Cain Slays Abel and Lamech Boasts: The first siblings are unable to live in harmony. Hatred propels Cain to murder his own brother. The tragic, brute power of sin also finds expression in Lamech’s boasting song, in which he brazenly gloats over a wanton killing while pronouncing threats against others. These incidents illustrate how Adam and Eve’s disobedience unleashed sin as a destructive power in society and brought death into the world.
This chapter has four parts: the births of Cain and Abel (vv. 1–2a), Cain’s murder of Abel (vv. 2b–16), Cain’s genealogy (vv. 17–24), and the birth of Seth (vv. 25–26). Eve glories in her achievement by naming her first (v. 1) and third sons (v. 25). The reports of Eve’s giving birth thus frame the portrait of Cain’s family. Reports of the birth of new life surround the hideous stories of hatred and murder, showing that God’s grace triumphs over human wickedness.
Two other factors tie together the diverse elements of this chapter: Cain’s genealogy and the several occurrences of the number seven, a sacred number that symbolizes completeness or wholeness. The punishment against anybody who kills Cain is set at seven times (v. 15), and Lamech brags of taking vengeance seventy-seven times (v. 24). The genealogy focuses on Lamech, the seventh generation from Adam. Further, in verses 1–17 “Abel” and “brother” occur seven times each, while “Cain” occurs fourteen times (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 96).
The dramatic movement of Cain’s act of aggression parallels the flow of action in the preceding account of the first humans’ eating the forbidden fruit. Humans disobey God (4:8; 3:6), God questions those involved (4:9–10; 3:9–13), God pronounces sentence (4:11–12; 3:14–19), God redefines aspects of the way humans relate to each other (4:15; 3:21), and God banishes the offenders from their original habitations (4:14, 16; 3:23–24). Moreover, the vignettes in chapter 4 disclose consequences that grew out of Adam and Eve’s disobedience. Outside the garden death becomes a part of human experience, but in a very different way than anticipated. The first generation experiences death not as a penalty (2:17) but as a malevolent force destroying the innocent (4:8, 14, 15, 23, 25). The first recorded death is inflicted by one brother against another brother. The theme of an older brother’s hostility toward a younger brother recurs throughout Genesis: Ishmael’s taunting of Isaac (21:9–10), Esau’s threatened vengeance against Jacob (27:41–45), and Jacob’s sons’ plotting to eliminate Joseph (37:20–28). Possibly another death is reported in Lamech’s song; then an adult kills a youth.
4:1 The narrative opens with a triumphant report of the birth of the first human. Adam lay with (lit. “knew”) . . . Eve. She conceived and bore a man. Building on the sound of Hebrew qanah (“gain, acquire”), which sometimes means “give birth, produce” (e.g., Exod. 15:16; Ps. 74:2; 78:54; Prov. 8:22), the child was named Cain (qayin). Eve proclaimed proudly that she had brought forth or acquired (qaniti) a man. She identified the newborn as “a man” rather than as “a son” or “a child.” She made a wordplay based on her having been taken from “a man” (’ish) and thus called “a woman” (’ishah; 2:23); now she, a woman, had borne “a man” (’ish). She also emphasized that this child was a continuation of humanity. The most likely interpretation of the difficult ’et Yhwh (NIV “with the help of the LORD”) is “together with.” Thus Eve, rejoicing in her fertility, claimed to stand alongside Yahweh in her role as the mother of all the living (3:20).
4:2a Eve bore a second son, named Abel (hebel). In contrast to the joy at Cain’s birth there is no mention of either Eve’s delight at Abel’s birth or her naming him (vv. 2, 25, 26). This lack of any reference to her bonding with the newborn, along with the symbolic name Abel, which means “breath, vapor, transitory” (Job 7:16; Eccl. 1:2), foreshadows this child’s fate. When hebel is used for human life, it captures the sense of worthlessness that daunts human existence, made even more pronounced by its brevity (Ps. 144:4). Being but “a vapor,” Abel has no words recorded, and his only action is to bring an offering. His lack of offspring adds to the insignificance of his life.
