What does Genesis 4:21 teach us about music?

Forum category

Having finished reading the Bible yesterday, I began reading it again today and read Genesis 1-4. Genesis 4:21 is the earliest recorded instance of human musical activity on the earth:

Genesis 4:21 And his brother’s name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

What truths does this verse teach us about music?

Discussion

[pvawter]

Of course you can. Genesis 4 cannot be separated from Genesis 3 both because it follows immediately in context and because Moses uses linguistic and thematic keys to tie the passages together.

Gen. 3:15 includes the promise of that woman’s seed crushing the serpent’s head, and Eve refers to it when she names Cain. Clearly she expected her firstborn to conquer the serpent, setting the stage for a great spiritual battle.

Then in 4:7 Yahweh pointed Cain back to the consequences of the fall when he used the same words for desire and rule that he used in the curse of his mother in 3:17.

These are not obscure references but clear connections that Moses intended his readers to get. They demonstrate that Cain’s murder of Abel was more than a mere fit of rage but the next round in Satan’s war to dethrone God. Not only do we not need John to tell us that Satan was involved, we have every reason to believe that John was picking up on the cues Moses left when he said Cain was of the devil.

“Curse on his mother in 3:17”? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed.

[RajeshG]

“Curse on his mother in 3:17”? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed.

So is it just the semantic use of the word “cursed” that you disagree with from pvawter’s statement? Would it be more appropriate to say “punished” instead of “cursed”?

[RajeshG]

Unless we have explicit evidence of divine deliverance being provided to them, we are to hold that they, like Cain, were evil people who were in bondage to the evil one.

Doesn’t this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

“Curse on his mother in 3:17”? I do not see anything in 3:17 that says that Eve was cursed. God said that the ground was cursed, not Eve. Earlier, He said that the serpent was cursed, but He never says explicitly that either Adam or Eve were cursed.

So is it just the semantic use of the word “cursed” that you disagree with from pvawter’s statement? Would it be more appropriate to say “punished” instead of “cursed”?

The Spirit chose not to use the word “cursed” when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Unless we have explicit evidence of divine deliverance being provided to them, we are to hold that they, like Cain, were evil people who were in bondage to the evil one.

Doesn’t this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

No, I do not think so. Cain’s line began with someone who openly rejected God and went out from His presence, but it seems that people in Seth’s line had access to the knowledge of the true God all along. In the middle of Seth’s line, we find Enoch who walked with God for 300 years! We do not read of anyone in Cain’s line who ever knew the true God.
By the time of Noah, however, it is true that Seth’s line had apparently also so turned from God that only Noah and his family found grace in the sight of God. Genesis 6 relates that something (interpreters disagree what 6:1-2 signifies) happened at some point that brought great defilement to Seth’s line. Based on the information that is available to us, we have reason to think that Cain’s line was perverse throughout their history.

[RajeshG]

The Spirit chose not to use the word “cursed” when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

Rajesh, I believe this technique is called “deflection.” Whether you call it “judgment” or “punishment” or “the course of sin” is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

[pvawter]
RajeshG wrote:

The Spirit chose not to use the word “cursed” when speaking of Adam and Eve, but He did use it for the serpent, the ground, and Cain. I think that difference is significant. Adam and Eve were judged by God for what they did; saying that they were punished also seems appropriate to me.

Rajesh, I believe this technique is called “deflection.” Whether you call it “judgment” or “punishment” or “the course of sin” is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

Wrong. There is no “deflection” here. Had we not had 1 John 3:12, many people would be screaming “eisegesis,” “speculation,” etc. had someone asserted specifically that the devil influenced Cain to murder Abel.

I disagree with your assertion about what Moses “clearly established” and the analysis that you offer to support that he did so. I have never heard anyone else make such a claim about what Moses wrote in Genesis 3-4, etc. It will be interesting to see how many exegetical commentaries, if any, back up your assertion about what Moses “clearly established.”

Whether you call it “judgment” or “punishment” or “the course of sin” is irrelevant to the fact that Moses clearly established the Satanic influence on Cain to which the apostle John refers.

Rajesh still haven’t definitely proven that Satan’s influence on Cain has anything to do with Jubal’s music in 4:21. Furthermore, Jubal is at least six generations away from Cain himself and may not have even known him at all:

Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe.

So Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech > Jabal and Jubal. I should also note that we’re still a ways off from the Noahic flood in Genesis 6.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[RajeshG]

Wrong. There is no “deflection” here. Had we not had 1 John 3:12, many people would be screaming “eisegesis,” “speculation,” etc. had someone asserted specifically that the devil influenced Cain to murder Abel.

