What was the mark of Cain in Genesis 4:15? & what the hell was it for?

by cantleave 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  cantleave

  I would love to hear the views of believers on this subject.

  The mormon cult used to say this was black skin, and was one of the reasons why that cult would appoint black men to the preisthood. But they weren't the only ones who considered this to be the case.

  The interesting thing is this mark offered Cain god's ordained protection despite his killing his brother. Why would god afford him protection when murder was punishable by death? If you argue it was because he was the only male of reproducible age, then who was he being protected from, his dad?
• 

  KateWild

  No I wouldn't argue that at all. I would argue that the bible is not from God. Man wrote the bible to control women and the vulnerable. But the point is interesting, I would love to hear how someone who has faith in the bible would answer.

  Perhaps, Searcher or DD I am genuinely interested.

  Sam xx
• 

  J. Hofer

  i heard some of the ancient aliens crowd say that the mark of cain was not being able to grow a beard. they also said that cain went to america and that's why natives there usually are without beard. ah, and while i'm on it, they also said that hitler lives on some planet, i think it was called "nibiru", and that he will return last year.
• 

  eyeuse2badub

  The 'mark of Cain' was the ancient equivalent to the modern English letters "H" and "S". IMHO, I think Cain was the very first member of the Humane Society. He probably became indignant at Abel for slaughtering innocent animals. Did Abel slaughter sheep just for the purpose of sacrifice? They didn't eat flesh at that time, right? So why did Jehovah want blood sacrifices so early in mankind's history? It seems to me that Abel was the first to shed innocent blood mentioned in the Bible. Just saying.

  eyeuse2badub
• 

  adamah

  Cantleave said-

  The interesting thing is this mark offered Cain god's ordained protection despite his killing his brother. Why would god afford him protection when murder was punishable by death? If you argue it was because he was the only male of reproducible age, then who was he being protected from, his dad?

  I've written about the Cain and Abel account in this article, and suspect that the account served as a dramatic parable to show the benefit later provided by God in the prohibition against bloodshed, given after the Flood (Genesis 9:5-6); this scripture in turn reflects the later introduction of the codification of the concept of 'blood vengeance', the method used throughout the ancient World where the kin of the victim of bloodshed (both murder and manslaughter) had to seek justice on it's own, delivered by the hand of the brother of victim (remember how Abel's blood cried out from the ground, demanding vengeance).

  From the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906):

  1) Among primitive peoples of low political development—such as the ancient Greeks, Germans, and Slavs, some North American tribes, the modern Sicilians, Corsicans, and Arabs—the clan or family had to assume the right to protect itself. One of the most important clan duties then was plainly for the nearest of kin to hunt down and carry out the death-penalty on a person that had slain a member of the sept or family. That this idea of family retribution—which even to-day is by no means extinct in some comparatively civilized communities—was also current among the ancient Hebrews may be seen from Gen. xxvii. 45, where the existence of the custom is clearly taken for granted. It appears, furthermore, from Josh. vii. 24, and II Kings ix. 26, that, in the most primitive period, such a vendetta was extended to the entire family of the murderer, as is still the custom among the desert Bedouins.

  The Hebrew religious justification for the system of family blood-revenge was undoubtedly the firm belief that God, in order to insure the sacredness of human life, had Himself fixed the death penalty for murder (Gen. ix. 5 et seq.; Lev. xxiv. 17). In the earliest times blood-money was not accepted either for murder or for excusable homicide. Such a payment would have made the land "polluted by blood" (Num. xxxv. 31 et seq.). Unavenged blood "cried out" for vengeance to God (Gen. iv. 10; Isa. xxvi. 21; Ezek. xxiv. 7 et seq.; Job xvi. 18). The Avenger of Blood, then, was regarded as the representative, not only of the murdered man's family, but of Yhwh Himself, who was the highest avenger (Ps. ix. 13 [A. V. 12]).

