Could Satan Be The Father of Cain? – LIVE Q&A for May 22, 2025

Could Satan Be the Father of Cain?

From Brad via email:

David, if it is possible that angels took women as wives and had offspring (Genesis 6) to interfere with the coming of Jesus, isn’t it also possible that Satan did the same thing in the garden with Eve? Then gave birth to Cain. Thank you.

This is something that just isn’t in the Bible – not in a literal sense at all.

Genesis 4:1

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

The Bible makes a direct connection between the marital intimacy of Adam and Eve (Adam knew Eve his wife) and the conception of Cain (and she conceived and bore Cain). So there really isn’t any place to say that in some strange way Satan is really the literal, biological father of Cain – no matter what may have happened later in Genesis 6 with the sons of God and the daughters of men.

However, we can say that there is a symbolic or metaphorical way that Satan was the father of Cain. Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44). Jesus may have had Satan’s work in provoking Cain to murder Abel in mind with the phrase, He was a murderer from the beginning.

Certainly, Cain was walking in sync with Satan – as Jesus described in John 10:10: The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. So, if we make a connection between Satan and Cain, it isn’t in the sense of being a literal father – Genesis 4:1 tells us that isn’t true. It could be in a symbolic or metaphorical, sense, but not in any literal sense.

When it comes to these kinds of speculations outside the Bible, one could say just about anything. One could say that aliens or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster was the father of Cain just as easily.

It is easy (and dangerous) for us to be attracted to strange and novel interpretations. We live in an age where everyone has a voice, and where people want to question everything. Lots of time, the vibe is something like this: “Whatever they told you before is wrong. The people you thought were good guys were really bad guys. The people you thought were bad guys were really good guys. We’re going to tell you the truth about these things, just listen to us.”

It’s good to question, it’s good to re-evaluate, it’s good to not blindly follow so-called experts. But if you’re going to do those things, you have to be able to discern between what is from the Bible – based on good, solid Biblical evidence – and what isn’t from the Bible. It’s important to base our faith on what the Bible says, not on speculations people may make about the Bible. I say this to pastors and teachers – it’s OK to speculate a little about the biblical account, just make it clear when you are speculating, and going beyond the actual biblical information.

I think it was John Trapp who said, “Where the Bible has no tongue, we must have no ears.” We shouldn’t pretend to hear what the Bible doesn’t say.

This is a potential danger with Bible dramatizations such as the series The Chosen. While I’m not against the series, we should be real about the danger of:

• Something filled with dramatic speculations and subplots that people seem to like better than the Bible.
• Confusion over what is in the Bible and what isn’t.

A disclaimer like this would be good: “This series is based upon the biblical record found in the four gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those are the most important and only truly authoritative telling of the story of Jesus. Our writers have creatively added background material, character development, and subplots that hope to reverently present the story in a real-life context. We invite you to enjoy the work of our writers, actors, directors, and crew, but please rely only on the biblical record.”

Why does God give humans the chance for redemption but not Satan and the fallen angels?

I’ll give you my thoughts on this, although I can’t say that the Bible specifically says this. However, I think it presents concepts that are very much in line with this idea.
Human beings are different than angelic beings. One of the ways human beings and angelic beings are different is that human beings are capable of a relationship with God, but angelic beings are not. The Bible says that human beings are made in the image of God, but it nowhere says that about angelic beings. For that reason, I speculate that God doesn’t have the same relationship with angelic beings.

Here’s another aspect to think about. It may very well be that God gave angelic beings a time to be redeemed, a time to repent, and that time is simply over. That is how we believe it’s going to be for human beings, because the biblical data seems to tell us so. During this life, we have the choice of Heaven or Hell. When this life is over, those choices are over. So, we need to take our choices seriously right now, and we need to put our trust in Jesus Christ, in who He is and what He did to rescue fallen humanity, especially in His sacrificial, atoning death on the cross and in His victorious, glorious resurrection. That’s what we put our trust in, in who Jesus is, and what He did to rescue us. Now is the time we can do that. There will come a time when that opportunity is no longer available to humanity. We will pass from this life to the next and will be set in the choice that we’ve made. It’s very possible that the angels had a time of choosing at one point, but that time of choosing is over, and so now they are set for eternity, either for God or against Him.

Are there different levels of Hell?

I know that only through Christ we can go to heaven. Do you think that both a serial killer and a person who simply never heard of Christ, but who is very kindhearted will go to the same hell when they die. Or are there different levels of hell, like in Dante’s Inferno, or in Buddhism, where there are 18 levels of hell?

I do not believe that everybody suffers the same in hell. I believe this because, first of all, Jesus spoke of people who had a greater condemnation, and secondly, because it’s simply appropriate to justice. Please hear me on this. No one will have it good in hell. Every once in a while, you’ll hear people talk about wanting to go to Hell, and you don’t know if they’re just being flippant or if they’re really that tragically ignorant. They’ll say things like, “Oh yeah, I want to go to Hell. We’ll party together with my friends.” Friends, Hell isn’t going to be good for anybody. It’ll be the ultimate in misery and torment for every soul that chooses Hell over Heaven. There are a lot of people who don’t consciously choose Hell over Heaven, but because they don’t want God, the only option open left to them is Hell.

