New Blog Post: why did God seemingly allow Cain to get away with murder?

by adamah 79 Replies latest watchtower bible

tec

Unlike you, I use the word 'likely' without hesitation: I don't claim to have a BFF in Heaven who whispers sweet lil' insights into the meanings of the Bible, telling me what the Yahwist who wrote the account of Cain in Genesis REALLY MEANT to say.

You could still look at anything Christ had to say. You could also look at the accounts themselves (in fact, since you are about to say you agree with me... I don't get what you've been arguing about all this time, that God forgot to declare murder a sin before the flood)

Rational people understand that Jesus died a long time ago, and remains dead.

Doesn't make them any less wrong.

As a result, I have to rely on admittedly more-boring methods such as conducting research, wading thru opinions and discussions amongst ancient and contemporary rabbis, etc, trying to discern the likely intended meaning of the account by considering the function it likely provided to those living in the original societal context in which the story was heard.

It is not that they are boring... it is just that they are less reliable than Christ... Him being the Truth; and those scholars/writings/etc are also based on opinions and thoughts of those who believe what LIKELY happened, also trying to discern the likely intended meaning of the account.

You can still reason through them though... but please do not be annoyed with me for pointing out an inconsistency in any statement or conclusion drawn.

Hey, I agree with YOU.

See ; )

And now who is moving the goalposts?

Although you DO realize that you are contradicting Apostle Paul's explanation now, and telling him that HE is wrong? (I don't agree with Paul, either, as I said, but for a different reason which I explained in my article.)

Well, Paul is not Christ, and can be wrong... but it could also quite easily be that you (and others, including me) do not understand what Paul meant.

Read Hebrews 4/5, as you're missing the point of Paul's claim: he introduced the early Christian apologetic argument to excuse God's lax punishment for Cain committing murder with his "no chargeable sin, no punishment". That was Paul's concept, NOT mine. I mentioned it, since the account itself tends to suggest otherwise! In fact, I doubt Paul fully understood the account served as an introduction to the go-el' (avenger of the spilled blood of a relative), so he offered ANOTHER explanation that wasn't even needed. Paul was a Greek; he wouldn't know the about the blood avenger, since it had long since been discontinued (about 500 yrs before his time).

Paul was a Jew. (and I believe you meant Romans 4/5) And he does not mention anything about Cain (unless I missed it; please point it out). Paul understood that the law was a tutor - until Christ came to teach Truth. His entire spiel was about how the law does not save (though it does make one aware of sin, including the sin IN them)... but how we are saved by faith in Christ, and the grace of God.

You are bringing in another element.

Although God didn't officially prohibit bloodshed until AFTER the Flood, it doesn't change the fact that like so many other accounts in Genesis (eg the so-called rape of Dinah story), the Cain account serves a purpose of touting how much more improved the Mosaic laws are (they're in the same book, after all). The account of Cain is written with the GOAL of showing how much greater the institution of cities of refuge were than Cain's plight of being forced to wander the Earth, with the new, improved concept of a familial 'go-el' who was allowed to chase after killers (whether murderer or accidental manslaughter), and kill them with impunity if they didn't make it to the 'city of refuge'.

See how great God-given justice is? Wouldn't it be COOL to be able to murder someone like, I dunno, say a 70 yr old grandmother who lost consciousness while behind the wheel due to epilepsy (1st time episode), and they killed one of your family members? Just grab the nearest killing implement, and start whacking on her while she's unconscious? Wouldn't THAT be great?

That's God-given justice, Old Testament style.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning, because I think your premise is false.

The Israelites needed the law; they did not know how to live FREE.

Yeah, we've beaten that horse to death. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, since you claim the fruit is poisonous, and death occurred due to natural consequences. Utterly absurd, without any basis in scriptural interpretation to rest on (and in fact, to the contrary: eg "thru sin, death entered the World" Heck, I qoute the same relevant scripture in the article, but for a different purpose).

Well, the words ARE... you must not eat from this tree; for when you do, you will die.

You can disagree with the rest... but those words do not state or even imply punishment.

Thanks, but I'm talking about an account in Genesis 4 involving Cain and Abel; you DO realize that's only like a couple millenia BEFORE Jesus was around, right, to utter his "he who lives by the sword" thing? Are you moving Bible characters around thru time and space?

