Genesis 4 and Genesis 6: City of the Damned

I would like to take some time and focus almost exclusively on Cain. Earlier I had described him as the "seed" of the serpent. This is true in more than one respect. The serpent deceived the woman and coaxed her into breaking the command of God not to eat, bringing about her spiritual death (separation from the will of God). This was then passed to the man. In this sense the serpent becomes a murderer. Jesus seems to be taking the same position:

John 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Likewise, Cain, deceived his brother, Abel, into thinking he still maintained a brotherly relationship with him, lured him into the field (by deception) and then ended his life (murder). Cain does what the serpent does, he is "like" the serpent with respect to behavior. And in like manner, God speaks the curse upon Cain, just as he had spoken the curse upon the serpent. What about the man and woman? Werent they cursed as well? The command carried the curse of death so when they disobeyed the law they brought the curse of the law upon themselves, God did not directly curse either of them as He had the serpent and later Cain. Apparently there was a situational difference between the actions of the man and woman and the actions of the serpent and of Cain. Opposing the command versus opposing God directly may be a difference to consider but they both result in the same thing, challenging the will of God (making them pretty much equal in that respect), so that does not seem like a very fruitful option. They should both result in a similar punishment if that is all we are considering. Perhaps the difference is something only a wise judge would consider, premeditation. By that I mean a strategy or scheme that is planned before-hand. The man was not trying to figure out how he could undermine the command of God, in fact his intent was to keep the command until he got caught in the situation created by the serpent (who deceived the woman). The man made a bad decision in order to preserve the relationship with his wife, the "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone". The serpent on the other hand deceived the woman with the intent of challenging and undermining the will of God from the beginning, in order to obtain the authority of the man for himself (maybe?) by placing the man under his authority. Similarly, Cain, upon losing the first-born blessing to his brother (which is presented as the absolute will of God) sought a way to undo it, to challenge the will of God and obtain the blessing for himself. This follows along nicely with the Mosaic Law which allows sacrifices for unintentional sin but for intentional sin there is no sacrifice that can restore a person to a right place with God unless there is first a repentance and punishment or restitution.

The curse of God upon Cain removed any inheritance he still had in the land (though he did not receive the first-born double portion he did still qualify for the single portion inheritance). He is now homeless, driven out as a wanderer. Cain declares he will be hidden from the face of the ground (having no place in the earth) and hidden from the face of God (having no place in his fathers house). Cain is left with nothing because he disqualified himself by his actions. To protect Cain from being killed by other people as a wandering criminal, God gives Cain a mark that indicates to others that he has divine protection. This sounds, to me, a lot like a tattoo or some kind of magic amulet worn to warn others against doing him harm. Such protective marks or amulets were common among many different cultures all over the world and even enjoy status among many people to this very day. This is only a guess however, I have no idea what the mark actually was, the text does not say but what it represents, divine protection, is clear. At any rate, Cain now leaves the land of God and gets himself a wife. Where did she come from if Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain and Abel were the only two children they had? I dont know but apparently there were other people, whatever that means I cant say. Perhaps that is the point, perhaps not knowing where she came from is as appalling as having been cursed by God. To an ancient audience familial inheritance was protected by marrying between specific families, social classes or within the same family. This last point is reinforced several times in Genesis. So where did she come from? It really does not matter because she did not come from the people of God! This is an important point to consider that will resurface again and again in the book of Genesis.

Now this is where the story gets really interesting and we start to make comparisons with Genesis 6. So Cain and Abel can be considered "sons of God". They become recipients of Gods "inheritance" in the land just like any good Israelite father would give to his sons. When Cain becomes angry because he does not receive the first-born blessing he is described as having "fallen", or his countenance is "fallen". In Hebrew this word is naphal which is the root word for nephilim, referring to the "fallen ones" which appears in Genesis 6. Could this be a reference to Cain? I believe that it is and here is why:

1. Cain and Abel are designated as sons of God by the fact that they come before God to receive His blessing (thier inheritance rights as sons). This is further attested to by the fact that Cain is driven from the land (because of the curse) as one who is "cut-off" from his people. A concept an ancient Israelite would understand very well.
2. As I have already described, Cain, in Genesis 4, is described as "naphal" (fallen) and Genesis 6 mentions the "Nepilim" (fallen ones) which is sometimes incorrectly translated as giants. I believe it better describes Cain and his progeny
3. Marriage in ancient Israel carried all kinds of familial, cultural and divine restrictions so someone just going out and finding a wife from among a strange people would have been considered unacceptable. Cain takes a wife from an unknown people (the daughters of men), his sons and grandsons also take wives from an unknown people.
4. Mighty men, men of renown (Genesis 6) were men who were well known for something. Usually this was fighting and warfare but here it fits nicely as a description of the progeny of Cain who are described in Genesis 4 as being renown for establishing or mastering specific trades.
5. Lamech (Genesis 4) declares to his two wives (polygamy) that he was injured by another man whom he then killed (murdered), showing his disregard for justice by repaying an injury with death (Draconian to say the least). He then boasts that Gods vengeance is not as great as the vengeance he will bring for minor injuries he incurs at the hands of another. He makes himself out to be "like" a god. Lamech represented the fifth generation from Cain, his sons the sixth. The line of Cain, rather than repent and turn to the Lord, become even more violent and unjust. This last point, in my opinion, corresponds to the wickedness of man in Genesis 6 that is ultimately condemned by God.

There are a number of reasons why I reject that these "sons of God" are angels and that the nephilim are "giants" (which is one possible translation that some second temple Jews maintained) but I wont discuss the negative points here. I am suggesting it is the line of Cain that eventually brings about the destruction of the earth by God (the great flood). One of the chosen, a son of God, who rebelled and went his own way, drawing the curse of God, teaching his children to do the same and eventually drawing the condemnation of God. Could this be something similar to what we see in the story of Noah, Ham and Canaan? The curse being the result of Adams (Hams) own sin in the garden (tent of his father). How would a story like this relate to an ancient Israelite? It would have been a stark reminder that disregard for the Mosaic Law will have disastrous consequences that will carry for generations. God punishes sin, especially among those who should know better and that the consequences of sin affect many more than just the offenders. Those to whom He has a special regard it can be worse. It would certainly help explain (to a captive Israelite):

• the capture and deportation of the Northern tribes of Israel by Assyria
• the destruction and deportation of the Southern kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians

So Cain becomes a wanderer in the earth and then establishes a city where he presumably makes a permanent home (doesnt look too much like wandering to me) but I believe this is meant to portray an irony. By naming the city after his son he is almost certainly establishing a dynastic kingship that continues through Lamech. Why is this important? Because the city in some ways is representative of those who have been cut-off from the earth (those who do not produce), a gathering of the cursed (like Cain). The landless poor, the disinherited, criminals and the wealthy ruling class (thier palaces, temples, and extravagant houses) who buy the loyalty of city dwellers with the taxes and tribute they extort from those who work the land, from producers. The city is a black hole for commodities and many times the souls of men (as slaves to support a growing ancient urban economy). It is always consuming and never producing. Wealth goes in and does not come out. This city of the damned represents a gathering of those who oppose God and disregard His commands, who go their own way and follow the will of another (a human King). The city of the damned contrasts to the way Israel thought about the land. The land, according to the Hebrew scriptures, belonged to God, not to men, and was given by God not taken or dispersed by men. In truth, God alone owned the land and He alone retained eternal sovereign power over who lived on it. Because of this view, Israelite society maintained strict land laws. Land could not be bought or sold except under special circumstances. Tracts of land were gifted to each of the twelve tribes (children of Israel/Jacob) and then subdivided to the families of each tribe. These tracts of land were to be kept within the family that owned them. The land could be rented and even temporarily sold in especially hard times but at the year of jubilee the land would automatically revert back to the family to which it was given (by God). This was a tremendous protection against single wealthy families taking advantage of hard times for poorer families and taking lands to enlarge their own holdings and further enrich themselves. It also protected inheritance patterns and government interference with familial holdings.

