8

In Genesis 4:14-15 (NRSV) it says:

14 I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.’ 15 Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.’ And the Lord put a mark on Cain

Who could possibly kill Cain if Adam and Eve are the first people?

Cain was not married at that time (suggesting he was young) and was the first born there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation that someone that was born of Adam could have grown up without knowing Cain and attack him while he was wandering.

Improve this question
4
  • 1
    Which translation are you quoting? – Flimzy Aug 31 '11 at 3:52
  • New Revised Standard Version - I didn't think there would be issues, is there a meta topic about how to best quote etc.? – going Aug 31 '11 at 3:56
  • There are a couple. We don't have any hard and fast rules, except to either provide at least a link, or a reference and translation. You can start here: meta.christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14/… – Flimzy Aug 31 '11 at 3:57
  • 1
    The site guidelines have changed since your question was first posted. Nowadays, this question would be most likely be ruled off-topic as being primarily-opinion based. If you'd care to review Types of questions that are within community guidelines, perhaps you could edit it accordingly to bring it in line with current guidelines. – bruised reed Oct 21 '15 at 14:21
7

First, it doesn't necessarily say that Cain was the first born, only the first who did anything significant enough to be included in the record.

Second, even if Cain was the first son, that doesn't preclude Adam being the one to hypothetically take vengeance. For example, The Law of Moses included a passage requiring parents of incorrigible adult children to be the ones to bring the accusation before the elders of the city. (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21. And as shocking as this may sound, consider the psychological effect: it makes an amazing motivator for parents to make sure their kids turn out well!)

Also, when you consider that Genesis tells of people living for centuries, there's no reason why someone born after Cain wouldn't have grown to adulthood, then run across him, recognized or found out who he was, and tried to take vengeance into their own hands.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    It seems illogical that he should be afraid of Adam, because Adam was around when he killed Abel. It also seems illogical for him to be afraid of a future child who doesn't exist when he is cast out. It also seems illogical that a future child would care enough to seek a fight against someone for something that happened in the past in a distant land. All plausible, but not believable. – going Aug 31 '11 at 4:37
  • 5
    @xiaohouzi: "would care enough to seek a fight against someone for something that happened in the past in a distant land." Clearly you are not familiar with the blood feuds that go on between tribes for millenia (for example, that between Arabs and Israel, which start with Ishmael and Isaac, and goes on today). – user32 Aug 31 '11 at 7:20
  • This answer can't be right. Cain is afraid of leaving: he wants to stay -- near Adam. Also about people living for centuries, that doesn't make sense either. When you fear someone, you fear people that are alive now, not people that might be born sometime in the future. – Paul Sep 28 '11 at 12:13
  • At this stage in the story, Cain did not even know that he would live for centuries, so it makes even less sense that he would be afraid of some who might be born centuries hence (and who probably would not even know about his criminal record). – Dick Harfield Jul 15 '15 at 23:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.