Hello everyone. You are watching the first part in the fourth video of a Bible study
video series. I'm "Dyn", and I'd like to start this video off with a quick prayer, and then
after that we will get into Genesis chapter 4, verses 1-15.
Father thank You for this opportunity that we have to, uh, read Your [. . .] word, and
understand what Your word is saying. Please, use this time that we're spending for Your
glory and (if possible) for Your kingdom. And thank You, amen.
Before we get into this section, I want to go back to Genesis chapter 2, verse 17 and
try to explain it (which I forgot to do in the last video). It says: "but of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest
thereof thou shalt surely die." Obviously, Adam and Eve did not die as soon as they ate
the fruit, instead they became outcasts. In fact, Adam died (as mentioned in Genesis chapter
5) after living almost a thousand years. So, what did God mean when He said they would
die in the day that they ate the fruit? Well, the Hebrew word translated as "die" doesn't
give any clues, but the Hebrew word translated "day" does (a little bit). This word isn't
always strictly used for daytime or a span of 24 hours. Strong says this about the word:
". . . a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one
sunset to the next), or figurative (a space of time defined by an associated term) . . .". Some
people think that Adam and Eve died when they ate the fruit, because their connection with
their maker (who provided for all their needs) was broken. Whether that's completely true
or not, this is true: before they ate the fruit Adam and Eve were most likely immortal,
but afterwards their death became inevitable. So either way you look at it, they died (or
began to die) the moment that they ate the fruit.
Verse 1 begins: "And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and
said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah. And again she bare his brother Abel.
And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."
According to Strong, Cain's name means a "lance", but is usually connected to another similar
word that means to obtain or to possess. Abel's name means "vain". The names Cain and Abel
may not be the original names of the two brothers. Both of their names may have been changed
because of what happened later in their lives, although another possibility is that Cain's
name is original, but Abel's name was not. Maybe the meaning of "lance" was given to
Cain because he was the firstborn, but the similarity [between Cain's] name and another
word that means to obtain things was later realized. My guess is that (whether Cain was
the firstborn's original name or not) the second-born was given the name Abel (which
means "vain") after his death as a sign of morning.
Verse 3 continues in the next paragraph: "And in [the] process of time it came to pass,
that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah. And Abel, he also
brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Jehovah had respect
unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his [. . .] offering he had not respect.
And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell."
According to the [King James Version footnotes], verse 3 could be translated as "And at the
end of days it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto
Jehovah". Maybe the two brothers decided to settle their differences by seeing who God
looked on more favorably? Maybe their father suggested an offering, so that God would be
pleased with his only two sons at that time? Maybe similar events had already happened
before, and that's why Cain was so angry this time? Along the same line, maybe this took
place on the Sabbath (the 7th day), so their offerings were a common event? Easton suggested
this in his dictionary saying: "It came to pass 'in process of time' ([margin] 'at the
end of days'), i.e., probably on the Sabbath, that the two brothers presented their offerings
to the Lord." According to Strong, the word translated as
"offering" in verses 3 and 4 usually meant an offering that was ". . . bloodless and
voluntary . . .". Hebrews chapter 11, verse 4 says: "By faith Abel offered unto God a
more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he
was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead
yet speaketh." There's probably a reason why it simply says that Cain ". . . brought of
the fruit of the ground an offering unto Jehovah . . .", but Abel ". . . also brought of the
firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof . . .". Abel wanted to please God by bringing
the best, but Cain doesn't seem to share as much of that desire. By the way, the word
"also" probably just means that he also brought an offering (Abel, not Cain), not necessarily
that his offering was the same in amount, quality, or kind.
Strong says that the word translated as "respect" in verses 4 and 5 means ". . . to gaze at
or about (properly, for help) . . .", and can imply inspection or consideration. In
other words, what verses 4 and 5 are saying is that God gave Abel's offering attention,
but not Cain's. The word translated in verse 5 (and also in verse 6 {which is not on the
screen at the moment}) as "wroth" means to ". . . glow or grow warm . . .", and can mean
to grow angry or to be jealous. Maybe one of the reasons Cain was angry was
because he thought that he should hold more authority and importance than his younger
brother. Maybe another reason Cain was angry is because he thought that God would honor
his work (and the offering that came from that work), because it was the same kind of
work God had originally set for Adam to do in the garden of Eden. Maybe his reasoning
for following after his father's lead in occupation was mostly to gain respect and honor, which
is not what God gave him for his offering. Verse 6 begins a new paragraph: "And Jehovah
said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well,
shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto
thee shall be its desire; but do thou rule over it." And then verse 8 continues into
another paragraph: "And Cain told Abel his brother. And it came to pass, when they were
in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."