Israel was indeed unlike the nations around them. I think we can easily understand this dichotomy today. I dont know about other countries, but in America, the small rural farming and ranching communities are typically known for low crime. Everybody know everybody. You dont lock your doors at night and can even leave the keys to your car IN THE CAR. It is NOT that way in the urban areas. Large cities can be dangerous places to live. You ALWAYS lock your door and wouldnt even dream of leaving your keys in the car unless you wanted it to get stolen. You only know a handful of people in a city of hundreds of thousands (or millions). All those people there around you and when you get into trouble, no one to help. Thank God for cell phones and the ability to wire transfer money! And in order to retain power (buying support), politicians grant some of the most worthless men the ability to do nothing and enjoy the fruits of another mans labor. Times (perhaps I should say PEOPLE) sure havent changed much in all these years.

Genesis 2 3 4 Cain and Abel 2

In tying the second, third and fourth chapters of Genesis together, so that they read like a single story, I think it is important to use the characters at hand, if at all possible, to interpret the meaning of any symbols or types in the story itself. For example, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. "Seed" here is intended to imply children. What kind of children? Literal physical children born from sexual union? Had the story instead declared a rivalry between the seed of the man and the seed of the serpent, then there would be some question as to the womans role in the production of the seed (meaning sexual reproduction). Would we be able to infer that she has sexual intercourse with both (Adam and the serpent, a serpent being an obvious phallic symbol in other cultures) and produce an offspring to each? Possibly! But by separating the seed of the woman (an obvious differentiation from the man) from the seed of the serpent, something other than sexual reproduction is implied, as I think the author is carefully constructing here. The woman and her offspring are separated and set in opposition to the serpent and his offspring. It is better described, in my opinion, as a spiritual reality, or a behavioral or cultural dicotomy that is being played on. The seed of the serpent is LIKE the serpent (in behavior) because he does what the serpent does. The seed of the woman is the seed of righteousness because he is somehow more human (in behavior) than the one who acts like a serpent. This human behavior has already been linked (in Genesis 2) to the image and purpose of God, and to the representation of Gods authority on the earth through Adam, so the association of God to righteous Abel (as the seed of the woman) and the serpent to unrighteous Cain is easy to make. Considering behavior a type of "image", I think is the key to understanding these verses.

Jesus seems to take a similar view on the Genesis account story when He tells the following parable.

Mat 13:24-30 He put out another parable to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. (25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat and went his way. (26) But when the blade had sprung up and had produced fruit, then the darnel also appeared. (27) So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? Then where have the darnel come from? (28) He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Then do you want us to go and gather them up? (29) But he said, No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also root up the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest. And in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, First gather together the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary.

Obviously this is about the introduction of sin into the world, the wheat being the righteous (those who obey the voice of God) and weeds (darnel) being the unrighteous (those who do not obey the commands), and the development of both until the end of the age. The same symbols and subject matter are found in the story from Genesis 2, 3 and 4. The enemy is the serpent, the weeds are the "seed" of the serpent, the wheat are the "seed" of the woman, the righteous, those who obey the voice of God, and God is the man who sows them (the good seed) in His feild. This is made even more clear by the rebuke of Adam by God at the end of Genesis 3. God declares that he would work the ground and it would produce for him both good (Abel = herb of the field) and bad (Cain = thorns and thistles), showing further that the sexual union of Adam and the woman would produce two kinds of offspring who will be from the same blood-line but very different in terms of spiritual parenthood. Am I saying that this rebuke by God is only symbolic of Cain and Abel (both the "seed" of Adam) and has no literal interpretation? No, in fact I think there is an interesting interplay on words and meanings here and that the meaning is both literal and symbolic. However, the symbolic is highlighted quite beautifully by the use of the word "seed" to refer to generations of men and by launching the story into chapter 4 where we see the "seed" turn up one righteous and one unrighteous offspring rather than describing Adams hard work in the fields.

Genesis 2 3 4 Cain and Abel 1

I think first I will summarize the story of Cain and Abel in a way that explains my analysis of the text BEFORE I actually present the analysis itself. That way everyone has a better idea of where I am going with this.

