I'd asked whether Cain got off scot-free. Your response, CR:
Great question. Short answer, no. However, physical death as penalty could not be administered because of the absence of law. God’s words to him tells us that he gave no commandment concerning murder / killing of others.
There’s the dilemma, CR. Appreciating your suggestion Cain did not get off scot-free, then what was Cain’s punishment? I asked why God didn’t snuff Cain. I also appreciate your notion Cain wasn’t sentenced to death being his transgression was prior to the law, a common notion in fact. Yet I do take issue with this notion Cain’s transgression was ‘pre-law’. Noah was a “just man” finding “grace in the eyes of the lord” (Genesis 6:8, 9). How was Noah, “just” if not associated with unwritten law? Furthermore, God personally slew Judah's two older Canaanite sons Er and Onan in Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, for what would superficially appear to be far less than lying about, premeditating, and murdering an innocent brother. Why didn’t God snuff Cain, then? Paul seemed to think the Gentiles followed a type of law whether the law was written or not:
Romans 2:14, 15, KJV "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."
Sounds like there was even Gentile faith that preceded the law. I gather the notion the Gentiles were ‘circumcised of the heart,’ unlike those who instigated the crucifixion (Acts 7:51 KJV, Acts 7:52 KJV). Realizing the Gentiles were descendants of Noah's son Japheth (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:5 KJV), a new scenario evolves. Noah's son Ham's transgression in Genesis 9:22 KJV was later revealed in the Law of Leviticus 18:8 KJV, Leviticus 20:11 KJV, Deuteronomy 22:30 KJV, and Deuteronomy 27:20 KJV. Immediately following Ham's transgression (Genesis 9:22), Shem and Japheth ('father' of the Gentiles) walked into Noah's tent backwards and covered (Genesis 9:23 KJV). By their action, Shem (‘father’ of the Semites) and Japheth ('father' of the Gentiles) proclaimed their rebuke of Ham's transgression,
before those laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
In fact, Paul also took notice, and made mention of Gentile ‘pre-law’ faith, ‘circumcision of the heart’, before those laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy: Realizing Noah’s son Japheth, who walked into Noah’s tent backwards and covered, was ‘father’ of the Gentiles (Genesis 9:27, 10:2, 3, 4, Genesis 10:25 KJV), please reconsider Paul’s scolding of the Corinthians:
1Corinthians 5:1 KJV “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles (descendants of Japheth), that one should have his father’s wife.”
Paul knew what went down in Noah's tent noting the Gentiles (Japheth, et al) would have not part in such, and that was long before the law. So, CR… I cannot accept Cain not being chastised because his lying about, premeditating, and murdering his innocent brother was before the law. Why was Cain worried about someone, other than God, finding him out and killing him, then (Genesis 4:14, 15)? Therefore, quite possibly Cain’s punishment is beneath the radar, so to speak. And, I suspect Matthew 23:33 KJV, Matthew 23:34 KJV, Matthew 23:35 KJV… (who killed Abel?) bears reflection on Cain’s punishment.
Even though by Adam’s transgression it is taught we are bound to sin, we are not. What we are bound to is a vain disposition otherwise known as a vanity per Rom. 8:20 KJV.
Only One was without vain disposition, least of all me, CR.
Cain was full of himself hence we read these words from God: “And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt [must] rule over him. Genesis 4:6-7 (KJV) in other words, God was saying to Cain: “Resist your futile thinking with regards to your relationship with vanity, and you will do well. Obey my commands and live.”
I hear “wroth” being extreme anger in the absence of composure (countenance). “…If thou (Cain) doest well, shalt thou not be accepted (where, and by whom)? and if thou doest not well (anger and sin not?), sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his (Satan’s) desire, and thou shalt rule over him (Satan)” (Genesis 4:6, 7). In other words, God was saying to Cain: ‘Resist Satan, do well, and you will be accepted.’ I appreciate your mention God was telling Cain to “Obey my commands and live,” while there were no commands. Contrary to Paul’s mention of Gentile faith in Romans 2:14, 15; didn’t Cain express his absence of a conscience when he asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Didn’t Cain exhibit the absence of a ‘pre-law’ sense of right and wrong that Stephen noted in Acts 7:51, 52? Cain was a bad seed, CR.
No, and we must remember that creation was over and there was yet no civil government whereby Cain could be tried and convicted. What’s more, God had not given any law from himself whereby man could govern himself by it. Therefore God Himself had to step into man’s affairs to guide/instruct him, i.e., interfere with man’s futile thinking with the hope that he would come to his senses, see his error and call out to God. Remember, this was no longer a "Garden of Eden" environment man is now dealing with.Some began to see to understand and respond. See Genesis 4:26 to understand that God was still on the scene instructing man in his sensibilities.