I disagree with your assertion about what Moses “clearly established” and the analysis that you offer to support that he did so. I have never heard anyone else make such a claim about what Moses wrote in Genesis 3-4, etc. It will be interesting to see how many exegetical commentaries, if any, back up your assertion about what Moses “clearly established.”

So your response is “I’ve never heard it before” and “we need to see if the commentaries back it up”? That’s neither an argument, nor a refutation.

All I did was connect the dots that Moses wrote in the context of Genesis 3-4 without appealing to the NT. Anyone could do that, and that was Moses’ intent. We don’t need 1 John to tell us what Moses meant. If we did, then there would be no way for anyone to properly understand Genesis until some 1400 years after the fact. John was connecting to what was already there, not adding something new and novel. Again, the issue here is hermeneutics.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

Doesn’t this apply equally to both lines? After all, at the time of Noah, there was only one family that was provided deliverance. Everyone else, from both lines, was in rebellion to God, and thus was in bondage to the evil one.

No, I do not think so. Cain’s line began with someone who openly rejected God and went out from His presence, but it seems that people in Seth’s line had access to the knowledge of the true God all along. In the middle of Seth’s line, we find Enoch who walked with God for 300 years! We do not read of anyone in Cain’s line who ever knew the true God.

BOTH Cain’s line and Seth’s line began with someone who openly disobeyed God and went out from His presence. Adam was the first sinner after all. Isn’t it significant that in Seth’s line, as recorded in Genesis 5, there is only one person who is specifically described as following God?

Let’s back to Jubal. Let’s assume that he was 10 times more wicked than Cain. Would knowing how wicked he was tell us anything about music? We have the information that he was the father of those who play certain instruments, but does that information become significant in some way by the knowledge that Jubal was wicked?

[pvawter]

All I did was connect the dots that Moses wrote in the context of Genesis 3-4 without appealing to the NT. Anyone could do that, and that was Moses’ intent. We don’t need 1 John to tell us what Moses meant. If we did, then there would be no way for anyone to properly understand Genesis until some 1400 years after the fact. John was connecting to what was already there, not adding something new and novel. Again, the issue here is hermeneutics.

The NT has many instances where it illumines what was revealed in the OT by providing information that no one reading just the OT would have known. If that does not fit in your approach to hermeneutics, your approach to interpreting the Bible is flawed.

[Kevin Miller]

BOTH Cain’s line and Seth’s line began with someone who openly disobeyed God and went out from His presence. Adam was the first sinner after all. Isn’t it significant that in Seth’s line, as recorded in Genesis 5, there is only one person who is specifically described as following God?

A key difference between the two lines that you have not accounted for in what you say here is that God redeemed Adam and Eve after they fell. We see Abel, their son, offering righteous worship to God after the Fall.
By contrast, we do not see any repentance on Cain’s part, and he rejected God’s redemption that was so graciously offered to him. No successor of Cain is spoken of as godly and Lamech was openly and profoundly a wicked man.
Concerning Seth’s line, there was not just “one person who is specifically described as following God”: Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

[RajeshG]

Concerning Seth’s line, there was not just “one person who is specifically described as following God”: Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

If you look at my post again, you’ll see I specifically said, “as recorded in Genesis 5.” In that chapter, only one person is specifically described as following God. Chapter six starts the account of Noah’s faithfulness, but it does seem significant to me that prior to Noah, only one person from Seth’s line is mentioned as following God. In sure most of the others did, but the Spirit chose not to tell us.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

Concerning Seth’s line, there was not just “one person who is specifically described as following God”: Enoch was a superlatively godly man and Noah was a godly man as well.

If you look at my post again, you’ll see I specifically said, “as recorded in Genesis 5.” In that chapter, only one person is specifically described as following God. Chapter six starts the account of Noah’s faithfulness, but it does seem significant to me that prior to Noah, only one person from Seth’s line is mentioned as following God. In sure most of the others did, but the Spirit chose not to tell us.

