytgrh.

May we not blend the two last mentioned views, and, retaining the strict sense of the words, as translated above, explain that Lamech, by the use of weapons of his son’s invention, had in some duel or personal conflict slain a young man, possibly one of his own children, dly; and yet, so far from feeling remorse or penitence over the deed, exultingly sang to his wives this song of his prowess, and boastingly declared that any one who should attempt to take vengeance on him for the deed would suffer more than ten times the vengeance pronounced against the murderer of Cain. “By the citation of the case of his ancestor Cain he shows,” says Lange, “that the dark history of the bad man had become transformed into a proud remembrance for his race.” According to this view, we discern in this old Cainite song that spirit of violence and lust which waxed worse and worse until it brought upon the wicked world the judgment of the flood. For a full synopsis of the various expositions of this passage, see M’CLINTOCK and STRONG, Cyclopedia, art. Lamech.

Verses 23, 24. This passage is extremely obscure. We have no information whom he slew, or on what occasion, neither what ground he had to be so confident of the divine protection. The original words indeed may be rendered, Have I slain a man to my wounding? &c. — And perhaps the best key to their meaning may be to suppose that his wives were convinced he had sinned in marrying them both, and introducing polygamy, and were afraid that the judgments of God would fall upon him for that crime, and upon themselves, for his sake. And he might say these words with a view to comfort them. As if he had said, Why should I fear, or you fear for me? Have I slain a man to my wounding? &c. That is, that I should deserve a wound or death to be inflicted on me? You have no cause to fear for me, or for yourselves on my account. For if Cain shall be avenged seven-fold — If God engaged to protect him, although he murdered his innocent brother, he will much more defend me, who have committed no such wickedness.

THE CAINITES, 16-24.

16. Cain went out from the presence of the Lord — From that sacred spot on the east of the garden, where Jehovah had revealed his presence and glory to Adam and his sons. Comp. verse 14. Land of Nod — The word Nod means wandering, and is from the same root as that translated vagabond in verses 12 and 14. It probably took this name from Cain’s fleeing and dwelling there, and the writer uses it here proleptically. Its location, on the east of Eden, may serve to suggest the contrast between Nod (flight, banishment, wandering) and Eden, (delight, pleasure.) Arabia, Susiana, India, and other countries have been fixed upon as the land of Nod, but these are mere conjectures.

V. 25. This is the first mention of Adam in the story of this chapter. No question the murder of Abel, and the impenitency and apostacy of Cain, were a very great grief to him and Eve, and the more because their own wickedness did now correct them, and their backsliding did reprove them. Their folly had given sin and death entrance into the world, and now they smarted by it, being by means thereof deprived of both their sons in one day, Genesis 27:45. When parents are grieved by their children’s wickedness, they should take occasion from thence to lament that corruption of nature which was derived from them, and which is the root of bitterness. But here we have that which was a relief to our first parents in their affliction, namely, God gave them to see the rebuilding of their family which was sorely shaken and weakened by that sad event. For, they saw their seed, another instead of Abel.

And Adam called his name Seth-That is, Set, settled or placed, because in his seed mankind should continue to the end of time.

Verse 25. God-hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel] Eve must have received on this occasion some Divine communication, else how could she have known that this son was appointed in the place of Abel, to continue that holy line by which the Messiah was to come? From this we see that the line of the Messiah was determined from the beginning, and that it was not first fixed in the days of Abraham; for the promise was then only renewed, and that branch of his family designated by which the sacred line was to be continued. And it is worthy of remark, that Seth’s posterity alone continued after the flood, when all the other families of the earth were destroyed, Noah being the tenth descendant from Adam through Seth.

Though all these persons are mentioned in the following chapter, I shall produce them here in the order of their succession: 1. Adam; 2. Seth; 3. Enos; 4. Cainan; 5. Mahalaleel; 6. Jared; 7. Enoch; 8. Methuselah; 9. Lamech, (the second;) 10. Noah. In order to keep this line distinct, we find particular care was taken that, where there were two or more sons in a family, the one through whom God particularly designed to bring his Son into the world was, by some especial providence, pointed out. Thus in the family of Adam, Seth was chosen; in the family of Noah, Shem; in the family of Abraham, Isaac; and in that of David, Solomon and Nathan. All these things God watched over by an especial providence from the beginning, that when Jesus Christ should come it might be clearly seen that he came by the promise, through grace, and not by nature.

