10/02/19 Genesis 4:16-26 “And men began to call upon the
name of the LORD”
Genesis 4:16 – And Cain went out from the presence
of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
presence – or face
Nod – Nowd (wandering,
thus Cain dwelt in the land of wandering) vagabond (Vs 12 & 14 last week)
is nuwd.
Psalm 56:8 – Thou tellest
my wanderings (nowd):
put thou my tears into thy bottle: [are they] not in thy book?
Eden – pleasure
Some say Nod is China, others say India, but
all it really says is that it was east of Eden. It is unimportant anyway. He
went away from the face or presence of God, a wanderer or vagabond in the
earth. This is a statement of the fulfillment of God’s punishment given to
Cain. He is literally a fugitive and a vagabond (wanderer).
Genesis 4:17 – And Cain knew his wife; and she
conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the
city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Enoch – “dedicated”
builded – to build;
rebuild; to build a house (that is, establish a family)
city – town; city;
community This is probably a place of protection where one might stand on watch
for the others.
Cain and his wife (‘ishshah) have a child, Enoch, not the
same Enoch as in Genesis 5:18-24. Cain’s wife must have been his sister, which
wouldn’t have produced inbreeding (as it might today) because the genetic stock
would have been pure and the diseases which develop due to weaknesses of
inbreeding wouldn’t have been present then. We aren’t told whether Cain was
married before or after his banishment, but logic does suggest it was before he
was judged for murdering Abel.
It is Cain who builds the city, because he
names it after his son, Enoch. Building here can represent the building of a
household or family or clan of some sort, but “city” does indicate some sort of
structure being put in place to house this community. It doesn’t have to be a
large number of people, maybe even such as a group of tents in the desert.
Genesis 4:18 – And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat Mehujael: and Mehujael begat Methusael: and Methusael begat
Lamech.
The line goes Enoch, Irad,
Mehujael, Methusael,
Lamech, (Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-Cain). This is similar to the line from Seth which
is Enos, Cainan, Mehalaleel,
Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah. Possibly there was some reason for
this? Or possibly Hebrew without vowels could make patterns which weren’t
really there.
Ellicott says: Thus Mehujael, smitten of God, answers to Mahalaleel,
glory to God; Methusael, God’s hero, to Methuselah, the armed
warrior.
Because these people would have lived for
very long times compared with today, and because fertility was probably far
greater than today, it would have only taken maybe just one or two generations
to produce great numbers of people along the lines of Seth and Cain. Seth lived
807 years after his first son, Enos, was born. There could have been literally
a hundred or more of children by the time he died (although obviously once they
became adult, they would no longer be children!). We only have the records of
the main lines. Noah, though, appears to have had only 3 sons in all his 600
years, but Genesis 6:1 says that men
began to multiply on the face of the earth.
Genesis 4:19 – And Lamech took unto him two wives (‘ishshah): the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Lamech – “powerful”
Adah – “ornament”
(could mean “tinkling” as of ornaments, or even music of a kind)
Zillah – “shade”
Did any of the others also take more than
one wife? Or is this the first case of polygamy? The Bible does hint at some
kind of genetic manipulation with demonic bloodlines, producing a corrupt
mongrel breed which could have made null and void the promise that from man
would come One who would crush satan’s head.
Genesis 6:4 – There were giants in the earth in
those days; and also after that, when the sons of God
came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the
same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
If the human genes were polluted with
demonic genes, then it would be a very good reason for God to wipe out all the
corrupt breeding and start again with what was left of His pure line of man:
Noah. From Noah would eventually come Christ the Saviour.
Was Lamech one of the “new” cross-breeds
that Genesis 6:4 suggests? While this line down from Cain appears to be human
men all the way, what about the wives and mothers – were they all unpolluted
too? If mankind were polluted, then Lamech was probably included. Was his
taking of 2 wives a demonstration of satan’s corrupt nature in mankind?
Genesis 4:20 – And Adah bare Jabal: he was the
father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle.