God didn’t need a “civil government whereby Cain could be tried and convicted.” God personally snuffed Judah’s two eldest Canaanite sons Er and Onan (Genesis 38:6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Why didn’t God snuff Cain, CR? What was Cain’s punishment? Did Cain break some kind of parole? Was siring a family, and bulding a city, punishment?
Those of a line of Seth we might safely assume to be the sons of God the account speaks of as being giants in the land who did mighty acts, which might be the results for their obedience.
I sincerely beg to disagree on your second point, CR. Agreed, Adam was a “son of God” (Luke 3:38 KJV). Judah’s eldest twin son Pharez and his son Hezron… were “The SONS of Judah (1Chronicles 2:5, 4:1). Judah’s Canaanite son Shelah’s sons were “The SONS of Shelah the son of Judah…” (1Chronicles 4:21:22). Therefore, as you suggest, the “line of Seth” were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 KJV. However, the “daughters of men” were female descendants of Cain (Genesis 6:1 KJV) who was clearly not a son of God (Genesis 4:14 KJV). God banished Cain, but his Cainite female descendants seduced the “sons of God.” The “giants in the earth in those days; and also after that when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4 KJV). CR, the giants were the progeny of the “sons of God” with the daughters of Cain. Consider Ham’s and his wife’s grandson Nimrod who was the “mighty hunter” king of Babel. Consider Asshur (Genesis 10:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), father of the Assyrians, in Ezekiel 31:1, 2, Ezekiel 3:3 KJV, Ezekiel 31:8, 9. Therefore, the “sons of God” were the Sethites, et al. But the “daughters of men” were the daughters of Cain. And, such confluence of bloodlines inspired the flood, I suggest.
All would go well in that regard until they gazed upon the beauty of the daughters of men. Let’s stop there and make an observation:
If the daughters of men were not the female descendants of Cain; do you have any comment to their origin?
All would go well in that regard until they gazed upon the beauty of the daughters of men. Let’s stop there and make an observation:
The male gender were taught by God. The female gender were taught at home.
Didn’t God tell both Adam and Eve to avoid the fruit? Didn’t Adam point the finger at Eve as his excuse (Genesis 4:12, 17)? Adam took a hit, nonetheless! Didn’t Ruth follow Naomi? Wasn’t Tamar, who played the harlot, more righteous than Judah (Genesis 38:26 KJV)? Eve was taken from a rib to walk alongside Adam, CR… not from the sacrum/tail-bone to tag-along behind.
They were not taught to be leaders of men but to be submitted to their fathers and when married, submitted to their husbands and that by something God ordained when Eve was taken from Adam.. Therefore, the responsibility for their spiritual upbringing laid with men, hopefully sons of God. By attrition, as we know how attrition works especially when sin goes unchecked, society deteriorated for obvious reasons to the degree God repented he ever made man. Enter Noah with his ark to remove the remnant of His hope. cf Mark 13:20 to see the same scenario by the words of Jesus spoken into this latter age people.
I proffer “sin” went “unchecked” when Cain sired a family, and built a city, CR. His ‘daughters’ hooked-up with the Sethites, and civilization deteriorated. This is the big question: Did Cain get off scot-free? I hear “no”, respectfully. Then, do you see some association of Cain’s punishment with the flood?
Cain was doing the will of his vain disposition that God could not alter until “in the fulness of time”, Jesus would make a away for man to do it by submitting to Him. However, irrespective of the new birth, always it would be by the freewill of man that the victory in the battle for his disposition would be in his hands but with Jesus only providing the way for success for the new born of the Father..
I proffer Cain was doing the will of Satan siring a family, and building a city.
With regards to Genesis 4:26, I believe Jesus said this that might shed light on their relationship with God. “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd”. John 10:16 (KJV) I think we can safely assume He is speaking of those righteous before the flood.
I indeed appreciate the direction of your thoughts here, CR. Well, those who kept their noses clean, so to speak. I personally prefer to consider Jesus was mostly speaking of the ‘other fold’ being the descendants of Abraham via Hagar, even Japheth’s Gentile descendants.
I’ve enjoyed considering your posture, CR. We obviously have considerable differences to some renderings, and consistencies in others. Thanks for your time and consideration, CR.
kayaker
Am I that bad?? All of my threads I hope would be received as sincere questions meant to challenge everyone's thinking about the implied insight of the scriptures with the hope of gaining from a "sincere" debate, should there be disagreement __ and of course that is most always the case. It is always sad to read the detractors, i.e., those who run out of rational reasoning to resort to irrational reasoning from pride and lack of knowledge or foolish adhering to weak, shallow, cultish or otherwise, bad doctrine..