I see that now, but I think that your point is not valid for several reasons. First, it is very important to remember that chapter divisions were not inspired by God.
Second, even in chapter 5 itself, there is indication that one other person was a believer/follower of God. Lamech named his son Noah as an expression of his belief in something that was reported to him that the Lord did long before Lamech had ever existed:
Genesis 5:29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.
Lamech expressed his faith that God was going to comfort them through the birth of Noah. The Spirit revealed how and why Lamech named his son Noah to profit us not just concerning who and what Noah would be but also to reveal something about the faith of Noah’s father Lamech.
Third, Genesis 4 ends with crucial statements that directly affect how we must interpret both what precedes in Genesis 4 and what follows in all of Genesis 5:
Genesis 4:25 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. 26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.
Eve displays her faith in God by naming her son Seth out of her belief that God had appointed another son for her instead of Abel.
Genesis 4:26 is of premier importance for a right interpretation of both the line of Cain and the line of Seth. Structurally, by the Spirit’s placing 4:25-26 where He did, there is basis to say that what 4:26 speaks of did not apply to anyone in Cain’s line, who were all spoken of prior to 4:25-26.
Furthermore, 4:26 plainly tells us that beginning at the time of Enos, people were getting saved by calling upon the name of the LORD! With 4:26 as the inspired context of the genealogy in Genesis 5, we have every reason to believe that Seth, Enosh, and the others named in Seth’s line were people who called on the name of the Lord!

[RajeshG]

Furthermore, 4:26 plainly tells us that beginning at the time of Enos, people were getting saved by calling upon the name of the LORD! With 4:26 as the inspired context of the genealogy in Genesis 5, we have every reason to believe that Seth, Enosh, and the others named in Seth’s line were people who called on the name of the Lord!

My main point was that people needed to call upon the name of the Lord for their salvation because of Adam’s sin. Both lines were affected by sinfulness. Some people stayed in rebellion to God (Cain’s line) and some people saw their need of salvation (likely the ones named in Seth’s line, but for some reason the Bible isn’t specific about that). Certainly not all of Seth’s line were believers or we wouldn’t have the judgment of the flood later. Both lines were falling deeper and deeper into sinfulness until the flood, but does the knowledge of man’s sinfulness tell us anything about music?

The title of this thread is “What does Genesis 4;21 teach us about music?” I can’t see anything specific it teaches other than the plain words of the text, that say Jubal was the father of those who play the lyre and the pipe (according to the ESV, other translations differ on the names of the instruments). Your first post in the thread listed 5 things the verse does NOT teach us, but then your sixth point was “Genesis 4:21 is a record of people singing and playing musical instruments at the same time.” Where do you get the idea that the verse is teaching us there was singing?

[Kevin Miller]

Your first post in the thread listed 5 things the verse does NOT teach us, but then your sixth point was “Genesis 4:21 is a record of people singing and playing musical instruments at the same time.” Where do you get the idea that the verse is teaching us there was singing?

No, point six was another thing that the verse does not teach. We do not have any explicit information about humans singing prior to the Flood. An assertion that this verse somehow is a record of people both playing instruments and singing is what I am rejecting with this point.

[RajeshG]

No, point six was another thing that the verse does not teach. We do not have any explicit information about humans singing prior to the Flood. An assertion that this verse somehow is a record of people both playing instruments and singing is what I am rejecting with this point.

Ooops, my misreading mistake. Since you started point six with the verse reference, my mind must have thought you were making a summary point in conclusion regarding a positive teaching point from the verse. I can’t figure out now why I assumed that since you clearly rejected “any of the following.”

So ARE there actually any teaching points from the verse other than some historical info? Stating that “the verse does not teach something” is a valid starting point only if the subsequent discussion is about things that the verse does teach.

[Kevin Miller]

So ARE there actually any teaching points from the verse other than some historical info? Stating that “the verse does not teach something” is a valid starting point only if the subsequent discussion is about things that the verse does teach.

Several things have already been mentioned earlier, including the obvious historical nature of the info. Establishing any other significance depends upon the treatment of issues concerning the larger context of the verse at various levels. We have discussed some of those, and I am studying some others. This is an open-ended discussion for those who are interested in continuing to discuss it and may or may not lead to any general agreement about other teaching points.

https://apeopleforhisname.org/2015/03/how-genesis-421-directly-applies-…

We must not fail to note that the first information that the Spirit gives to us about human musical activity directly concerns not their singing but their playing musical instruments. Moreover, the Spirit does not frame His presentation of this revelation in such a way as to highlight God’s working in these people to produce and do what they did.

Instead, the Spirit says to us that Jubal was “the father” of all those who were playing these instruments. By framing this statement in that way, the Spirit is clearly emphasizing that Jubal was either the inventor of these instruments or the one who pioneered playing them in some way or both.

Regardless of which way we understand this statement, it is clearly not presenting God as the One who created the style or styles in which Jubal and the others mentioned here played these instruments. Rather, and in sharp contrast to the surrounding profound emphasis on divine creation, the Spirit is highlighting that fallen humans created these musical styles.

