Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
In this chapter, we witness the rapid decline of humanity. Kidner writes, “While Eve had been talked into her sin, Cain will not have even God talk him out of it; nor will he confess to it, nor yet accept his punishment.”[1] There is hope, however. By the end of the chapter, people begin to “call on the name of the Lord” (Gen. 4:26).
(4:1) “Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, ‘I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.’”
The Hebrew emphasizes Eve’s role here—not God’s. It’s as if she’s saying, “I gave birth… and God helped.” Sailhamer states, “Eve’s words are taken as a boast that just as the Lord had created a man, so now she had created a man.”[2] Instead of trusting in God’s power to bring about the promised “seed” who would crush the Serpent (Gen. 3:15), Eve was operating out of self-effort. However, when she gives birth to Seth, she has a different attitude: “God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel” (Gen. 4:25).
By contrast, Hannah didn’t have this attitude when she gave birth to Samuel: “The Lord kills and makes alive” (1 Sam. 2:6). Similarly, Mary believed that God sovereignly acted for the birth of her son: “The Mighty One has done great things for me” (Lk. 1:49). Eve might have been focusing on her role over God’s role in the birth of Cain.
(4:2) “Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
Cain means to “acquire, get, possess.”[3] This might foreshadow what he will be like.
Abel means a “vapor or breath.”[4] This foreshadows his life on Earth.
(4:3-4) “So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. 4 Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering.”
“So it came about in the course of time.” We’re not sure how much time has passed. Since these people lived for extremely long ages, it’s possible that centuries transpired. We simply don’t know.
Why did God favor Abel and his offering, rather than Cain and his offering? Some interpreters hold that God favored Abel’s sacrifice because it was a blood sacrifice, rather than a fruit sacrifice.[5] Thus Abel’s sacrifice prefigures the ultimate sacrifice of Christ. Hamilton[6] is agnostic as to why God chose Abel’s offering rather than Cain’s offering. We disagree with both views.
Did God prefer Abel’s sacrifice because it was a blood sacrifice? No. At least, nothing in the text inclines us to think that God preferred Abel’s sacrifice because it was a blood sacrifice. Later in the Law of Moses, both animals and grain were given to God as first fruits (Lev. 1-7). Even in this text, both are called an “offering” (minḥâ) to the Lord. This term is generally used for a “gift” (Gen. 32:13; 1 Sam. 10:27), an “offering” to God (Lev. 2:1-7; 6:12-14; Num. 15:1-16), or even an animal offering (1 Sam. 2:17). God isn’t against gardeners, rather than shepherds. Adam and Eve were gardeners before the Fall (Gen. 2:15), so the profession or offering itself cannot be the issue.
We agree with Wenham,[7] Hartley,[8] and Waltke[9] that the difference between the two offerings is the faith of Abel, and the unbelief of Cain. Their faith was manifested in what they offered. Abel brought the “firstlings” of his flock, while Cain simply brought “an offering.” Hartley writes, “These terms convey that Abel gave the best to God.”[10] By contrast, Cain was giving his leftovers, and God could recognize the difference. As Solomon writes, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, how much more when he brings it with evil intent!” (Prov. 21:27). This fits with the author of Hebrews’ commentary on this section: “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts” (Heb. 11:4). John states that the reason Cain killed Abel was “because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous” (1 Jn. 3:12).
Cain’s offering is similar to false worship of God today. People might outwardly look religious, giving their offering to God. Yet inwardly, they are giving him the leftovers—not an act of faith at all. God sees the heart—not just the offering or actions.
(4:5) “But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.”
Religious people often become bitter with God when they aren’t blessed how they want to be. Moreover, Cain was the firstborn. So, according to the law of primogeniture, he “deserved” the blessing of God. So, when God disregarded his offering, this must have stung. It turned into a wild rage against the one who got the blessing—namely Abel.
(4:6) “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?’”
Even though Cain is clearly in the wrong, God tries to counsel him. He asks questions to help Cain understand why he’s bitter. As an omniscient being, God knows the answers. Therefore, these questions serve to help Cain to reveal his hurt feelings and false beliefs.
