Was God's original intent for marriage monogamy, before the fall, asit seems to be described in Gen.2:24? I know this was probaby debated here in other places, but after searching I couldn't find much. Also, i've been debating this with someone. Now I know that we don't have much information before Adam, and its impossible to reach a definate conclusion. But while realizing that we do live after the fall of mankind. and after the cross, could it be that if monogamy was in fact God's original plan, before the fall, then is sin the reason for the laws? If that's the case then those that use the Gen. and other verses to defend their position are not entirely wrong.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The Two becoming One Debate
- Thread starter Jim
- Start date
Some do indeed who affirm polygyny hold to that as the original plan but when sin entered the picture that all changed. The work "A History and Philosophy of Marriage" written by the stated author James Campbell (1869) took that view. He said prior to the fall it may have been the original plan but now everything after the fall is grace and polygyny is a gracious plan for people.
However, others take a different view. Some claim that the idea of headship was the order and thus the only reason Adam did not have more was that he was under a test to see how he would handle his first lady. Since God knew, as he is omniscient, that Adam was not going to do to well with his first one he only gave him one as a learning experience. But as the head the doctrine sets the foundation that a head can have more members attached and under it.
Too, one philosopher and theologian, Professor Luck, has also suggested something along those lines. He says that he thinks God gave Adam only one beloved lady like God only Gave Abraham one son and then ordered him to sacrifice him as a way to test his loyalty. In other words, God set up the perfect test. Adam had ONLY one lady and he had to make a choice to either trust God fully and totally, knowing he might lose his woman's attention and devotion if he chose God above her, or he had to lose God's favor by choosing his woman over God. Just like Abraham would lose his beloved hope by losing his one and only son so too Adam would lose his one and only love if he lost Eve by trusting God over her. By that test it meant that Adam could not merely discard one and keep another as that would lower the amount of faith he needed because he would not lose everything so precious to him if he had another lady to fall back upon. But in this scenario God had set it up so that the test was perfect in its measurement of Adam's faithfulness and loyalty.
With this second position the text then would not be speaking to the issue of polygyny as much as it would to the issue of headship and loyalty. The second option seems to have much merit to it both textually as well as philosophically.
A third position, which can still fit into the one above with a little tweaking, is that Adam joined all of the women available to him and we do not know if joined any more after that since we have no records of it. Some build a case that Adam could not join another woman because they would be his daughters or granddaughters. But this is suspect in some sense because of the fact that Adam could have joined very distant great great great grand daughters. If they lived to be 900 or so years of age then, as they did, then if he were 450 and joined a 250 year old would that be the equivalent of a 40 year old joining a 25 year old? If brothers and sisters joined together sexually, which at that time there was no law against that recorded, without violation of any moral code (due to DNA not being broken down as bad then to produce deformed children) could even more distant relatives have joined like a great great great granddaughter to a prior ancestor? Two immediate siblings would genetically be closer so it does not seem implausible nor something foreign to a rational logical position if that were embraced. If the two closest of kin could join at that time then more distant kin would have technically been able to as well. But again, this is speculative ideas because if we are going to build a biblical case we have to do so by what the Bible does tell us. And we have nothing biblically to build that he ever had more than one.
However, others take a different view. Some claim that the idea of headship was the order and thus the only reason Adam did not have more was that he was under a test to see how he would handle his first lady. Since God knew, as he is omniscient, that Adam was not going to do to well with his first one he only gave him one as a learning experience. But as the head the doctrine sets the foundation that a head can have more members attached and under it.
Too, one philosopher and theologian, Professor Luck, has also suggested something along those lines. He says that he thinks God gave Adam only one beloved lady like God only Gave Abraham one son and then ordered him to sacrifice him as a way to test his loyalty. In other words, God set up the perfect test. Adam had ONLY one lady and he had to make a choice to either trust God fully and totally, knowing he might lose his woman's attention and devotion if he chose God above her, or he had to lose God's favor by choosing his woman over God. Just like Abraham would lose his beloved hope by losing his one and only son so too Adam would lose his one and only love if he lost Eve by trusting God over her. By that test it meant that Adam could not merely discard one and keep another as that would lower the amount of faith he needed because he would not lose everything so precious to him if he had another lady to fall back upon. But in this scenario God had set it up so that the test was perfect in its measurement of Adam's faithfulness and loyalty.
With this second position the text then would not be speaking to the issue of polygyny as much as it would to the issue of headship and loyalty. The second option seems to have much merit to it both textually as well as philosophically.