Christ was BEFORE Cain and Abel. And again... it is through Christ that we see God. So if you want to understand something truthfully, you can't leave Him out of it. He is the one who shows the Truth about God.

And those two statements were almost identical.

Peace to you,

tammy
adamah

TEC said-

You could still look at anything Christ had to say. You could also look at the accounts themselves (in fact, since you are about to say you agree with me... I don't get what you've been arguing about all this time, that God forgot to declare murder a sin before the flood)

Q1: So, since you think a law existed BEFORE the Flood: where is it found (chapter/verse) in the Bible?

Q2: Then please explain what is the point of the Noahide Covenant is (which is found at Genesis 9:5-6), God's prohibition against bloodshed for ALL mankind? Does God simply sometimes feel the need to repeat himself in the form of Divine Prohibitions, even bothering to enter into Covenants repeatedly just because?

My God, TEC, anyone who knows anything about covenants in the Bible knows what 'covenant markers' are: eg Abrahamic Covenant is 'marked' by the visible 'sign' of circumcision, a visible element that reminds the person and others that they are bound to a covenant. THe same goes for the covenant marker of the rainbow, reminding everyone of an eternal covenant God entered into with mankind promising never to flood the Earth again and to enforce his promise to enforce his "no bloodshed" rule by demanding an accounting for spilled blood.

Adamah said-

Although you DO realize that you are contradicting Apostle Paul's explanation now, and telling him that HE is wrong? (I don't agree with Paul, either, as I said, but for a different reason which I explained in my article.)

TEC said-

Well, Paul is not Christ, and can be wrong... but it could also quite easily be that you (and others, including me) do not understand what Paul meant.

Q3: So, by all means, please share with us what Jesus tells you what Paul meant in Romans quotes I cited in the article. Set the record straight, and if it's compelling, I'll update my article with yours and Jesus' insights.

BTW, on this:

Paul was a Jew.

Paul was a "Hellenized Jew": do you know what that means? He was raised far outside of Palestine in the region which is now modern-day Turkey, and was a Greek citizen by birth. He was not borne in Israel, but about 400 miles to the Northwest from Jerusalem.

Jesus would know that, since he was familiar with Ancient Near East geography (having encountered Paul on the ROAD to Tarsus, and all that....)

And he does not mention anything about Cain (unless I missed it; please point it out).

Paul referred to those who existed BEFORE the Law of Moses, and he referred to Adam. Per Genesis 4, Cain was the firstborn son of Adam, and lived BEFORE Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites. Put 2 and 2 together, and anyone can see Paul is referring to those inhabitants of the antediluvian and pre-Mosaic World, which included Cain and Abel.

I've asked you to provide specific answers to THREE SPECIFIC questions/issues above (in bold, and preceded by Q1/Q2/Q3), so I'm not wasting time shot-gunning multiple issues, with a slew of question that only go unanswered). So please provide specific answers to the above questions, before proceeding further.

Adam
Band on the Run

Your reference to what ancient Hebrews would think of legal concepts such as murder was interesting. My sole objection is to stating what Jewish belief is without referencing even a standard reference book. How do we know your statements are true? What is the source of your information? Reference to Encyclopedia Judaica would bolster your arguments.

I read too many analyses of scripture where the author asserts historical fact witho no reference. if it is objective fact, rather than opiinion, a source should be given. If it is conjectiure, stating "my view is...," "the better view is...." helps.

I thougth it was articulate and thoughtful overall. The standard hunter vs. agriculture argument was expected. I don't know if I agree about faith. Gensis and Hebrews are a long way apart. To read Hebrews into Genesis does damage to Genesis. Scriptures stand alone within their books. The Bible was not canonized until late. I personally reject the Witness view that all scriptures fits so neatly b/c it is often messy.

Personally, I prefer the simple view that no murder was prob. commited. Rather, the story reflects older tensions surrounding the transition from a nomadic hunting culture to a more civilized agricultrual society. I doubt the authors of Genesis expected these stories to be taken literally. Also, we place so much focus on these brief vignettes. Incredible vignettes. Unbelievable stories. If they are to be accepted for more than early culture, they should have more details. We have no clue what the story is about from reading the story. What lessons are to be learned? God likes red meat? The account does not explain why God prefers meat. To read more into it, the reader is forced to invent facts on her own.

You believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the OT. I do not by any means. Jewish readers would disagree with you. It was refreshing to read, however. We were not allowed to think much as Witnesses.
tec

Q1: So, since you think a law existed BEFORE the Flood: where is it found (chapter/verse) in the Bible?

Adamah... you said that murder was not declared a sin that one would be held accountable for until after the Flood. The account of Cain shows otherwise.

If you cannot see that... I cannot help you.

You even agreed with me above... but are yet again changing your tune.

Q2: Then please explain what is the point of the Noahide Covenant is (which is found at Genesis 9:5-6), God's prohibition against bloodshed for ALL mankind? Does God simply sometimes feel the need to repeat himself in the form of Divine Prohibitions, even bothering to enter into Covenants repeatedly just because?

A contract (covenant) spells out the obligations and agreements and even penalties of both parties entering into an agreement.

But yes, He does need to state the law... to teach those who are unwilling to see or know their sins and do what is right. Do not murder was also repeated in the Mosaic law; but it was already a law, and it was always a sin, and always from the evil one. As Cain was also of the evil one. (1John)

Remember also that God had just given Noah and his descendants the right to eat MEAT (eveything that lives and moves will be food for you... just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything)... and in giving them that, He added a clarification about the prohibition on meat wth lifeblood in it, as well as stating that he will demanding an account for man's own lifeblood.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

Paul was a "Hellenized Jew": do you know what that means? He was raised far outside of Palestine in the region which is now modern-day Turkey, and was a Greek citizen by birth. He was not borne in Israel, but about 400 miles to the Northwest from Jerusalem.

Jesus would know that, since he was familiar with Ancient Near East geography (having encountered Paul on the ROAD to Tarsus, and all that....)

So? You think where he was born and raised meant that he did not know the law or the prophets or the history of his people, or the scriptures? Him being born and raised outside of Israel somehow means that he would not have known what the avenger of blood was... but you and your scholars today may know it?

Paul referred to those who existed BEFORE the Law of Moses, and he referred to Adam. Per Genesis 4, Cain was the firstborn son of Adam, and lived BEFORE Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites. Put 2 and 2 together, and anyone can see Paul is referring to those inhabitants of the antediluvian and pre-Mosaic World, which included Cain and Abel.

But Paul is not saying what you are saying. You are saying that God was to blame for the world becoming filled with murder and evil... an oopsie on His behalf... because murder was not declared a sin before the flood. This is the crux of your argument, is it not? When clearly, murder was shown to be a sin just from the account of Cain and Abel... or there would have been NO consequence for Cain's actions.

.

So you have made inferences along the way that Paul did not make (or any other apostle, for that matter) Personally I think Paul's letter is somewhat confusing. But he is speaking about justification through faith... and not through the law. (though even he states that those who sin apart from the law will die apart from the law... and those under the law will be judged by the law... romans 2:12) Though it would seem as though he is speaking about God making allowance for those who sin in ignorance (the law does not afford anyone that excuse though), and I can see that because even Christ said that the servant who knows his master's will and does not do it will be beaten with many blows, verses the one who does not know being beaten with few blows. Also Christ said to the pharisees, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but because you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

.

However, none of that provides a framework for your statement that God forgot to declare murder a sin before the flood (his oopsie, as you have called it)... as again, it was written of in the account of Cain and Abel. Even Cain knew that it was wrong, for God warned him about getting hold of his anger before it mastered him and he sinned.

.

Peace, tammy
latinthunder

Adam, I really enjoyed reading that article and, for the most part, I agree with you especially about how Paul was wrong. However, in regards to Genesis 4 you left a LOT out but the article doesn't seem to want to be comprehensive, but specialized. Allow me to expound:

Cain represents the "seed of the serpent" mentioned in the previous chapter and Abel the "seed of the woman." The prophecy was that the serpent's seed would be a setback for mankind that would eventually be overcome by the seed of the woman. It sets the stage for the battle between good and evil (Genesis means ORIGINS so you have the origin of the battle of good and evil in it). The evil one's being those who gave into their evil inclination and the good ones's being those who remained in control of their faculties; the ones who "rule over" their own sin.