Christian supporters of the use of rock music and CCM rely heavily on an argument based on God as the Creator of all musical styles to support their views. They argue that God is the Creator of all musical styles, and therefore they are all inherently good and inherently fit for use in divine worship.4

Scripture, however, not only does not say anything about God as the One who created musical styles but also it directly emphasizes the opposite by saying that fallen humans originated the musical styles that are in view in the earliest biblical revelation about humans playing musical instruments. For this reason, discussions of rock music and CCM that defend Christian use of these types of music by appealing to God’s creating them as inherently good and therefore necessarily fit for divine worship are seriously flawed because they do not account properly for how the Bible in Genesis 4:21 frames its first presentation of human musical activity.

When believers who hold to the propriety of Christian use of rock music and CCM seek to defend their views, they must not use an illegitimate argument from the supposed divine creation of these styles to justify their views. To defend their views properly, they must show from the Bible why they believe that these styles are fit for Christian use in spite of biblical evidence that shows that not even all the animals that God originally created as good were acceptable for offering to Him in worship even by the time of the Flood.

I suggest I was more than warm!

Wrong again. You were not “more than warm!” I had no intent (and still do not have) to discuss any possible applications to rock music in this discussion.
That article was written more than 4 years ago, and I stand by everything that I said in that article. That article is part of a series of articles that I wrote at that time based on my intensive studies of the subject back then.
My intent, in this discussion, however, was and still is not to steer the discussion in that direction but to explore other directions that are more closely related to the context of the verse at various levels.
Based on my recent rereading through Genesis (and now Exodus), God has redirected my thoughts to study this passage again to see what profit can be derived from it. That is what this discussion is about.
You can choose either to contribute to the discussion edifyingly or to behave in unedifying ways that do not contribute to the discussion. Either way, people like you and tactics like yours are not going to dissuade me in any way from seeking further to have edifying, in-depth discussions on SI on topics concerning the Bible and music.

[RajeshG]

Wrong again. You were not “more than warm!” I had no intent (and still do not have) to discuss any possible applications to rock music in this discussion.

That article was written more than 4 years ago, and I stand by everything that I said in that article. That article is part of a series of articles that I wrote at that time based on my intensive studies of the subject back then.

My intent, in this discussion, however, was and still is not to steer the discussion in that direction but to explore other directions that are more closely related to the context of the verse at various levels.

Based on my recent rereading through Genesis (and now Exodus), God has redirected my thoughts to study this passage again to see what profit can be derived from it. That is what this discussion is about.

You can choose either to contribute to the discussion edifyingly or to behave in unedifying ways that do not contribute to the discussion. Either way, people like you and tactics like yours are not going to dissuade me in any way from seeking further to have edifying, in-depth discussions on SI on topics concerning the Bible and music.

Who exactly are “people like [me] “? What are my “tactics?”

(I’ve been a S/I member for years!)

[Dave White]
RajeshG wrote:

You can choose either to contribute to the discussion edifyingly or to behave in unedifying ways that do not contribute to the discussion. Either way, people like you and tactics like yours are not going to dissuade me in any way from seeking further to have edifying, in-depth discussions on SI on topics concerning the Bible and music.

Who exactly are “people like [me] “? What are my “tactics?”

(I’ve been a S/I member for years!)


There are several people who have posted things like this (https://sharperiron.org/comment/108680#comment-108680) on various threads of mine.
I do not care at all for such posts and find them highly unedifying and tactics that are unworthy of those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.

[RajeshG]
Dave White wrote:

RajeshG wrote:

You can choose either to contribute to the discussion edifyingly or to behave in unedifying ways that do not contribute to the discussion. Either way, people like you and tactics like yours are not going to dissuade me in any way from seeking further to have edifying, in-depth discussions on SI on topics concerning the Bible and music.

Who exactly are “people like [me] “? What are my “tactics?”

(I’ve been a S/I member for years!)

There are several people who have posted things like this (https://sharperiron.org/comment/108680#comment-108680) on various threads of mine.

I do not care at all for such posts and find them highly unedifying and tactics that are unworthy of those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Isn’t it up to the moderators … ? I’ve seen you likewise try to shame others with this tactic: “highly unedifying and tactics that are unworthy of those who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.”

I find it offensive!