A third position, which can still fit into the one above with a little tweaking, is that Adam joined all of the women available to him and we do not know if joined any more after that since we have no records of it. Some build a case that Adam could not join another woman because they would be his daughters or granddaughters. But this is suspect in some sense because of the fact that Adam could have joined very distant great great great grand daughters. If they lived to be 900 or so years of age then, as they did, then if he were 450 and joined a 250 year old would that be the equivalent of a 40 year old joining a 25 year old? If brothers and sisters joined together sexually, which at that time there was no law against that recorded, without violation of any moral code (due to DNA not being broken down as bad then to produce deformed children) could even more distant relatives have joined like a great great great granddaughter to a prior ancestor? Two immediate siblings would genetically be closer so it does not seem implausible nor something foreign to a rational logical position if that were embraced. If the two closest of kin could join at that time then more distant kin would have technically been able to as well. But again, this is speculative ideas because if we are going to build a biblical case we have to do so by what the Bible does tell us. And we have nothing biblically to build that he ever had more than one.
You are welcome and too, I understand about the possibility of things like what you've said above
I, however, would suggest as a matter of wisdom in regard to the application of sound interpretive rules that we not commit to faith or believe in that idea even as a probability if we do not have a sufficient amount of evidence pointing us to lean that way to begin with (what Dr. Danny Akin calls the doctrine of verificationism); Reason being because in leaning one way before we have credible evidence to point us that way we admit that we have guiding presuppositions going into the text, which is, as you probably know, a violation of setting aside emotions, speculations, or even personal agendas in order to be neutral and honest with textual interpretations. Many call that eisogesis or the seeds of it instead of exegesis. Just a thought to consider.
Of course, maybe there is some evidence somewhere that gives some credibility to a potential belief leaning in that direction but to date I have not seen anything reputable or credible in that way. Most of what I have seen in that type of discussion has been speculative and without enough strength to tilt one towards a directional orientation.
Jim said:
Fallacious reasoning, my friend. Were it to be valid, then we would also need to re-implement the other elements of life pre-fall, included living naked in gardens without buildings. Does your opponent advocate that?
Whether monogamy is God's ideal or not can NEVER be solved definitively. Not enough information. It's like "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Fine if you wanna sit around being an idle monk (western or eastern), contemplating your navel. Useless in real life.
What is clear is that PM is God's perfect provision in an imperfect world. Perfect provision for what? "It is not good for man(kind) to be alone."
When there is a precisely equal number of each gender, and they are sinless (none are drunks, abusers, or gay, and so can be equably matched), no problem. But the moment that the demographics get out of balance, God has to choose how to deal with it as it relates to the above pronouncement:
- Change the law of nature and say, "Well, I guess it IS ok to be alone."
- Say "I'm up here. You're down there. Can't get involved. YOU work it out."
- God keep a constant count, and drectly control each pregnancy and life so that the numbers never go outa whack.
- Off one of the ladies to even things up. Any volunteers?
- Make more men out of mud. The raw material supply is endless. And some of us men stand accused ...
- Everybody is born male, and at the right stage of life, you take a nap and lose one and only one rib.
- Everybody is born hermaphrodite, but as you pair up and assume roles, one set of genitalia atrophies.
- Everybody is born androgynous, and at the right age, as you pair up, one eats a banana, and the other a mango (?) and VOILA!
Find any evidence He chose any of the above? How about ...
- "You two, and you three? Play NICE! Make a family. Aaaah! *dusting hands* That's better! No-one got left out!"
Yup. That's what polygyny adds up to and it is THROUGHOUT Scripture and God's dealings with His people.
So you see? The seed and condition requiring PM was laid down before the first woman was even created, when God pronounced and made natural law the statement that we were created to be in relationship.
The very question regarding monogamy and God's intent is misleading and causes the very confusion that we should avoid.
Our western man made doctrines and words lead us into confusion and disarray. In order for us to fully understand, we need to "reset" our minds regarding what marriage is in God's Law. Using the words monogamy and polygamy when trying to describe God's intent creates an inability to resolve this issue because the use of those words in this instance assume that they are opposing each other in nature, when in the context of God's Law, they not only do not exist, but even if they did would not be in conflict with each other.
God's will is His Law, and His Law is His will. If we want to know His "intent", then we have to interpret EVERYTHING that we try to understand under the umbrella of His express and written Word.
There is no monogamy or polygamy in God's Law, there is only covenant.
Marriage is a covenant in God's Law. A covenant is a contract.