Verse 25. In this verse we find the first mention of Adam in the story of this chapter. No question, the murder of Abel, and the impenitency and apostacy of Cain, were a very great grief to him and Eve and the more because their own wickedness did now correct them, and their backsliding did reprove them. Their folly had given sin and death entrance into the world; and now they smarted by it, being, by means thereof, deprived of both their sons in one day, Genesis 27:45. When parents are grieved by their children’s wickedness, they should take occasion from thence to lament that corruption of nature which was derived from themselves, and which is the root of bitterness. But here we have that which was a relief to our first parents in their affliction; namely, God gave them to see the rebuilding of their family, which was sorely shaken and weakened by that sad event. For they saw their seed, another instead of Abel. And Adam called his name Seth — That is, set, settled, or placed, because in his seed mankind should continue to the end of time.

SETH AND ENOS, 25, 26.

Having traced the development of the race of Cain, the sacred writer now turns to record the origin of that godly line whose genealogy appears at greater extent in the following chapter.

25. Seth — The name means placed, or appointed, as Eve explains in the words: For God… hath appointed me another seed, etc. The mother of this divinely chosen seed speaks by a divine inspiration.

V. 26. And to Seth was born a son called Enos, which is the general name for all men, and speaks the weakness, frailty, and misery of man’s state.

Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord-Doubtless God’s name was called upon before, but now, 1. The worshippers of God began to stir up themselves to do more in religion than they had done; perhaps not more than had been done at first, but more than had been done since the defection of Cain. Now men began to worship God, not only in their closets and families, but in public and solemn assemblies. 2. The worshippers of God began to distinguish themselves: so the margin reads it. Then began men to be called by the name of the Lord, or, to call themselves by it. Now Cain and those that had deserted religion had built a city, and begun to declare for irreligion, and called themselves the sons of men. Those that adhered to God began to declare for him and his worship, and called themselves the sons of God.

Verse 26. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.] The marginal reading is, Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord; which words are supposed to signify that in the time of Enos the true followers of God began to distinguish themselves, and to be distinguished by others, by the appellation of sons of God; those of the other branch of Adam’s family, among whom the Divine worship was not observed, being distinguished by the name, children of men. It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended that ljwh huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry. Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry, I shall insert it here.

“In the days of Enos the sons of Adam erred with great error, and the counsel of the wise men of that age became brutish, and Enos himself was (one) of them that erred; and their error was this: they said, Forasmuch as God hath created these stars and spheres to govern the world, and set them on high, and imparted honour unto them, and they are ministers that minister before him; it is meet that men should laud, and glorify, and give them honour. For this is the will of God, that we magnify and honour whomsoever he magnifieth and honoureth; even as a king would have them honoured that stand before him, and this is the honour of the king himself. When this thing was come up into their hearts they began to build temples unto the stars, and to offer sacrifice unto them, and to laud and glorify them with words, and to worship before them, that they might in their evil opinion obtain favour of the Creator; and this was the root of idolatry, &c. And in process of time there stood up false prophets among the sons of Adam, which said that God had commanded and said unto them, Worship such a star, or all the stars, and do sacrifice unto them thus and thus; and build a temple for it, and make an image of it, that all the people, women, and children may worship it. And the false prophet showed them the image which he had feigned out of his own heart, and said it was the image of such a star, which was made known unto him by prophecy. And they began after this manner to make images in temples, and under trees, and on tops of mountains and hills, and assembled together and worshipped them, &c. And this thing was spread through all the world, to serve images with services different one from another, and to sacrifice unto and worship them. So, in process of time, the glorious and fearful name (of God) was forgotten out of the mouth of all living, and out of their knowledge, and they acknowledged him not.