(4:7) “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.’”
When we act on God’s truth (“If you do well…”), it very often changes our feelings (Jn. 13:17; Acts 20:35). Feelings should never control our actions, but they should serve as warning lights to us. If we’re feeling lousy, it’s an opportunity to figure out why. Larry Crabb describes feelings like an oil light on your car. When you see the light, you should get under the hood and fill the oil. But just imagine if you solved the oil light by smashing the light! The same is true with our feelings. They signal deeper issues that might need to be explored. In this case, God was asking Cain why he was jealous of his brother.
“Sin is crouching at the door.” Wenham states that the Akkadian cognate (rābiṡu) for “crouching” (Heb. rābaṣ) refers to demons. Thus, “sin is personified as a demon crouching like a wild beast on Cain’s doorstep.”[11] However, White[12] rejects this view, and he holds that this comes from “importing unnecessary mythology” from extrabiblical sources. It is enough to say that sin is being personified as a malicious creature looking to ruin Cain’s life.
Cain has a choice. Otherwise, God’s command to “do well” would be meaningless. Furthermore, this explains why the Hebrew repeats the pronoun “you” for emphasis. The final sentence literally read, “You, you are to master it.”[13] But Cain doesn’t respond to God’s exploratory question. Instead, he punishes God with the “silent treatment.”
(4:8) “Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.”
“Cain told Abel his brother.” This appears to show a “lifelike oscillation”[14] in Cain’s decision. On the one hand, Cain “told Abel his brother” about this interaction with God; on the other, he quickly took Abel to the field and killed him. If we were to reconstruct the events, it seems likely that Cain told Abel about this interaction in order to set a trap for him in the field.
Matthews[15] disagrees with this interpretation entirely. Because of the context, he holds that Cain spoke words that lured Abel out to the field.
“Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.” This short and abrupt text hits us with a jolt. Once the unbelief arose in Cain’s heart, the actions came out in his behavior. Waltke writes, “Cain first fails at the altar, and because he fails at the altar, he fails in the field. Because he fails in his theology, he will fail in his ethics.”[16]
(4:9) “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?”
And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’”
God didn’t need to ask this question. He already knew that Abel’s blood was crying out to him from the ground (v.10). This is similar to a mother asking her teenage son, “How was school today?” when she already received a phone call from the office that afternoon. God was giving Cain an opportunity to be honest and change his heart—even after committing murder. Cain’s reply, however, is one of sarcasm and misdirection. He uses a play on words to describe what he did: The first humans were supposed to “keep” (šāmar) the Garden; Cain is asking if he is his brother’s “keeper” (šāmar). He is far more hardened to his sin than his parents (Gen. 3:7-13).
(4:10) “He said, ‘What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.’”
“What have you done?” This is similar to how God questioned Cain’s mother (Gen. 3:13).
“The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground.” Ironically, Abel never speaks anywhere in Genesis. His only words are postmortem cries for justice. This is truly an “eerie personification.”[17]
Not only is the ground cursed from Cain’s dad (Gen. 3:17), but now, it is cursed because of the spilled blood of his brother. In the new covenant, Jesus reverses the curse: “[Jesus’ blood] speaks of forgiveness instead of crying out for vengeance like the blood of Abel” (Heb. 12:24 NLT).
Why didn’t God take Cain’s life? We’re unsure. Certainly, Cain deserved death, and the Israelite justice system didn’t allow any way out of this (Num. 35:32). However, because God is the author and sustainer of life, he has prerogatives that we do not. If he chooses to be gracious, that is his choice. However, just because he chooses to be gracious in one situation doesn’t require him to be gracious in every situation. In a word, it is God’s prerogative as to whether he will give or take life. We have a concept for this when we say that a surgeon is “playing God” when a patient places his life into her hands.
(4:11-12) “Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.’”
