Genesis 4 and Genesis 6: City of the Damned

I would like to take some time and focus almost exclusively on Cain. Earlier I had described him as the "seed" of the serpent. This is true in more than one respect. The serpent deceived the woman and coaxed her into breaking the command of God not to eat, bringing about her spiritual death (separation from the will of God). This was then passed to the man. In this sense the serpent becomes a murderer. Jesus seems to be taking the same position:

John 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and did not abide in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Likewise, Cain, deceived his brother, Abel, into thinking he still maintained a brotherly relationship with him, lured him into the field (by deception) and then ended his life (murder). Cain does what the serpent does, he is "like" the serpent with respect to behavior. And in like manner, God speaks the curse upon Cain, just as he had spoken the curse upon the serpent. What about the man and woman? Werent they cursed as well? The command carried the curse of death so when they disobeyed the law they brought the curse of the law upon themselves, God did not directly curse either of them as He had the serpent and later Cain. Apparently there was a situational difference between the actions of the man and woman and the actions of the serpent and of Cain. Opposing the command versus opposing God directly may be a difference to consider but they both result in the same thing, challenging the will of God (making them pretty much equal in that respect), so that does not seem like a very fruitful option. They should both result in a similar punishment if that is all we are considering. Perhaps the difference is something only a wise judge would consider, premeditation. By that I mean a strategy or scheme that is planned before-hand. The man was not trying to figure out how he could undermine the command of God, in fact his intent was to keep the command until he got caught in the situation created by the serpent (who deceived the woman). The man made a bad decision in order to preserve the relationship with his wife, the "flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone". The serpent on the other hand deceived the woman with the intent of challenging and undermining the will of God from the beginning, in order to obtain the authority of the man for himself (maybe?) by placing the man under his authority. Similarly, Cain, upon losing the first-born blessing to his brother (which is presented as the absolute will of God) sought a way to undo it, to challenge the will of God and obtain the blessing for himself. This follows along nicely with the Mosaic Law which allows sacrifices for unintentional sin but for intentional sin there is no sacrifice that can restore a person to a right place with God unless there is first a repentance and punishment or restitution.

The curse of God upon Cain removed any inheritance he still had in the land (though he did not receive the first-born double portion he did still qualify for the single portion inheritance). He is now homeless, driven out as a wanderer. Cain declares he will be hidden from the face of the ground (having no place in the earth) and hidden from the face of God (having no place in his fathers house). Cain is left with nothing because he disqualified himself by his actions. To protect Cain from being killed by other people as a wandering criminal, God gives Cain a mark that indicates to others that he has divine protection. This sounds, to me, a lot like a tattoo or some kind of magic amulet worn to warn others against doing him harm. Such protective marks or amulets were common among many different cultures all over the world and even enjoy status among many people to this very day. This is only a guess however, I have no idea what the mark actually was, the text does not say but what it represents, divine protection, is clear. At any rate, Cain now leaves the land of God and gets himself a wife. Where did she come from if Adam and Eve were the first people and Cain and Abel were the only two children they had? I dont know but apparently there were other people, whatever that means I cant say. Perhaps that is the point, perhaps not knowing where she came from is as appalling as having been cursed by God. To an ancient audience familial inheritance was protected by marrying between specific families, social classes or within the same family. This last point is reinforced several times in Genesis. So where did she come from? It really does not matter because she did not come from the people of God! This is an important point to consider that will resurface again and again in the book of Genesis.

Now this is where the story gets really interesting and we start to make comparisons with Genesis 6. So Cain and Abel can be considered "sons of God". They become recipients of Gods "inheritance" in the land just like any good Israelite father would give to his sons. When Cain becomes angry because he does not receive the first-born blessing he is described as having "fallen", or his countenance is "fallen". In Hebrew this word is naphal which is the root word for nephilim, referring to the "fallen ones" which appears in Genesis 6. Could this be a reference to Cain? I believe that it is and here is why:

1. Cain and Abel are designated as sons of God by the fact that they come before God to receive His blessing (thier inheritance rights as sons). This is further attested to by the fact that Cain is driven from the land (because of the curse) as one who is "cut-off" from his people. A concept an ancient Israelite would understand very well.
2. As I have already described, Cain, in Genesis 4, is described as "naphal" (fallen) and Genesis 6 mentions the "Nepilim" (fallen ones) which is sometimes incorrectly translated as giants. I believe it better describes Cain and his progeny
3. Marriage in ancient Israel carried all kinds of familial, cultural and divine restrictions so someone just going out and finding a wife from among a strange people would have been considered unacceptable. Cain takes a wife from an unknown people (the daughters of men), his sons and grandsons also take wives from an unknown people.
4. Mighty men, men of renown (Genesis 6) were men who were well known for something. Usually this was fighting and warfare but here it fits nicely as a description of the progeny of Cain who are described in Genesis 4 as being renown for establishing or mastering specific trades.
5. Lamech (Genesis 4) declares to his two wives (polygamy) that he was injured by another man whom he then killed (murdered), showing his disregard for justice by repaying an injury with death (Draconian to say the least). He then boasts that Gods vengeance is not as great as the vengeance he will bring for minor injuries he incurs at the hands of another. He makes himself out to be "like" a god. Lamech represented the fifth generation from Cain, his sons the sixth. The line of Cain, rather than repent and turn to the Lord, become even more violent and unjust. This last point, in my opinion, corresponds to the wickedness of man in Genesis 6 that is ultimately condemned by God.

There are a number of reasons why I reject that these "sons of God" are angels and that the nephilim are "giants" (which is one possible translation that some second temple Jews maintained) but I wont discuss the negative points here. I am suggesting it is the line of Cain that eventually brings about the destruction of the earth by God (the great flood). One of the chosen, a son of God, who rebelled and went his own way, drawing the curse of God, teaching his children to do the same and eventually drawing the condemnation of God. Could this be something similar to what we see in the story of Noah, Ham and Canaan? The curse being the result of Adams (Hams) own sin in the garden (tent of his father). How would a story like this relate to an ancient Israelite? It would have been a stark reminder that disregard for the Mosaic Law will have disastrous consequences that will carry for generations. God punishes sin, especially among those who should know better and that the consequences of sin affect many more than just the offenders. Those to whom He has a special regard it can be worse. It would certainly help explain (to a captive Israelite):

• the capture and deportation of the Northern tribes of Israel by Assyria
• the destruction and deportation of the Southern kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians

So Cain becomes a wanderer in the earth and then establishes a city where he presumably makes a permanent home (doesnt look too much like wandering to me) but I believe this is meant to portray an irony. By naming the city after his son he is almost certainly establishing a dynastic kingship that continues through Lamech. Why is this important? Because the city in some ways is representative of those who have been cut-off from the earth (those who do not produce), a gathering of the cursed (like Cain). The landless poor, the disinherited, criminals and the wealthy ruling class (thier palaces, temples, and extravagant houses) who buy the loyalty of city dwellers with the taxes and tribute they extort from those who work the land, from producers. The city is a black hole for commodities and many times the souls of men (as slaves to support a growing ancient urban economy). It is always consuming and never producing. Wealth goes in and does not come out. This city of the damned represents a gathering of those who oppose God and disregard His commands, who go their own way and follow the will of another (a human King). The city of the damned contrasts to the way Israel thought about the land. The land, according to the Hebrew scriptures, belonged to God, not to men, and was given by God not taken or dispersed by men. In truth, God alone owned the land and He alone retained eternal sovereign power over who lived on it. Because of this view, Israelite society maintained strict land laws. Land could not be bought or sold except under special circumstances. Tracts of land were gifted to each of the twelve tribes (children of Israel/Jacob) and then subdivided to the families of each tribe. These tracts of land were to be kept within the family that owned them. The land could be rented and even temporarily sold in especially hard times but at the year of jubilee the land would automatically revert back to the family to which it was given (by God). This was a tremendous protection against single wealthy families taking advantage of hard times for poorer families and taking lands to enlarge their own holdings and further enrich themselves. It also protected inheritance patterns and government interference with familial holdings.

Israel was indeed unlike the nations around them. I think we can easily understand this dichotomy today. I dont know about other countries, but in America, the small rural farming and ranching communities are typically known for low crime. Everybody know everybody. You dont lock your doors at night and can even leave the keys to your car IN THE CAR. It is NOT that way in the urban areas. Large cities can be dangerous places to live. You ALWAYS lock your door and wouldnt even dream of leaving your keys in the car unless you wanted it to get stolen. You only know a handful of people in a city of hundreds of thousands (or millions). All those people there around you and when you get into trouble, no one to help. Thank God for cell phones and the ability to wire transfer money! And in order to retain power (buying support), politicians grant some of the most worthless men the ability to do nothing and enjoy the fruits of another mans labor. Times (perhaps I should say PEOPLE) sure havent changed much in all these years.