Reading in Exodus 20 this morning, I found myself connecting the following statements with the issue of how we are to understand the spiritual states of those who we read about in the line of Cain:
Exodus 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Cain was a profoundly wicked man who did not love God and keep His commandments. Based on what God has revealed in Exodus 20:5-6, it seems to me that we would have biblical basis to understand that God visited Cain’s iniquity upon those of his children to the third and fourth generation who hated God.
Methusael (Gen. 4:18) was the fourth generation from Cain: Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methusael. Because we do not have any indication that any of Cain’s named descendants repented and turned to God, I think that Exodus 20:5-6 provides us with further biblical basis for holding that they were all ungodly.
In seeming support of this understanding, Methusael fathered Lamech, who was an openly and profoundly wicked man. Lamech was in the 5th generation after Cain:
Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methusael > Lamech > Jubal
Because Lamech was a profoundly wicked man who did not love God and keep His commandments, God visited his iniquity on those of his descendants to the third and fourth generation who hated God.
On this reading, God would have visited Lamech’s iniquity on Jubal unless Jubal was a man who loved God and kept His commandments. We have no basis to hold that Jubal loved God and kept His commandments so this line of reasoning supports holding that Jubal was an ungodly man who experienced God’s visiting his father Lamech’s iniquity on him.

[RajeshG]

We have no basis to hold that Jubal loved God and kept His commandments so this line of reasoning supports holding that Jubal was an ungodly man who experienced God’s visiting his father Lamech’s iniquity on him.

Yes, i think we have adequately covered the fact that Cain’s line, including jubal, was wicked. So perhaps you could answer something I asked earlier in the thread. I wrote “Let’s assume that he was 10 times more wicked than Cain. Would knowing how wicked he was tell us anything about music? We have the information that he was the father of those who play certain instruments, but does that information become significant in some way by the knowledge that Jubal was wicked?”

I think I would personally add a seventh point to the six things you listed at the start of the thread, in things the verse odes NOT teach us. 7. Genesis 4:21 does not teach us anything about the style, genre, or lyrics of the music produced by Jubal.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

We have no basis to hold that Jubal loved God and kept His commandments so this line of reasoning supports holding that Jubal was an ungodly man who experienced God’s visiting his father Lamech’s iniquity on him.

Yes, i think we have adequately covered the fact that Cain’s line, including jubal, was wicked. So perhaps you could answer something I asked earlier in the thread. I wrote “Let’s assume that he was 10 times more wicked than Cain. Would knowing how wicked he was tell us anything about music? We have the information that he was the father of those who play certain instruments, but does that information become significant in some way by the knowledge that Jubal was wicked?”

I think I would personally add a seventh point to the six things you listed at the start of the thread, in things the verse odes NOT teach us. 7. Genesis 4:21 does not teach us anything about the style, genre, or lyrics of the music produced by Jubal.

I am not at the point in my studies of the passages involved where I am ready to discuss directly the matter of whether Jubal’s being a wicked man teaches us anything about music. There’s more ground that needs to be carefully examined, at least for me.
I disagree with your 7th point that Genesis 4:21 does not teach us anything about the style(s)/genre(s) of music that Jubal and others played on those instruments. One thing that Genesis 4:21 does teach us is that it was Jubal (not God) who was the originator of whatever style(s) or genre(s) of music that he produced with those instruments, especially because the verse stresses that he was the one who pioneered in some way the playing of those instruments.

[RajeshG]

I disagree with your 7th point that Genesis 4:21 does not teach us anything about the style(s)/genre(s) of music that Jubal and others played on those instruments. One thing that Genesis 4:21 does teach us is that it was Jubal (not God) who was the originator of whatever style(s) or genre(s) of music that he produced with those instruments, especially because the verse stresses that he was the one who pioneered in some way the playing of those instruments.

I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement. The pioneering of a particular instrument does not tell us he pioneered a style or genre. The people could have been singing in a particular style or genre long before they had instrumental accompaniment . That’s why I said the verse about instruments doesn’t tell us about the style or genre. It’s simply not in the verse or in the surrounding context. God Himself may have originated the style or genre in which people were singing long before the instrumental accompaniment. I can’t say for sure because the verse doesn’t tell us, but it also doesn’t tell us that Jubal was the originator of any style or genre.

I do think that the creativity need to pioneer a musical instrument would have to have come from God. I don’t think creativity can come from the devil. The devil is a destroyer, not a creator.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

I disagree with your 7th point that Genesis 4:21 does not teach us anything about the style(s)/genre(s) of music that Jubal and others played on those instruments. One thing that Genesis 4:21 does teach us is that it was Jubal (not God) who was the originator of whatever style(s) or genre(s) of music that he produced with those instruments, especially because the verse stresses that he was the one who pioneered in some way the playing of those instruments.