I don’t believe that everybody’s suffering will be the same, just like I don’t believe everybody’s reward in heaven will be the same. Nevertheless, as far as there being specific levels of hell and suffering, that idea may have something to do with the Buddhist conception of Hell. I know that in Dante’s Inferno, the great poem he wrote about Paradise and Hell and all the rest of it, Dante speculated that there were different levels and degrees of hell. We can’t specify as to how many, but I do believe that there will be a stricter judgment on some than upon others. Although nobody will have it good in the lake of fire, some will have it worse than others.

I once attended a Jehovah’s Witness church, and the preacher said you can’t declare yourself born again (or saved). He said God has to tell you, for you to declare it. Is that true?

I once attended a Jehovah’s Witness church, and the preacher said you can’t declare yourself born again (or saved). He said God has to tell you, for you to declare it. Is that true?

From my limited knowledge of the theology of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, also known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they believe that only a limited number of people are born again. I think they may be referring to the 144,000. This is a completely wrong understanding and interpretation of the Scripture, but that’s how they think of it. Therefore, they are very hesitant about anybody who claims to be born again, because they fear that it would be obvious that more than 144,000 were saved, making their theological claim obviously and patently wrong. I strongly disagree with the theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But the Bible talks about this very plainly. While Jesus was talking with Nicodemus about the necessity for being born again, or regenerated by the Spirit of God, He said, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him would not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

We can believe that God is faithful to His promises. Believing in Jesus Christ means to put my trust in Jesus, not merely to believe that He exists. There are lots of people who believe that Jesus exists. Even the demons believe that Jesus exists. But that’s not saving faith or biblical faith. Saving faith is to trust in, rely on, and cling to Jesus. By the way, that would have to be the biblical Jesus, not a Jesus of my own imagination, or the Jesus presented to me by a heretical group, such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I need to trust in, rely on, and cling to the real Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible. If I do that, I can be confident that I am born again. It’s not because I have made myself be born again; that’s impossible. Nobody can make themselves be born again. But we can do what God says: we believe in Him, and we receive the promise that He has made.

It’s really that simple. We can know that we’re born again if we do what God has promised. Again, that means we put our trust in Jesus Christ; we trust in, rely on and cling to Him, who He is and what He did to rescue us, especially what He did in His sacrificial atoning death on the cross and in His victorious, glorious resurrection. If we trust and rely on and cling to Jesus and what He did for us, then friends, we can have assurance that God is faithful to His promise, and we will be born again.

What did Jesus intend to communicate by requiring men to be circumcised to join Israel while not having any prerequisites for women to join Israel?

What did Jesus intend to communicate by requiring men to be circumcised to join Israel? Why not having any prerequisites for women to join Israel?

First of all, the phrasing of your question is a little bit curious. I can’t think of any occurrence during the earthly ministry of Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, where Jesus required a man to get circumcised. Now, certainly Jesus is God the Son, and as the second member of the Godhead, Jesus gave us His Word in the Old Testament. So, I understand that one could say the Old Testament commands for circumcision are the words of Jesus. Jesus doesn’t disclaim those words. In fact, Jesus fulfills those words. But I can’t think of any instance in the years of Jesus’ earthly ministry when He told somebody get circumcised in order to have salvation.

But that’s not the real answer to your question. Here’s the real answer to your question. Circumcision was an expression of coming under the Law of Moses. If a male Gentile desired to become Jewish, and he received circumcision, but went on to not keep any of the Mosaic Law – let’s say he worked on the Sabbath, he ate bacon, he ignored the laws of ceremonial cleansing, and so on – then to Jewish onlookers that person would not be considered a true son of Israel, even though he was circumcised. Circumcision in the Jewish conception, especially for a proselyte, was simply the beginning of coming under the Mosaic law. When the New Testament talks about this idea, especially in Paul’s works about coming under circumcision, it’s not the particular act itself, but it depicts the coming under the Law of Moses. It’s sort of a placeholder for doing the entire law of Moses. Now, women were also expected to come under the Law of Moses, although obviously not under the idea of circumcision, because that was given to men only. When we read about that idea of circumcision, we can understand it as being sort of a placeholder or an indicator of coming under the entire law of Moses.

What is Orthodox Christianity?

Orthodox Christianity fundamentally comes from the churches that were related to or came out of the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire. The Roman Empire divided between a Western Empire and an Eastern Empire. The Western Empire fell to the Barbarians centuries earlier, and the Eastern Empire eventually shrunk and was conquered by Islam. The language of the churches which grew out of places in the Eastern Empire of Rome was Greek and not Latin. Latin was used in the Western Empire. The eastern churches were more influenced by the thinking, language, customs of the east. These churches coalesced and developed into what we call today the churches of the Orthodox communion. They are often arranged on a national basis: there’s the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church, and so on.