  I'd say the protective 'mark of Cain' handed down from God was a literary device, one that indicated to the early listeners that God had found Cain guilty of manslaughter and NOT murder; hence the protective 'mark' wasn't specified as to what kind of mark it was (tattoo?, a 'mark' in the sense as the word is used today eg a 'marked' man?), but only that it served as a portable "City of Refuge" for Cain that prevented anyone from serving as a blood avenger against him, or face being cursed 'seven-fold'. Of course, Cain's punishment was for the ground (Hebrew word, 'adamah') to be cursed for him, such that it would be unproductive and not yield ANY food, and even much greater effect than the curse delivered to Adam by God after disobeying (the ground was productive for Adam, just that he had to work harder to make it yield food).

  Remember, too, that Lamech was perversely incentivized by the example of Cain's protective mark, since he bragging that he killed two men, and thought he would be protected 77-fold by God! Hence the need for the Flood, a newer novel way to discourage bloodshed: the 2nd Divine prohibition given to mankind (the first being the 'don't eat the fruit' rule).

  Oh, and ancient Jewish listeners were concrete thinkers (Hebrew is a concrete language, and reflects the same trait), and they wouldn't be distracted by such concerns as who was Abel's next-of-kin who was around to exact vengeance. Such logical flaws are a modern phenomena, and we're talking about ancient mythology which served a specific purpose within the Torah to demonstate how great and merciful God was to humanity (they'd likely miss the HUGE continuity flaw of God forgetting to prohibit bloodshed after the fall of Adam, in the first place).

  Adam
• 

  adamah

  eyeused2b said-

  The 'mark of Cain' was the ancient equivalent to the modern English letters "H" and "S". IMHO, I think Cain was the very first member of the Humane Society. He probably became indignant at Abel for slaughtering innocent animals. Did Abel slaughter sheep just for the purpose of sacrifice? They didn't eat flesh at that time, right? So why did Jehovah want blood sacrifices so early in mankind's history? It seems to me that Abel was the first to shed innocent blood mentioned in the Bible. Just saying.

  LOL! The Bible clearly is not written by a PETA member.

  Remember too that Hebrews 11 lists Abel as the first example of a 'hero of faith', since Abel offered animal sacrifices to YHWH based on faith, alone (i.e. he wasn't relying on instructions, as were later given in Leviticus). So how very lucky that Abel got the idea of slaughtering the firstborn of his flock, and BBQing them without eating them (!), and Abel had just stumbled upon how that kind of action would be pleasing to God!

  The whole idea of raising animals for their fur or milk alone is absurd, since you're right: animal flesh wasn't given to mankind to eat until AFTER the Flood in Genesis 9. But again, that's simply because modern readers are able to think logically and abstractly about elements of the story that wouldn't have even occurred to ancient minds.
• 

  cantleave

  eyesused2b - lol

  Adam -I agree it was a literary device to make a point. Sadly, like much of the bible it has been used as an excuse to create division.
• 

  blondie

  As a young jw, I wondered why Cain was not put to death, he was a murderer. No forgiveness from God indicated....

  When I found out that David and Bathsheba were not put to death as the Law code said.

  WE (wts) don't know but we do....

  *** it-1 pp. 386-387 Cain ***

  Jehovah “set up a sign for Cain” to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that this sign or mark was placed on Cain’s person in any way. The “sign” likely consisted of God’s solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.—Ge 4:10-15; compare vs 24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech.

  *** w02 1/15 pp. 22-23 Brothers Who Developed Different Attitudes ***

  Jehovah cursed Cain and banished him from the environs of Eden. The curse already pronounced on the ground apparently would be more pronounced in Cain’s case, and the earth would not respond to his cultivating of it. He was to be a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth. Cain’s complaint at the severity of his sentence expressed anxiety that his brother’s murder would be avenged upon him, but he manifested no sincere repentance. Jehovah set up “a sign” for Cain—likely a solemn decree known and observed by others and intended to prevent his being killed out of revenge.—Genesis 4:10-15.
• 

  Band on the Run

  I was always outraged by Jehovah's rejection of Cain's sacrifice. What is wrong with agriculture? I see nothing wrong. In fact, it seems a step up from hunting. The stories in Genesis outraged me. Was Abel worthless that Jehovah let Cain go free? B/c of my interests I read a book on slavery. It said that slavery was always a neutral property status. It was not linked to race until the North Atlanic slave trade. People were uncomfortable with the racial basis so theological justifications were invented.