Cain is first-born. That would have specific meaning to an ancient audience. Being first-born male implies that he would receive the first-born blessing (a spoken blessing of assurance passed from the father to the son) and the bulk of the inheritance (a double portion of the father's house). After sacrificing to the Lord (Cain his vegetables/produce and Abel his animal), Abel (the youngest) is blessed (by God) and Cain (the eldest) is not. I think the text is specifically targeting the first-born blessing here and I am not alone in this assessment. Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish philosopher of the first century) seems to hold a similar view. The blessing/choice of God goes to the younger male rather than the traditional/cultural first-born. Why? I think two reasons. First, because of the nature of the sacrifice. Abel brought a blood sacrifice, meaning he intended to atone for his sins (whatever they might have been). A blood sacrifice in the ancient world represented humble submission. Cain brought vegetables and grains, which could certainly be considered a voluntary thank offering, but it is not an offering for atonement. Abel pleases God through repentance and humility, Cain tries to please God by showing off his best rather than humbling himself. Second is the way they perceive the prize (that is, the blessing of God itself). I think Cain expected it, not so much as a reward but as a right. After all, he was the firstborn which was a place of authority and power, not a place of humility. Land stewardship was considered more appropriate for the first-born male because it implied household authority and a greater status of wealth. Tending to the sheep was less significant, many times reserved for the youngest because it required long hours of solitude away from the home and away from any meaningful social discourse. This sort of chore was not necessarily associated with wealth and authority. Look at the many Bible characters who spend a significant amount of time shepherding (in a humble solitude); Jacob, Moses, and David all spent a significant amount of time keeping sheep before being elevated to authority by God Himself. Abel was merely doing what he thought God wanted him to do, not expecting the first-born blessing because of his birth order and humble state. Cains reaction of anger (that is, falling) only serves to strengthen and preserve the nature of this particular theory. In fact, I believe it suggests that the blessing was something much more than a cyclical event (happening year after year for good crops) where Cain may have done better next year (something of an annual competition perhaps?). It is more suggestive of a one-time event and a one-time blessing, better explaining Cains extreme reaction. Cain sees the prize as more valuable than his brother, as we shall see. An attitude that God judges from the heart, even though it is now hidden (as part of the reason Cain loses the blessing), all will in time be revealed by his actions.

We have now properly set the stage for the murder of Abel by Cain. The first-born blessing cannot  be lost to strangers, it must stay in the family. If Abel is dead, the blessing would then revert back to the rightful (at least in Cains eyes) first-born. Cain is manipulating (by removing his brother) the situation to get what he thinks is rightfully his. Such behavior is typical in politics, especially where high office, power and wealth is involved. The bedrock of jealousy is the lens through which someone views the prize, as greater than the life of his brother. Here brother-hood and the precious life of a human being (chosen by God to receive the benefit) is devalued and the benefit itself is elevated to a higher status. We see this in Cains reply to Gods question (where is your brother?) when he says explicitly, "am I my brothers keeper?" Everyone knows the right answer to that question. It is emphatically YES! Cain further implicates himself by this simple answer, challenging God to a debate on familial relationships and responsibility and God is quick to make good on Cains challenge?

I think this story both foreshadows conflicts to come and explains their relevance. I am referring to the theme found over and over in Genesis of the blessing by-passing the older and being given to the younger.

From God to Adam, then by-passing Cain and going to Abel and after Abel is murdered by Cain, it finds its way to Seth (the third son of Adam and Eve). Then to Isaac rather than the elder Ishmael, to Jacob over Essau, and passing by Reuben to Judah. Why is this important? Because it shows a pattern to be repeated by Israel. When they are chosen by God to be a special people. God chooses them over the Egyptians, over the Babylonians and over the Canaanites when they enter the land. And if we conclude that Philistines were indeed Greek settlers, then we may say that God chose them over the Greeks as well. The land of Canaan is already inhabited when Israel arrives, but God chooses the Israelites, new-comers compared to the older and more established Canaanites, to inherit the land. Finally, in the New Testament, God giving the full weight and measure of the blessing to His son, Jesus the Christ who then becomes the representative of Israel (the chosen).

Genesis 2 3 4 Adams Dilemma

First let me answer a lingering question: Why didnt I include Genesis 1 in the story? The answer is simple: I believe that Genesis 1 truly is a separate story probably written by someone other than the author of the story in Genesis 2, 3 and 4. There are a number of good reasons for holding this opinion and I wont go into them at this time. On the other-hand, while I DO believe that Genesis 5, etc... is part of this story, I will not include them in this discussion merely because it would make for a verrrrry loooong post and discussion. I would like to limit the discussion, at this time, in order to make my point, that things are missed when we break it up into chapters and verses. I hope you took the time in the last post to read it straight through. I also hope you saw things that you had not noticed before. I will refer to chapters and verses for convenience.