Cain and Abel were brothers and like any two brothers they were rivals. This is why one kept flocks and the other worked the soil. Both were trying to please God by way of competition. It was Cain and Abel who made God choose between them and he did, he chose Abel. He crowned him the victor in their childish game. Cain then becomes a sore loser and allows his evil inclination firmly set in his psyche, resulting in a crime of passion.

What's important to note is that the evil inclination actually comes with a spiritual element. That's why God says that sin was "crouching" at Cain's door. All men have a "beast within" that we can choose to embrace, or subdue, this is by design. The serpent, who is the devil, is a hunter like a lion crouching in the high grass waiting for an opportunity to strike. It could be said that God warned Cain about the devil's interest in him.

An important theme in the Torah is the negative effects of greed, specifically greed for power. Cain had a huge ego to fill and desired power over God himself. That's why he became angry at God, because he believed he was superior to him and was being told he was inferior to his brother. He didn't really get that idea from himself, but from "someone" else. His weaknesses were being exploited by powers beyond himself.

Consider the greek word for "dragon" which is used in the book of Revelation:

1404 drákōn (from derkomai, "to see," the root of the English term, "dragon") – properly "seeing one," used of mythical dragons (huge serpents) seeing their prey from far away; (figuratively) Satan (Rev 12:7,9) exercising his subtle (indirect) impact on heathen governments (powers) – i.e. accomplishing his hellish agenda from "behind the scenes."

A dragon is a mythical creature which has the charactistic of hunting it's prey from behind the scenes (possibly using a type of telepathy). Which is exactly what took place in the story of Cain and Abel. Cain had no idea he was being hunted by the serpent who had other plans for him and his entire species.

So, with this information in mind put yourself into the shoes of the God character in Genesis 4. What he is seeing is, like Adam and Eve, his creation being utterly decieved. He tried to warn Cain, but he likely knew he wouldn't have the strength to stand up to the wiles of the devil, who was "crawling on his belly and eating dust" but still the "wisest of the wild animals." Cain, like Adam and Eve, was a sad story and God only charged him with manslaughter rather than murder one, like you said. His "perversion" as you say, was used to exploit him and his people.

In the end of the story we see the plan of the devil coming to fruition. He gets a civilization where he has more victims to prey on from behind the scenes, (as dragons do), which ultimately results in the entire human population giving into "yetzer hara" which then forces the hand of God in the Great Flood. By Genesis 6 it truly appears as if the devil is winning the battle he started with the Creator of all things. But if you keep reading you see that what happened was merely a bruising of the heel (a reference to the achilles heel) which causes a stumbling. The Torah shows everybody stumbling, including God which is why he had cause to regret. Yet, in the end the devil is thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur to eternally pay for his crimes throughout the ages.

I thank you for taking the time to write that article. It really got me thinking and I appreciate it!
adamah

Hi BOTR,

Thanks for reading!

Your reference to what ancient Hebrews would think of legal concepts such as murder was interesting. My sole objection is to stating what Jewish belief is without referencing even a standard reference book. How do we know your statements are true? What is the source of your information? Reference to Encyclopedia Judaica would bolster your arguments.

I'm assuming that my reader is already familiar with basic OT concepts like the story of Cain and Abel, and even later concepts such as "cities of refuge", since I'm writing for JWs who generally are familiar with the ideas, based on their Bible readings. If they wish to learn more, they can easily Google the topic for themselves (eg the Jewish Encyclopedia has info on the topic of blood avengers, go'el, cities of refuge, etc). I decided to primarily focus only using the Bible as the main reference, since JWs seemingly still respect it.

I read too many analyses of scripture where the author asserts historical fact witho no reference. if it is objective fact, rather than opiinion, a source should be given. If it is conjectiure, stating "my view is...," "the better view is...." helps.

What I'm trying to do is "connect the dots" for the reader, combining their pre-existing beliefs and understandings that they already have in order to explain it in a non-devotional theologically-free manner, but resolving some of the contradictions that exist (and are glossed over by the WT). I'm approaching it almost as a sociologisit would, thinking in terms of what benefits concepts (such as the blood avenger and cities of refuge) provided in Biblical Israel. Of course, I thought that such a disclaimer wouldn't be necessary, since the article itself (and in fact, ANY theological claim ever made) is one of opinion, NOT facts, since, if you're an atheist like me, you'd see the entire Bible as a work of clever men written to address issues of their time.

