What does Genesis 4:21 teach us about music?

… that people have been making music for a very long time.

… that people have been teaching music to other people for a long time.

(There is no “organ” in Gen 4:21… the עוּגָב is almost certainly some kind of flute, and the כִּנּוֹר only resembles what we know as a “harp.” Closer to a lyre.)

The reference to music here is consistent with a number of truths we know from other passages (e.g., that humans are creative as those made in God’s image, that we’re supposed to do creative things, etc.).

That’s about it.

[RajeshG]

I wonder why the Spirit revealed the info in Genesis 4:21 to us about the use of stringed and wind instruments prior to the Flood but He did not reveal anything to us about the use of any percussion instruments prior to the Flood.

Also no brass, no reeds, no whatever class bagpipes are in.

Little can be inferred from silence in this case, but it may be that

• The lyre and flute (or whatever exactly they were) had just been invented, while brass and percussion were already commonplace and not noteworthy
• The opposite: brass, percussion etc. had not been invented yet.
• Or some mix of the above. Brass is more difficult to invent and construct than a simple drum, so it seems likely to me that the latter would have taken Adam about 35 seconds to invent, once he got interested in the idea.

(Edit: Kevin I think we were writing at the same time, didn’t see your post.)

[RajeshG]

Just as Genesis 4:21 speaks only of stringed instruments and wind instruments but not percussion instruments, so the references to music in Revelation only mention stringed instruments and wind instruments in heaven but not percussion instruments. Is this a significant parallel or not?

I think the only way we can draw a parallel is if the lack of mention in Genesis 4:21 actually told us anything about percussion. As we’ve already discussed, the lack of a mention does not tell us whether percussion already existed and the lack certainly doesn’t tell us whether God approves or disapproves of percussion. In Revelation 5:8, Revelation 14:2, and Revelation 15:2 we have harps mentioned, but no other stringed instruments. Wind instruments are treated the same as percussion in those passages in that they are ignored. The lack of a mention does not tell us anything about the existence of other instruments in heaven or about God’s approval/disapproval. There are verses about trumpets being sounded, but they are used in a proclamation manner, rather than being played in musical sense. The verses about trumpets also do not mention stringed instruments or percussion.

I just don’t see how we can draw a significant parallel from a lack of a mention, when the lack of a mention doesn’t tell us anything specific.

[RajeshG]

We already know that God approves of the use of percussion instruments from many other passages so I’m not suggesting that we are to infer anything about their disapproval by the lack of mention in Revelation.

It’s not about “theological implications.” It’s about clear thinking. Whether the form of communication is a letter to a friend, an email, a speech, a novel, an essay, the U.S. Constitution or inspired Scripture, you can usually infer little or nothing from silence.

I say “usually,” because there are situations where a pattern of including a term or phrase or topic has a long history and in a similar context it’s absence is conspicuous. Still, there are always many ways to explain a silence and this is why any one explanation is “very low probability” on its own. If you pull in lots of other evidence, it’s possible to make a case for one explanation or another. But then you’re no longer drawing an inference from silence, you’re explaining a silence using nonsilence (additional evidence)… in which case you might as well just unclutter your argument by using the additional evidence by itself and ignoring the silence.

Context, context, context.

God told people to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over the earth.

People sinned.

God said He’d put enmity between the offspring of the woman and the offspring of the serpent.

Cain kills Abel.

Genesis 4 and 5 give us two genealogies, one for Cain, and one for Seth.

The seventh in Cain’s genealogy is Lamech, a boorish and vengeful character; the seventh in Seth’s genealogy is Enoch, who walked with God.

I get the sense (though we can’t establish for certain) that Cain’s line was generally ungodly, and Seth’s line was generally godly.

So it’s ironic that the advances in “civilization” are all mentioned in Cain’s line: city-building, music, metallurgy.

What I infer is something like common grace: God gifts even wicked men to build cultures. But the common-grace gifts are not to be thought more valuable than walking with God.

It’s hard to learn anything about music as such from this passage; in fact, it seems you have to bring a pre-understanding of music to make sense of why music is mentioned here at all. I admit that I bring the preunderstanding that the ability to make music is a pre-moral good and a gift from God.

Ramesh. I’m not seeing any argument from silence there. You are maybe unclear on the definition?

Forgive me for quoting myself:

…the advances in “civilization” are all mentioned in Cain’s line…

What I infer is something like common grace: God gifts even wicked men to build cultures.

For me, I’ll do my best to make my arguments, implications, and inferences explicit, and I’ll even try to tag my inferences with phrases like “What I infer is…” (as above).

