Creation: Genesis 4

Well, shalt thou not be accepted, and if thou do us not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with 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.

And the Lord 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 art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.

When thou tellest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee fair strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.

Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth, and from thy face shall I be hid. And I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.

And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch.

And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch. And unto Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begot Mehugiel, and Mehugiel begot Methuselah, and Methuselah begot Lamech. And Lamech took unto him two wives, the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Zillah.

And Ada bare Jabal, he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle. And his brother's name was Jubal, he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ. And Zillah, she also bare Jubal Cain, an instructor of every artisopher in brass and iron, and the sister of Jubal Cain was Naamah.

And Lamech said unto his wives, Ada 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. If Cain be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold. 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.

And to Seth, to him also there was born a son, and he called his name Enos. Then began man to call upon the name of the Lord. So once again we look to God for his blessing, both upon the reading of his word, and what we are now going to consider from it.

I'd like very simply this afternoon first of all to divide this chapter into three sections. The sections are not equal, but we'll make some equal parts for when we go through the passage just in a moment. First of all I put it like this, not terribly different from what our brother who first gave a plan for it.

Verses 1 to 16 we'll be thinking about the deeds of Cain, but we'll break that up later. Verses 17 to 24, as he suggested, we'll be looking at the descendants of Cain. But when we come to 25 and 26, there we have a very short section, but introduced to us, which will carry on of course, but we won't be tracing it further too much today, is the descendants of Adam.

The descendants of Adam. And you'll notice that the line returns back to Adam from verse 25, Adam knew his wife, and so we have what we sometimes call the godly line of Seth introduced, which will pass on into the genealogy of chapter 5. It's not without significance to notice that there is no mention of Cain in that first book. There are two books in the Bible that are called the book of the generations.

Now I know that 11 times it was mentioned in the first introduction, 11 times in this book we read the generations of. And that does divide the book up, it's one of the ways of dividing Genesis, and profitably to do it, but not our intention of course, or time to look at it today. But I do want to mention this, there are only twice as far as I remember in the scripture, this expression, the book of the generations.

Now the first one is in Genesis 5, the book of the generations of Adam, there's the first Adam. And when you come to Matthew chapter 1, the book of the generations of Jesus Christ. So there is the last Adam, and you can see God bringing in a new order for man under the person of Christ of course, and of course the fulfillment of the promises that were made for the seed, the seed that was promised to Abraham.

So there's the three general sections. Now let me say just a general things first. In Genesis 3 we've been thinking about sin against God.

Now we come to the first real instance of sin against man. So you can see that when we come to our chapter today. I want you to notice that here is the first human being to be born.

Remember that Adam was formed from the dust of the ground, and Eve was formed from the rib that had been taken from the side of Adam. So that we have the first instance of normal human procreation, which is the one that we know best. It's been said there are four ways in which mankind has been brought into the world.

Two we have found already, and then we come to the third, Adam and Eve are both different, then we come to the third, which is the one that starts here, procreation, and the fourth being of course the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. All of those things are quite instructive to my mind anyway. Notice we saw they were declared one flesh in the garden.

But for the first time in our verse you'll notice that we have a reference to the intimacy of marriage. There are two particular expressions used to describe the intimacy of marriage. One is to know, and the other is to go in unto.

And you'll notice here we read in verse 1, Adam knew his wife. And then of course, a little further down the chapter, we read Cain knew his wife, verse 17. And then in verse 25, Adam knew his wife.

And so we have the ushering in of that line that we have mentioned, the godly line of Seth. Then of course we notice that this chapter is showing that sin is in the nature. This is a truth that we've already been tracing, it may want to be raised again, but we haven't really seen it yet.

Sin was of course that which took place in the garden that Mr. Paisley has so ably brought us through this afternoon already, the original aspect of it. But now we're coming in chapter 4 to the evidence that sin is in the nature. Now you remember the words of the Psalmist.

In sin, now listen to it, in sin did my mother conceive me. Not at birth, but at conception. I think Mr. Crawford mentioned that earlier.

Now that's a very important thing for us to remember, sin at conception. Here are two boys, both born from Adam and Eve, and we notice that they both had the same nature, they both had the same parents, they both received the same instruction, and one showed that there was a way back to God, and the other showed his rejection of the way back to God. Now these are all very important principles, it's been pointed out already, and we all knew it I'm sure, that the book of Genesis is the seed plot of the word of God.

Now I want to divide that first section, and soon I'll sit down, the deeds of Cain, and I want us to think of it in three different parts. Verses 1 to 4, those deeds revealed by the contrast between the two men, the deeds revealed. Then if you look at verses 5 to 10, we have those very deeds reviewed, and we have the description, the objective description given by the Spirit of God to Cain and his offering God had not respect, and so on.

So that you can see those deeds are reviewed in verses 5 to 10, but in 11 to 16 those deeds are refused. You can see that Cain is refused. Look at verse 11, now thou art cursed from the earth, and so on.

So those are going to be three little divisions we'll keep in our mind as we go through the Bible reading. When we come to the second section, that's the descendants of Cain, do you remember we said, verses 17 to 24, I'd like us to keep this in mind. Now you'll notice that you've heard all the brethren, and they all divide their passages up differently, and that's fine.

So it's just really so that we'll have manageable parts to consider. So if you'll kindly keep to the sections I indicate, then we'll get to the end of the chapter in the time allotted. So we're going to look at the descendants of Cain in two sections, 17 to 22, and over that I've written this, the family and its features, the family and its features, and then when we come to 23 and 24, the family and its folly, the family and its features, the family and its folly.

And then the last little section, we don't want to leave it out because it's very important to our chapter today, the descendants of Adam. Here we have a line marked by divine purpose, sin has come in, sin shows an interruption in that line because of the activity of Cain. But God's purpose is still going to be realized, and to me this is very vital, although we can't go into it today, I think this is a very important part of how you interpret the opening verses of chapter 6, but that's another subject perhaps we'll not get to it, but we can't get to it, of course, really.

Some may want to make mention of it and that'll be fine. So notice the change in these, between, if you look, for instance, at 17 to 22 that I've just mentioned, there's no evidence when we come to this new line of Seth or of Adam about accomplishments that were being boasted about in those other verses, no accomplishments mentioned. Notice there's no boasting, like the boasting of Lamech and so on.

There's just an objective statement because God's purpose is being introduced, as it usually is, in a logical, unfolded way. Cain is the serpent seed, there's clear evidence of the serpent seed that Mr. Paisley was speaking about today. Seth is the evidence of the promised seed, and through this line is going to eventually come the Christ of God.