Jabal – “stream of
water”; some say the meaning is not clear and that it could be “wanderer” or
“traveller”. “cattle” could also include sheep or goats, from a root word
meaning to acquire possessions (or goods and chattels).
Genesis 4:21 – And his brother’s name [was] Jubal:
he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
Jubal – “stream”. Jabal
is derived from this word Jubal. It may derive from something like jobel – the ram’s
horn, which was blown as an instrument at the time of Jubilee (which is also
derived from the same root word).
We do not know what musical instruments
these represent but the harp may be a lyre or harp, while the organ may be a
flute or panpipes.
Genesis 4:22 – And Zillah, she also bare Tubal–cain, an instructer of every
artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubal–cain
[was] Naamah,
Tubal-cain – “thou wilt be brought of Cain” or “Tubal of the
family of Cain”
instructer – to sharpen;
hammer; could be used of sharpening a sword or weapon.
artificer – metal-worker or
forger
brass – brass
(copper-zinc alloy); copper; bronze (copper-tin alloy)
iron – iron; iron ore
Naamah – “loveliness” or
“pleasant”
We don’t know much about these people, nor
their relevance in the biblical record. It may point out, however, the emphasis
that these people put on pleasure-seeking.
Genesis 4:23 – And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah
and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken
unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my
hurt.
We don’t know who it was that Lamech is
supposed to have killed, but must assume that someone must have been killed
anyway. The victim was a ‘iysh (signifying man as opposed to woman; husband as
opposed to wife) so perhaps it was the first example of adultery. He was also a
young man (child; son; boy; offspring; youth) which suggests that he was
immature.
It may look like perhaps 2 men were killed,
but this was written in a poetic or song style, using Hebrew parallelism which
is much used in the Old Testament, especially in Psalms.
Here the same idea is presented twice in
different format each time.
-
for I have slain a man to my wounding
-
and a young man to my hurt
Note that Lamech has also spoken of his
wives in two separate ways, both about the same people, yet different
presentation each time.
-
And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah
and Zillah, Hear my voice
-
ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my
speech
Correctly stated, this verse says that
Lamech has killed a man for wounding him, even an immature youth for striking
him. Ellicott says: For
I have slain a man for wounding me: Even a young man for bruising
me.
Lamech declares to his wives that he has killed
this young man seemingly in self-defence (or is it rage). But is it a boasting
that Lamech is the powerful one who will not put up with young upstarts to
challenge him, like a road rage bully making sure he hurts the other person
properly? Or is it more of a confession to clear his guilty conscience
concerning having killed someone without proper reason other than he could do
it? It does look like Lamech is boasting, that his power may be measured by the
penalty God would give to such a crime. After all, Cain only scored 7; Lamech
scored 77!
It is likely that Lamech was into the latest
techniques for weapon-making and had always wanted to put his skills into
action. Perhaps his nice sharp sword which he had made had to be tested to see
what it could do?
Genesis 4:24 – If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold,
truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.
If Cain’s crime of murder were serious
enough to be worth a sevenfold avenging, then Lamech’s crime should be worth a
77-times avenging. It doesn’t really sound as if Lamech is repentant for what
he has done; rather he appears to be boasting, comparing the magnitude of the 2
crimes, with Lamech coming out on top!
Or, is Lamech saying that if he himself were
slain, then his death should be avenged 77 times? What does come out of this is
that Lamech was probably a senseless killer who blamed the other for having to
kill him. That is, it’s the fault of the victim for forcing Lamech to have to
lose his temper and kill him!
Genesis 4:25 – And Adam knew his wife again; and
she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath
appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.
Seth – “compensation”
or “substitution” or “another like”
appointed – or made another
like, that is, Seth.
Now we come back to Adam and Eve. Seth is
born 130 years after Adam’s creation (Genesis 5:3). We don’t know how long
after Adam was created that Cain was born, but it must have been less than 130
years. We don’t even know for certain if there were any others born to Adam and
Eve in this time, although it is clear that Seth is to be the substitute
bloodline down toward Noah.
