by Lane Rogers
I. Our Story starts with the saga of Cain and Abel and the perplexing question what was the sign of Cain?
1. Was Cain's Rebellion home Grown?? (Gen. 4: 1-8).
A. Eve's first words after the birth of Cain. “With the help of the Lord, I have brought forth a man.” But a translation that is just as viable is: “I have created a man equally with the Lord.”
a. The latter translation is probably correct, thus showing Eve's arrogance based on the below arguments.
(1) Eve may have thought that she (on her own) was to bring forth the seed of Gen. 3:15.
(2). Later, Sarah tried to keep the seed promise on her own by turning to Hagar (16:1-4).
(3) Notice Eve's words at the birth of Seth. (“God has granted me another 'child,'literally 'seed.' [zera] in the place of Abel.” At the beginning of the narrative, Eve said, “I have brought forth a man [is]” Eve's language changed from 'man' to 'seed' and that may tell us a great deal. (Eve must have had an attitude adjustment at some point.)
(4) As in cases of the rest of the Bible, Cain did not stand to inherit the blessing but 'Seth' became a substitute for 'Abel.'
2. Cain's Offering rejected!
A. We will come back to this when we do the book of Leviticus but for right now just notice the difference in the offerings.
a. Cain's offering was from the “fruit of the ground.”
b. Ables offering was the “first fruits” and the “fat.”
(1) Cain's offering defied typology.
(2) Typology to be explained later.
3. Cain 'kills' הךנ)1) Able.
A. Cain's anger was twofold.
a. He was angry at God (v.4b) and he was angry at Abel (v.8).
b. The 'sin' he was warned of (v. 7) had overtaken him (the evolution of sin is shown here).
II. Did Cain repent of his sin (vs. 4:9-15a)?
A. The answer to the above question depends on how we understand Cain's reply (v.13). Was Cain complaining that his “punishment” was to great to bear? Or, should we understand in his reply that his iniquity was to great to forgive? The grammar suggests that Cain's response is not to be understood as a complaint about his punishment but grief as to the extent of his iniquity. In v. 14, Cain acknowledged that God's punishment might lead to his death, since he loses the protection of the established community.
a. (15a) The fact that the Lord's response was one of mercy and protection suggests that Cain did repent. Notice the Lord's response “(Very Well), If anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” My belief, is Cain repented and it was accepted.
B. “Then the Lord put a mark (sign) on Cain!”
a. The issues behind this section of text are the same issues that are behind the Cities of Refuge (Numbers 35: 9-34).
b. The question is not whether one is actually guilty of the crime of bloodshed but one of the protection of the accused against the threat of a blood avenger. In both stories, this is God's provision to put an end to further bloodshed.
c. The background to the cities of refuge give us a clue as to the 'sign' or mark of Cain.
(1) It is often said that the mark was put on Cain, but the text says that the “sign was given to or for Cain.” “He appointed to Cain a sign” Cf. 21:13, 18; 27:37; 45:7, 9, 46:3 with 21:14; 44:21).
C. Just keep reading to find out what the “sign” of Cain was.
a. Cain departs to the land of 'Nod' east of Eden where he built a city. That is, the sign narrative is followed by a city narrative. Thus, Cain's city may have been the sign or a city that gave divine protection to Cain. Notice in the story, that the 'purpose' of the 'sign' was to keep anyone from attempting to avenge Abel's life.
b. The “Cities of Refuge” were to be “places of refuge from the avenger, so that the accused of murder may not die before he stands trial before the assembly” (Numbers 35: 12).
c. Notice in the story (vs. 19-24), thus within the context of the chapter, Cain's city was given to him by God to protect him and his decedents from blood revenge (Deut. 19:11-13) implying the “sign of Cain” was a city of refuge.
d. The author names the originators of components of city life: animal husbandry (Jabal v. 20),arts (Jubal v. 21), craftsmanship (Tubal-Cain v.22), and it appears that Law (vs. 23-24) belong to Lamech. (See Num. 35:12).