So that's very important. I want you just to notice, and I'm going to sit down now, the important words in verse 25. Adam knew his wife again, she bared a son, called his name Seth, for God hath appointed me another seed instead.

That's the little preposition when it's in the subjugate, and I, in the stead of, in the stead of Abel, whom Cain slew. So you can see now, God's intention is to continue the line. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son, and he called his name Enos, then men began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Do you notice that? Or, you notice the margin, called themselves by the name of the Lord. Here's the godly line of Seth, which is now coming in, and is being introduced, and is being developed. Now all of those are very important things, I think, that we must take into account when we interpret scripture, because we have very clear statements here.

Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord. Now I'm going to sit down, and first of all, let us start together by looking at the first four verses for a few moments, where we see the deeds of Cain revealed by contrast between the two men. Now, if you don't mind, I'd be grateful if you would keep to verses one to four for a little time, and then we'll move on.

When Eve said, I have gotten a man from the Lord, was she referring to the promise of the Messiah? I think she had that in her heart. And I think that has been already suggested. You see, Mr. Pate, he's drawing us back to the fact that there was a promise that had been made at the time of the fall.

And it seems here that Eve had some appreciation of what God had said to her. I say, I've gotten a man from Jehovah, here's your Yahweh word again, isn't it? That's what you have in mind, Mr. Pate? That's it. It's a definite article, I've gotten the man from the Lord.

The man from the Lord. It would back that up. Thank you.

Can I also say that she was mistaken by 4,000 years, and also that really Cain here is the first picture of the man of sin. Yes. Would that be right? Yes.

Yes. What are you thinking of when you say that? I'm thinking of the fact that he's a man with a mark. He's a man that brings a false worship.

He's a man that persecutes evil, and he's a man that builds a city. Good. Now, I hope you all appreciate Mr. Pate's point that he's picking out some points as the chapter unfolds.

We'll find the sign, we'll find the city, we'll find these very things that he's saying. Thank you. That's very helpful.

Yes. Can I say too, doesn't it, that he is of that wicked one? Yes. And John's opinion.

In 1 John 3. Yes. Cain, who Mr. Hall is pointing out, 1 John 3, when he speaks of Cain, he was of that wicked one. So you can see that very evident, clear, unfolding, coming out from that line.

Mr. Baker, does that mean that he was of the wicked one? Is that something more than being a sinner? Having a sinful nature? Is that deeper? Well, I think it's showing to us that he was the seed of the serpent, and it does show that he had a sinful nature. I wouldn't like to go beyond that for this reason. When we come a little later in the chapter, we're going to find that God made an offer, and it had been accepted.

I think that there was a way, God was making an offer to Cain. It's akin to what the Lord said to the Pharisees in John 8, then? You're of your father, the devil? That's right. That's the idea.

There is a, this is going back to the fall and the depravity of man. It seems quite obvious in these first four verses that these men had choices, which were more than just choices in economics. There seems to be the sense of moral choice here.

What I want to ask, brother, and this has been a problem to many people, when man sinned, he became a fallen creature when he was depraved, did he cease to be a moral creature with a choice? No. I don't believe he did. I believe that man is a moral creature, that sin has entered into his nature, he has a bias to sin, but nevertheless, that he has the facility to respond to the offer that God will make of return.

You see, what we're really speaking about, and brother Baker knows this very well, there are those who teach that the depravity of man is so deep and so great that there's nothing in man to respond to God. Nothing in man to respond to the word of God, the call of God, the mercy of God, the offer of salvation. We do not believe that.

That doctrine is called the captivity of the will, and they also teach an irresistible grace along with that, so that almost it's the idea of a sinner getting saved against his will. I cannot believe that when man lost his innocence, that he also lost his moral nature, which makes him a creature responsible for the choices he makes. Yesterday we mentioned this, but a simple verse in the Bible is, we have turned everyone to his own way, and we cannot blame the fact of that choice on Adam.

It's our own accountability, and that's why we read earlier today in Romans 5 and 12, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. This is a parallel statement. Death has passed upon all men.

To make the parallel complete, it would read, for Adam, sin. It doesn't. Sin entered into the world by the one man, and death has passed on all men, because all have sinned.

And you would say, of course, that the very teaching of this chapter would, would controvert what is being suggested in that doctrine, because he's given an offer. Now, of course, the other thing that people say while we're dealing with the matter Mr. Crawford has raised is, some go to Ephesians 2, and they say, ye were dead. And they say, before you can even believe.

Some people, this is a slightly different thing, but you'll know it's true. They say, you must be born again, so that you get life. So they say, the new birth comes before you get salvation.

And they say, then you're able to listen to the voice of God. Now that's a lot of nonsense, really. It's not right.

There's no scripture for that. We read in John, it's wise just to deal with it while we're at it. In John chapter 1, he speaks of those which were born, not of blood, not the will of man, but of God.

And it's very important to see that salvation is of God, but it's to those who receive him. When you come down to as many as received him, to them gave he the power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born. So the believing comes before the birth in John chapter 1. Do you see my point? There's a writer that too many are reading that exactly states what you're stating, sadly, and his auditions are R.C.S., Sproul is his last name, if I'm pronouncing it right.

So that's a sad thing, it really is. But I noticed that in the book of the Revelation, God is charging men with being cowards and unbelieving, fearful. That's right.

Well, if they couldn't believe, they can charge God, how can I be charged with this if I couldn't do it? And not only in the book of Revelation, I agree with you fully, Brother Frank, but in John chapter 3, the Lord Jesus says, he that believeth is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he's a sinner, no, because he hath not believed. So that man is charged with a sin, and the Holy Spirit's work in John 16 again, he said, he'll bring conviction to the world of sin, because they believe not only. So man will be charged with a sin of unbelief.

That doesn't interfere with God's sovereignty, but we've got to hold those things in balance. Now, is this a contrast, to go on, because I have to leave early and I want to hear. We can't go to the end of the chapter for you, you know.

She again bare his brother Abel. Yes. Isn't this a contrast entirely to Cain? So would I be right in saying that Cain is the man after the flesh, or the man and Adam, but Abel is the man to be seen in Christ? Well you can see that, because that is the line, because he's going to be in the stead of, you see, he's going to come in at the end of the chapter, so the divine purpose is going to be achieved.

So there's a contrast in their occupation. What I learned there is that a man's occupation can either lead him nearer to the Lord or farther away. Well, that's a good practical lesson.