I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement. The pioneering of a particular instrument does not tell us he pioneered a style or genre. The people could have been singing in a particular style or genre long before they had instrumental accompaniment . That’s why I said the verse about instruments doesn’t tell us about the style or genre. It’s simply not in the verse or in the surrounding context. God Himself may have originated the style or genre in which people were singing long before the instrumental accompaniment. I can’t say for sure because the verse doesn’t tell us, but it also doesn’t tell us that Jubal was the originator of any style or genre.

I do think that the creativity need to pioneer a musical instrument would have to have come from God. I don’t think creativity can come from the devil. The devil is a destroyer, not a creator.

Did you read the full article on my blog from which only an excerpt was copied in an earlier comment? If not, you missed vital context to that excerpt that pertains directly to these comments of yours.

Moderator Note: Three things

  1. Please keep the discussion on topic and do not post if you do not intend to post on the topic.
  2. Remember that you do not have to respond to everything. You are free not to respond.
  3. If your comment is merely of a personal nature, then make it in a private message.

I wonder if “What does Genesis 4:21 Teach us About Music” is the wrong question for us to ask of this passage.

Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is employing a pattern. That pattern is easy to see as follows: He tells his readers about a man, and then gives one fact about that man.

In v. 20, he tells his readers about Jabal, who “was the father of all those who live in tents and raise livestock.”

In v. 21, he tell his readers about Jubal, who “was the father of all who play the harp and flute.”

in v. 22, he tells his readers about Zillah’s son, Tubal-Cain, who “forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.”

Paying attention to the text, I’m sure we can agree that Moses is not teaching about music at all any more than he is teaching his readers about nomads (those who live in tents and raise livestock) or stone masons and carpenters (those who use tools of bronze and iron).

If we want to see what Moses says about music, we’ll have to find a text in the Bible where Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us about music. In Genesis 4 he isn’t telling us about music; he is telling us about specific humans.

[Joe Whalen]

I wonder if “What does Genesis 4:21 Teach us About Music” is the wrong question for us to ask of this passage.

Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is employing a pattern. That pattern is easy to see as follows: He tells his readers about a man, and then gives one fact about that man.

In v. 20, he tells his readers about Jabal, who “was the father of all those who live in tents and raise livestock.”

In v. 21, he tell his readers about Jubal, who “was the father of all who play the harp and flute.”

in v. 22, he tells his readers about Zillah’s son, Tubal-Cain, who “forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.”

Paying attention to the text, I’m sure we can agree that Moses is not teaching about music at all any more than he is teaching his readers about nomads (those who live in tents and raise livestock) or stone masons and carpenters (those who use tools of bronze and iron).

If we want to see what Moses says about music, we’ll have to find a text in the Bible where Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us about music. In Genesis 4 he isn’t telling us about music; he is telling us about specific humans.

Yeah, but were Jabal’s tents made with mixed fibers? And did he ever plow with an ox and a donkey in the same yoke? These are important questions!

Great point, Joe. There are a lot of things the Bible doesn’t say, and we need to interpret based on what it does say.

[Joe Whalen]

I wonder if “What does Genesis 4:21 Teach us About Music” is the wrong question for us to ask of this passage.

Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is employing a pattern. That pattern is easy to see as follows: He tells his readers about a man, and then gives one fact about that man.

In v. 20, he tells his readers about Jabal, who “was the father of all those who live in tents and raise livestock.”

In v. 21, he tell his readers about Jubal, who “was the father of all who play the harp and flute.”

in v. 22, he tells his readers about Zillah’s son, Tubal-Cain, who “forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron.”

Paying attention to the text, I’m sure we can agree that Moses is not teaching about music at all any more than he is teaching his readers about nomads (those who live in tents and raise livestock) or stone masons and carpenters (those who use tools of bronze and iron).

If we want to see what Moses says about music, we’ll have to find a text in the Bible where Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us about music. In Genesis 4 he isn’t telling us about music; he is telling us about specific humans.

No, in Genesis 4:21, God is telling us about both humans and music. Without this revelation, you would not have any ability to say anything definitively about humans having musical instruments prior to the Flood. You can dispute what we are to make of the revelation about music in Genesis 4:21, but you cannot legitimately deny that it is revelation about music and be biblical.
To understand what the Bible reveals about any subject, we must comprehensively account for every reference to the subject. In many cases, we must even account for what passages reveal that do not even directly mention the subject but have implicit relevance.