4:2b–7 The account of Cain’s murdering Abel has four scenes: Cain and Abel present offerings (vv. 2b–5); God warns Cain (vv. 6–7); Cain murders Abel (v. 8); and God punishes Cain (vv. 9–16). In stark contrast to the relatively lengthy exchanges between Cain and God, a single verse describes the murder. Before the murder God warned Cain about yielding to the dangerous impulse within him. After the murder God questioned Cain and then pronounced punishment on him, but Cain asked for some reprieve and God agreed. The alternation of the names of the two brothers communicates the changing mood: the sequence Cain-Abel-Abel-Cain occurs twice in verses 1–5a; Cain’s name occurs by itself twice in verses 5b–7, followed by the pattern of Cain-Abel, which occurs three times in verses 8–9.
The first brothers developed two different professions (v. 2b). Abel became a shepherd, Cain a farmer. This raises the question as to whether the conflict between Cain and Abel is between two brothers or a class conflict between two different ways of life. Nothing in the text supports the latter position. Neither occupation is vaunted nor condemned. If God had favored one of these occupations, it would have been Cain’s since he worked the ground, the task God had prescribed for humans (2:5, 15).
After the two brothers began to prosper, each presented an offering (minkhah) to God. Their offerings were similar to the first-fruits the Israelites presented to God (Deut. 26:2–4). Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil, but Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The brothers worshiped God in simplicity, for there is no mention of a shrine, an altar, or a ritual.
Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but not on Cain’s. The text does not state why Yahweh chose Abel’s offering over Cain’s, nor how the brothers knew that Yahweh favored Abel’s offering. The answer to the first question might lie in the nature of the gifts, in the respective dispositions of the brothers, or in the freedom of Yahweh. Those who take the reason to lie in the nature of the gifts posit that a member of the flock made a superior offering over produce from the ground because of the animal’s blood. However, if the brothers were offering firstfruits, blood was not of primary importance. The sacrificial legislation (Lev. 1–7) shows that God valued and required offerings of both animals and grain. The term “an offering” (minkhah) is used for both presentations; thus the narrator makes no qualitative distinction between the offerings. Therefore, the reason God accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s had nothing to do with the nature of the gifts. Neither did the reason lie arbitrarily in God’s freedom, for after the offerings God graciously spoke to Cain about how he could be accepted (v. 7).
One can conclude only that God was responding to a difference in the attitudes of the brothers. The text lauds the high quality of Abel’s offering with two phrases, “the firstborn” and “the fat.” These terms convey that Abel gave the best to God; he acknowledged God’s lordship over his flock and the increase of his labor. He also anticipated the later legislation that required the people to bring God the firstlings of the flock(Exod. 13:11–13) and the firstfruits (Exod. 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26). In presenting the first to God, the owner consecrated the entire crop or flock; God then released the rest of the harvest or the offspring of the flock to the owner for his own use. Whereas Abel honored God as Lord with his offering, Cain simply brought an offering. Apparently the firstborn of humans failed to offer the firstfruits of his harvest. An ancient Israelite audience would have quickly noticed this distinction in the two offerings.
How did Yahweh make known his acceptance of Abel’s offering? The question calls our attention to the fact that the narrative is tightly condensed, providing limited details and virtually no time references. Although the text offers no clue, many scholars have proposed answers to this question. Medieval Jewish commentators supposed that fire came from heaven and consumed Abel’s sacrifice. U. Cassuto (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, vol. 1, From Adam to Noah: A Commentary on Genesis I–VI 8 [trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961], p. 207) speculates that after this ceremony Yahweh blessed Abel’s flocks but not the ground that Cain worked. This proposal has the merit of the brothers’ discovering God’s response to their offerings as they continued to labor. If such was the case, there would have been a significant time lapse between the presentation of these offerings and the subsequent murder.
In response to Yahweh’s favoring Abel’s offering, Cain became very angry, and his face became downcast. It is easy to imagine that, having been bested by his younger brother, whom he considered to be less than himself and whose profession he despised, Cain was despondent, filled with contempt for Abel. This setback, instead of leading him to contrition, embittered him toward his brother. His jealousy had to be dealt with before it led him to do something terribly wrong.
Because Cain harbored such hatred, Yahweh mercifully spoke to him, putting to Cain a double question: why was he angry and why was his face downcast? Yahweh alerted Cain that his reaction was too negative. Yahweh did not condemn Cain for his offering. While Cain had erected a small barrier between himself and God, he had not done irreparable damage to that relationship.