You're bringing the practical lesson out. But the idea is in it that he was in contact with shepherd work and with sheep, but the other man was an earthly man working on the earth, and so he was a servant of the earth. I think that begins what you're going to bring out about these two men.

Is there not, Brother Baker, excuse me for this, but is there not here primarily what God had said to the man and the woman in the garden, In thy day thou eatest the ram, thou shalt surely die. And was there not then in Abel the conviction that he was a sinner and deserved to die? And so he brings a sacrifice that dies. I've heard just recently men denying that totally and saying it was in the attitude of the offerers.

I know I'm jumping ahead to verse 5, forgive me for that. No, it's alright. It's alright.

But actually the principle is, here's a man who says I deserve to die and I die in the person of my substitute. And the other man has no consciousness or knowledge that he is a sinner deserving to die. Now why do you think he does come with that attitude? I agree with what you're saying, but do you have a thought in your mind as to why he does? What I had in mind was the sacrifice that God made in the beginning.

Exactly. That's what I wanted you to come to. I think what our brother is pointing out is this, that Adam and Eve, there's no doubt about it, you taught all your children the same thing.

And Adam and Eve would have taught their two children the same thing. And so they would have learned the story of the garden, they would have learned the story of the sacrifice, so they knew the way of approach to God. Isn't that your point? That's what I had in mind.

The name that she gave him suggests that he understood that his life would be brief. Isn't that right? Yes. Because the name Abel means a fleeting breath.

So this man, he considered that the brevity of life was such that he would occupy himself with that which would bring God pleasure, which was the keeping of sheep in order to offer a sacrifice. Yes. Exactly.

So, you see what our brethren are bringing out now, because we must keep moving on. You see, there is brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, came as a turn of the ground, and we come now in process of time.

Now, here is an interesting point. You'll notice in verse 3, if you've got an ordinary margin to your authorized version, at the end of days, and it has been shown and suggested, and I think there's good ground for it, that in verse 3 we find there was a time. Yes.

A time. And in verse 3, you'll notice too, there was a place. Came to pass that he brought up the fruit of the ground unto the Lord.

Now, where was the Lord? We have found in our previous Bible reading that the holiness of God was being guarded. The place of his presence was the entrance to Eden, but it was guarded by the cherubim and the flaming sword. That's what we've been saying.

So I take it that he came to the place, place of approach to God. Do you agree with that? Yes. And I don't think they needed to ignite the fire for the sacrifice.

Do you? No. No, no. Why? Why? Tell us why.

The flaming sword was there. Yes. The fire that God gave was holy fire.

That's the point. Exactly. It's divine.

The fire of the Lord came down on Elijah's sacrifice. That's right. That's right.

So that shows there's divine approach. There's a strange fire that has been used later on. Oh, yes.

Man with strange fire. But that's the fire of God. The fire of God.

Yes. You're almost connecting that place, rightly so, like the tabernacle where the cherubim were and the mercy seat. There was a place in our brother Oliver mentioned the Shekinah.

So you've got the glory of the Lord, you've got the holiness of the Lord, you've got the mercy seat, you've got the cherubim. You have. Yeah.

It follows through. It does. You can see it as the Old Testament develops.

We can't stay with it too long. But if you think of Psalm 80, he says, it revives us again, then he says, Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth. He's looking towards the sanctuary.

And even the man in Luke's Gospel, you see, God be propitious. He's looking towards the sanctuary. He's looking towards the place of sanctity.

Psalm 22, Thou are enthroned in the praises of Israel between the cherubim there? That's it. Yeah. I don't have anything more to tell you about other than as part of what is the suggested here is what God has appointed.

It's his way, his time, his place and his way and what is brought. I'm pleased you've done it. I was going to do it.

We just stopped there. No, no, no. That's fine.

Because our brother, Mr. Oliver, has shown us when you come to verse four, Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock. So this was not indiscriminate. You see that? It wasn't indiscriminate.

That's part of your point. And the fat thereof. Now, the fat was always the excellence, that which was for God and in which God delighted alone for God.

And the Lord had respect to Abel and his offering. So there's been the time, the place, and the content or the part of the sacrifice. The firstborn, doesn't it? It does.

Colossians 1, you know, and other passages. Yes. The firstborn of the flock that was born.

That's right. Is what he brought. That's right.

And he worshiped. They that worship must worship in spirit and in truth. That's what I've written over this worship of Abel.

Yeah. He brought the firstborn, the firstborn, Hebrews 1 and so on. Very good.

He brought Jesus, the firstborn. First of the flock. See, it's an interesting thing you get that in connection with judgment, where you look at the book of Exodus.

It was the firstborn sons who would die and sacrifice up to take their place. You can see all that principle linked together. It's the principle of the development of redemption.

That's right. Commensurate. That's right.

I like to think, too, that while the fire would consume Abel's sacrifice, the sword was still restless. The sword had not found a place of rest. Our brother mentioned in the earlier reading the great truth of propitiation.

That sword was never to find its place of rest until it awoke and smote the shepherd. And then the sword found its place of rest. That's propitiation.

There wasn't propitiation here, but there was a fore view of it. There was a fore view of it. Maybe we should just take a look, briefly, because of the point you've made.

It was mentioned earlier that the word atonement, it has always carried the idea of covering. Its first mention is in Genesis 6. Thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. That was the covering for the ark.

That's the first use. Its second use is in, I think, Genesis 37, if I remember rightly, or 38. And it's, remember when Jacob was going to send part of his flocks, and it says that he may appease Esau, to appease.

And then, of course, it's termed atonement later, when you come to the sacrifices of the Old Testament. But the point is, as Mr. Paisley mentioned, it has to do with covering. And when you think of the mercy seat, there was the golden ark underneath.

The late Mr. David Craig used to tell us many years ago that inside that golden ark, there was the tables of the law, there was the golden pot, and there was Aaron's rod. And they indicated three of Israel's greatest national sins. But where are they now? They're inside the ark.

And what's over it? The mercy seat. And what's on the mercy seat? The blood. And that was the covering over for the time then present.

But the work of Christ in propitiation is a New Testament truth. And it carries the thought, it comes out from Capernaum, but there's an extension of it. Mr. McBride wrote in your magazine at one time about this, you remember.

And he sent me a copy of his booklet. And when that happened, in the New Testament, the Lord Jesus died on the cross. He made satisfaction.

Thus the terms in the Hebrews there remain, and therefore no more sacrifice. So God was satisfied. God was never satisfied with those sacrifices.

