Genesis 4:23

And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah,.... Confessing what he had done, or boasting what he would do should he be attacked; or in order to make his wives easy, who might fear from his

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. Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah.

Adah and Zillah, observing his fierceness and cruelty, feared that the vengeance of God or men would fall upon him, and upon them for his sake. Be it so that I have slain a man, and that a young man, why do you concern yourselves in it? It is to my own wounding and hurt, not to yours; I must suffer for it, not you. Some take this to be a sorrowful confession of his bloody crime: q.d. I have murdered a man, to my wounding, &c. i.e. to my utter ruin, or to the wounding and grief of my heart and conscience. But this seems not to agree either with the quality of Cain’ s family, or with the temper of Lamech’ s person, or with the scope of the Holy Ghost in this place; which is to describe, not the virtues, but the crimes of that wicked race. According to the marginal translation, the sense may be this, Fear not for me; for if any man, though in his youth and strength, should assault me, and give me the first wound, he should pay dearly for it; and though I were wounded and weakened, the remainders of my strength would be sufficient to give him his death’ s wound. The words also may be otherwise rendered; the particle chi being taken interrogatively, as it is , , and elsewhere: Have I slain a man to my wounding, and or, or a young man to my hurt? i.e. that thereby I should deserve such a mortal wound or hurt to be inflicted upon me by way of retaliation? You have therefore no cause of fear, either for my sake or for your own.

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.Ver. 23. And Lamech said unto his wives.] Who, it seems, were troublesome to him with their domestic discords, and led him a discontented life. He therefore gives them to understand in this set speech, what a man he is, if molested by them or any other, and what slaughters he can make, if provoked by an adversary. I would slay a man, if but wounded, &c. This revenge he counts manhood, which indeed is doghood rather. So Alexander Phereus consecrated his javelin, wherewith he slew his uncle Polyphron, as a monument of his manhood, and called it his god Tychon. So Sulla caused it to be registered in the public records, that he had proscribed, and put to death, four thousand and seven hundred Romans. So Stokesly, Bishop of London, comforted himself upon his deathbed with this, that in his time he had burned fifty heretics, as he called them. Is not this to "glory in their shame, and to have damnation for their end?" Is it not the devil which sets men working to do thus, as he did Saul to seek David’ s life, and Lamech to domineer in this sort over his wives, seeking so to repress their strife? A certain Indian coming into a house of the New English where a man and his wife were brawling, and they bidding him sit down, he was welcome: he answered, he would not stay there; "Hobomack," that is, the devil, was there; and so departed. Plutar in Pelopida. Ne memoria tam praeclarae rei dilueretur . Act. and Mon. New Engl. First Fruits, p. 4.

(23, 24) Lamech said . . . —Following quickly upon music, we have poetry, but it is in praise of ferocity, and gives utterance to the pride of one who, by means of the weapons forged by his son, had taken violent revenge for an attack made upon him. Many commentators, however, regard the poem as hypothetical. “Were any one to wound me, I would with these weapons slay him.” It would thus be a song of exultation over the armour which Tubal-cain had invented. It more probably records a fact, and is intended to show that, side by side with progress in the material arts, moral degradation was going on. Cain’s own act is spoken of, not as a sin to be ashamed of, but as a deed of ancient heroism: not comparable, however, with the glory of Lamech, whose wrath shall be ten-fold. The poetry is vigorous, and marked by that parallelism which subsequently became the distinguishing quality of Hebrew verse. It should be translated:— “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice, Ye wives of Lemech. give ear unto my rede. For I have slain a man for wounding me: Even a young man for bruising me. Truly Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, And Lemech seventy and sevenfold.” It is remarkable that both of the words used for the attack upon Lamech refer to such wounds as might be given by a blow with the fist, while his word means to pierce, or run through with a sharp weapon. “Young man” is literally child, but see on Genesis 21:14. With this boastful poem in praise of armed violence and bloodshed, joined with indications of luxury and a life of pleasure, the narrator closes the history of the race of Cain.