And there was found no people on the earth that knew aught, save images of wood and stone, and temples of stone, which they had been trained up from their childhood to worship and serve, and to swear by their names. And the wise men that were among them, as the priests and such like, thought there was no God save the stars and spheres, for whose sake and in whose likeness they had made these images; but as for the Rock everlasting, there was no man that acknowledged him or knew him save a few persons in the world, as Enoch, Methuselah, Noah, Sham, and Heber. And in this way did the world walk and converse till that pillar of the world, Abraham our father, was born.” Maim. in Mishn, and Ainsworth in loco.

1. WE see here the vast importance of worshipping God according to his own mind; no sincerity, no uprightness of intention, can atone for the neglect of positive commands delivered in Divine revelation, when this revelation is known. He who will bring a eucharistic offering instead of a sacrifice, while a sin-offering lieth at the door, as he copies Cain’s conduct, may expect to be treated in the same manner. Reader, remember that thou hast an entrance unto the holiest through the veil, that is to say his flesh; and those who come in this way, God will in nowise cast out.

2. We see the horrible nature of envy: its eye is evil merely because God is good; it easily begets hatred; hatred, deep-settled malice; and malice, murder! Watch against the first appearance of this most destructive passion, the prime characteristic of which is to seek the destruction of the object of its malevolence, and finally to ruin its possessor.

3. Be thankful to God that, as weakness increased and wants became multiplied, God enabled man to find out useful inventions, so as to lessen excessive labour, and provide every thing indispensably necessary for the support of life. He who carefully attends to the dictates of honest, sober industry, is never likely to perish for lack of the necessaries of life.

4. As the followers of God at this early period found it indispensably necessary to separate themselves from all those who were irreligious and profane, and to make a public profession of their attachment to the truth, so it should be now. There are still men of profane minds. whose spirit and conduct are destructive to godliness; and in reference to such the permanent order of God is, Come out from among them, touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you. He who is not determined to be a Christian at all events, is not far from being an infidel. Those only who confess Christ among men shall be acknowledged before his Father and the angels of God.

GENESIS

Verse 26. And to Seth was born a son called Enos, which is the general name for all men, and speaks the weakness, frailty, and misery of man’s state. Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord — Doubtless God’s name was called upon before: but now, 1st, The worshippers of God began to do more in religion than they had done; perhaps not more than had been done at first, but more than had been done since the defection of Cain. Now men began to worship God, not only in their closets and families, but in public and solemn assemblies. 2nd, The worshippers of God began to distinguish themselves: so the margin reads it. Then began men to be called by the name of the Lord — or, to call themselves by it. Now Cain and those that had deserted religion had built a city, and begun to declare for irreligion, and called themselves the sons of men. Those that adhered to God began to declare for him and his worship, and called themselves the sons of God.

Ver. 26. Then began men to call upon: some read to call themselves by; others, to use profaneness in calling on the name of the Lord. But the learned Rabbi Maimonides gives quite another turn to the text. “Then began men to fall away from the Lord.” It is true, however, that the Hebrews, the Goths, and the Greeks attached the name of God to their own name; as Samuel, Ethelbert, Theodosius.

26. Enos — Or Enosh. This name, according to most critics, means weakness, frailty, and according to Keil, “designates man from his frail and mortal condition. Psalm 8:4; 90:3. In this name, therefore, the feeling and knowledge of human weakness and frailty were expressed — the opposite of the pride and arrogance displayed by the Cainite family.” Then began men to call — Literally, Then it was begun to call in the name of Jehovah. That is, with the line of Seth began a more open and established mode of worship by calling directly upon God in prayer, and using the hallowed name Jehovah. Thus the Sethites came in time to be known as “the sons of God.” Genesis 6:2. These devout worshippers had probably now come to believe that the promised Deliverer, whom Eve had hoped to see in her firstborn, was to be God himself, and to him they now transfer the name Jehovah. “With a new divine race, and a new believing generation, there ever presents itself the name Jehovah, and even with a higher glory. Now it is for the first time after Eve’s first theocratic jubilee-cry of hope.” — Lange.