“You are cursed from the ground.” Both Cain and the Serpent are murderers. Matthews writes, “This linkage shows that like father like ‘seed,’ both the serpent and Cain are murderers who receive the same retribution. Because Cain has polluted the ground with innocent blood, he is ‘driven’ from it as his parents were from the garden (3:24).”[18]
“When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you.” Adam was cursed to work the hard soil to scratch out a sustenance. But Cain’s punishment was far worse: “[The ground] will no longer yield its strength to you.” This means that he couldn’t harvest anything. As a former farmer, this punishment is fitting for Cain.
(4:13) “Cain said to the Lord, ‘My punishment is too great to bear!’”
Is Cain repentant? Some commentators render this verse as, “Is my guilt too great to be forgiven?” (b. Sanhedrin 101b) In Hebrew, the word “punishment” can also be rendered “guilt” (ʿăwōnî, Ex. 28:43; Num. 5:31; 14:34-35), and the word “bear” can also be rendered “forgiven” (nāśāʾ, cf. Ex. 34:7; Ps. 85:2; Isa. 33:24). The context decides the meaning. In context, Cain is complaining about God’s judgment on him: “You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (v.14; cf. Gen. 3:24). We agree with Wenham[19] and Matthews[20] that Cain’s words sound like an indictment on God and a complaint—not repentance.
God banished Cain, rather than taking his life. But even though his sentence was commuted from capital punishment to banishment, Cain still felt like this was “too great to bear.” This is often the attitude of the unrepentant. They are so self-focused that any punishment is too great. But what about his dead brother? What did Abel deserve? Murder? Cain isn’t sad for how his sin hurt Abel or his parents or God. He is only sad for getting caught and the consequences that it had on him.
(4:14) “‘Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.’”
To repeat, instead of fearing God, Cain fears the consequences (see comments on verse 13 above).
Theistic Evolution Perspective: TEs understand this text as confirming that other Homo sapiens existed at this time (“Whoever finds me will kill me…”). After all, why would Cain be afraid of other people, if there were no other people alive?
One explanation was that Cain was afraid of his future siblings becoming an “avenger of blood,” which is a theme throughout the Pentateuch. This is why God later created “cities of refuge” (Num. 35:9-34), and this would fit with Cain fleeing to a city. Wenham,[21] Hamilton,[22] Matthews,[23] and Sailhamer[24] hold that Cain is afraid of Adam and Eve’s other offspring who would come to avenge their brother, Abel. Cain’s fear “presupposes the expansion of civilization over the course of his long life during which there will be many opportunities for retribution by a blood-avenger (e.g., Seth lives 912 years, 5:8).”[25]
Another perspective is that Cain was afraid of animals devouring him—not people. C. John Collins writes, “Some Jewish interpreters have taken the expression ‘whoever finds me’ to refer, not to people, but to animals—an interpretation the Hebrew might allow (albeit with a little stretch).”[26]
A third perspective was that Cain’s fears were merely irrational and exaggerated, because of “an evil deed upon his conscience.”[27]
(4:15) “So the Lord said to him, ‘Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.’ And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.”
What was this sign or mark? The same term for “sign” (ʾôt) is also used to refer to the rainbow and to circumcision (Gen. 9:13; 17:13). This might imply a physical mark on Cain’s body. However, based on the concept of the “cities of refuge,” Sailhamer[28] believes that the sign was the city Cain built. Wenham[29] believes the sign is Cain’s name (qayin) because it sounds similar to a Hebrew word (yuqqam) that means “shall be punished.” Thus, according to Wenham, “His very name hints at the promise of divine retribution on his attackers.”[30] However, need we point out the obvious? Cain already had his name before this point. Thus, the notion that “the LORD appointed a sign for Cain” would be nonsense.
Consequently, we’re unsure as to what the sign refers to. Regardless, this “sign” on Cain demonstrates God’s mercy, as he continues to protect this sinful man.
“Vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” Wenham writes, “Most probably it is a poetic turn of speech meaning full divine retribution; cf. Ps 12:7[6]; 79:12; Prov 6:31.”[31]
(4:16) “Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.”
For the rest of Cain’s narrative, we see no mention of God’s name, which is a literary way of affirming that Cain was far from God. Moreover, Wenham observes, “The story that began with the attempt by Cain and Abel to draw near to God through sacrifice ends in Cain’s ‘leaving the Lord’s presence.’”[32]
(4:17) “Cain had relations with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son.”