God's intent is expressed in His Law which is that man would covenant with woman, and woman would covenant with man.
God expresses His intent and will that woman will covenant ONLY with one man. If she covenants with MORE than one man she is in adultery, and the remedy is death.
God expresses his intent and will that man CAN covenant with more than one woman. If he covenants with MORE than one woman, he must not decrease the care (duty of marriage and physical provision of food and shelter) of any wife or wives that he has entered into covenant with previously.
A man that has two wives IS A MONOGAMOUS MAN, he has two "monogamous" marriages. Each covenant is separate and exclusive of the other. He is in God's Law, a two covenant man, not a "polygamous" man. The dissolution of one covenant does not null the other. The women married to a man are not in a polygamous marriage, by definition this is true. No woman can be in a polygamous marriage, but they can be in a polygamous family structure.
Marriage can only be between one man and one woman. The real question is how many of those marriage contracts is a man Lawfully allowed to enter into under God's Law and what are the rules for that man as given by his Creator.
God's intent was that we would not kill each other or steal. We fell from grace and He established Law. He did not bend to the nature of man and say "if you kill, do it this way or with one hand behind your back". He did not say "if you steal, then only steal a portion of your neighbors belongings". He did not say "only covet your neighbor's wife on Tuesday".
He makes NO exemption for sin. If He addresses something with instruction for living in it, even the smallest instruction in how to deal with it, then He is accepting and allowing it. When He does not want His people doing something, He is clear to tell them DON'T.
The real issue with entering into these debates is that the debates themselves ignore the real issue at hand, which is submission to God's express written Law. We should not debate this "original intent" issue with anyone until they acknowledge to us that God has written in His Law the rules for how to deal with this because we HAVE to hold people accountable in recognizing that this is not sin. Otherwise, they drag us down these roads of esoteric and vain reasonings that use the best sounding argument as the method for determining what the masses will accept as truth.
This is just my opinion.
Our western man made doctrines and words lead us into confusion and disarray. In order for us to fully understand, we need to "reset" our minds regarding what marriage is in God's Law. Using the words monogamy and polygamy when trying to describe God's intent creates an inability to resolve this issue because the use of those words in this instance assume that they are opposing each other in nature, when in the context of God's Law, they not only do not exist, but even if they did would not be in conflict with each other.
God's will is His Law, and His Law is His will. If we want to know His "intent", then we have to interpret EVERYTHING that we try to understand under the umbrella of His express and written Word.
There is no monogamy or polygamy in God's Law, there is only covenant.
Marriage is a covenant in God's Law. A covenant is a contract.
God's intent is expressed in His Law which is that man would covenant with woman, and woman would covenant with man.
God expresses His intent and will that woman will covenant ONLY with one man. If she covenants with MORE than one man she is in adultery, and the remedy is death.
God expresses his intent and will that man CAN covenant with more than one woman. If he covenants with MORE than one woman, he must not decrease the care (duty of marriage and physical provision of food and shelter) of any wife or wives that he has entered into covenant with previously.
A man that has two wives IS A MONOGAMOUS MAN, he has two "monogamous" marriages. Each covenant is separate and exclusive of the other. He is in God's Law, a two covenant man, not a "polygamous" man. The dissolution of one covenant does not null the other. The women married to a man are not in a polygamous marriage, by definition this is true. No woman can be in a polygamous marriage, but they can be in a polygamous family structure.
Marriage can only be between one man and one woman. The real question is how many of those marriage contracts is a man Lawfully allowed to enter into under God's Law and what are the rules for that man as given by his Creator.
God's intent was that we would not kill each other or steal. We fell from grace and He established Law. He did not bend to the nature of man and say "if you kill, do it this way or with one hand behind your back". He did not say "if you steal, then only steal a portion of your neighbors belongings". He did not say "only covet your neighbor's wife on Tuesday".
He makes NO exemption for sin. If He addresses something with instruction for living in it, even the smallest instruction in how to deal with it, then He is accepting and allowing it. When He does not want His people doing something, He is clear to tell them DON'T.
The real issue with entering into these debates is that the debates themselves ignore the real issue at hand, which is submission to God's express written Law. We should not debate this "original intent" issue with anyone until they acknowledge to us that God has written in His Law the rules for how to deal with this because we HAVE to hold people accountable in recognizing that this is not sin. Otherwise, they drag us down these roads of esoteric and vain reasonings that use the best sounding argument as the method for determining what the masses will accept as truth.
This is just my opinion.