Young translates verse 7 like this: "Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if
thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and
thou rulest over it.'" If you compare the American Standard Version with Young's Literal
Translation, I think maybe this verse should read between the two like this: "Is there
not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, sin croucheth at the door;
and unto thee shall be its desire; and thou rulest over it." I'm not completely sure about
what verses 6 and 7 mean. I think it means that God told Cain that if he was sincere
towards God (does well), then his offering would be accepted (lifted up), but if he wasn't
sincere towards God (or maybe just didn't do well in general, maybe by not loving God)
then sin was lying in wait at the door, wanting to take him (even though he was in control
of his actions, and therefor his sin). This is what it says in 1st John chapter 3, verses
11-12: "For this is the message which ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one
another: not as Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he
him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Marvel not, brethren,
if the world hateth you." The main reason Cain killed Abel was because of their differences:
Abel had a sincere desire to please God, Cain didn't; Cain was evil, and Abel was good.
Young translated verse 8 like this: "And Cain saith unto Abel his brother, `Let us go into
the field;' and it cometh to pass in their being in the field, that Cain riseth up against
Abel his brother, and slayeth him." I think the Hebrew text says that Cain told something
to Abel, but doesn't say what he said. That's probably why Young puts Cain's words in italics,
and also why other translations just don't include them. Young thinks that Cain may have
said something like what Young translated it as, but in actuality it's not in the Hebrew
text. Verse 9 continues in a new paragraph: "And
Jehovah said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: am I my
brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood
crieth unto me from the ground. And now cursed art thou from the ground, which hath opened
its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; when thou tillest the ground,
it shall not henceforth yield unto thee its strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt
thou be in the earth." The word translated as "keeper" in verse 9
basically means protect, and is the same word used in Genesis chapter 2, verse 15 when it
says that God placed the man into the garden of Eden. Because Cain slew his brother, the
same earth that received his brothers blood would not allow him to grow things anymore
(whether at all, or just very little, I don't know).
Verse 13 begins a new paragraph: "And Cain said unto Jehovah, My punishment is greater
than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the ground;
and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer in the earth;
and it will come to pass, that whosoever findeth me will slay me. And Jehovah said unto him,
Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And Jehovah
appointed a sign for Cain, lest any finding him should smite him."
The American Standard footnotes suggests verse 13 could be translated this way (or, should
be): "And Cain said unto Jehovah, Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven." Strong's [. . .] Hebrew Dictionary says that
the word translated in verse 14 as "driven . . . out" means ". . . to drive out from
a possession; especially to expatriate or divorce . . .". In case you don't know, the
word expatriate means to be thrown out of your homeland or "fatherland". The word translated
twice as "face" in verse 14 is the same word that's translated as "presence" in verse 16.
According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, this word has different meanings, one of them being
a face, another countenance, another is favor, and another is presence.
Moving on to verse 15, I don't know what the "sign" Jehovah "appointed" for Cain was. The
King James Version translates it as a "mark", and Young translates it as a "token". I think
I remember hearing that a game (and/or a movie) had a plot in which Cain was the first vampire
in the world. My guess is the idea came from this verse and the assumption is that Cain's
"mark" (according to the King James Version) was the "mark of the beast" (probably thought
of as Satan's mark by the creators of the plot). Well to put a wooden stake in that
idea, Young says "to Cain" and the ASV says "for Cain ". Going deeper, the LXX translates
the same word that the ASV translates as "sign", as σημεῖον, which (according to Strong)
can mean ". . . an indication, especially ceremonially or supernaturally . . ." and
can mean a "miracle", a "sign", a "token", or a "wonder". Finally, Strong says that the
Hebrew word itself means ". . . a signal (literally or figuratively) . . ." before he gives some
possible meanings. Maybe Cain was given some sort of appearance (like a mark on his forehead,
or maybe something more miraculous, like light) that would warn others that He was protected
by God. On the other hand, Easton suggests in his dictionary that Cain may have been
given a personal sign from God that he would be avenged if he was killed. No matter what
the "sign" was, it doesn't seem to be directly related to the mark of the beast. So with
that, now you can rest assured that Cain was not a vampire. You're welcome.
Alright, so with that, that is the end of this video. Thanks for watching everyone.