The Origins of the Two Cities

“From where did Cain get his wife?”

As anticlimactic and “convenient” as it may seem to our easily-impressed skeptical friend, Cain had no one else from whom to choose a wife but a sister. That may violate our sensibilities, but the moment we realize that it violates no law of logic is the moment we start to change our tune. While it is true that the Bible is silent on the daughters of Adam and Eve at the beginning—“daughters” are mentioned in 5:4—that would be fairly typical in ancient cultures, given the value placed on bearing males first to pass on the inheritance.

The complaint will then change: “But that makes Cain guilty of incest!” This was only prohibited explicitly with the Mosaic law. There are elements of sexual ethics that belong to moral law (cf. Rom. 2:14-15), and so are initiated at the beginning. But in the case of the first family (siblings) and second (cousins), this was the only way to propagate the image of God, and so we have to consider there being both a (1) natural law and (2) positive law element to the divine prohibition against incest.1

Lazy objections against the Bible aside, what do we have in terms of Christian doctrine in Genesis 4:17-5:32? We have the beginning of what Augustine called the heavenly city and the earthly city. But the Scriptures do not simply trace their genealogy, from left to right, but give to us something of the character and animating principles that advance those rival powers in this world. We have two truths here.

• The city from below accelerates violence and boasts in itself.

• The city from above appeals to heaven and tells the gospel.

Doctrine. God has planted a new city from above in the midst of the old city which lashes out against it from below.    

The city from below accelerates violence and boasts in itself.

There are two extreme ditches that we can fall off to if we are not grounded in the biblical doctrine of the fall of man. We can either universalize the good or particularize the bad. That is, in the name of good feelings, we can follow the modern liberal doctrine of “the universal fatherhood of God and universal brotherhood of man.” Or else, in the name of bad blood, we can chase down rabbit holes of hate, supposing that Cain birthed a uniquely evil race that we ourselves had nothing to do with. Some add to this that Cain was the firstborn of the devil! In the biblical view, the idea that Cain typifies that “seed” of Satan (Gen. 3:15) can be meant in no other way than that all were children of wrath by nature (Eph. 2:3), all sons of the devil (Jn. 8:44)—and in that permanent position if they are reprobate. In other words, this is speaking of a spiritual lineage and not meant to suggest that he didn’t really have an ordinary human lineage as well. So these are two very different concepts, with no need to decide whether it was Adam or the devil that conceived Cain by Eve.

What about this CITY to the east? If Cain was to be a wanderer, why does the Bible, in the next breath, make his line out to be the builder of cities? One answer given is that it was an act of defiance.2 I would add to that that it is a wandering city, or a fugitive city (as all secularist cities ultimately are). Stone and iron do not hide a rebel from God. Cain and his descendants may have begun to conceive of being a fugitive as simply a matter of running from his fellow man. Delusional, of course—God was their judge! The building of cities (fortresses) became a way for early man to change the subject—to pretend that he was safe from the most imposing enemy. Each generation of rebels would increasingly forget who they were wandering and hiding from.

But this comparison is often overblown anyway. That Cain’s line is talked about in terms of its culture is not meant to suggest that the other line we will meet did not build any culture. It may be to highlight what theologians often call “common grace” in order to show that God is not taken aback by any “success” of His enemies.3 At any rate, if we included Cain himself, there are seven generations in his line mentioned. Seven is always symbolic in Scripture of completion or fullness or perfection.

So how was the line an “acceleration” of Cain’s violence? We aren’t told specifics until we arrive at Lamech. He first violates God’s order of marriage:

“And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah” (v. 19).

He then “confesses” to murder, not in any kind of remorse, but as a boast!

“Lamech said to his wives: ‘Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold” (vv. 23-24).

Now there are two different Hebrew words used for what the ESV has as ‘man’  (ish) and ‘young man’ (yeled). The latter is probably the right translation, as other places treat the word this way, as when Jacob took “his eleven children”  (ילדיו) across the river, or “the young men” (הילדים) who were military advisors to Rehoboam in 1 Kings 12:8.

Either this is an example of parallelism where the second word clarifies who it was who he killed, or else, perhaps, that he had killed two persons—again, family members. Notice also that he attempts to hide it under the cover of justice, since he is claiming that it was retaliation. In both instances, it was ‘for wounding me’ and ‘for striking me,’ so that it is also an act of self-justification. Most callously, he twists God’s provision into a presumption—‘If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold’ (v. 24). He takes it upon himself to hand out God’s sentences. The most blasphemous statement yet on record! But at rock-bottom, he is saying: “Vengeance belongs to me!”

The city from above appeals to heaven and tells the gospel.

Everything about this new line is God’s doing.

First, Seth’s name means “appointed.”4 Note the words just before: ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel’ (v. 25). You may recall those eleven instances of toledot, that serve as section headings in Genesis. Why does it backtrack to Adam here in 5:1? This is more evidence that Adam and Eve were saved. They are pulled back into the story as the beginning of this line, and note how Eve renews her hope and the language is more clearly a praise to God—‘for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring’ (4:25). Now the emphasis is on God’s glory. Note the echoing forth of the image from God to Adam (vv. 1-2), and then,

“When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth” (v. 3).

But why the distinction “image” about Seth and not Cain or Abel? Because it fits the purpose of Genesis 5 and the comparison of the two genealogies. It is not that the ungodly line was not made in the image of God, but rather this is to stress how God’s people will become the new humanity in the new creation, which will fulfill that which the image was meant to be.