I started out with footnotes and citations, but I decided against it, as the article is unmanagably long, as it is (and I'm still trying to cut out the redundancy as we speak; it needs some additional editing to facilitate readability). Obviously it's not written for publication in a journal for Bible scholars to read, so the citations are optional (like you say, anyone can verify for themselves). But you do raise a good point, as it could use SOME references to support credibility.

For the record, I've been influenced by texts such as "Homicide In the Biblical World" (Pamela Barmash), "Law Book for the Diaspora" (J Van Seters), "Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis" (J Van Seters), "Blood and Belief: the Circulation of a Symbol Amongst Christians and Jews" (David Biale), "Capital Punishment Among the Jews" (David de Sola Pool), but AFAIK, none have connected the dots in this manner to suggest the tale as an character study to support the later provisions of Mosaic Law. I'm suggesting that many of the lessons offered in the allegorical tales of the the epilogue are provided to demonstrate the value of the later laws that are given to address similar issues in an improved manner. Many readers seemingly overlook that the Torah IS a book of civil and criminal laws which incorporates a "family history" of the Jews.

Hence, the Cain story serves as the foreshadowing of the blood avenger system, introduced to deal with rampant blood feuds amongst familial clans; the story of Dinah is provided to demonstrate the wisdom of later provisions against intermarriage, the Lot story demonstrates the wisdom of statutes against incest (a point that apparently was missed by the Christian author of 2nd Peter, who declared Lot as "righteous", thus missing the entire POINT the author of Genesis was desparately trying to make: Lot wasn't saved because HE was righteous, but due to Abraham's 'transferrable righteousness'. I wrote an article on my blog on the misreading of Lot here by the author of 2nd Peter...).

I thougth it was articulate and thoughtful overall. The standard hunter vs. agriculture argument was expected.

I didn't look at that angle, since my approach is to see the story in terms of what value it provides within the Torah, itself; foreshadowing cities of refuge fits the bill. I'm familiar with the hypothesis of the mark of Cain serving as reflective of Kenite history and the struggles between shepherds/hunter-gatherers/agriculturalists, but I don't find it very compelling.

I don't know if I agree about faith. Genesis and Hebrews are a long way apart. To read Hebrews into Genesis does damage to Genesis.

Maybe so, but that's not MY point.

I'm pointing out how Paul engaged in early Christian apologetics to account for the lax punishment God provided to Cain, about 800 yrs after the account was written. Paul didn't know the account any better than anyone else, and the "faith" elements of Hebrews 11 are HIS interpretation (although it does make sense, since there's no mention in Genesis of God explicitly telling them what to offer to him).

I'm suggesting Paul overlooked an important element of the account, which had gotten lost in the sands of time long before he had been born. Paul was a Hellenized Jew living in an area controlled by Rome, and even if he HAD been raised in Jerusalem, it likely wouldn't have mattered: the Jews had long-ago lost the ability to exercise judicial procedures laid out in the Torah about 600 yrs before he was born: Jews weren't allowed by their overlords to carry out capital punishment from the time of the Assyrian/Babylonian capture and exile.

Scriptures stand alone within their books. The Bible was not canonized until late. I personally reject the Witness view that all scriptures fits so neatly b/c it is often messy.

Well, as an atheist, I say "no kidding!" When someone says, "there are no contradictions in the Bible" it's a red flag that they either have read or understood the Bible OR they are cognitively blinded by their faith.

That's my goal: to reveal those types of discrepancies, a little at a time so as to educate those who WANT to know more, hopefully not triggering defensive reactions to protect their fragile "faith".

Personally, I prefer the simple view that no murder was prob. commited. Rather, the story reflects older tensions surrounding the transition from a nomadic hunting culture to a more civilized agricultrual society. I doubt the authors of Genesis expected these stories to be taken literally. Also, we place so much focus on these brief vignettes. Incredible vignettes. Unbelievable stories. If they are to be accepted for more than early culture, they should have more details.