[RajeshG]
Kevin Miller wrote:

I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement. The pioneering of a particular instrument does not tell us he pioneered a style or genre. The people could have been singing in a particular style or genre long before they had instrumental accompaniment . That’s why I said the verse about instruments doesn’t tell us about the style or genre. It’s simply not in the verse or in the surrounding context. God Himself may have originated the style or genre in which people were singing long before the instrumental accompaniment. I can’t say for sure because the verse doesn’t tell us, but it also doesn’t tell us that Jubal was the originator of any style or genre.

I do think that the creativity need to pioneer a musical instrument would have to have come from God. I don’t think creativity can come from the devil. The devil is a destroyer, not a creator.

Did you read the full article on my blog from which only an excerpt was copied in an earlier comment? If not, you missed vital context to that excerpt that pertains directly to these comments of yours.

No, I didn’t even click on the link, and I still haven’t. We’ve been having a conversation in this thread about the verse, and I figured if you wanted to direct me to some understanding that you have, you would mention it in this thread. When the except was posted, you said, “Based on my recent rereading through Genesis (and now Exodus), God has redirected my thoughts to study this passage again to see what profit can be derived from it.” Based on that, I certainly wasn’t going to go back and interact with what you wrote over 4 years ago. This is the “fresh and renewed” discussion.

So do you have a current response to my comments, or do I need to go cherry-pick something from the blog post to respond to?

[Kevin Miller]

I’ll have to disagree with your disagreement. The pioneering of a particular instrument does not tell us he pioneered a style or genre. The people could have been singing in a particular style or genre long before they had instrumental accompaniment . That’s why I said the verse about instruments doesn’t tell us about the style or genre. It’s simply not in the verse or in the surrounding context. God Himself may have originated the style or genre in which people were singing long before the instrumental accompaniment. I can’t say for sure because the verse doesn’t tell us, but it also doesn’t tell us that Jubal was the originator of any style or genre.

I do think that the creativity need to pioneer a musical instrument would have to have come from God. I don’t think creativity can come from the devil. The devil is a destroyer, not a creator.

You are assuming something that cannot be defended. There is no mention of singing in the passage. They may have been singing some of the time accompanied by those instruments, but there is no basis in the passage to make the discussion about using the instruments to accompany previously existing singing styles or genres.
As the verse stands, the discussion has to be about what did Jubal pioneer in how he and others played those instruments.
Your second paragraph about creativity, etc. would make a good starting thought for another thread. In any case, you are asserting something in that statement without providing any biblical basis for your assertion. Do you have any Bible to support your assertion that what Jubal pioneered in what he played on those instruments had to come from God?

[Kevin Miller]

No, I didn’t even click on the link, and I still haven’t. We’ve been having a conversation in this thread about the verse, and I figured if you wanted to direct me to some understanding that you have, you would mention it in this thread. When the except was posted, you said, “Based on my recent rereading through Genesis (and now Exodus), God has redirected my thoughts to study this passage again to see what profit can be derived from it.” Based on that, I certainly wasn’t going to go back and interact with what you wrote over 4 years ago. This is the “fresh and renewed” discussion.

So do you have a current response to my comments, or do I need to go cherry-pick something from the blog post to respond to?

I just responded to your comments in another comment. As for the blog article, it addresses the issue of whether it is legitimate to say that God is the One who created Jubal’s musical styles.

After going out from the presence of the Lord, settling in a different place, marrying, and fathering a son, Cain built a city:
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
What are we make of Cain’s building this city?
Earlier, after Cain had murdered his brother Abel, God confronted him and then cursed him after he lied to God and further refused to repent (Gen. 4:9). God then punished Cain by pronouncing his punishment that included the following:
Genesis 4:12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
Cain complained that his punishment was excessive (Gen. 4:13) and then remarked of his understanding of that punishment to entail the following:
Genesis 4:14 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
Cain understood that his punishment included his being consigned to be “a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth” (4:14; NAU), yet we read that he went and built a city.
Was his building that city an act of rebellion and defiance of God’s consigning him to be a fugitive/vagrant and a vagabond/wanderer on the earth? If so, Genesis 4:17 is not primarily or even at all a neutral or even positive statement about Cain’s advancing civilization—it is foremost a record of his further rebellion against God and defiance of Him.

[RajeshG]

You are assuming something that cannot be defended. There is no mention of singing in the passage. They may have been singing some of the time accompanied by those instruments, but there is no basis in the passage to make the discussion about using the instruments to accompany previously existing singing styles or genres.