How could Cain build a city? Some length of time must have transpired. At the same time, a “city” (ʿîr) doesn’t refer to a modern-day metropolis. A “city” (ʿîr) simply refers to “a permanent settlement without reference to size or claims.” Furthermore, “none of our modern terms such as city, town, or village adequately convey the meaning or the mental picture contained in this word.”[33] The term can be used to describe a small village like Bethlehem (1 Sam. 20:6), an unwalled village (Deut. 3:5), a group of tents (Judg. 10:4), a citadel (2 Sam. 12:26), or a fortress (2 Sam. 5:7, 9).[34]
Where did Cain get his wife? Matthews[35] and Hamilton[36] hold that this was one of Adam and Eve’s other children. According to Genesis 4:3, a lot of time had passed (“So it came about in the course of time…”). Adam was told to be “fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), and indeed, Adam and Eve “had other sons and daughters” (Gen. 5:4). None of these sons and daughters make it into the genealogical lists. Since Adam lived for 930 years, this would be ample time to produce many offspring. This means that Cain would’ve married one of his sisters.
Some struggle with this explanation, but consider a few points. First, incestuous marriage existed even into the time of Abraham (Gen. 20:2-16), so this wouldn’t be the only example. Second, when two parents have similar genes (from being genetically related), they are more likely to produce genetic defects. However, because the first humans had no genetic errors, this wouldn’t be an issue. Later in human history, God strictly prohibited incest for this reason (Lev. 18:9). Ross comments, “Genetic defects as a result of intrafamily marriage develop slowly. They would present no risk until after the first several dozen generations.”[37] Third, ancient interpreters held this view, including Josephus.[38]
Of course, we might be grossed out by the incest of these primitive humans, but what’s the alternative? The naturalistic account of human origins isn’t more elegant. From a naturalistic view, we descended through gradual mutations of the genome, until the human race arrived. A genetic bottleneck (of 10,000 people?) would’ve led to plenty of incest! Furthermore, on this view, Homo sapiens are merely one mutation among many—hardly an attractive view. Finally, the truth of a view shouldn’t be discounted simply because we find it gross. It either happened or it didn’t—irrespective of our opinions.
(4:18-19) “Now to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael became the father of Methushael, and Methushael became the father of Lamech. 19 Lamech took to himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other, Zillah.”
“Lamech took to himself two wives.” We continue to watch humans fleeing from God’s design. Bigamy is a rejection of God’s design of monogamous marriage (Gen. 2:24).
(4:20-22) “Adah gave birth to 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 lyre and pipe. 22 As for Zillah, she also gave birth to Tubal-cain, the forger of all implements of bronze and iron; and the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.”
Culture expands during this time, including tent-making, animal husbandry, music, and metallurgy. This text doesn’t say that these individuals created these cultural features. The “father of” can mean the “teacher and founder of the customs, practices and ways of life of a given class.”[39] These various abilities refer to “the pioneers of the skills that eventually led to the crafts the audience would be familiar with.” Thus, they are the “father” or “forger” of these abilities.[40]
This seems to describe the “Neolithic Revolution.” During this period, humans transitioned from being primarily hunter-gatherers (Paleolithic) to being those who formed cities, agriculture, animal domestication, and civilized life. “Bronze” (or “copper”) was first worked in the 4th millennium BC, and “iron” was first smelted in the 2nd millennium BC. However, Wenham notes that the “intention of the passage is simply to note the origin of metalworking in general, not to date the introduction of particular metals.”[41] That is to say, many generations could’ve passed between Cain and the founding of these trades.
(4:23-24) “Lamech said to his wives, ‘Adah and Zillah, listen to my voice, you wives of Lamech, give heed to my speech, for I have killed a man for wounding me; and a boy for striking me; 24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.’”