Paul, your post is right on target. Thank you for that.
As to whether "monogamy is YHWH's best" or "polygyny is YHWH's best," well, is it better to drive a Chevy or a Ford? Is it better to eat eggs scrambled, or over easy?
And when did YHWH ever give anything less than His best to one of His servants?
As far as the Biblical record tells us, Joseph (this is about the son of Jacob, not Joseph the wife of Mary) had only one wife; and, of course, the poster boy for Biblical Polygyny, King David, had 18 wives, as can best be determined from the Biblical record.
Joseph was given his one wife by the Pharoah, but it is evident throughout his story that YHWH was making things happen.
YHWH, through Nathan the prophet, told David, "I gave you...wives..." {that's "wives," PLURAL.} (2 Samuel 12:8)
So, apparently, YHWH gave Joseph only one wife, but gave David 18. (Well, David did steal one of them...)
Which was His best?
For Joseph, one wife. For David, more than one.
If one-size-fits-all in regards to marriage (it doesn't), then either: 1) every man should have one and only one wife, because that is how many YHWH gave to Joseph; or 2) every man should have 18 wives, because that is how many YHWH gave to David.
But YHWH tailors His plan for each individual based on His wisdom and infinite knowledge of that individual; what is best for one man is different than what is best for another man. Some men will be content with one wife, because that is what YHWH called them to do; others will either have more than one or long to do so, because that is what YHWH called them to do. Whatever YHWH calls an individual to do is YHWH's best for that individual.
And likewise, some women will be called by YHWH to be part of a one-wife-only family, and others, to be part of a more-than-one-wife family.
The only case that could possibly be made for "{some marital status} is not YHWH's best" would be celibacy, because He said it is not good for man to be alone. Nowhere in my Bible have I found, "It is not good for a man to have only one wife" or "It is not good for a man to have more than one wife." Just, "...It is not good that man should be alone..." (Genesis 2:18)
IMHO, the "debate" about YHWH's "best" being monogamy or polygyny is a silly exercise in argumentation.
BTW, we can't be certain that Joseph had only one wife. It is inferred from the Biblical record because Joseph had only two sons, but it is possible that he had one or more other wives who bore only daughters.
As to whether "monogamy is YHWH's best" or "polygyny is YHWH's best," well, is it better to drive a Chevy or a Ford? Is it better to eat eggs scrambled, or over easy?
And when did YHWH ever give anything less than His best to one of His servants?
As far as the Biblical record tells us, Joseph (this is about the son of Jacob, not Joseph the wife of Mary) had only one wife; and, of course, the poster boy for Biblical Polygyny, King David, had 18 wives, as can best be determined from the Biblical record.
Joseph was given his one wife by the Pharoah, but it is evident throughout his story that YHWH was making things happen.
YHWH, through Nathan the prophet, told David, "I gave you...wives..." {that's "wives," PLURAL.} (2 Samuel 12:8)
So, apparently, YHWH gave Joseph only one wife, but gave David 18. (Well, David did steal one of them...)
Which was His best?
For Joseph, one wife. For David, more than one.
If one-size-fits-all in regards to marriage (it doesn't), then either: 1) every man should have one and only one wife, because that is how many YHWH gave to Joseph; or 2) every man should have 18 wives, because that is how many YHWH gave to David.
But YHWH tailors His plan for each individual based on His wisdom and infinite knowledge of that individual; what is best for one man is different than what is best for another man. Some men will be content with one wife, because that is what YHWH called them to do; others will either have more than one or long to do so, because that is what YHWH called them to do. Whatever YHWH calls an individual to do is YHWH's best for that individual.
And likewise, some women will be called by YHWH to be part of a one-wife-only family, and others, to be part of a more-than-one-wife family.
The only case that could possibly be made for "{some marital status} is not YHWH's best" would be celibacy, because He said it is not good for man to be alone. Nowhere in my Bible have I found, "It is not good for a man to have only one wife" or "It is not good for a man to have more than one wife." Just, "...It is not good that man should be alone..." (Genesis 2:18)
IMHO, the "debate" about YHWH's "best" being monogamy or polygyny is a silly exercise in argumentation.
BTW, we can't be certain that Joseph had only one wife. It is inferred from the Biblical record because Joseph had only two sons, but it is possible that he had one or more other wives who bore only daughters.
I'm just going to point out that the topic title has the word "Debate" in it, and then I'm not going to get into a "Debate" in a "Public" forum on this board.