Rajesh, please do your best to interact with what’s written, so that
“God gifts even wicked men to build cultures” isn’t turned into “Seth’s line didn’t have music”
or “Cain’s line originated [advances in civilization].”
I didn’t say it; I didn’t imply it; I don’t think I was unclear about it, either.

Rajesh, it’s pretty futile to insist that someone means something different from what they’re saying… when someone tries to make up both sides of a conversation, he’s really only talking to himself.

As for “the advances in ‘civilization’ are all mentioned in Cain’s line”… this is simply a statement of fact. It’s what’s in the text. Noting that something is said of A but is not said of B is not an argument from silence. It’s contrast.

[RajeshG]

The NT illumines our understanding of who Cain was in a way that we would never have known from just the OT record of his life:

1 John 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

Because Cain was of the devil, our understanding of his wickedness and the wickedness of his descendants must account for this crucial revelation that God has given us. What relevance does this information have for our understanding of Genesis 4:21?

[RajeshG]

Because Cain was of the devil, our understanding of his wickedness and the wickedness of his descendants must account for this crucial revelation that God has given us. What relevance does this information have for our understanding of Genesis 4:21?

What do you mean by “crucial”?

Okay.

[RajeshG]

Anytime the Spirit illumines our understanding explicitly in the NT of a previous event that is also recorded in Scripture, we know that He is giving us vital information that He wants us to know about that previous event. As I said earlier, had the Spirit not given us the information that He did in 1 John 3:12, we would have no knowledge that Cain murdered his brother Abel because Cain was of the devil. Consequently, we cannot rightly interpret what we have in the OT about Cain and his descendants apart from accounting for the additional information that the Spirit has given us in the NT.

I’m not sure what Cain being “of the devil” has to do with the information in Genesis 4:21. Yes, Jubal was a descendent of Cain, but is being “of the devil” something that is passed on genetically, such that all of Cain’s physical descendants would then be classified as “of the devil”?

It seems to me that being “of the devil” has to do with committing particular works of evil. Cain’s work of evil was murder. In John 8:44, Jesus tells the Pharisees, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” In these verses, the works of evil are described as following the lusts of the devil, was was a murderer and liar from the beginning.

Genesis 4:21 doesn’t list any works of evil from Jubal. It just says that he is the father of those who play instruments. In what way, if any, would Jubal be “of the devil”?

[RajeshG]

In the verse that you cited about the devil, we read that Jesus revealed that the devil was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). Whom did he murder at the beginning and how did he do it?

Based on what we know of Cain and Lamech, we do not have any reason to think that Jubal would have been significantly different from them.

There’s….an awful lot of personal speculation here.

@Ramesh…

Just like Manasseh was evil, Amon was evil, and Josiah… Hmmm.

You could claim that if we had no information about Josiah “we would have no reason to think he was much different from” Manasseh and Amon. But this is not sound reasoning.

See argument from silence, above.

Without information, it’s true we have no reason to think A. We also have no reason to think anything else.

[RajeshG]

Cain was of the devil (1 John 3:12), and the devil influenced/energized him to kill Abel (cf. John 8:44, where the devil is said to be a murderer from the beginning). Cain is the first human being who was so influenced of the devil to attack the woman’s seed. Cain was the first human in the line of the serpent’s seed.

Rajesh (sorry about my previous typo… it’s especially frequent when I’m using my phone!)

You’re making way too much of “of the devil.” Some additional info to factor in…

• We’re all of the devil until we’re transferred to the Lordship of Jesus Christ Col. 1:13, 2 Cor. 4.4
• Many are more closely linked with the Evil One’s agenda than others: John 8:44
• It does not follow that descendants of someone who is “of the devil” in some special sense must also be “of the devil” in that sense.

In my example above, Josiah is the grandson of Manasseh who may well have practiced some form of child sacrifice (there’s some disagreement as to what that very brief statement about him means).

But this is, once again, mostly a matter of sound reasoning, not theology. People/things do not necessarily have characteristic X because they came from someone/some group with characteristic X. Article on genetic fallacy is somewhat helpful.

The issue here, it seems to me, is a hermeneutic that reads later revelation back into earlier revelation. While it is true that sometimes additional revelation gives us greater insight into an earlier passage, it is not true that we should read a late NT phrase back into the text of Genesis 4-5 as some form of a decoder key. What exactly does John saying that Cain is “of the devil” tell us about him that Genesis 4 does not? Moses is pretty clear on the nature and source of Cain’s wickedness. And, as has already been pointed out, whatever is said of Cain is not necessarily applied to Jubal.

[RajeshG]

Really? If you did not have 1 John 3:12, you would not be able to assert definitively that demonic influence/energizing played a role in Cain’s murdering Abel. Moses does not provide any indication of supernatural influence on Cain that influenced him for evil.

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.