That's why the Hebrew says, in them he had no pleasure. I believe that not one of the Old Testament sacrifices would have been validated except for the death of Christ. And he made satisfaction.

This is an important thing. Not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. So that means that the work of Christ is for whosoever.

So where are you quoting from? 1 John. I'm quoting from 1 John. He is the propitiation for our sins.

And not for ours only, but for the whole world. So there was sufficient in the death of Christ to meet the need of all. This is why we should never speak about a limited atonement.

There's enough in it to meet the claims of God for all eternity. That's why the very earth, it's not even limited to man. It goes beyond that.

That's why the world will lie down with the man. So is propitiation, Brother Baker, to do Godward? It's always in that sense, isn't it? Substitution is to do with... Yeah, it's the failure to distinguish between propitiation and substitution that's one of the big problems that many teach today. Only the believer strictly, in strictest terms, could say, he died for me, he died in my place.

But we tell the sinner that he's paid back to God all the sin demanded. So we can preach to the whosoever. But the truth of substitution, that's why it says, he gave himself a ransom for all.

Now that's the little preposition, on the behalf of all. But he gave himself a ransom for many, that's anti in the stead of many. It's only in the stead of the many who trust him, but it's on the behalf of all.

Why does he say, in the fact thereof, he gave an emphasis to the firstling, but and the fact thereof? The fact thereof would not be known until the animal was slain, would it? No, no. I take it that this is showing to us that sacrifice was not only to meet the demands of sin, but to bring pleasure to the heart of God. It's that which was delighted.

We cannot understand the language of Isaiah 53, it pleased the Lord to bruise him. It is excellency that never could have been seen apart from the death. That's the thought of it, could only have been seen in the cross.

The lamb in Exodus 12, without spot, is the health of the animal. I don't want to hold you up, Brother. In regard to propitiation being the satisfaction of divine justice, the throne of God, its demands met, is there significance in the fact that 1 John 2 and 2 says he is the propitiation for our sins, but it doesn't repeat sins, not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Well, I quoted it like that. So it's an offer to all men, but only those who come and receive that offer are in the good of it. That's like the two prepositions in Romans 3, if you'll pardon me, just roll them over.

It says it's unto all, but it's upon them that the lean it. So those who receive from that provision, is there another word that enters in, expiation? They come into the good of expiation. Yes.

Is that true? Of course, expiation too carries the idea of putting away. You see, if you go to Deuteronomy 24, the heifer in the rough valley, and God put away the sin of the, they didn't know who had committed it, but they knew they were under the judgment of God. And they took this heifer, struck it off with a violent death, she was the violence of the death of Christ, and he puts it away for that whole thing.

Could I say now, that the offering he brought is marked as the firstlings of the flock, not a ram, as later on they used rams and the ram of consecration and so on, and it points to the gentleness and humility of the Lord Jesus. Yes. Thy gentleness hath made me great, is what I wrote over this years ago, for evil.

Thy gentleness hath made me great. Right. A gentle lamb, you see, and the idea of all of that, as her brother introduced, is the excellencies of that animal, the excellencies of Christ.

So in that little lamb there, just a newborn lamb, a firstling lamb, we have the gentleness and lowliness of Christ, and that gentleness made him great, as the outstanding leader of this able lamb. You see, Mr. Paisley, you bring out a very important truth, because Paul wrote to the Corinthians, and they seem to have been a lot of hard men in many ways, particularly in 2 Corinthians, their attitude to the apostle is being seen. He says, Now I beseech you by the gentleness and meekness of Christ.

That's what I wrote. That's it, the gentleness and meekness. This is what I have loved about this chapter, that the little lamb was so meek compared with the pride of Cain and the building of a great city, and the contrast of these men that you're going to speak about, and what they got.

But our greatness lies in the gentleness and meekness of Christ. You see, you'll see again in the Good Old Authorized Version, in the margin, Hebrew for the word flock is sheep, or goats, you see. You can see those ideas, Mr. Paisley.

But let's come to these. I'd like to hear what our brethren have to say about this term, the Lord had respect unto. And in verse 5, But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.

Could you give us some help on that, Mr. Jones? I had thought it was the thought of acceptance, and I would think, brother, that the means by which it was accepted, how did Abel know his offering was accepted? How did Cain know that his offering was not accepted? Because there doesn't seem to be a voice from God to tell him that. Was it not that the fire consumed the acceptable offering? You told us a few minutes ago, the fire consumed it. Isn't that word satisfaction? It is.

I was just going to say. That word is somewhere in a Hebrew book, I found it, but the word is satisfaction. It's to Cain he had not satisfaction, but to Abel he did have satisfaction.

So you see, you're bringing out the principle of what is developed in the New Testament. That's why I picked it up. Yeah, that's very good.

Thank you. So now look at verse 6, And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou rough? Why is thou thy countenance fallen? And then we have verse 7, If thou do us well. Now however we interpret it, let's first of all get the main point here before we go into the complexity of it.

The main point, apart from the, either view will satisfy this, that's why I'm saying let's get the main point first, that the main point is that God was making an offer that could be accepted. I believe it was mercy. He was willing to show mercy even at this point.

That's right. That's what I look on that. I know men differ on this.

But if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted. He's telling them you haven't done well with what you've brought, but there's an opportunity now for you to have an offering. Yes.

Yes, that's it. I believe that's right. I think he's saying, as you've rightly said now, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted.

There's the fact that there is an opportunity granted to Cain. But now we come to the difficult bit. If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

Now you will know that there are two views on this, because this word sin in many parts of the Old Testament is translated sin offering. So there are those who feel very strongly that what God is saying to Cain is there is a sin offering available to you. Personally, I don't take that view.

The word sin lieth, lieth is the word for croucheth, as an animal ready to spring. And it seems to me the sin that he had committed, if he did not get it pardoned in God's way, it would consume him. It would hold him and it would crouch him and spring upon him.

It would drive him into more sin, into apostasy where he went. That's right, exactly. Now what I had in mind was this.

We mentioned earlier that there are no sin offerings in the book of Genesis. They're all burnt offerings. So why try to introduce it in a passage where it's doubtful? Would you agree with that? A hundred percent, yes.

We believe that sin crouches the devil. We believe that sin crouching is an animal. To spring upon him like a lion.

That's exactly right. All right. Drive him into deeper apostasy.

Good. Good. Oh, well, I thought we might be in difficulties there, but we're all right.