Genesis 4:26 – And to Seth, to him also there was
born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name
of the Lord.
Enos – “man”
And Seth has a son who is called Enos (with
the common denominator of “man”). While Adam was man, he wasn’t born a
man. Cain was born a man, and so was Abel, yet Abel died and Cain was banished.
So effectively Seth is the beginning of the genealogy of man that is born of
woman, thus Enos = “man”. According to Syriac custom, Jesus is called Bar-enosh or Son of man.
Then men began to call upon the name of Yᵉhovah –
actually, “men” is not in the original and so it really says that “then was the
beginning of calling on the name of the Lord”. That is, is it this particular
line of men from Seth (“man”) that called upon the name of the Lord? Does Seth
represent those who began to call upon the name of the Lord?
to call (qara’) upon the name (shem) of the Lord (Yᵉhovah) A similar passage is in:
Genesis 12:7-8 – 7And
the Lord appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed
will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the Lord, who
appeared unto him. 8And
he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Beth–el, and pitched his
tent, [having] Beth–el on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he
builded an altar unto the Lord, and called upon the name of the Lord.
It seems that naming the son Enos and
calling upon the name of the LORD must be connected somehow. The context
strongly suggests that they go together. Is it that the sons of men are those
who are born of man, and therefore are those who are redeemed by Jesus as Saviour
as in Hebrews 2:16 – For
verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him]
the seed of Abraham.
Also note that salvation has been offered to
the sons of men with this offer taken away from those who wilfully sin against
God by declaring such salvation to be of demons (that is, evil) Mark 3:28 – 28Verily I say unto you, All sins shall
be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they
shall blaspheme: 29But
he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is
in danger of eternal damnation:
The only sin that can send you to hell is
the refusal to accept Jesus as Saviour! That is, to refuse the only One in whom
is life eternal (Eg. John 14:6; John 5:40; 10:28).
The genealogy of man is interesting in that
in the Bible the names follow down from father to son. But today, to be called
a Jew, one must be born of a Jewish woman, not necessarily a Jewish man. You
are a Jew if your mother was a Jew; the nationality of the father is of little
or no concern in this matter.
Some reasons are given for this.
The spiritual reality of a woman in many ways allows her to connect to the Highest Power easier than a man. (jewishanswers.org)
Why do Jews trace their heritage through their
mother's line?
Actually it used to be traced through
the father, but due to persecution in the middle ages the rabbis changed it
because there were so much rape of jewish women that the were afraid of losing their nation. The reasoning was
that you never really know for sure who the father of a child is but you always
know for sure who the mother is. So it was changed to
preserve the Jewish nation. (answers.yahoo.com)
The law of matrilineal descent was first codified, as all Jewish Oral Law, in the Mishna (c. 2nd century CE). (Wikipedia)
But this seems little reason for changing what God appears to have established.
Instead it seems to me that with many of today’s alleged Jews being counterfeit (Ashkenazi) Jews (“The Thirteenth” Tribe by Arthur Koestler, himself a Jew), it is likely to have something to do with satan having a counterfeit of most of God’s realities.
Note that satan has
counterfeit Christians in many parts of the world. Logically he also has
counterfeit Jews whose goal is to take over the position and the promises of
the real Jews. Of course, this won’t happen. Satan will lose out in the end,
but he will try desperately to take control of the Jewish agenda, including the
rule of Israel which today is not in the hands of God’s people, but a people
who claim to be God’s people, yet do not worship Him in spirit and in truth as
they should. Jesus would say of them as He did the Jews (especially the
pharisees) of His day But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,
as I said unto you. (John 10:26) However, during the millennial reign
of Christ, the true Israel, the genuine real-deal Jews, will rule their country
once again.