  If I recall, the Bible does not say. It seems a powerful story fragment. The author seems too lazy to have written more. Perhaps the rest of the story was lost. Maybe it was a Canaanite story that everyone knew already. It never ceases to amaze me how the WT speculates. If the Bible isi inerrant, stick to the Bible and say we don't know more. Also, why can't the WT have people read the account in Genesis. The WT does not have to print its version.

  It seems as though even as a child, I had problems with 75% of these stories on the basis of fair play and justice. The Psalms are okay. The stress of hating these stories at a gut level and yet wanting to believe to be loved was incredible. I tap danced. When I told my JW relatives how the story angered me, I was told tough luck.
• 

  adamah

  Blondie, quoting WT said:

  *** it-1 pp. 386-387 Cain ***

  Jehovah “set up a sign for Cain” to prevent his being killed, but the record does not say that this sign or mark was placed on Cain’s person in any way. The “sign” likely consisted of God’s solemn decree itself, known and observed by others.—Ge 4:10-15; compare vs 24 where that decree is referred to by Lamech.

  Wow, I didn't think the WT writers were capable of such abstract thinking, lol!

  There's been much speculation over what the mark (Hebrew word, 'owth) is, since elsewhere in the Torah the word refers to a visible sign (eg a covenant marker, such as the rainbow, circumcision).

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain#Origins

  As the article points out, Judaism and rabbis have a long history of wild speculation, so the Mormons are only falling into a long line of those who pretend like they know something that is unknowable, since it's the result of fiction (creative writing) by the Yahwist.

  There's much-later Islamic writings that suggests that as the World's first fratricide, Cain didn't know it was even possible to kill someone; Satan saw a fist-fight going on and suggested that Cain use a rock to hit Abel over the head, thus unintentionally killing his brother! The account suggests that Cain didn't know about what to do with Abel's body, and saw a crow (typically depicted as an evil creature in the Bible, a bad omen) burying an animal that had been sent by Allah (!), and got the idea to conceal his action from.... God (!).

  Blondie, quoting WT said:

  *** w02 1/15 pp. 22-23 Brothers Who Developed Different Attitudes ***

  Jehovah cursed Cain and banished him from the environs of Eden. The curse already pronounced on the ground apparently would be more pronounced in Cain’s case, and the earth would not respond to his cultivating of it. He was to be a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth. Cain’s complaint at the severity of his sentence expressed anxiety that his brother’s murder would be avenged upon him, but he manifested no sincere repentance. Jehovah set up “a sign” for Cain—likely a solemn decree known and observed by others and intended to prevent his being killed out of revenge.—Genesis 4:10-15.

  As I pointed out in my blog article, I suspect the narrative was written to point out the benefits of the city of refuge system of justice later introduced in the Torah, a system which apparently existed circa 1000 BCE to the pre-exilic period (and it was spotty thereafter, depending on the status of the independent Hebrew State, i.e. if they were allowed to administer criminal justice under the rule of the Greeks/Romans/Persians, etc).

  The WT has fallen into the trap of following the traditional interpretation of seeing Cain as being guilty of murderer, not manslaughter, apparently falling victim to the subtle writing style of the Yahwist who attempted to depict mankind's moral decay into ever-increasing lawlessness (likely because there was NO law, LOL!) with Cain's unintentional manslaughter leading up to Lamech's boastful admission of murdering two men, necessitating God to regret making the Earth and mankind and deciding to carry out the Flood to hit the 'restart' button and start over, except remembering to declare bloodshed as a sin this time around BEFORE human population got out of hand.

  Another element to consider in the Genesis account is that Cain was driven away from God's presence in Eden, and the later cities of refuge contained altars which provided safe haven to the person who accidently spilled another's blood (every city of a certain size contained a sanctuary adminstered by a Levite where the person guilty of accidental murder could seek refuge IN the altar, seeking safety in the presence of Jehovah). Cain's being sentenced to a wandering nomadic lifestyle after being driven from God's presence likely resonated with the listeners of Genesis, since it foreshadowed the nomadic wandering in the wilderness which the Chosen People underwent for 40 years after emerging from captivity in Egypt when setting out for the Promised Land. Thus the 'mark' served as a mini-sanctuary for Cain, where God's curse was a step towards the later 'city of refuge' concept.

  Adam