Wow thanks brothes! I haven't changed my position on PM, just checking my defence. This is my first time debating it with a pastor that I think is being willingly ignorant. Cecil, I like that, "PM is God's perfect provision in a inperfect world." And that perfect world cannot be replicated till Jesus returns! Paul not the apostle, I agree that the most important question should be "do you submit to God". I agree the term polygamy is misunderstood and biblical marriage is better. Here are other ones; serial monogamy, meaning to marry divorce and marry again, sometimer over and over. Parallel monogamy meaning having two marriages at the same time, and plural marriage the one I like. PolyDoc, chevy is the way to go, ha ha! "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called everyone, so let him walk." 1Cor.7:17.
Jim- I drive a GMC...and eat my eggs scrambled. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Adam married himself. Eve was made from material removed from Adam's body, so Adam and Eve were more closely related genetically than any two other people in all history, with the possible exception of identical twins.
Dr. Allen is right on when he talks about DNA degenerating from generation to generation. Remember, Adam was genetically perfect until the moment YHWH pronounced the curses on creation because of Adam's sin. But this was debated almost endlessly in another thread. (Remember, Bels? )
Abram married his half-sister. Lot had children by his own daughters. (Yes, it was his daughters' scheming that brought it about, but it did happen.) Others in the Genesis record also married close relatives. The prohibition against marrying close relatives was given approximately 1491 BC at Mt. Sinai.
Until the law was given, there was no sin imputed. (See Romans 5:13) So it would have been perfectly acceptable, both from a genetics point of view and from a moral point of view, for Adam to take his own daughters in marriage, and for Adam's sons to take their own sisters in marriage. Or for any of Adam's male descendants to take any available female descendants of Adam in marriage. Scripture is silent on who married who before the Deluge, other than Adam/Eve (yes, we are given the names of Lamech's wives, but are not told how they were related to Lamech), so all we can do is speculate, and say that it made sense because Adam surely had more than three kids in 130 years. (Cain, Abel, and Seth - Adam was 130 when Seth was born.) Maybe only three SONS in 130 years, but likely, many more DAUGHTERS. One (or more? speculation again) married brother Cain, some (speculation again) married good ol' dad, some came along at the right time to marry brother Seth. And some real bad speculation: did Abel leave a few widows and orphans when Cain offed him?
Remember that almost proverbial question: "who did Cain marry?" Unless YHWH created more women than just Eve, he married his own sister. There was no one else. And saying that YHWH created more women than Eve is far more speculative than suggesting that Adam had more than three children in 130 years, and married his own daughters.
I tend to think that Adam had many daughters, and that he married not only some of his own daughters, but also, his own grandaughters, great-grandaughters, etc. But I can't be dogmatic on this, it's just OPINION.
Adam married himself. Eve was made from material removed from Adam's body, so Adam and Eve were more closely related genetically than any two other people in all history, with the possible exception of identical twins.
Dr. Allen is right on when he talks about DNA degenerating from generation to generation. Remember, Adam was genetically perfect until the moment YHWH pronounced the curses on creation because of Adam's sin. But this was debated almost endlessly in another thread. (Remember, Bels?
)Abram married his half-sister. Lot had children by his own daughters. (Yes, it was his daughters' scheming that brought it about, but it did happen.) Others in the Genesis record also married close relatives. The prohibition against marrying close relatives was given approximately 1491 BC at Mt. Sinai.
Until the law was given, there was no sin imputed. (See Romans 5:13) So it would have been perfectly acceptable, both from a genetics point of view and from a moral point of view, for Adam to take his own daughters in marriage, and for Adam's sons to take their own sisters in marriage. Or for any of Adam's male descendants to take any available female descendants of Adam in marriage. Scripture is silent on who married who before the Deluge, other than Adam/Eve (yes, we are given the names of Lamech's wives, but are not told how they were related to Lamech), so all we can do is speculate, and say that it made sense because Adam surely had more than three kids in 130 years. (Cain, Abel, and Seth - Adam was 130 when Seth was born.) Maybe only three SONS in 130 years, but likely, many more DAUGHTERS. One (or more? speculation again) married brother Cain, some (speculation again) married good ol' dad, some came along at the right time to marry brother Seth. And some real bad speculation: did Abel leave a few widows and orphans when Cain offed him?
Remember that almost proverbial question: "who did Cain marry?" Unless YHWH created more women than just Eve, he married his own sister. There was no one else. And saying that YHWH created more women than Eve is far more speculative than suggesting that Adam had more than three children in 130 years, and married his own daughters.
