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.

Genesis 2 3 4 Light and Dark

This topic is actually one of the reasons I dont believe that Genesis 1 and 2 were written by the same person. The treatment of various subjects, like light and dark, are as different as night and day. Genesis 1 treats darkness as a profane state of nature. By profane I mean common, or not set apart for special use by God. Darkness is not personified and does not antagonize the will of God. It is separated from light and is intended to be seen literally, day (the time of light) and night (the time of darkness), each governed by their respective heavenly body. The light is called "good" and the darkness receives no comment, it is ignored. Genesis 2, however, presents light and darkness quite differently. In Genesis 2, 3 and 4 darkness implies what is hidden, light is revelation (revealing) or plain to see, both intentional actions carried out by specific individuals (you will see what I mean). It is clearly, in my opinion, being drawn from Genesis 1 as an allegory of the subject and even a thematic dichotomy. Gods commands/judgment (spoken words) represents the light and Adam the sun (to govern the day). He is the image of God, proving that he is a son of God by doing (and obeying) the things God does (and says concerning him) in Genesis 1. Those actions specifically are:

1. Separating = setting apart
2. Naming = recognizing and declaring purpose
3. judging = deciding whether or not a specific goal is being achieved

and the words spoken about them:

1. governorship of the earth and of the living things that are on it
2. confidence of Gods ability to provide for all living things (because he cares for them all)
3. respect for the living things that God has created

In Genesis 1 separating and naming (another thematic dichotomy found in the story) demonstrates Gods wisdom with respect to establishing order and purpose in the cosmos. Separation indicates order and the name indicates a things purpose. It is done and stated plainly, no hidden agenda. In Genesis 2, the man must separate and name the animals (same concept demonstrated in the man). In Genesis 1, God periodically judges His own work indicated by God "seeing" that what He has done is "good". In Genesis 2, the man, apparently, has some reservation (or dissatisfaction) about his own work (a judgment) and God seeks for him a "helper", the mans judgment is right on. When God presents (implying the man "sees" her) the woman to the man he makes a declaration about her that is nothing less than a judgment of "good". The man is showing the qualities that makes him "like" God.

The darkness is represented by the serpent who presents a whole host of theological (and scientific) problems. Probably the greatest theological question anyone could ask is simply "why?" Why does the serpent deceive the woman and ensnare the man? We have made some fine guesses throughout Christian history, but, surprisingly the text does not say. His motive is hidden (shrouded in darkness) and is never revealed (why? because it is hidden in the darkness, something we are meant to notice). Serpents were known throughout the ancient world for their ability to live both below ground and above ground, producing the notion that they were able to pass between the world of the living and the world of the dead, the underworld (a dark and dreary place). Many cultures worshiped serpents because they were thought to be magic creatures (of prophesy and healing), renewing themselves by shedding their skin (removing the old dead self and being reborn to new life) and living forever. The Hebrews, as far as we know, did not hold such a high place for snakes. Snakes are seen in the Jewish literature as deceptive and dangerous, hiding along the path to strike unwitting travelers. This ability to stay hidden in bushes, under rocks or even camouflaged along the ground until they move to strike is considered a form of darkness (the ability to remain unnoticed). The serpent, in Genesis 3, appears suddenly (to the woman), striking quickly (deceiving her), never revealing his intentions. What is the outcome of his actions? Gods judgment of death on the man and woman, the result of disregarding the command. Did the serpent know this would happen? I believe that he did and that he intended that outcome. In this way, the serpent acts as an anti-image or anti-type. Just as God reveals and separates for the purpose of fulfilling his good will and Adam imitates God in Genesis 2, the serpent (in Genesis 3) also separates for the purpose of his own will, which is not revealed. He separates the woman from the man (Adams dilemma) then the man from God (spiritual death). What God does in plain sight, the serpent does in hiding. Perhaps as an anti-type the serpent is trying to be "like" god but in a way that is different from the man. The man is imitating the character of God. The serpent, on the other hand, is trying to control the situation, bending it to his own will, giving him a sense of power over Gods creation and even over Gods will, thus imitating the power and authority of God apart from the character of God, trying to make himself equal with God or perhaps above God in power. Being "like" God (or "like" a god) then would become a third thematic dichotomy.

The deception of the serpent is a type of darkness, or blindness. The inability to see the truth so you continue to believe what is not truth. He blinds the woman with deception (showing her that she can touch the tree and not die, something that was already true) undermining her fear of the command of God and encourages her to eat. He becomes a murderer by using Gods own judgment (against Him so to speak) to bring death to the woman and thwart Gods will for the man. And because it was done indirectly the serpent thinks he can avoid culpability, and can simply say to God, "you made the rules and I am not the one who broke them." He is not directly responsibility because the action was done by someone else. He shrouds himself in a situational darkness, remaining hidden from the main confrontation between offender and offended, like a puppet-master behind the scene pulling the strings of his puppets. This type of involvement usually makes situations more complex and harder to judge because the one actually responsible is not guilty of breaking the law as it is stated. As the representative of light, Adam failed to judge and dispel the darkness that had entered his kingdom. He did not reveal the serpent for what it was and expel it from the garden and darkness overtook his kingdom. As a form of irony, the writer says that their eyes were "opened" (as though from darkness). But this is the result of having eaten the fruit which God commanded them NOT to eat, it is not a punishment.While before they did not know they were naked, now they do. While before they did not feel compelled to do something about being naked, now they do. They see something about themselves that unnerves them and they assert their own will to fix it effectively separating them from the will of God, who formed them nude in the first place. By asserting their own will they are try to be "like" God in a way that was not intended. They are imitating the serpent in being "like" God and elevating their own will above the will of God.

Finally, God enters the story. I think it is important to lay some ground-work here regarding the judgment of God. His judgment is much more than a time of punishment. It can be that. But I think the best way to describe Gods judgment is as a time of honest assessment. Sort of like a company who has not done so well in the recent past. There comes a point when you have to stop and look honestly at the way things are going, figure out how you can cut, what processes need to change and plan a better strategy for the future, then act. It is like light shining upon a dark situation, revealing not only what has happened but how it will affect things from here on out and what we need to do to fix it. Gods judgment is ALWAYS good and just and His first intention is ALWAYS reconciling what can be reconciled and preserving the direction He thinks is "good". Of course the judgments of God in Genesis 1 were not in response to poor performance, they were simply periodic inspections at the end of a work cycle. The time of judgment for the man and woman has come. The change that has happened to them has deeply affected how they see God and His judgment. Now they fear the presence of God not just the consequences of disregarding His command. First they both try and hide their nakedness (shrouding their nudity from one another?), then the man tries to hide from the presence of God (shrouding himself in darkness). Because the man is responsible for upholding the command and tending the garden, God begins interrogation with him. The man points to the woman and the woman points to the serpent so God begins doling out judgment with the serpent, the root of the problem.

I believe this story is intended for Israel (perhaps the story of Israel) to demonstrate the effectiveness and protective benefit of keeping the commands of God. How darkness enters the land through deception and confusion and disruption in Israels relationship with God occurs by the assertion of any will other than Gods. While judgment is certain to come periodically, it does not have to be bad news. Israel must maintain its rightful place as governor of the earth by proper judgment (according to the will of God) and decisive action. For those who have been grafted in, this presents an incredible warning to maintain the course of faith in Gods provision.