In the previous post we saw how Cain murders his brother Abel. And we looked at the interaction between God and Cain after the murder. We saw that Cain interprets God’s persistence as punishment and God’s correction as condemnation. We will now see how this misunderstanding of God’s intentions leads Cain further down a destructive path.
Hebrew text:
15 וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ יְהוָ֗ה לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם יְהוָ֤ה לְקַ֙יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כָּל־מֹצְאֽוֹ׃
16 וַיֵּ֥צֵא קַ֖יִן מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב בְּאֶֽרֶץ־נ֖וֹד קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן׃
17 וַיֵּ֤דַע קַ֙יִן֙ אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וַתַּ֖הַר וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־חֲנ֑וֹךְ וַֽיְהִי֙ בֹּ֣נֶה עִ֔יר וַיִּקְרָא֙ שֵׁ֣ם הָעִ֔יר כְּשֵׁ֖ם בְּנ֥וֹ חֲנֽוֹךְ׃
Transliteration:
15 way·yō·mer lōw Yah·weh lā·ḵên kāl- hō·rêḡ qa·yin, šiḇ·‘ā·ṯa·yim yuq·qām; way·yā·śem Yah·weh lə·qa·yin ’ō·wṯ, lə·ḇil·tî hak·kō·wṯ- ’ō·ṯōw kāl- mō·ṣə·’ōw.
16 way·yê·ṣê qa·yin mil·lip̄·nê Yah·weh; way·yê·šeḇ bə·’e·reṣ- nō·wḏ qiḏ·maṯ- ‘ê·ḏen.
17 way·yê·ḏa‘ qa·yin ’eṯ- ’iš·tōw, wat·ta·har wat·tê·leḏ ’eṯ- ḥă·nō·wḵ; way·hî bō·neh ‘îr, way·yiq·rā šêm hā·‘îr, kə·šêm bə·nōw ḥă·nō·wḵ.
NIV:
15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17 Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
Study:
In response to Cain’s claim that whoever finds him would kill him, God says that this would not be the case. And here we have the first instance of a policy of deterrence. God tells Cain that the other humans will have to think carefully before killing Cain because Cain’s death will be avenged sevenfold. How do we understand this? Is God allowing human vengeance beyond even the lex talionis? Or is there something else going on?
Before addressing that, we need to observe that the NIV prefers the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Peshitta reading of the beginning of God’s response to Cain in v. 15, going against the Masoretic text of the Westminster Leningrad Codex. The Masoretic text has לָכֵן֙ (la-kane), which would mean ‘therefore’, while the versions seem to have translated לא כֵן֙ (low kane), which means ‘no so’. It is likely that the NIV has identified the correct text, despite there not being an extant Hebrew manuscript with the reading it has chosen.1
A straight faced reading of the text would indicate that God marked Cain somehow. The suggestions about what this mark might have been are as varied as they are mind boggling. Some have said it was some kind of tattoo on Cain. Others have suggested that it was a skin coloring. This has often been dark skin, which then allowed the white people to despise and deprive the darker skinned people. Still others have proposed that it was some sort of invisible shield, making this text more like Star Trek than a piece of Ancient Hebrew literature.
In a brilliant article R. W. L. Moberly suggests that this search for some physical mark that identified Cain is misguided. He argues that the mark on Cain is precisely God’s words in response to Cain.2 When God says, “Anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over” this is God’s recognition of the kind of person Cain had become – a person driven by vengeance. The Hebrew word אוֹת (oth) is used in Genesis 9 when God sets the rainbow as a sign of his covenant with Noah. It is clear in that instance that אוֹת (oth) does not necessarily refer to something physical. Nor does it necessarily mean that this is something completely new. There were rainbows before God declared it to be a sign. So also, Cain’s penchant for vengeance, demonstrated in the unprovoked murder of his brother, will itself be a sign for others. They will know not to mess with Cain because Cain is known to go beyond the lex talionis and exact unmeasured vengeance.
Cain understands this and recognizes that he has crossed a line that should not have been crossed. But he still does not repent. Rather than stay in the presence of God, which would have required him eventually to repent, Cain now goes away from God’s presence and into the land of Nod. The word נ֖וֹד (nō-wḏ) is derived from the verb נוּד (nood), which means “to move to and fro, wander, flutter, or show grief.”
In v. 12 God had told Cain he would be a restless wanderer and in v. 14 Cain himself declared that he would be a restless wanderer. However, the meanings of the two declarations are different. God was issuing a warning to Cain of what would happen if he went away from God’s presence. On the other hand, Cain was looking at things superficially. He felt threatened by the others who would try to kill him. And in order to find security, he would wander restlessly because, no matter where he went, he would feel threatened. The irony is that, when God shows Cain what he had become by allowing sin to dominate him, Cain refuses to repent and fulfills God’s words. Because of his vengeful nature, people would have steered clear of him. He would actually have been safe on account of the threat he presented. No one would have wanted to mess with him. But because he left the presence of God, he ends up being a restless wanderer in the land of wandering.
Prayer:
Our gracious, loving Father. There are times when we have turned our backs on you and we think that the only way out for us is to continue down that path. Enable us to understand that the safest place for us is in your presence. Your presence will penetrate to the deepest recesses of our hearts and will expose our sinfulness. But your presence is also a healing presence that burns away all the tendencies we have to rebel against you. Let us not be like Cain and refuse your correction. Let us rather recognize that you correct us because you love us. And enable us to accept your correction as a sign of your grace toward us. We ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.
1. While this textual variant does not affect the interpretation of the text, I have highlighted it to indicate how important textual criticism of ancient texts is. In this case, a decision is made based on translations rather than on any manuscript in the original language. For some more details about textual criticism, check my series on The Transmission of Scripture.↩
2. Moberly, R. W. L. “The Mark of Cain: Revealed at Last?“ The Harvard Theological Review 100, no. 1 (2007): 11-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4125232. A JStor account is needed to read this article. You can create a free account and read it.↩
Purposes Crossed 