Yahweh then challenged Cain by setting before him two alternatives. First, if Cain would do what was right, would he not be accepted? As far as Yahweh was concerned, Cain needed to demonstrate greater devotion in his future offerings. Second, Yahweh alerted him to the danger of not doing what was right, saying that if he did not do what was right, sin was crouching at his door. While “lie or crouch” (rabats) usually has a restful connotation (29:21; Ps. 23:2), it also describes the lurking of a wild animal poised to pounce on its prey. “At the door “ means that sin was so close that Cain had to deal with it; its desire was for him. “Desire” or “urge” (teshuqah) means strong attraction or drive such as a woman feels for a man (3:16). Cain needed to master this sin that impelled him to express his bitter feelings by attacking another. In this warning Yahweh offered Cain the hope that he could control this impulse to commit sin, even though it was strong. Should Cain act wrongfully, it would be because he yielded to the desire of sin, not because God had rejected his offering.
4:8 Some time later Cain made an appointment with Abel to meet him in a field, a remote place that offered the sense of privacy. In the field Cain spoke with Abel, but the MT records none of that conversation. So various sources, including some of the versions, have supplied a speech. On the basis of the Septuagint (or LXX, the earliest Greek translation of the Hebrew OT, ca. 250 B.C.) the NIV reads, Let’s go out to the field. Given the outcome, the conversation must have been far from civil. We can imagine that Cain dominated the conversation as he expressed his anger to his brother. Cain, yielding to the impulse to sin, attacked and killed Abel. The Hebrew for “attack” (qum, lit. “rise up”) makes a play on the description of Cain’s “fallen face” and echoes Yahweh’s warning about sin’s “crouching, lurking.” Like an animal Cain sprang against Abel, destroying his prey. Brazenly he walked away, leaving Abel’s body lying on the ground.
4:9–10 Since this first murder took place in the primeval age, Yahweh acted as judge and held Cain accountable (Deut. 21:1). Yahweh asked pointedly, Where is your brother Abel? This simple question strikes at the heart of the matter. Cain answered curtly with a lie, I don’t know. His answer contrasts with Adam’s after he ate the forbidden fruit. Adam admitted what he had done, though he cast blame directly on Eve and indirectly on God (3:12). Irritated by Yahweh’s question, Cain sought to silence the questioner and remove himself from any responsibility with a sarcastic, rhetorical question, Am I my brother’s keeper? Despite the question, which anticipates a negative answer, Cain, disgusted at being questioned about his brother, betrayed his disdain for Abel and his disregard of any filial responsibility for his brother. His use of “keeper” is also telling. Animals, not humans, need “keepers” (P. Riemann, “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?” Int 24 [1970], pp. 482–91). By phrasing the question so sarcastically, Cain coldly rejected the principle that a brother bears responsibility for his brother. Ideally the first line of support in a family comes from the older to the younger; when a younger brother gets into a difficulty that threatens his existence or his property, the older brother acts to deliver him (Lev. 25:25, 47–49). But in the first family, the older brother was so angry at his younger brother that he killed him.
Yahweh refused to entertain Cain’s question, making him confront his responsibility for such an appalling deed by asking, What have you done? Yahweh then surprised Cain by telling him that there was a witness to his deed. His brother’s blood was crying out to God from the ground. It was believed that uncovered human blood cried out for vengeance against the murderer. If no one heard the cry, God was obligated to redress the wrong.
4:11–12 As judge, Yahweh pronounced Cain’s punishment. Yahweh put Cain under a curse that drove him from the ground that had received his brother’s blood. This curse was different from the punishments of the first human pair. God made an aspect of Adam and Eve’s livelihood harder, but he caused Cain to be alienated from the support of the land, thus consigning him to become a restless wanderer. This curse struck at Cain’s self-identity; banishment from the soil was almost as harsh as taking his life.
4:13–14 In contrast to Adam and Eve, who did not speak out against their punishments, Cain exclaimed that his punishment was more than he could bear. He complained bitterly about being driven from the land, being hidden from God’s presence, and becoming a restless wanderer. He feared that anyone he met might kill him. In his complaint Cain showed no remorse for his crime, not even to God. Did Cain request mitigation of his punishment? Not precisely, for the last statement of his lament—“whoever finds me will kill me”—added an outcome fearful to Cain, though not mentioned by Yahweh. Cain requested removal of the continual threat that someone might kill him to avenge Abel’s death.