e. To show that he had not shed innocent blood, Lamech appealed to the fact that he had killed a man for “wounding” and for “injuring” him (v. 23). He did not “hate” his neighbor, lie in wait for him and his appeal was based on self defense. Nor did he rise up against him as Cain did, but his killing was based on self defense.
f. The classic statement of lex talionis is given in Exodus 21:24-25, and it uses the very same words as Lamech: “wound [pesa] for a wound [pesa] ( An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth).” The purpose of the law was to prevent further bloodshed or to ensure that a crime was punished only with a just penalty. Thus, if Cain who killed his brother with malice, could be avenged, then Lamech would surely be avenged for a killing in self defense (that is, for wounding him).
Exodus 21:13; Numbers 35: 9-15; Deut. 4:41-43; 19: 1-13; Joshua 20; and I Chron. 6.
I. The Underpinnings of a legal System.
A. Six cities are to be set aside for those who unintentionally kill someone where that person
may reside until trial without fear of blood revenge. (Compare with our current legal system).
a. The six cities were part of the covenant code meaning they were a requirement of the law.
b. A distinction is made between the intentional and unintentional murder. The perpetrator of a intentional murder was to be dealt with immediately, but the accidental murderer must have a place of safety.
c. The unintentional murder must wait here to stand judgment before the community (Num. 35:12) without fear from an avenger.
d. Three of these cities are to be on the East of the Jordon and Three on the West of the Jordon, (Number 35: 13-14), thus assuring access by all citizens.
B. Not all could enter the cities of refuge. If a person was found to 'hate' and kills intentionally the Elders of the city were to hand the person over to the blood avenger (Deut. 19:6) for execution.
C. In Joshua 20:4, to seek asylum, the person must explain his case to the elders of the city.
The Definitive Statement on the Cities of Refuge!
NUMBERS 35: 6-29
I. 35:6-8
A. There are to be six cities given to the Levities. That gives a total of 48 cities.
a. They are for the person who kills someone.
II. 35: 9-15.
[ They are for those who kill accidentally.]
a. They are to protect from the blood avenger.
b. A person accused of murder must not die before a trial.
c. They are not only for the Israelite but for all.
III. 35: 16-21
A. A murderer must be put to death.
a. The person called blood avenger (usually family) is to be the executioner.
b. The key word in all of this is “with malice.”
B. 35: 22-32
A. The accidental death is not to be punished.
a. The assembly is to judge on this matter.
b. The assembly must protect the person accused of murder.
c. v. 25 , If the High Priest dies, his crime is forgiven. (This is an anti-type for Christ). In the case of Jesus, he died and then we flee to the city of refuge.
d. If the accused leaves the city, and the avenger of blood finds him and kills him, the avenger of blood is not guilty of a crime.
RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
I. To qualify for the death penalty there must be two witnesses (Numbers 35: 30).
A. Do not put anyone to death on the testimony of one witness (Numbers 35:30).
B. There can be no plea bargain for a convicted murderer. (Numbers 35: 31)
C. No ransom (bail bond) can be accepted for any one who has committed murder (Numbers 35: 32).
ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS FOUND IN DEUT. THE 19th Chapter.
II. In Deuteronomy, the word “hate” is used for those worthy of the death penalty (Deut. 19: 11).
A. There can be no guilty left in your land of those who shed innocent blood (Deut. 19: 13).
B. The murderer is to receive no pity.
C. A false witness who seeks the death penalty must be put to death (Deut. 19:16).
QUESTIONS???
1. Do you think that using DNA meets the biblical criteria for a witness?
2. What do you think of using circumstantial evidence to convict a murderer using the biblical model?
3. The Roman Catholic church uses the story of Cain and Able to say that since God did not convict Cain of murder, there should be no death penalty. Can you explain why God did not convict Cain of murder?
Kill, slay, implying ruthless violence or private violence.
by Lane Rogers