Yup, I often say that anyone who hasn't looked into the problems of translating ancient Hebrew into modern English doesn't understand the "reading tea leaves" nature of taking these stories as more than fascinating records of ancient cultures; to look for them as wisdom, or as inspired communications from deities, is frankly nuts.

The fact is, many readers of the Torah overlook is that it is, above all, a BOOK OF ANCIENT LAW, written in a time when many ancient legal codes didn't appear apart of a historical narrative as they do today, but the history of the culture was combined and intertwined (Eg Sumerian law codes include an explanation of how the royal lines were given permission by the Gods to rule; it's no coincidence the story of Noah also contains a delegation of Divine Authority passage, just like the Sumerian accounts do).

We have no clue what the story is about from reading the story. What lessons are to be learned? God likes red meat? The account does not explain why God prefers meat. To read more into it, the reader is forced to invent facts on her own.

What it says to ME is that the Priestly Class liked a big slab of red meat steak as much as the next guy, but knew that it made them get ruddy (which they didn't know was gout). Therefore, they decided to lay off the meat demands, and to include the provision for God demanding grain offerings. They weren't big fans of shrimp, so no big loss declaring them as "unclean".

Oh, on this:

You believe that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the OT. I do not by any means. Jewish readers would disagree with you. It was refreshing to read, however. We were not allowed to think much as Witnesses.

As an ex-believer/atheist, I am free to think anyway as the evidence leads me, however blasphemous anyone else may consider it.

Adam
adamah

LT said:

However, in regards to Genesis 4 you left a LOT out but the article doesn't seem to want to be comprehensive, but specialized.

Yup, that's it: as the title suggests, I was looking ONLY at the question of Cain's committing murder vs manslaughter, and looking at Genesis, itself.

As a secondary analysis, I looked at the ramifications of what a misreading implies for later readers of the account, including Apostle Paul, who in Hebrews attempted to explain murder away by relying on common legal principles of his day. While not necessarily incorrect, I agree with TEC in saying that God gave punishment, so Paul's "no law, no punishment" explanation seems not to be borne out by the example of Cain commiting and being punished for manslaughter by cursing the ground (which was a penalty God no longer had to use after the Flood as he did for Adam and Cain, since God instead delegated Divine Authority to humans in order to enforce the newly-minted "no bloodshed" law).

But thanks for the information and research you've done, and glad you enjoyed the article.

Adam
adamah

OH, BTW, on this, LT:

What's important to note is that the evil inclination actually comes with a spiritual element. That's why God says that sin was "crouching" at Cain's door. All men have a "beast within" that we can choose to embrace, or subdue, this is by design. The serpent, who is the devil, is a hunter like a lion crouching in the high grass waiting for an opportunity to strike. It could be said that God warned Cain about the devil's interest in him.

The concept of evil waiting to pounce like a wild animal upon a sinner is a Christian metaphor, and not supported by the original Hebrew reading: take a look at the Hebrew word, ravat, which often means "reclines" as if a sheep, after a period of exertion. Remember too that 'yetzer hara' is INSIDE each of us, per Jewish beliefs.

http://skipmoen.com/tag/crouching/

It is CRUCIAL to look at the significance of EVERY WORD you think you understand in the Bible, and NOT to trust prior things you only "think" you understand, as it's likely not correct, but simply a narrative that you've blindly accepted as Gospel truth.

Adam
adamah

ADAM said: Q1: So, since you think a law existed BEFORE the Flood: where is it found (chapter/verse) in the Bible?

Adamah... you said that murder was not declared a sin that one would be held accountable for until after the Flood.

I NEVER said that: Paul said it, in Romans. Paul basically said, "no Divine Law, no sin; no sin, no punishment, since it's not imputed to the sinner".

Paul was WRONG, since as many Christians have done ever since, Paul mistook Genesis' depiction of manslaughter for murder, and hence confused God's early form of punishment for manslaughter (cursing the ground, protection of the manslaughterer) with the absense of punishment for murder ("blood for blood"). He mistook the punishment for manslaughter with lack of punishment for murder, not recognizing that the protective mark of Cain was intended to depict protection from residing in a 'city of refuge'.

Paul confused Lamech's paradoxical bragging of 77-fold protection (based on Lamech's noting the perverse incentive provided by his OWN confusion over Cain being guilty of manslaughter, not murder), so confusion begat confusion.