4:15 Yahweh responded to Cain’s complaint, saying definitively, Not so. Yahweh put a mark or a sign on Cain that would prevent anyone from taking his life (Exod. 12:13). The mark must have been visible so that anyone coming upon Cain would at once be aware of the protection Cain was under. This mark condemned and simultaneously protected Cain; whoever killed Cain would suffer vengeance seven times over. That is, the slayer would be judged to the fullest measure.
It is astonishing that Yahweh did not sentence Cain, the first murderer, to death. Instead, seeing value in Cain’s life, God graciously let him live. God does not give up quickly even on those who flagrantly violate another’s life. God provides them continuing protection.
4:16 Cain left Yahweh’s presence, the source of blessing and support. Because his sin alienated him from God, he went to live in a land named Nod. This name makes a pun on the verb “to wander” (nud). The location of Nod is given as east of Eden. Cain was driven farther away from the ideal garden where God had put the first humans, symbolizing that he was further away from fellowship with God.
4:17–22 The genealogy of Cain includes references to the first human inventions (vv. 17b, 20b, 21, 22) and Lamech’s boasting song (vv. 23–24). Humans took up a variety of occupations, including city building, herding, metal working, and playing musical instruments. The creativity of humans led them to invent new patterns for supporting life, artistic works to enhance the human spirit, and technologies for coping with the harsh environment in which they now lived. Recording human achievements in a genealogy demonstrates the vitality in the human spirit blessed by God (C. Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary [trans. J. Scullion; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984], p. 61). This creative activity, then, was an expression of humans’ being made in God’s image and aided humans in carrying out God’s commands to fill the earth and to manage it.
Protected by the mark, Cain proceeded to produce offspring. We may surmise that Cain married one of his sisters. Their firstborn was Enoch, and Cain built a city and named it . . . Enoch. The building of a city informs us that the population had begun to increase significantly.
Lamech married two women, . . . Adah and . . . Zillah. Thus he introduced polygamy. Lamech had three sons: Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain, and they form the seventh generation in the lineage of Cain. These names are built on the Hebrew term yebul (“produce”) to highlight their talents as progenitors of new occupations (Wenham, Genesis 1–15, p. 112). Jabal became the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock (miqneh). After Abel’s death Jabal advanced shepherding. He became the founder of the nomadic way of life and expanded his herds to include large live-stock such as cattle and donkeys, as the term miqneh indicates, and would have been in a position to engage in trading. Jubal became the father of all who play the harp and flute, stringed and wind instruments. There is a play on the sound of his name (yubal) and that of “ram’s horn” (yobel). Jubal might also have been involved in composing music. Tubal-Cain became the lead master craftsman, developing the technology for forging all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Although working with iron was not common until 1200 B.C., some ancients worked with small amounts of iron found in meteorites.
4:23–24 Lamech composed a song, presumably to be sung accompanied by instruments that his son Jubal had made. It was a taunt song in which he bragged about a gruesome deed. After exhorting his two wives to listen to his song, Lamech boasted about killing a man for wounding him. Without restraint he had struck a young man for only injuring him. If one takes the second line as synonymous to the first, Lamech claimed to have killed one person, not two. One view, based on the verbs being imperfect, holds that Lamech was only boasting about what he would do to anyone who injured him. In any case Lamech displayed contempt for the value of human life.
In contrast to Cain, who sought protection from Yahweh, Lamech shamelessly boasted as he threatened with vengeance anybody who would hold him accountable, up to seventy-seven times. This number symbolizes the utmost extent. J. Gabriel (“Die Kainitengenealogie: Gn 4, 17–24,” Bib 40 [1959], pp. 422–23) posits that Lamech made such an outrageous boast because he had available to him new weapons forged by Tubal-Cain. In arrogance he had no regard for the standard of justice as expressed in the phrase “an eye for an eye, a life for a life” (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:19–20). He claimed to be his own law. This song reveals that with the rise of culture the human thirst for violence increases dramatically. The threat to human existence then becomes the abuse of human inventiveness.