And, even from the beginning, it appears that satan tried to produce a counterfeit mongrel cross-breed of man, corrupted by the filth of demons; such were unacceptable to God and had to die (in the Flood). We’ll look at this further in Ch.6. This is a logical reason for God to send a flood to destroy all life.
Therefore, the counterfeit Jew will be the same, yet opposed to the real Jew. This is probably why the lineage passes down through the mother rather than the father, seeing as the female mother figure plays a more important part in satanic false worship than the male figures.
It's a lot like most of satan’s work today: it tries to look like the real thing, yet is far from God’s reality. It all has to do with deception, which should be no surprise, for satan is the father of lies. When Jesus spoke to satan’s people, the pharisees, He told them the plain truth, that they were merely copying the behaviour of their father satan.
John 8:44 – Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
In churches around the world, satan’s people
are masquerading as good Christians, especially as church leaders, a fact which
should likewise come as no surprise, for satan can disguise himself as a
messenger (angel) of light and his followers attempt to appear as genuine
servants (ministers) of Christ.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 – 13For
such [are] false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
into the apostles of Christ. 14And
no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15Therefore [it is] no
great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Thus we have a
plethora of false ministries today as we rapidly approach what must be the end
times with satan’s power base increasing according to God’s permission (God is
always sovereign) until finally satan is imprisoned and his followers destroyed
before the millennial reign of Christ.
Will faith be rare in those last days? Jesus
certainly suggested this.
Luke 18:7-8 – 7And
shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he
bear long with them? 8I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith
on the earth?
There will
be a falling away from the truth before the end.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 – 1Now
we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our
gathering together unto him, 2That
ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word,
nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. 3Let no man deceive you by any
means: for [that day shall not come], except there come
a falling away (apostasia – a falling away;
apostasy; a forsaking of the truth) first, and that man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition; 4Who
opposeth and exalteth
himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is
God.
So should we wonder at
such numbers of false teachers today? And the level of acceptance of such false
teachers today among those who claim to be disciples of Jesus Christ? Perhaps a
century ago the church started drifting into what we would call the charismatic
movement, gaining much momentum with the advent of the hippie and drug scene of
the 1960s and into the 1970s, especially following Woodstock in 1969 (where
rock music was ongoing and loud, and drugs, nudity and sex were considered the
norm). Around this time many “Jesus freaks” “Jesus people” or hippie churches
sprang up. Many churches (mainly charismatic and pentecostal)
went off the rails at this time and since then have become weirder and weirder.
Many churches today would not be shocked at what happened at Woodstock. (Of
course, the Bible does teach gifts of the Spirit (charisma), but such gifts must be subject to God’s will at all
times or else they will deteriorate into sheer self-seeking experiences.)
But there was still the fundamentalist
Bible-believing non-charismatic element in some churches. In the 70s, with the
falling away of so many “Christians”, churches soon separated into charismatic pentecostal churches (with an emphasis on spiritual
manifestations) and biblical fundamentalists (with an emphasis on the truth of
God’s word). If you were a biblically-minded Christian, you tended to steer
clear of the charismatic scene, heading instead to a fundamentalist church
somewhere. This brought on an explosion of Independent Baptists and similar
churches. For a generation or so fundamentalists were happy with their small
but seemingly on-the-ball churches.
However, satan has to have his counterfeit
of anything that God produces, and that included the fundamentalist churches.
If you can’t beat them, join them (and in the process take some measure of
control in order to steer them off track again). Charismatic churches with an
emphasis on tongues, slaying in the spirit and healing were never going to
impress those who saw the Bible as the ultimate truth. And such fundamentalists
were usually too pigheaded and stubborn to be diverted away from their trust in
the truth of the Bible. So why not introduce a “better” version of
fundamentalism. After all, how may satan counterfeit fundamentalism? And so
calvinism came knocking (more like bashing for many!) at the doors of many
fundamentalist churches.