Second, Seth’s line is instantly marked out as holy in their practice. Notice that right after the text establishes that Seth has a son in Enosh—and so a line begins to be traceable—the next words are: ‘At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD’ (v. 26). This expression is used in the Scriptures for worship in general, but pointing to God alone for salvation in particular:

“Then I called on the name of the LORD: ‘O LORD, I pray, deliver my soul!’ … I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Ps. 116:4, 13).

Where the song of Cain’s line was a boast in their own power, the confession of the Sethites was an appeal to heaven. They were a people of prayer and worship. Not only so, but this is the covenant name for the LORD (יהוה). Multiple lines of evidence then suggest that here we have the infant steps of the church. Why did they call on the name of the LORD? Well, for one, they died. Notice that while the promise of offspring is highlighted in every generation in the repetition of “had other sons and daughters” (vv. 4, 7, 10, 13, 15, 19, 22, 26, 30), so is the refrain “and he died” (vv. 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31). So even the godly line was subject the same curse.

Third, we have the first extended genealogy in Scripture. This kind of literature may puzzle us for a few reasons. Most obviously, it can seem dry or irrelevant. But it cannot be irrelevant, since “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching” (2 Tim. 3:16). Some have suggested that so many genealogies exist, with names that appear only once, to show us that no matter how insignificant someone may appear to us in the story, God remembers them—and so it is with us. I think that’s true; but every name in this genealogy looms larger. It has been argued that the Hebrew meaning of the names in this lineage form something of the gospel.

In the case of Noah, the text itself gives us the full meaning.

“[They] called his name Noah, saying, ‘Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” (v. 29).

Yet even in that gospel procession, there is the evidence of the curse. Each story ends in the same words: ‘and he died’ (vv. 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20, 27, 31). There was one exception, and that was Enoch: ‘Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him’ (v. 24).

Now, as to the AGES of the antediluvians, there are two possibilities, naturally, depending on whether one takes an old earth or young earth view. The OE view will say that there are “open genealogies” (which can be read about in various authors) but also that the numerical values are symbolic. This would parallel similar genealogies in the region like the Sumerian King List.

In the YE view they are quite literal and are explained partly by the change in the earth’s environment from prior to the Flood versus after. At any rate, if all these men lived simultaneously or at least, overlapping, many interesting observations could be made. Martin Luther, for example, said,

“This is the greatest glory of the primitive world, that it had so many good, wise, and holy men at the same time. We must not think that these were ordinary names of plain people; but, next to Christ and John the Baptist, they were the most outstanding heroes this world has ever produced. And on the Last Day we shall behold and admire their grandeur.”5

Practical Use of the Doctrine

Use 1. Instruction. In his commentary, Boice reflects on how the two surviving sons “gave birth to two different societies.” This is important to think about. If it is true that God has planted a new city from above in the midst of the old city which lashes out against it from below, then we will have to think hard about how the two cities are intermixed and therefore difficult to tell the difference, and at the same time are moving in two wholly different directions, so that we can’t help but tell the difference. As Augustine put it,

“In truth, these two cities are entangled together in this world, and intermixed until the last judgment affect their separation.”6

Use 2. Admonition. The narrative of Cain’s line is a warning to anyone who has set their family in a neutral position toward God, who has not taken care to bend them back to God or to never depart in the first place. There is no hint of God intervening or addressing Lamech, unlike his forefather Cain. The voice of the Lord had receded. These people were left to themselves. It is a terrible thing to be left to one’s sin, as that sin gets more brazen and the conscience is more seared:

“He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing” (Prov. 29:1).

And yet for all that Lamech’s vain words about the LORD’s mark on Cain shows that he was at least well aware of the account that it was God who ordained it. In the most raging atheism there is a resentful theism. Remember Paul’s words in Romans 1:19-20, that all mankind knows but suppresses the knowledge of God in their unrighteousness. Therefore the bare talk of God is no saving faith in Him, and in fact can often be the most hardened taking of His name in vain.

Use 3. Consolation. This line of the godly may be considered a type in another way—most died, one was taken up. You might even use the word “raptured”! So it is of the church in the rest of history. All the elect will die that physical death—except those who remain for that Day when Christ returns (1 Thess. 4:16-17). But the point of that return of Christ passage by Paul is ultimately the same takeaway as Genesis 5 is for us:

“we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope” (1 Thess. 4:13).

As Seth and his offspring began to call on the name of the Lord, so this same way of salvation extends to us.

“For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (Rom. 10:13).

__________________

1. To any skeptic who wants to further complain that this involves a contradiction on the law, I offer the five following points to bear in mind: 1. God saw fit that it should be so; 2. There were no other human beings from which to take wives; 3. There is no other standard for morality but God, since no other being exists apart from His creating them; 4. All that is contained in the moral law regarding incest is defined in light of the nature of families as they developed out from one seed (so that this nature was not what it is until such point); 5. Any argument that this historical point should have been sooner violates points 1-3 and presupposes a standard of morality apart from God. Hence it is illogical to argue against this “developmental” aspect of natural law.

2. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, 238.

3. This point is noted by Belcher, Genesis, 82; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17, 239; Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth,  ) 46-47, and, of course, in many places of Abraham Kuyper’s three-volume work on Common Grace (Lexham Press).

4. Belcher alludes to the glory given to God in the use of “seed” (זרע) for Seth in 4:23, as opposed to “man” (איש) used about Cain in 4:1.

5. Martin Luther, Works, I:334-335.

6. Augustine, City of God, I.1.