Hence Paul rationalized the cognitive dissonance away with his "No law, no chargeable sin" policy.

TEC said: The account of Cain shows otherwise. If you cannot see that... I cannot help you. You even agreed with me above... but are yet again changing your tune.

No, you misunderstand MY position for that of Paul's.

As you yourself have pointed out, Cain WAS punished by God, but it was delivered without any law having been on the books, since the fact remains that God didn't prohibit bloodshed until AFTER the Flood. You're simply exposing more contradictions with God's "perfect" justice, since God is punishing Cain even before God declared manslaughter OR murder as a sin, with their prescribed punishments.

I was agreeing with you to the extent that YES, God WAS "punishing" Cain, only not for murder, but for MANSLAUGHTER (which is the common Christian misunderstanding even to this day, eg even YOU said Cain was guilty of and being punished by God FOR MURDER, not manslaughter).

Do you get it now?

I wrote the article, so don't you think I have a pretty good idea of WHY I intentionally used the word "seemingly" in the title, "Why Did God seemingly allow Cain to get away with murder?"

The answer to the question is that God DIDN'T allow Cain to get away with murder: it wasn't a MURDER CASE, but MANSLAUGHTER, and God judged Cain GUILTY of MANSLAUGHTER. Cain's punishment is in line with that LATER prescribed under Mosaic Law (and the prohibition is even mentioned by the Noahide Covenant, with the reference to "from every man's brother I will require the life of a man". The idea is that an accounting is provided, in the sense that not all bloodshed is punished by death, eg manslaughter is not an offense which demands "blood for blood" But IF a man's brother catches someone fleeing to a city of refuge, the assumption was that God LET THEM catch the fugitive so that justice could be served).

In trying to depict Lamech's misunderstanding of God's punishment of Cain (where Lamech didn't realize God ruled Cain guilty of manslaughter, not murder), the author of Genesis created even MORE confusion by showing how Lamech's confusion led perversely to God incentivizing murder (by claiming 77 fold protection).

The confusion created by the account seemingly caught Apostle Paul up in it, too, since he excused it on the grounds of thinking anarchy (no law) meant no punishment!

Fact remains, bloodshed wasn't prohibited until AFTER the Flood (Genesis 9:5-6), along with God's promise to no longer dispense the 'punishment' of cursing the ground for the evil deeds of men; this ALSO was the result of the new "no bloodshed" law as that promise was given AFTER the Flood, as well, since God had a new way of punishing man: delegation of Divine Authority was given to Noah, so "man could rule over man".

ALL THAT STATED, I don't see any scriptural support provided to my request to show a PRIOR prohibition against bloodshed. Try again, answering ONLY with a scripture (chapter/verse).

Q2: Then please explain what is the point of the Noahide Covenant is (which is found at Genesis 9:5-6), God's prohibition against bloodshed for ALL mankind? Does God simply sometimes feel the need to repeat himself in the form of Divine Prohibitions, even bothering to enter into Covenants repeatedly just because?

A contract (covenant) spells out the obligations and agreements and even penalties of both parties entering into an agreement.

But yes, He does need to state the law... to teach those who are unwilling to see or know their sins and do what is right. Do not murder was also repeated in the Mosaic law; but it was already a law, and it was always a sin, and always from the evil one. As Cain was also of the evil one. (1John)

Remember also that God had just given Noah and his descendants the right to eat MEAT (eveything that lives and moves will be food for you... just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything)... and in giving them that, He added a clarification about the prohibition on meat wth lifeblood in it, as well as stating that he will demanding an account for man's own lifeblood.

"Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

Yeah, you missed the POINT that the Noahide Covenant's bloodshed prohibition applies to ALL of Noah's descendents (including non-Jews, AKA Gentiles), whereas the Mosaic Covenant's restrictions against bloodshed applies ONLY to the Israelites, the Jews. The law applied ONLY to them, not to Gentiles.

The prohibition against murder being repeated in the Covenant Code is similar to how murder can be a violation of Federal AND State law, being found in BOTH judicial codes.