4:25 At this point the narrative returns to Adam and Eve to introduce a new genealogical line of those who worship Yahweh. Adam lay with (lit. “knew”) Eve again, and she gave birth to a son. She named him Seth. Eve rejoiced, saying that God had granted her a son in place of Abel. The verb shat (“grant”) is a play on the sound of the name Seth, shet. This time her rejoicing was more from consolation at the loss of Abel than from triumph (v. 1). Seth . . . had a son, whom he named . . . Enosh, another Hebrew term for “man” that tends, however, to emphasize human frailty and mortality.
4:26 Members of Seth’s lineage began to call on the name of Yahweh (12:8; 13:4; 21:33; 26:25). From the early days of humans’ living outside the garden of Eden there was a line who worshiped the one true God. Their devotion was an antidote to the increasing sin in Cain’s line. Whereas Cain’s line contributed to the arts and crafts, Seth’s line developed true worship.
Additional Notes
4:1 The etymology of “Cain” is uncertain. It has often been taken to mean “smith,” but Tubal-Cain is credited with being the head of that profession (v. 22). While qayin means “lance” (NIV has “spearhead”) in 2 Sam. 21:16, it is not the primary Hb. term for “smith.” In Judg. 4:11 this term is a gentilic (an adjective formed from a noun to describe a people group) for the tribe of Kenites (Num. 24:22). Consequently, some scholars have proposed a relationship between Cain and that tribe. This claim, however, is hard to substantiate, especially in light of the flood’s wiping out all humans. Cassuto (From Adam to Noah, pp. 197–98) associates Cain with the Aram. and Arab. terms to mean “one formed, a creature.”
The phrase ’et Yhwh (“with Yahweh”) is very difficult. The particle ’et usually indicates the direct object, in which case Yahweh would be in apposition to Cain, identifying Cain as the son God had promised Eve—even God himself (3:15). Others interpret this grammar to identify Cain as a divine-human creature, but such a view would be anomalous for the monotheistic outlook of Gen. 1–11. Some take ’et to mean “with the help of” (so NIV), but only here would it have that meaning. The best option, drawing from Akk., interprets ’et to mean “together with” (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, p. 291).
4:3–4 The narrow meaning of the term minkhah is a grain offering (Lev. 2). If that were its usage here, Cain’s offering would have been acceptable, especially if it were the grain of the firstfruits (Lev. 2:14; Deut. 26:1–4). But frequently this term refers to offerings in general.
4:7 This verse is filled with exegetical difficulties. The subject “sin” (fem.) is not in agreement with the verb “crouch, lie” (rbts). Some translators have solved this problem by taking the verb as a substantive. Then “crouching, being on the lurk” stands in apposition to sin: “there is at the door sin, (namely) being on the lurk” (E. van Wolde, “The Story of Cain and Abel: A Narrative Study,” JSOT 52 [1991], pp. 31–32).
4:13 ’awon, rendered “punishment” by NIV, means either “iniquity” or “guilt or punishment” for an iniquity. Since it occurs here after the crime, the best rendering is “punishment.” Nasa’ means “bear,” but in certain texts it has the nuance “forgive.” Since the latter usage occurs primarily in cultic texts and since Cain gave no evidence of seeking forgiveness, “bear” is the preferred interpretation here (F. Golka, “Cain and Abel: Biblical or Dogmatic Interpretation,” ScrB 19 [1989], pp. 29–32).
4:15 The NIV follows the versions in reading “not so.” The MT reading, “therefore,” is very difficult to understand.
4:17 The simplest reading of the Hb. text takes Enoch to be the builder. But why would he name a city after himself? It seems better to take Cain as the builder (so NIV); however, he had been condemned to endless wandering. A possible explanation is that after years of wandering Cain built a city in order to cope with that curse. Another possible explanation is that the original name of the city became displaced by Enoch’s name. The text would then have read: “Enoch built a city and called it after his son’s name, Irad.”
4:21 “Harp” is more precisely identified as a lyre. The term rendered “flute” (’ugab) has not been identified beyond question. In Arabian history both musical skills and the breeding of flocks are attributed to nomads, who were known for providing minstrels to entertain city dwellers (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, p. 331). However, Cain’s genealogy does not explicitly state that Jubal lived in tents.
4:22 It is possible to understand the Hb. to say that Tubal-Cain hammered these metals into tools. Another reading of the Hb. takes him to be an instructor of artisans who made tools. Perhaps he was a bronzesmith and a craftsman of iron. Moreover, archaeologists have discovered in Egypt and Mesopotamia iron objects that date from the third millennium B.C. and that are made from smelted iron (G. Hasel, “Iron,” ISBE 2:880).