Verse 23. And Lamech said unto his wives] The speech of Lamech to his wives is in hemistichs in the original, and consequently, as nothing of this kind occurs before this time, it is very probably the oldest piece of poetry in the world. The following is, as nearly as possible, a literal translation: "And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Tsillah, hear ye my voice; Wives of Lamech, hearken to my speech; For I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for having bruised me. If Cain shall be avenged seven-fold, Also Lamech seventy and seven." It is supposed that Lamech had slain a man in his own defence, and that his wives being alarmed lest the kindred of the deceased should seek his life in return, to quiet their fears he makes this speech, in which he endeavours to prove that there was no room for fear on this account; for if the slayer of the wilful murderer, Cain, should suffer a seven-fold punishment, surely he, who should kill Lamech for having slain a man in self-defence, might expect a seventy-seven-fold punishment. This speech is very dark, and has given rise to a great variety of very strange conjectures. Dr. Shuckford supposes there is an ellipsis of some preceding speech or circumstance which, if known, would cast a light on the subject. In the antediluvian times, the nearest of kin to a murdered person had a right to revenge his death by taking away the life of the murderer. This, as we have already seen, appears to have contributed not a little to Cain's horror, Genesis 4:14. Now we may suppose that the descendants of Cain were in continual alarms, lest some of the other family should attempt to avenge the death of Abel on them, as they were not permitted to do it on Cain; and that in order to dismiss those fears, Lamech, the seventh descendant from Adam, spoke to this effect to his wives: "Why should you render yourselves miserable by such ill-founded fears? We have slain no person; we have not done the least wrong to our brethren of the other family; surely then reason should dictate to you that they have no right to injure us. It is true that Cain, one of our ancestors, killed his brother Abel; but God, willing to pardon his sin, and give him space to repent, threatened to punish those with a seven-fold punishment who should dare to kill him. If this be so, then those who should have the boldness to kill any of us who are innocent, may expect a punishment still more rigorous. For if Cain should be avenged seven-fold on the person who should slay him, surely Lamech or any of his innocent family should be avenged seventy-seven-fold on those who should injure them." The Targums give nearly the same meaning, and it makes a good sense; but who can say it is the true sense?

17–24. The Descendants of Cain: The Genealogy of the Cainites. (J.) See the Special Note on “the Antediluvian Patriarchs,” see below. The traditions preserved in this section probably belong to a different J source from that of the verses immediately preceding. This will explain how it is that Cain, who has just been condemned to a nomad life and has withdrawn into the land of “Wandering” (Nod), is in Genesis 4:17 described as the founder of a city, and as the ancestor of men who originated the industries and callings of civilization. NOTE ON THE According to chap. 5 (P), the interval of time between the work of Creation (Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 a) and the visitation of the Flood (Genesis 6:9 ff.) is occupied by a list of ten Patriarchs. The chronological scheme of P, according to the Hebrew text, makes this period to consist of 1656 years (in the Samaritan text, it Isaiah 1307 years; in the LXX, 2242). The description given of the ten Patriarchs is precise and formal. It is limited in each case to the bare formulae narrating facts respecting (i) the age of the Patriarch at the birth of his firstborn, (ii) the number of his remaining years, and the fact that he was the father of other children, (iii) his age at the time of his death. The account which is thus given furnishes an explanation of the great population of the earth which is overthrown in the Flood. The chapter, however, contains no mention of the growing wickedness of the race. And it does not appear that P takes any account of the Narrative of the Fall (chap. 3 J). Budde, indeed (Urgesch. 93–103), contends that the names of the Patriarchs are intended to symbolize the condition of their age, the names Jared (= descent), Methuselah (= the man of the weapon, or the man of violence) denoting its deterioration. The ten names represented the history of the human race before the Flood. The distribution of these ten names over the period of 1656 years implies a minute and elaborate calculation by the chronologists and chroniclers, whose work has been employed in P. I. Ten Babylonian Kings It is impossible to resist the conclusion that there is some sort of connexion between the ten Antediluvian Patriarchs of Genesis 5 and the ten kings before the Flood in the Babylonian Legends. The names of the ten kings are as follows: (A. According to Berossus.)(B. According to cuneiform inscriptions.). Alτrus.1. Arϋru.. Alaparos.2. Adapa.. Amκlτn.3. Amκlu (= Man, ? = Enosh).. Ammenτn.4. Ummanu (= Master-crafts-man, ? = Kenan).. Megalβros. 6. Daτnos. 7. Euedτrachos. 8. Amempsinos.7. Enmeduranki (?=Enoch). 8. Amel-Sin (= Man of the god Sin, ? = Methuselah).. Τtiartes.9. Ubara-Jutu. . Xisϋthros.10. Ḥ ?asisatra (?=Noah).In this list there may possibly be discerned some points of correspondence with the Hebrew. (a) In No. 3 Amelu (= Man) may be translated in Enosh=Man. (b) In (4) Ummanu (= Workman), in Kenan; and in (8) Amel-Sin (Man of Sin), in Methuselah (= Man of Shelah). (c) No.

23. Lamech said — This father of skilful inventors was himself a genius, and the author of this oldest fragment of poetical composition, of which the following is a literal translation:Adah and