I think it's nice to tie in here the words of the Hebrew writer in 11 and 4, a more excellent sacrifice. Good. Now, Mr. Oliver is pointing out that there's a section in Hebrews 11 that's going to introduce this very matter.

And of course, we have the thought of the more excellent sacrifice, which God is describing as the sacrifice of Abel, isn't that your point? That's right. Yes, that's right. Isn't it an interesting thing that we're going to see right very soon now, that that's going to be developed.

If thou do us well, if thou do us not well, sin lieth, crouching to spring, and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Now, are we any help on that? What are you asking? Is it not the language that God used about Eve as well? Unto thee shall be his desire. Is that not the thought of subjection? So his brother was to be subject to him? Yes, I think so.

I think so. I think it's the comparison between the two brothers. And I think this is what stirred the heart of Cain to wickedness.

1 John chapter 3 tells us he was of that wicked one. We're all of that wicked one, of course. He had that nature.

That was the part of Brother Hart's point. So then it says, and Cain talked with his brother. Cain was not prepared to accept, but he was going to spring upon his brother.

You see the idea? And it says, Cain talked with Abel, Cain did pass when they were in the field. Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him. So that we now have the murder.

We have the sin coming out. You quoted, I think, earlier, sin. James 1, when lust hath conceived it, bring it forth.

When lust hath conceived it, bring it forth, and then when sin, when it is finished, bring it forth. It's strange. There was worship at the altar.

At the place of the altar there was worship, that Cain saw. But in the field, when they talked, Abel witnessed to what, you see, he gave witness, it says. So he witnessed in the field to the acceptability of his offering.

That's what caused Cain to be so angry. Do you think that Abel gave verbal witness? I thought that the witness was in the sacrifice that he made. Why did they go into the field to talk? Well it's Cain that's talking here.

Well I think he talked about this offering, and Abel bore witness. I know that it's not accepted that the witness was actually at the offering, but they withdrew from the place of offering, and went into the field to converse, and it's obvious that the conversation led to murder. You see? Yes.

Yes. And I think that he witnessed to the acceptability of his offering. Well that may be.

The only point I would make is that the verse doesn't say that. And I'm not saying it doesn't mean it's not there. But I'm only pointing out that the general direction of the verse, he's just trying to get at the truth of the verse, Mr. Paisley doesn't mind me saying that.

Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field that Cain rose up against Abel, and it seems to me that Abel is now demonstrating the nature that caused him to make that sacrifice which was a godless, bloodless sacrifice, and he's demonstrated that nature. Supposing you and I were there, and we walked along out into the field, it was obvious to me that Cain began to speak about what had happened, and that Abel bore testimony to the fact that this is God's way of approach. You see, that's what brings the enmity of the beast that we believe he's a picture of.

The enmity of the beast is towards the Lamb. Oh, it is, yes, yes. Well, that's a good point for us to consider.

Have you ever read that he wouldn't cut the Lamb's throat, but he cut his brother's throat is the thought behind this? I read that. Oh, that's very good. I've never heard it put like that, but I can't quite see the idea.

I read it as interpreted that way in that same book that you got, Satisfaction. Brother, is this the result of that sin that you said his brother has now overcome? Yes, absolutely. You see, his desire has been given now to that sin that you have overcome.

I thought Brother 1 John gives the real answer. It shows the hatred that was in his heart. That's why he slew his brother Abel Cain.

Yes. Hatred has brought in John's epistle. But what an indictment against our race that the first boy ever born murdered his own brother.

Yes. I mean, you can hardly, you know, we're so familiar with the story that we're liable just to forget that point. To lose the force of it.

Yes. What wickedness. The first boy that was ever born and looked upon with pride and said, I've gotten a man from the Lord, was the first murderer.

Where in the New Testament do you read of two brothers? John chapter 1. Yes. Under grace, he first findeth his own brother and brought him to Jesus. Very nice.

You see? Lovely contrast. These are two brothers in the Old Testament slaying one another. But under grace, he first findeth.

Now, that's very nice. Thank you, Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker, can I finish John 8 now? Do.

The Lord told him, you're of your father, the devil. And then in verse 4, he says, and now you go about to kill me. Very good.

A man who has told you the truth. And he had said the deeds of your father. You will do.

That's right. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Now, I want us to move on a little. And notice now in verse 9, the Lord said unto Cain. And here is the Lord speaking to Cain again.

He spoke in verse 6 and we've traced that through. And now in verse 9, the Lord said unto Cain, where is Abel thy brother? And again, God knew exactly where he was. But he's wanting to bring Abel again to an admission of his guilt before God.

So he says now, 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 crown. Now, this is where we come back to what Mr. Oliver was pointing out in Hebrews chapter 11. We read of the blood of Christ and it's described like this.

It speaketh better things than that of Abel. Here we learn in this verse, the blood of Abel, it cried for vengeance. It cried for justice.

But the blood of Christ tells of pardon and forgiveness and deliverance. I believe it's Abel's blood, not the blood of the Lamb. No, no.

Men are making the blood of the Lamb, but it's Abel's blood. I think that's what we're saying. That's right, that's right.

See, the blood, the voice of thy brother's blood. It's quite clear whose blood it is. It's his brother's blood.

And it cried from the ground to God. That's right. There's something in that that's very... You're really rebelling against God, just like here.

You don't have that until chapter 9. That's right. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. And that came in before the law.

Yeah, and after the flood. And after the flood. So the point is there that it's really applicable from the word of God for today.

Yeah, because man is made in the image of God and you're rebelling really against God. We believe that, brother, but... The law will not. But our nation probably believes it only a very tiny bit.

But we believe in the structural principle, whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Our nation is entirely against this. But we believe the word of God teaches it.

Am I my brother's keeper? Just before I leave. Yes? It's nice to think that that first... That brother in John 1. Andrea. We said to him, am I my brother's keeper? He could say yes.

I have a brother. I'll bring him to Christ. I think that always appealed to me.

That's very nice. Yes, what Mr. Paisley is pointing out, of course, is that we have a responsibility for others. He was saying he had no responsibility.

He had none. But we have a responsibility for our brethren and for sinners as well. And you've shown that in the relationship between Andrew and Peter.

That's right. Thank you. We've lost the Elohim in this chapter, haven't we? What? We've lost the Elohim, the Triune God, and we've got the Lord, Jehovah, strictly.

Would you have an idea on that? Because all of a sudden it said the Lord God in the previous chapter, right on through, and over here the Lord said Jehovah said. But we have the Lord said in verse 9 and the Lord said in verse 6. That's Jehovah. That's Jehovah.