Paul was a "Hellenized Jew": do you know what that means? He was raised far outside of Palestine in the region which is now modern-day Turkey, and was a Greek citizen by birth. He was not borne in Israel, but about 400 miles to the Northwest from Jerusalem.

Jesus would know that, since he was familiar with Ancient Near East geography (having encountered Paul on the ROAD to Tarsus, and all that....)

So? You think where he was born and raised meant that he did not know the law or the prophets or the history of his people, or the scriptures? Him being born and raised outside of Israel somehow means that he would not have known what the avenger of blood was... but you and your scholars today may know it?

The foreshadowing and meaning of the story of Cain was lost to Paul: the writings in Hebrews proves it. As you say, the example of Cain's punishment contradicts his early Christian attempt at apolegetics to cover God's lax punishment for murder.

Paul referred to those who existed BEFORE the Law of Moses, and he referred to Adam. Per Genesis 4, Cain was the firstborn son of Adam, and lived BEFORE Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites. Put 2 and 2 together, and anyone can see Paul is referring to those inhabitants of the antediluvian and pre-Mosaic World, which included Cain and Abel.

But Paul is not saying what you are saying. You are saying that God was to blame for the world becoming filled with murder and evil... an oopsie on His behalf... because murder was not declared a sin before the flood. This is the crux of your argument, is it not?

That is more or less the point, yes.

When clearly, murder was shown to be a sin just from the account of Cain and Abel... or there would have been NO consequence for Cain's actions.Nope; that's where you're off one a kilter. As I explain in the article, by the punishment God provided and the other details offered in the account, Cain didn't COMMIT MURDER; God punished him for commiting MANSLAUGHTER. There WERE consequences for manslaughter, but then you have the additional problem of God punishing Cain without actually haven prohibited bloodshed.

So you have made inferences along the way that Paul did not make (or any other apostle, for that matter) Personally I think Paul's letter is somewhat confusing. But he is speaking about justification through faith... and not through the law. (though even he states that those who sin apart from the law will die apart from the law... and those under the law will be judged by the law... romans 2:12)

Romans 2 is speaking of Gentiles, i.e. those who humans live OUTSIDE of the restrictions of Mosaic Law. It has NOTHING to do with Cain and Abel, since ALL mankind lived outside of ANY Divine Prohibitions, before the Flood's Noahide Covenant and Mosaic Law.

(Adam and Eve had violated the ONE Prohibition God handed down, in Genesis 3:16, and were punished for it).

Though it would seem as though he is speaking about God making allowance for those who sin in ignorance (the law does not afford anyone that excuse though),

What law are you referring to? What law do you imagine that Cain and Abel had to follow? Did you miss the point of Hebrews 11 saying that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices based on nothing but FAITH?

Prescient God is shown as holding Cain accountable to a FUTURE LAW that he was GOING TO PASS in some 1,500 years, after Cain lived.

and I can see that because even Christ said that the servant who knows his master's will and does not do it will be beaten with many blows, verses the one who does not know being beaten with few blows. Also Christ said to the pharisees, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but because you claim you can see, your guilt remains."

Yeah, you're quoting Jesus, who was extremely familiar with the Law of Moses, but who lived 4,000 yrs AFTER the account of Cain and Abel. You are time travelling again.

However, none of that provides a framework for your statement that God forgot to declare murder a sin before the flood (his oopsie, as you have called it)... as again, it was written of in the account of Cain and Abel. Even Cain knew that it was wrong, for God warned him about getting hold of his anger before it mastered him and he sinned.

Uh, the BIBLE ITSELF SAYS that, LOL! If you can read and understand Genesis 9:5-6, if you can read and understand the reasons WHY God felt the Flood was required in the first place, then you should have no problem grasping the concept that God didn't prohibit bloodshed until AFTER the Flood.

Adam
prologos

why was Cain's action manslaughter , when he

a) had motive

b) was shown to be harbouring hate,envie, being at the verge of action when warned, took time to think about it further*,

c) planned or picked the place perhaps even carried the stick? like today'shockey players?

* perhaps egged on by God's remarks , like

Paul said he was with the law on adultery?

who in his right mind would originally think about let alone read aloud from the HOLY bible to his children about bestiality?

just trying to learn by your fine remarks.

New Blog Post: why did God seemingly allow Cain to get away with murder?

Share this