I tend to think that Adam had many daughters, and that he married not only some of his own daughters, but also, his own grandaughters, great-grandaughters, etc. But I can't be dogmatic on this, it's just OPINION.
G-d's original intent was that man not commit sin.
also, that man not have to eat by the sweat of his brow and that women not have the pain in childbirth (or monthly).
that the climate be so perfect that clothing not be needed.
that there be no predatory animals.
no thorns or thistles, poison ivy......
useless assumptions about, and pointless desire for, His original intent for marriage will not put the singles in families, as is His CLEAR intention.
also, that man not have to eat by the sweat of his brow and that women not have the pain in childbirth (or monthly).
that the climate be so perfect that clothing not be needed.
that there be no predatory animals.
no thorns or thistles, poison ivy......
useless assumptions about, and pointless desire for, His original intent for marriage will not put the singles in families, as is His CLEAR intention.
Let me modify my own speculation. I wrote:
Someone had to marry his own sister. And it had to occur long before Seth was born, or else there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, and Abel's grave until Adam and Eve had those sons and daughters mentioned in Genesis 5:4, in which case the world must have been a lonely place...
Did the genealogy of Cain in chapter 4 precede or follow (chronologically) that of Adam in chapter 5? IMHO, the events in Genesis are written in chronological order, possibly with some overlap. Lamech could have been born to Methushael's wife either before or after Seth was born to Adam's wife (Seth's mother might not have been Eve...), but IMHO, it was before. But the only clue we have to any such chronology is the order in which the events are recorded in the Genesis account.
There are four generations from Cain to Lamech. But Lamech's ancestor Enoch most probably was born soon after the murder of Abel, long before Seth was born. That would mean that Cain had a woman from somewhere before Genesis 5:4.
But remember - we are not told how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were born, nor are we told how old Cain and Abel were when the first murder took place.
And one final (for this post) thought on the matter: YHWH did NOT directly create any women other than Eve, because Eve is called the mother of all living:
****************
All this speculation might be fun for some of us, but what difference does it make? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...?
Possibly (again, speculation) if Abel was married and had kids before he was murdered, Cain could also have married his own niece(s) as well as his own sister(s). Likewise for Abel and Seth possibly marrying nieces.
Someone had to marry his own sister. And it had to occur long before Seth was born, or else there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, Seth, and Abel's grave until Adam and Eve had those sons and daughters mentioned in Genesis 5:4, in which case the world must have been a lonely place...
Did Adam and Eve wait 130 years to obey this command?
It's hard to imagine the most perfect man and most perfect woman in all history (talking about most perfect physically, not spiritually - spiritually, that would be Yeshua) having only three children in 130 years of marriage. And if Adam took other wives from among his female descendants, there could have been quite a population explosion taking place prior to Genesis 5:4, because his male descendants would have followed his example. Scripture rarely records the birth, death, etc., of specific individuals whose lives are not directly relevant to the topic being written about.
Did the genealogy of Cain in chapter 4 precede or follow (chronologically) that of Adam in chapter 5? IMHO, the events in Genesis are written in chronological order, possibly with some overlap. Lamech could have been born to Methushael's wife either before or after Seth was born to Adam's wife (Seth's mother might not have been Eve...), but IMHO, it was before. But the only clue we have to any such chronology is the order in which the events are recorded in the Genesis account.
There are four generations from Cain to Lamech. But Lamech's ancestor Enoch most probably was born soon after the murder of Abel, long before Seth was born. That would mean that Cain had a woman from somewhere before Genesis 5:4.
But remember - we are not told how old Adam was when Cain and Abel were born, nor are we told how old Cain and Abel were when the first murder took place.
And one final (for this post) thought on the matter: YHWH did NOT directly create any women other than Eve, because Eve is called the mother of all living:
****************
All this speculation might be fun for some of us, but what difference does it make? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin...?
Those who call historically accurate stories rules are often entirely wrong hermeneutically.
It is like saying
1. one day a saint or anti-saint named so and so put on a blue and yellow striped hat therefor we should always wear blue and yellow striped hats
Or
2. one day a saint or anti-saint named so and so put on a blue and yellow striped hat therefor we should never wear blue and yellow striped hats
It is like saying
1. one day a saint or anti-saint named so and so put on a blue and yellow striped hat therefor we should always wear blue and yellow striped hats
Or
2. one day a saint or anti-saint named so and so put on a blue and yellow striped hat therefor we should never wear blue and yellow striped hats
Doc, (and Nathan), my sentiments exactly!