The text of Genesis 2 really sets the stage for the development of the story in Genesis 3. Everything Adam has, including his very life is given to him by God. His purpose comes from God, his work pleases God and he hears the commands of God directly from the mouth of God (like Israel at the mountain). Gods provision is more than enough and so abundant that it can support many kinds of countless numbers of living creatures. But among them there is not found a "suitable helper" for Adam until God forms the woman from the man, just as He had formed the man from the earth. Adam then declares "this is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh... ." What a strong declaration, and though it is not wrong (it meets no rebuke from the Lord) I believe this is the center-piece of Adams conflict with God. What is the conflict? When Eve eats the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (which God had commanded Adam NOT to eat), Adam has a dilemma. He must choose between God and Eve. If he chooses God he will be separated from Eve (a dissolution of the marriage?). If he chooses Eve he will be separated from God. Adam must make a judgment and that judgment WILL result in a separation (a major theme found in Genesis 1 and very appropriate for the image of God to imitate his father). As the books of the law make very clear, judgment is a priestly duty that usually results in some kind of separation and is to be taken very seriously. How could he forsake the one that gave him life? How could he forsake his own flesh and bone (himself)? Adam chooses what is in front of him, Eve, his declaration anchoring his decision, and is therefore separated from God. Adam places his own declaration above the command of the Lord. Adam fails to act as the image of the living God, employing rebellion against his father and choosing what is earthly (immediate) over what is spiritual (everlasting).

But this is meant to highlight our own shortcomings (and the shortcomings of Israel). That we regard our own voices and the voices of others above the voice of God. We put cultural rules and peer pressure, that may not necessarily be wrong except when they conflict with Gods commands, above the expectations of the One who provides for us and gives us life. Jesus had direct conflict with the Pharisees over this very issue, what he called the traditions of men. It has not changed one bit and I do not exclude myself from this accusation. Many times I judge based on what is culturally right rather than what is spiritually right, mainly because that is what I am more familiar with and it is more immediate than what is eternal.

Genesis 2 3 4 Text

I know in my life it has been the case that when I read the Bible I tend to follow the chapter and verse outlines. While this isn't a bad way to read scripture (it allows you to find a specific scripture quickly) it does have its drawbacks. Reading scripture this way tends to segment stories so that we automatically (as a western reader) treat each segment differently, separating us from the overall message that is being conveyed in the story as a whole. It is common to read commentary on a book chapter by chapter or a sermon on just a few verses of scripture. I am not criticizing this approach at all. I am simply sponsoring a different approach (which is not a new one by the way). What I would like to do here is begin a discussion on Genesis chapters 2, 3 and 4 by first posting the story without obvious chapter breaks. I will leave the numbers for chapters and verses but make them less conspicuous so they can be read straight through. As a reader simply ignore the numbers and read as if it were a short story.

The second approach I want to introduce to this text is what I refer to as "backward interpretation" as opposed to "forward interpretation" (my personal terms). Forward interpretation is probably more traditional. This is when you interpret the story as a historical documentary so that the first events are used to inform later events. First events are oftentimes difficult to explain using this method because there is no interpretive model on which to rely. For example, using this method we could ask; what was the blessing that God gaves to Abel? The text does not say and we cannot assume anything from the ongoing text because this blessing was first in order. Backward interpretation on the other hand uses the entire text as a reference for interpretation. So back to the example question; what was the blessing to Abel? Lets find an interpretation from the text itself, or even from the culture from which the text was taken. The story is treated less like a historical documentary and more like a cultural documentary that speaks to the people for which it was written, in a way that reflects their own cultural heritage. This approach is a little more difficult because we are not ancient Israelites (or Judahites) but it is a much better approach than treating it as a historical documentary devoid of cultural (and even political) influence. So in upcoming discussions I will atempt to answer the example question using the method of interpretation I am outlining here.

There are some specific themes that resurface throughout the book of Genesis that should be considered (as we "backward interpret") when reading the Genesis 2 3 4 story.