Now, I'm sorry I'm not quite with your question. All right. The word God is not here.

Oh, I see. You see, we've got... And I think... Now, I'm just making this as a suggestion. Yes.

We're speaking of a covenant-keeping God and every covenant has to be established by blood. It's a principle also that he's laying down. That's right.

Yes. You see that? But Jehovah is the covenant name, isn't it? That's it. That's what I'm saying.

All right. Good. Yes, that's helpful.

Thank you. I don't want to go... Well, we want to thank you for all your help. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Baker, just before you leave this, I'd like to ask about 1523. Where the Lord is addressing the Pharisees, again? Yes.

Calling them hypocrites and so on. Yes. And in the end, towards the chapter, before his lament is given over the city, over the... He says that the blood of righteous Abel... Yes.

From Zechariah to... I should maybe go back. Upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah and so on. That's it.

Yes. Now, what's your point? Why is the Lord raising this with Abel in that chapter? Why? Well, I take it that he's showing that right from the beginning, it's the nature of man that's being described and it's been seen right through the nation and the history of the nation. Their attitude of failure and sin and disobedience.

And he's picked out the very beginning, the very first human sin against man. You remember we said at the introduction that sin against God is in chapter three, but in chapter four we have the beginning of sin against man. Now, that's what he's talking about.

You're happy with that? Yes, I am. Now, can we move on a little because of our time? And notice now we have the curse. In these verses from 11 to 16, you remember we said, revealed, reviewed, refused.

Now, look at verse 11. Now thou art cursed from the earth. We have the statement of the curse brought upon the serpent in our previous Bible reading.

Now we have the curse brought upon man in this sense, particularly related to Cain, from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy blood as bread. Now, the earth was a cursed place already. So he had spread and sunk his brother's blood into a cursed creation.

An interesting point, isn't it? Now, when thou tell us the ground, see, the very ground from which he's talking about, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength. And here's a personal curse upon Cain. And so we read, a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be.

Cain said, my punishment is greater than I can bear. And so on. I'd like to hear.

Could I suggest that this is, forgive me for going back to any kind of science thing, but this is actually the very opposite of evolution. Because at the close of chapter three, they were to till the ground in the sweat of their brow, and it was to yield its bread to them, but also thorns and thistles and so forth. Whereas here, it seems to be something even worse.

It's going down. It's getting worse. And it's not going to yield its strength, even if he does labor it.

Exactly. And that's been continuous from that point to this. So you take it that this feature that is brought personally to Cain is general for all mankind.

Is that Romans 8? God subjected the creation to vanity? Yeah. Okay. Yes, that would fit all right.

And the millennium will be a reversal by the Lord Jesus Christ. When the sower will catch up with the reaper, how it goes there. Now we'd love more time to look at some of those great things.

You see what our brother Frankie T is bringing up? And it is important that it was said yesterday that God in that garden placed a man in absolute perfection at the beginning. The whole Edenic condition was beautiful. And it's a picture of the coming day when God will have a man in the garden.

We were speaking about this this morning elsewhere. He'll have a man in the garden. And that man will rule for God to glory.

But here the curse has come out of that. And you can see the very opposite as you are saying now. But one day it will be removed.

When that bondage of corruption is lifted in Romans 8. Because sons are manifest. Aye. And only after the blood that speaketh better things than Abel than that of Abel has been shed.

Exactly. Which was Calvary. Now keeping that in mind, Luke on.

Just because we are running a bit short of time now. We must go to that second section. And Cain said my punishment is greater than I can bear.

Now many of the translators and our own margin point my iniquity is greater than that it may be forgiven. And you would almost think that here is perhaps the first apostate. Yes.

He was of that wicked one. And he's refused. It's not that God has just condemned him.

But he's had another offer from God. And he's refused that. There's a seriousness here.

Would you agree with that? They've gone in the way of Cain. The way of Cain. That's why there is a way of Cain.

There is a way of Cain. It's the way of the apostate. Would you link that with Hebrews brother? That there remaineth no more sacrifice of sins.

I do. It's the apostate that you have in view. See what Mr. Hull is pointing out.

There are those difficult passages in the Hebrews. Peter speaks about our beloved brother Paul having written things which are hard to be understood. Now you come to those five parenthesis and they all speak about the apostasy.

That's the real apostasy of Jews who have listened to Christ, gone along with him and turned their backs and trodden underfoot the Son of God. I think that's the parallel. Now, so we have these words that Mr. Norman Crawford has already pointed out in verses 14.

And look at verse 15. And the Lord said, Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark.

Now the word is a sign. Upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.

Now I'm looking for some Kelpaw comment because I'm going to take you into the next section if I don't get it. Go ahead. It's just we want to finish the chapter right at the time.

Well, have you anything you want to say before we leave that? It was a mark of protection, wasn't it? It was. And why? Am I trying to intrude something that's not here? But there were going to be two lines, brother. There were.

See? Yes. And God was going to allow that line of Cain to continue. That's a good point.

Yeah. I think that is the answer. And that helps me with the end of the chapter too.

The godly line. That's right. There's a godly line and there's a non-godly line.

Yeah. I personally, I know we're not going to go into this, but I think that's the sons of God and the daughters of man. Oh, I do too.

Genesis 6. They're not angels coming down from heaven. I would have lots of other reasons as you would, but I think this is a fundamental. And just before we leave it, there was a son of God before the sons of God in Genesis 6, and I'm not thinking of Christ.

In Luke's Gospel, chapter 3, we read, Adam, which was the son of God. So that the Bible has a man called the son of God before it has an angel. You should develop that a little bit, brother.

Pardon me? You should develop that just to hear more what you mean. In other words, you're saying in Genesis 6, we have it in Toronto, but in Genesis 6, you're saying they are not angels. Definitely not.

I don't believe they're angels. Because the internet theologians are pandering this about, but I will just say that we don't believe they're angels. That's what I'm saying.

Because we were of one mind there. Yeah, that's it. Oh yeah, no, no, I don't for a moment believe they're angels.

I'll tell you one reason, and we can't stay with it, but let me say this. If I remember rightly, only 13 times in the book of Genesis we read of angels. Now, it seems strange on the basis of the law of first mention that they shouldn't even be called angels.

Do you follow my point? Yeah, every time. You wouldn't know who they are at all, the sons of God, until you go to the book of Job. I thought it was 10, but you're all right.

Pardon? I thought it was 10 times, but it's all right. Yeah, right. But it's good.