The descendants of Cain continue to spiral into sin. Lamech is brutal. He intimidates his wives, and then, he writes poems about revenge. Surely, he tells his wives this account to inspire fear in them. Matthews writes, “Reference to his wives in this alarming setting probably indicates the worse consequence of the judgment oracle in 3:16b, where the woman suffers under a despotic husband.”[42]
While God gave protection to Cain, Lamech extends this to a magnified and chilling revenge, describing what happens to humans as they live apart from God. The text doesn’t describe what the young man did to Lamech. All we know is that Lamech executes retribution on an extreme and disproportionate level. If Cain killed his own brother out of jealousy, the descendants of Cain (i.e. Lamech) are fully unrestrained in their vengeance.
Lamech’s sons create technological advancement, but Lamech creates moral decline. People are coming together in cities. But bringing sinners together isn’t a good thing (see Gen. 11). For instance, they create metal, but this is used to create swords.
The descendants of Adam don’t end there…
(4:25-26) “Adam had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son, and named him Seth, for, she said, ‘God has appointed me another offspring in place of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ 26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.”
“God has appointed me another offspring.” Originally, Eve said that God and her were working together to produce Cain: “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Eve’s focus was on own ability, and God merely helped. The result? Cain turned out to be a murderer who committed fratricide. After the birth of Seth, however, Eve’s attitude seems to have changed. She acknowledges that God was the one who “appointed [her] another offspring.”
Eve states that God had given her another “offspring” (zeraʿ) or literally “seed.” This harkens back to the promise of a Divine Deliverer that would crush the Serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed (zeraʿ) and her seed (zeraʿ); He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel” (Gen. 3:15).
This new line of descendants is unlike Cain. Seth’s line begins to “call on the name of the Lord” (cf. Gen. 12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). This seems to be “an umbrella phrase for worship, most obviously prayer and sacrifice.”[43]
Questions for Reflection
Read verses 1-5. Why did God prefer Abel’s sacrifice?
Read verses 5-7. What does God say to Cain to keep him from falling into sin? What can we learn from God’s example?
Read verses 6-17. Where did Cain choose to say, No, to God in this section?
God confronts Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:6-13), and he confronts Cain (Gen. 4:6-17). How is Cain’s response worse than his parents?
How do we sin get worse in this chapter? What are key examples that indicate how sin has become more severe?
Read verse 5. The first recorded instance of jealousy occurs when God favors one person’s service over another’s. Indeed, God’s rejection of Cain’s carnal offering made him “very angry.” What application might this have for us today?
[1] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 79.
[2] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 60.
[3] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.96.
[4] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.97.
[5] This view was popularized by the Scofield Bible: Cain’s unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way… [Abel’s] sacrifice, in which atoning blood was shed (Heb 9:22), was therefore at once his confession of sin and the expression of his faith in the interposition of a substitute (Heb 11:4).”
[6] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 224.
[7] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 104.
[8] John E. Hartley, Genesis, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 81.
[9] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.97.
[10] John E. Hartley, Genesis, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 81.
[11] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 106.
[12] William White, “2109 רָבַץ,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 830.
[13] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 228.
[14] Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1967), 81.
[15] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 272.
[16] Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001), p.97.
[17] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 275.
[18] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 275.
[19] Wenham writes, ““In the case of Cain it seems clear that he is referring to the consequences of his iniquity, which he finds intolerable.” Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 108.
[20] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 276-277.
[21] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 109.
[22] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 233.
[23] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 277.
[24] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 66.
[25] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 277.
[26] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.112.
[27] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.113.
[28] John H. Sailhamer, “Genesis,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1990), 67.
[29] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 109.
[30] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 109.
[31] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 109.
[32] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 110.
[33] Carl Schultz, “1615 עִיר,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 664.
[34] Richard Hess, “Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament.” In Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022), 728.
[35] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 284.
[36] Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 237.
[37] Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis (Reasons to Believe, Covina, CA: 2014), p.120.
[38] Josephus, Antiquities, 1.52.
Ronald Youngblood, The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions about Creation and the Flood (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1986), 159.
See footnote 13. C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.113.
[39] Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961),p. 235
[40] C. John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2011), p.114.
[41] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 113.
[42] K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, vol. 1A, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 288.
[43] Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 116.