But calvinism had already largely failed to
impress such people in the past. Such churches (Eg
Presbyterian) were mostly dead in the water, finding it difficult to get going themselves,
let alone attempt to take some control of non-calvinist churches. Such a push
would certainly not come from these cobwebby churches.
But around 1970 a change hit the calvinist
belief system. It started largely at Westminster Theological Seminary (USA) with
a fusing of seventh day adventist (SDA) and
traditional calvinist beliefs. It would go through a number of changes, but a
major outcome would be called Sonship Theology, a belief that claimed that if
you were a child of God, then there was no sin that you could sin that wasn’t
already covered by God’s grace. Sinless or holy perfection movements developed
from this theology. If you were one of God’s elect, then you would go to heaven
in spite of anything you could do. It was impossible to be lost! After all, if
God let you do it, then it must be OK, thus it couldn’t stop you from going to
heaven. But this created conflict in many churches with some people believing
(quite truthfully!) that it was literally a licence to sin.
Then around 2005 it was repackaged and
presented as new calvinism, being labelled as the YRR (young restless and
reformed), a tag given it by Christianity Today in 2006. The old calvinism
meant that if you fell off the Christian horse, you couldn’t get back on again
because this clearly demonstrated that you were never one of the elect in the first place. The SDAs (with their works-based
religion of the Law) taught that you could get back on the Christian horse
yourself and stay in the running for heaven, but you were the one
responsible for getting back into the running. Sonship theology took this
aspect of the SDAs but made it God’s responsibility to put you back on the Christian
horse. Today, new calvinism teaches that if you are one of God’s elect, you
cannot ever be lost. If you fall off the Christian horse, God puts you back on
again. If you get back on again, it demonstrates your elect status. If you do
not get back on the Christian horse, it proves you were never one of the elect; you were never in the running in the first place.
Enter Biblical Counselling, developed at
Westminster alongside sonship theology. If you are one of God’s elect, and fall
down in sin, then you must be restored to fellowship to demonstrate your elect
status. Such counselling determines whether God has given you repentance and
restoration to fellowship. Because, they say, all Christians sin regularly,
therefore all must repent and be restored regularly. Those who never confess
sin may be harbouring sin, something the elect should not do. If the elect sin,
they must confess and repent before they may be restored, thus demonstrating
their elect status.
In this way, Biblical Counselling has become
the means by which churches may assess the elect status of their members. If
you never confess sin, then you may not be one of God’s elect, for all
Christians have sin to confess. If you confess sin, yet are not assessed as
repentant, let alone restored to fellowship, then you may not be one of the elect. Genuine Christians are required to confess, repent
and be restored. Thus the counselling process becomes
the assessment of where you stand with the calvinist God. And, your church
membership is likely to be assessed accordingly.
If your child is abused by another church
member and you report this to the church, they are likely to require both
parties to do counselling. If the “criminal” confesses and repents of his sin,
then he may be restored to fellowship again. However, if the “criminal” is
restored to fellowship, then the “victim” is required to accept the church
ruling and also forgive the “criminal” (who has now been shown to be of the
elect). If the “victim” remains bitter, then he may be the one who is declared
non-elect and possibly removed from membership. Effectively, the “victim”
becomes the “criminal” in the eyes of the church.
Such is the way the counterfeit
fundamentalist church may run. They claim to be more biblical, worship a more
sovereign God, give God more glory, yet underneath it all they are gaining
control through such as Biblical Counselling. They take certain Bible passages
(that are easily twisted to appear to support their heresies) and use them as
ammunition to destroy your trust in scriptural truth, replacing it with their
lies cleverly disguised as “better” scriptural truth. And if you protest, then
you have to demonstrate suitable Bible-school etc qualifications in order to
justify why you should dare challenge such “godly” men and their “truth”. They
hold all the cards and you just have to shut up, or find somewhere else to
worship (and even this they’ll deny you, claiming that it is not even your
right to decide to change churches – just ask Al Mohler about this one!).
Hoppers Crossing
Christian Church homepage