That's right. So what I'm saying is that you would have expected if they were angels, you would have got them in the right name. Could I just follow that a moment, brother? Adam was the son of God, a son of God.

Yes. Only the Lord Jesus is the son of God. Oh, of course.

He was a son of God. Let me follow it just for a moment. Cain broke that line.

God has restored the line in Seth. And that's why I think it's so obvious in chapter 6 that the sons of God were the godly line. Yeah.

But before that, I agree with that, but before that, that was my point in the introduction, that it's to me, and we're going to be struggling at the end, so I'll say it again now, that little preposition anti is very important in the stead of God was going to continue the godly line of Seth. To me, that's a very important thing. And so, when you come to Genesis 5, before you come to chapter 6, you've got now the generation, the book of the generations, the first book of generations is written in chapter 5. To me, that's very important.

All of that subscribes to this. That's right. Now, is there a principle here that in relation to this, the protection that's been referred to, that judgment is carried out by God, and it's not our place for the carrying out of judgment relative to situations like this, relative to those that have refused God? That's right.

But also, and I think he is protecting him, so that no one else will, as you are saying, will destroy that line that will be the continuation of those two lines. And that's God's purpose being achieved. Now let's come, please, into the second section.

And in that second section, we have said we have the descendants of Cain. And we can't stay too long with any of these things. But look at 17 to 22, this family and its features.

Cain knew his wife. Now, the perennial question has always been where did Cain get his wife? But of course, we must remember that it has been computed there were approximately 120,000 people on the earth by this time. When you look at the long years that had passed and the way the population had grown, so there's not really a problem even but we are not told.

And I was taught as a boy by my brethren that where God has been intentionally vague in the way that he puts truth out, we should stay vague. And where God has been certain, we should be certain. And the man who said it said this, our trouble is we're often vague when God is certain.

And we're certain when God is vague. And I think that's well worth remembering. I remembered it from being a boy.

Now, we're not told but we do know he got a wife. That's the point. So look, he's got his wife.

And she conceived and bear Enoch. And it's very interesting that when we come to this now that he built a city. So notice the first city.

But there's no direction from God to build a city. Then look again a little further and you come. You've got some names there.

And then you come to verse 19. And Lamech took two wives. Now God said therefore shall a man leave his father and shall be doiled unto his wife.

Singular. Not wives. So that we have a departure now in moral family practice.

Wives. And then look what he did. He called the one Ada and the other Zillah.

Ada means beauty. Zillah means shade. And there seems to be an emphasis now on the sensual.

And then you'll notice that Ada bear Jabal which is a wanderer. And then you come into the matter of tents. And then the father of such has handled the harp and organ.

And then you've got in verse 22 Jubal came an instructor of every artist in brass. Metallurgy has brought it. So you can see there's a departure from the simplicity of life that was introduced in Eden.

Brother, where do you have the cavemen in this story? Well, you'll have to tell me because I don't know. You must know where they are or you wouldn't be asking. No, the amazing thing is look at the skill.

Look at the technical skills of these people. Is that true? Yes. You know, it's true.

Archeology has proven this to be true to a degree that's almost beyond our imagination. In fact, the cavemen did exist. But they were people who had once had a very high level of civilization who their enemies tried to destroy.

They drove them into caves in the earth. They dwelt there because they had been removed from their place of high civilization. So actually, the further back you go in the antiquity of man, the higher the level of technological skill and advance.

It's just gone the opposite way. So the cavemen were a retrogression, not a development. No, we don't have any cavemen here.

As you said, David dwelt in a cave. David was a man of great priority and prestige in the nation, wasn't he? Yes. Is this the beginning of the world system here? It is.

The point of this city? And you can see the different parts of it, can't you? And you can see there's that formal side and there's the moral side. And it's all being developed with no direction from God. Man is moving out on this.

Now, God has allowed man his initiative. We've got to be very careful what we say about some of these things. I was in the large Harley Street conference.

You've been there many years ago in the old Kingston Hall. They had a thousand people. And there was a brother that year at the New Year just the time when they were going to the moon.

And he said, man will never get to the moon. He made this public statement and then he quoted the words of the psalmist. The earth hath he given to the children of men.

Well, it does say that. And in divine intention that's where God has meant to live and work. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't allow man to move outside and to do.

And this is what happened here. This was not necessarily I take it divine prerogative for them to do this. Would you agree with that? I was in Toronto in 1939 and a dear man got on the platform and said, mark my words.

Italy will never join in an alliance with Germany. It's against all the teachings of the word of God. So he wasn't out of the city until the axes were lined up.

You see, let's not try to become prophets. No, but my point is either we must understand my point there was that God sometimes allows man to move out of his sphere and to do things that he has not necessarily ordained for them. And I think that's what we're seeing in these verses.

His permissive will? His permissive will. His permissive will. Because what man has developed here in this section has really not been for his good.

Sure it hasn't. That's right. That's the point.

I think that's very much emphasized. So you can see there's the aesthetics, there's the arts, you know, there's music. You can see there's a lot of things here.

Now, these are not the scriptures to talk about music in the assembly. We should go to other parts where we can be clearer on it. But it's just showing the development of all these things here, isn't it? It's clear that it's there and clear that it's not there.

Pardon? It's clear that it's there and clear that it's not there. Oh, it should be clear that it's not for the assembly. Don't misunderstand me.

I'm just saying I think we do ourselves a disservice sometimes by going to passages like this instead of showing it belongs to Judaism and so on. We wouldn't have an altar and we wouldn't have robes, so neither would we have music. That's my sort of approach.

In Nebuchadnezzar's day, when the man would deify himself like he tried there, you got all the music and all that connected up with that. That's right. So you're right there.

This is just a little point of interest, and I know you have no time. Right. But there is a whole field of archaeology today.

It has a funny name. It's called Uparts. And it really means that there are artifacts that are totally out of their place so far as man's idea of the history of the nation is just concerned.

The only trouble is those so-called Uparts, out-of-place artifacts, Uparts comes from. And Uparts are actually thousands upon thousands of things like these instruments. In high advanced states, they go way back beyond man's idea of stone man and brass man or copper man, all the whole thing.

It's amazing. So actually there was tremendous advancement right at the beginning. Oh, yes.

And adding to Mr. Crawford's point, you think of the heir of the Chaldees that Abraham came out of. It is said that it was one of the most advanced civilizations with engineering and with the remarkable ability to build. a piece of science that they had adopted.

Abraham, some people think he just left a sort of cave-like existence. No, no. He left something that was very advanced.