• Separating: the ability to divide things according to purpose. This is especially true for the people of God. This is an important part of judgment, separation of the one from the other. The Law of Moses carefully explains how preists should separate sacred from profane and sick from healthy. Examples: Adam is separated from the earth and again separated from the land outside the graden and placed in the garden. Abraham is separated from Babylon (he is called out of Ur). Israel is separated from Egypt and placed into the promised land.
• Naming: the ability to name something shows several things. First, it is a demonstration of wisdom in being able to order the cosmos by naming something correctly, according to its proper place or kind. Second it signifies authority over that particular thing. Lastly, naming acts as a prophetic utterance, declaring a kind of destiny or fate. Examples: Adam names the animals, Adam names Eve, God renames Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel.
• Family and Marriage: First, Claims from genealogy: generations are carefully charted in order to distinguish the righteous (blessed) from the unrighteous (cursed). The righteous are tied back to the mother of all, Eve, and the intended image of God. The unrighteous are only physically tied to the mother of all, spiritually they belong to the serpent. Marrying outside the family creates risk with respect to a preserved familial culture, religion and the established inheritance pattern. Second, choosing a wife: As the woman (Eve) was taken from the man (Adam) so the proper bride, given to the son who receives the promise, throughout Genesis comes from his fathers relatives. The woman literally comes from the man. As well, when in a proper covenental relationship the two act as one reunified individual, being seperate individuals but one will. Examples: Isaac and Rebekah (as opposed to Ishmael), Jacob and Rachel/Leah (as opposed to Essau).
• Faith: God (the Israelite God) alone is provider. This is more than just an acknowledgment of Gods presence, it is a deep trust that He will do what He says and He will provide the means to achieve it which is central to the covenant between God and Israel. Submission to the will of God. Sometimes bad decisions and mistakes are made, even sinful behavior, but these pale in comparison with parting from the covenant or from the fate God has planned. Examples: Adam without knowledge of good and evil must trust God, Abraham leaving his fathers house (inheritance) and going to a land he has never seen before, Jacob returning to his fathers house and confronting Essau
• Inheritance: Cultural inheritance patterns (a double portion of the fathers house is given to the first-born son, the rest is divided among the other sons) are subject to the approval and judgment of God. Time and again God chooses (rather than the biological father) the younger over the older to inherit the first-born blessing (a double portion) because He has judged between the two of them (sometimes even before birth). This is a one time event and is irrevocable. Examples: Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Essau, Ephraim over Manasseh
• Blessing: The blessing is not the inheritance. The inheritance pattern described above is assumed, considered a "right". The blessing serves a couple of other important purposes: first, it is the fathers way of giving his full assent (agreement). Second, it passes on his authority (right to rule), recognizing the chosen leader (father) of the household. Lastly, it acts as a form of prophesy, directing fate, establishing purpose and properly ordering the household before he dies.

Genesis 2 3 4 (NKJV)

2 4This is the history (genealogy) of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

8 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said:

“This is now bone of my bones

And flesh of my flesh;

She shall be called Woman,

Because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

3 1Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”

2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

14 So the Lord God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,

You are cursed more than all cattle,

And more than every beast of the field;

On your belly you shall go,

And you shall eat dust

All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity

Between you and the woman,

And between your seed and her Seed;

He shall bruise your head,

And you shall bruise His heel.”

16 To the woman He said:

“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;

In pain you shall bring forth children;

Your desire shall be for your husband,

And he shall rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

“Cursed is the ground for your sake;

In toil you shall eat of it

All the days of your life.

18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,

And you shall eat the herb of the field.

19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

Till you return to the ground,

For out of it you were taken;

For dust you are,

And to dust you shall return.”

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

21 Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

 

4 1Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain (meaning: attain, acquire), and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord.” 2 Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. 4 Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, 5 but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell(naphal).

6 So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”

8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

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

He said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

10 And He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground. 11 So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth.”

13 And Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! 14 Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”

15 And the Lord said to him, “Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad; and Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehujael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech.

19 Then Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Zillah. 20 And Adah bore Jabal. He was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal. He was the father of all those who play the harp and flute. 22 And as for Zillah, she also bore Tubal-Cain, an instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron. And the sister of Tubal-Cain was Naamah.

23 Then Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;

Wives of Lamech, listen to my speech!

For I have killed a man for wounding me,

Even a young man for hurting me.

24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,

Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”
 

25 And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, “For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.” 26 And as for Seth, to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on the name of the Lord.