There are many true born-again believers within the Orthodox Church. To be honest, I really don’t have a great desire to call people out of the Orthodox Church into the kind of evangelical Christianity which I live and practice. I would simply encourage any Orthodox believer to put their focus on Jesus, to love Jesus, to read His Word, and to walk in the basics of the Christian life, just like everybody should do.

One thing that is interesting to me about a lot of the Orthodox communion is that in some ways, theology is less important to them than it is to church traditions often found in the West, although it is not unimportant to them. You might say that the churches of the West have a strange obsession with theological questions and precise answers. I would say that there is more theological wrangling in the Western church than there is in the Eastern churches of the Orthodox communions. I find Orthodox Christianity to be more experiential and probably a bit more mystical in nature. Can people love Jesus, believe on Him, commit themselves to Him, and thrive in a spiritual life in that atmosphere? Absolutely they can. But just like being a member of a good evangelical or Protestant church doesn’t save you, neither does being a member of a good Orthodox Church save you. It’s not a matter of what group you belong to; it’s a matter of your individual faith in Jesus Christ.

Now, the other thing that I often like to mention about the Orthodox churches is to honor them. Here’s why. There is a good historical case to be made that the 20th century saw more martyrs of the Christian faith than in all previous centuries combined. By martyrs, I mean people who were killed primarily or significantly because they were Christians. A lot of this happened in the east, primarily under communist and Islamic regimes. It is worthy of notice that the vast majority of Christians martyred in the 20th century came from Orthodox communions, and for that, they deserve a measure of honor for bearing with and enduring the sufferings of the body of Christ.

Why was Jesus a carpenter? Does it relate to John 14:2?

Is there a specific reason Jesus was a carpenter on Earth? Does it relate to John 14:2, which tells us that He goes to prepare a place or a home for us?

John 14:2 – “In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

There could be a connection between Jesus’ chosen career as a carpenter and the fact that He said He’s going to go and prepare a place for us. But let’s consider a few things. First of all, we know that Jesus was not only a carpenter Himself. The Bible also tells us that He was a carpenter’s son. In other words, His adoptive father, Joseph, was also a carpenter. I wouldn’t say it was an absolute law, but it was very normal in those days that a son would carry on his father’s profession, especially the oldest son in the family, which role Jesus fulfilled. So, with Joseph being a carpenter as the father in the family, and Jesus his adoptive son, it would be very natural for Jesus to take on the same profession.

Secondly, consider this. If there is anybody who could have done anything that He wanted to do and been whatever he wanted to be, it was Jesus. And yet Jesus decided to be a builder, a carpenter. I think it’s a beautiful choice.

The word translated carpenter is the Koine Greek word tektōn, which describes someone who is more of a builder than a carpenter. In English, when we heard the word carpenter, we think of somebody who primarily works with wood. But the builder, the tektōn, would work with many different kinds of materials, such as stone, wood, or whatever was available.And Jesus learned a lot by being a carpenter. He learned how important it is to build, and He learned what He needed to learn about building His church. That’s what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:18, “I will build My church.” That’s His promise. Jesus said He would build His church, and He’s still building it and so we’re grateful for that. I think there is a glorious consistency that, of all the professions Jesus could have chosen, He worked all His adult life, until He launched his public ministry at age 30, as a carpenter.

How can we reconcile and explain God’s command for mass killings and erasing of whole nations (including women and children) in the book of Joshua?

People have approached this in different ways, but I resolve it under this simple principle. God is a judge, and God’s jurisdiction and authority as a judge are unlimited. Therefore, God has the right to judge not only individuals, but also communities, cities, states, nations, and kingdoms.

To our minds, we can understand when God passes judgment on an evil individual, because there’s an evil individual who deserved judgment. God either commands that that person be executed or God may carry out the execution Himself. We understand that.

But you see, I believe that God also has the right to judge communities, cities, nations, and empires. And when God judges a community, a city, an empire, or a nation, there will be people who are otherwise innocent. Let’s say God judges a city because of their gross sexual immorality, as he judged Sodom and Gomorrah. Now, sexual immorality was not the only sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, but it was part of it. So, if God brings that judgment, even people such as children in that community who did not sin in the exact same way would be judged because they’re part of that community.

Now, God will judge their soul eternally in His own fair and proper and righteous way. We can trust that. But I challenge anybody to tell me that God doesn’t have the right to judge a city, a state, a nation, or an empire. People who say that God cannot morally do so would restrict God’s jurisdiction as a judge. “God, You can judge this, but You can’t judge that.”

I believe the Bible teaches us that God is a judge, and He is a judge with unlimited jurisdiction. By the way, if we think of this on human terms, judges have the right to do things that other people don’t have. A judge may send someone to prison, but if I were to do that, I could be arrested for kidnapping. Why? Because I’m not a judge. I don’t have the authority to do that, but the judge does. So, it doesn’t do any good for us to look at what God does in His judgments and say, “Well, I wouldn’t do that,” or “I can’t do that.” Well, of course you wouldn’t do that. Of course you can’t do that. You’re not the Judge of all the earth, but God is.