Naamah means “pleasant, graceful, lovely.” But if the name comes from the root n-’-m (“sing,” Syr. and Arab.), she was a “singer” (Gabriel, “Die Kainintengeneaologie,” p. 418), a talent that would complement that of her brother.
Excursus: A Note on Culture
Israel’s neighbors had myths that attributed most inventions and discoveries to the gods. In Mesopotamian mythology, civilization began among the gods; when humans were finally created, they were placed in a well-ordered society. Some cultures had myths that related how certain gods taught humans the various trades and crafts. In Egypt, Osiris taught the way of farming; in Greece, Prometheus gave humans the skill of making fire.
In other epics there are stories about a god making something superior and giving it to a favored human. Kothar-Hasis, the Canaanite who was a master craftsman and skilled architect, made a special bow for Aqhat, Danel’s son; on another occasion he made two clubs for Baal in his battle against Yam (the Sea). After Baal’s victory over Yam, Kothar-Hasis built a palace for the victor.
By contrast, the Bible teaches from the outset that work is a central aspect of the responsibilities humans have as God’s representatives on earth. God placed the first man in the garden and assigned him the task of tilling and keeping the garden. Outside the garden Cain worked the soil, and Abel tended flocks of sheep and goats (Gen. 4).
In Cain’s lineage there are references to several cultural developments. Jabal advanced animal husbandry; Jubal was a musician. By providing an avenue for humans to give expression to their thoughts and feelings, music enhances the quality and depth of human lives. This reference to music anticipates the spectrum of artistic skills that humans come to master.
In another line from Cain, Tubal-Cain discovered the process for making tools out of bronze and iron. The development of metallurgy led to the production of better tools for working the soil and for the construction of larger and stronger buildings. Through these advances in technology societies placed more and more land into food production, thereby promoting an increased population.
Human creativity continued after the flood. Noah learned how to grow vines and make wine. The first vintner gave humans a means for giving their tired spirits rest. Nimrod is credited with the development of hunting (10:9). Early monarchs like Gilgamesh bragged about killing large animals. In the earliest days, though, these heroic leaders hunted primarily to protect their realms from being terrorized by ferocious animals. Hunting did not develop into a sport until much later (Westermann, Genesis 1–11, p. 516).
As people began to multiply, they formed cities. The founding of the first city is attributed to Cain or Enoch (4:17). In that Cain was a farmer, as opposed to a nomad, city organization was connected with sedentary life.
New building materials, such as sun-dried bricks, and progress in architectural design enabled humans to build massive structures, such as attested in the account of the Tower of Babel (11:1–9). This episode bears witness to the human drive to gather in cities.
Besides offering security, cities provided people with opportunities to gain wealth, to develop special talents, and to enjoy goods produced in other parts of the earth. As cities grew, great civilizations developed, particularly in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Major cities became the hubs of these civilizations. The strongest cities extended their authority over the surrounding region, forming city-states. This eventually led to the formation of empires. In the Table of Nations, Nimrod is honored as the founder of an empire (10:10–12).
Technological advances also contributed to the building of cities. However, the human flaws of selfishness and greed gave people the potential to use these advances in a way that threatened the very urban centers that fostered the new technology. The human proclivity to adapt their inventions to inflict harm on others might lie behind Lamech’s boasting so brazenly about his ability to kill scores of people. History attests a tribe or city-state using a new technology to make better weapons with which one people extended its control over a wider area.
Disaster can also befall a city if its leaders focus the majority of a community’s resources on a project designed to become a perpetual monument of that society’s greatness. Such projects may place so great a demand on that society’s citizens that many become slaves to the project. As a result, human life is devalued. Or humans may become so arrogant about the monuments they build that God must bring some kind of judgment on that cultural center, as was the case with the Tower of Babel (11:1–9). Or the citizens of a city may use the urban environment for advancing the pursuit of pleasure, as was the case in Sodom (13:13; 18:20–21). Thus cities can develop such a self-sufficient culture that their citizens come to live without regard for either God or high moral standards. Cities then have the potential of becoming centers of rebellion against God. In extreme cases like Sodom and Gomorrah, God was moved to judge such centers of wickedness (18:20–21; 19:24–25).