I don’t consider myself to be assuming something. On the contrary, I specifically used a “could have been” statement to challenge the assumption that you had made. You had said ” One thing that Genesis 4:21 does teach us is that it was Jubal (not God) who was the originator of whatever style(s) or genre(s) of music that he produced with those instruments.” Since the verse does not mention style or genre, you can’t really make an assumption about WHO originated any particular style or genre. In the first post of the thread, you listed, as one of the things that the verse does NOT teach, that “Jubal invented the harp and the organ.” You said he may have invented them, but the verse doesn’t teach it. I agree. So why are you then saying that the verse teaches that Jubal originated a style or genre? He may have done so, but the verse doesn’t teach it.

That is all I was trying to point out by presenting the possibility that singing styles may have existed before instrumentation. That does seem like a logical possibility, doesn’t it? After all, people would have had voices before they would have had instruments. We just don’t know, however, because the verse doesn’t teach it.

As the verse stands, the discussion has to be about what did Jubal pioneer in how he and others played those instruments.

That is a good question. What does it mean to be “the father of” something? The first possibility is strictly biological. The verse could be saying that all of Cain’s other descendants were tone deaf, but Jubal and his line had an ear for music and were the only ones who could play the instruments. This doesn’t reference any style or genre, but simply describes physical capability. I tried learning the cornet in sixth grade, but I had to quit because I couldn’t tell one note from another and could never play the same note consistently.

Or, being “the father of” could be broader than just his own descendants and could reference a teaching aspect. If you wanted to learn how to play the instrument, you would go to the person who understood the mechanics of producing sound so well that he could explain it to others. He would have been the ultimate authority figure to answer any questions about the instruments, from the construction to the producing of sound. This again does not reference style or genre, although as an authority on the instrument, Jubal would have known how to play any and all styles with ease.

Notice that by underlining “could,” I am not making any assumptions that either possibility has to be the correct one. I just don’t see how you can limit the meaning to be that of originating a style or genre. Could be, but the verse doesn’t say.

Your second paragraph about creativity, etc. would make a good starting thought for another thread. In any case, you are asserting something in that statement without providing any biblical basis for your assertion. Do you have any Bible to support your assertion that what Jubal pioneered in what he played on those instruments had to come from God?

Why are some people more musically talented than others? Is it due strictly to effort, or has God given some people the ears that distinguish sound better than others? We have an example in Exodus 31:3-5 of God giving an individual artistic skills. Now, that person was filled with the Spirit to have a wide variety of different skills, but I think those verses give a strong indication that God is the originator of artistic skill. Even unsaved people can have artistic skill, and I can’t think of any passages in which Satan gives artistic skill to people.

[RajeshG]

After going out from the presence of the Lord, settling in a different place, marrying, and fathering a son, Cain built a city:

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

What are we make of Cain’s building this city?

Does the passage even say that Cain lived in the city he built? By naming the city after his son, it sounds like he built it for his wife and son. Any further descendants would have added to the population of the city, but we don’t have a clear indication from the verses that Cain lived there. The Bible tells us that Cain was going to be a vagabond, so I’m inclined to believe that what God said would happen to Cain actually did happen to Cain.

[Kevin Miller]
RajeshG wrote:

After going out from the presence of the Lord, settling in a different place, marrying, and fathering a son, Cain built a city:

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

What are we make of Cain’s building this city?

Does the passage even say that Cain lived in the city he built? By naming the city after his son, it sounds like he built it for his wife and son. Any further descendants would have added to the population of the city, but we don’t have a clear indication from the verses that Cain lived there. The Bible tells us that Cain was going to be a vagabond, so I’m inclined to believe that what God said would happen to Cain actually did happen to Cain.

The NAU and ESV have “settled” in 4:16, which would be the opposite of being a fugitive, vagabond, etc. If 4:16 represents his rebelling further against God, his building a city in 4:17 would fit his increasingly doing so. Your suggestion that he built it for his wife and son but did not dwell there himself is a possibility.

The Spirit’s presentation of the line of Cain reveals a progressive degeneracy in his line.
1. Cain had one wife; Lamech had two wives

2. Cain murdered one person; Lamech murdered two people

3. Cain lied about his murdering his brother by saying that he did not know where his brother was; Lamech boasted of his murdering two people
4. God ordained that anyone who would slay Cain would reap a 7-fold vengeance on him; Lamech asserted that he would be avenged 77-fold
Given how profoundly wicked of a man Cain was, this progressive degeneracy in his line points to Lamech being even far more wicked than Cain.
Cain was of the devil; the greatly intensifed wickedness of Lamech points to his being more so.
If this line of reasoning is correct, it would seem that it would have important implications for what we are to think of who Jubal would have been and what he and those he influenced did in their lives.