The ziggurats of that city were so advanced that rocks that weighed thousands of tons were actually so sculptured that they fit together without being able to put a paper between them. How did they do it? Modern skill couldn't do it. They were far, far advanced.

Yes. Yes. Now, I'm going to take you out of that section, if you will, but we're not out of the complete thing, not the descendants of Cain, but out of that one on the family and its features.

And I'd like us to think for a moment about the family and its folly. I have in mind verses 23 and 24. Now notice what we read here.

And Lamech said to his wives, here's the man who had departed morally. Now, this is a serious thing. Here's the first evidence of moral deterioration.

And notice now, he's going to defend that, and he's speaking with pride. Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech. Hearken to my speech, for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.

And notice that he's actually making, if you like, another statement of defiance against God. And he's talking about the power of man. And don't we see this? Where there is moral deterioration, then you see the evil attitude that's in the heart and the pride of man that is introduced.

We see it in Nebuchadnezzar, he stands and looks over the whole great Babylon, you know. And you see the pride in the heart of man. Now here's Lamech, but I'm sure our brother have other things to introduce out of it as well.

Well, is he saying that he killed a young man in self-defense? Well, it's very hard to know exactly what he's saying, isn't it? The language has been questioned as to say that he would do it. There's one line of thought that says that the Hebrew supports the idea of his intention. But I think there's sufficient also in the language to say that he did commit murder.

And it seems to me that we have the second murderer here. That's what it appealed to me. Have you got a thought? I think so.

And he was justifying that he was justifying his own act as if it were even Creditable. Yes. Yes.

As if it was a credit to him of which he could boast. And he's linking it to Cain, you see. And I don't think Cain boasted.

No, he didn't. No, he didn't. But, not that we know of, but he does say if Cain shall be avenged, Lamech's truly 74.

So you can see that he's actually almost, we don't know about Cain boasting, but we do know, it does seem to suggest that he admired what Cain had done. And we live in a world where men have become to admire sin and to emulate it. So you can see a progression coming in.

Do you feel that Lamech says this or does God say this of him seven times 74? I had thought it was the words of Lamech, but do you feel it's the words of God? I thought it was, I thought it was, I thought it, Brother, excuse me, I thought it was Lamech's boast. That he was justified in his deed, I thought maybe that's what he was saying. I'm justified in my act.

So he's mocking God's judgment. That's right. And see, the judgment of Cain was so great that he said it's greater than I can bear.

Yes. Well, he's not accepting God's judgment on Cain and he said, and I certainly don't deserve such judgment at all because my deed is justified. Yes.

I thought that's what it was. And that's what that is doing is what we have in it is calling evil good. You see, that's calling evil good.

Isaiah 5. That's right. Brother, may I add a wee bit and just help me in it? Some have suggested that possibly this that you have this section here, Lamech said, it's almost in the form of a song. Portrait.

Portrait, you see. So it almost links to our present day when you look at it that way. The songs of the modern rock and everything else, always with murder and sensuality and all that sort of thing.

Yes. Commenced here, didn't it? And even more in what they call rap. Yes.

Which is really a description of vile deeds. This is what you have. I've learned a whole new language in this Bible, didn't I? Song of rebellion or poetry of rebellion against God.

I don't know too much about that music, thank God, but the only thing I can say, you get someplace sometime in this public, he's beating the same... I don't know, thank God for them good Italian singers, no matter what they're saying. But over there, they just keep singing one phrase over and over again and it's rap. Yes.

You know, and then they wonder where our kids go. But they say, they say that, I've heard people say that if you could play some of these records backward, there's an intense evil that comes out of it. In some way, subliminal message underneath.

Yeah, there is that sort of thing too. So this line ultimately develops itself right through the gospel account and so on. Yes.

Moves itself onward into the tribulation where the souls of them who are slain for the testimony of Jesus are under the altar. Yes. Chapter six.

It moves onward to the destruction of Babylon and her as the blood of saints. Yes. Then it moves ultimately on at last to chapter 20.

Our brother's pointing out that that line has been guarded and it still is existing today and it will go right to the end. Now, I'm going to ask you, because you can see what the clock is doing. You've awfully fast clocks here in the States, but there we are.

Look at verse 25 in closing and notice that we read, and Adam knew his wife, and she bared a son and called his name Seth. And for God said she hath appointed. You see the word Seth is to be appointed or placed.

He hath appointed or placed me another seed in the stead of Abel whom came slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son. So we're showing the continuation of the line, not just one son, but we're seeing it's continuing and that brings in the principle of continuation.

Called his name Enos. Then men began to call or call themselves by the name of the Lord. Now I know some believe that this is the first evidence of prayer, but I don't think that's so much the idea.

I do think it's calling themselves by the name of the Lord. Hence, many of our brethren, I take it, I've never read it, but I take it, that's why they've called, talked about the godly line of Seth, you see, called by the name of the Lord. Would you? I agree with that 100%.

Identification. Identification with the Lord. So that when you come to chapter 6, which we can't flesh out tonight, the sons of God, the daughters of man, the sons of God went in onto the daughters of man.

You can see two lines there. Once the genealogy of the book of generation has been written, that's the next thing that comes in. In contrast to the naming of Venus, means real mortal man, in contrast to the pride of Alamic and so forth.

Excellent. That's very good. The humility side of confession.

There's a question that has been asked by a number of people, so maybe you can make just a small comment on it. What... Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. Right? It says that, I think, in the next chapter.

Okay. Is that 130 years from coming out of Eden? Or is that 130 years from his creation? I think that's one of those things that God has thrown a veil over, isn't it? Have you got a problem? No, I don't know how long he was in Eden. We don't know how long he was in Eden.

I think that's the answer to that. So we've got to leave it. But 130 years, let's go back to what you said about the population growth.

Yes. 130 years? I'm not a mathematician, but exponential multiplication is obviously in the story. It is.

So you have almost a populated earth by this time. You do. Verse 4 you see of chapter 5. The days of Adam after he begot himself were 800 years, and he begot sons and daughters.

But of course there was progeny before that. Yes. Well... In the beginning she says I've gotten an aunt, he's first, he and I were set, she says for the Lord, she said for God.

That's good brother. That's very good. God hath appointed me another seed.

And she's not, and yes, and maybe it is, that's a very good point I hadn't thought of, that she, I think you're suggesting she's confessing that she doesn't have that relationship. She's dependent He's dependent upon God and not sort of boasting of a covenant relationship. That's a very interesting answer.

Well, I want to thank the brethren for their help. Thank you.