“Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion” (Jude 11).
The end of the line
The 10th generation came to a close with the construction of the ark and the advent of the Flood, a unique catastrophe in which Cain’s entire lineage was destroyed:
- Jabal’s tribes, who had migrated unto the ends of the earth — obliterated;
- Jubal’s music, by which the truth was corrupted and men and women were deified as gods — silenced;
- Tubal-Cain’s tools of bronze and iron which, while easing the burdens of mankind, gave humans the ability to wage war — broken;
- Naamah’s arts of seduction or cosmetology, which made women seem more attractive to weak-willed men — lost.
The scope of the flood was such that every living creature was erased from the surface of the earth,1which makes it clear that Cain’s legacy was utterly destroyed. Or was it?
Cain’s physical lineage may have been wiped out, but sadly his legacy was not. Murder and revenge, hallmarks of his character, continued unabated in the post-Flood era for 76 generations, the number of generations Lamech had unknowingly prophesied2, until the 77th generation, when a very special child was born:
“To us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).
The Prince of Peace was Jesus, not Cain. He was the Coming One, the even Lord that Eve had, in hopeful expectation, named her firstborn after. With his message of love and forgiveness, Christ offered a panacea to the cycle of vengeance, which had been founded by Cain, built upon by Lamech, and which had had such a profound and sanguinary effect upon mankind. The New Testament was built upon a foundation of love and forgiveness. As such, it might seem odd that Cain, the most notorious of murderers, was so often referred to by Christ and the apostles. Would not have Cain been more relevant in the Old Testament, when violence was common and the spirit of fratricide prospered among Israelite? The puzzle surrounding Cain’s exclusion from the Old Testament and his inclusion in the New Testament recalls the question posited at the beginning of this study: What was Cain’s significance to the ecclesia in the first century AD? Put another way, why was Cain relevant after being irrelevant for so many thousands of years?
The Old Testament: Nations as villains
Before this question can be answered, it is helpful to understand why he was not referred to in the Old Testament.
It was generally uncommon3for Old Testament writers to refer to specific “villains” outside of the historical context in which they originally appeared. For example, Cain, Korah, and Jezebel, all of whom are mentioned in the New Testament, are not included in any of the books of prophecy or poetry for purposes of exhortation (i.e. as examples for instructional purposes).4Instead, Old Testament writers often referred to wicked nations or peoples. This is because most Old Testament prophecies and/or poetic compositions were composed in relation to the nation of Israel, not in relation to any one individual or group.
Moreover, God’s overarching complaint against the Jews was idolatry. This is because idolatry is all-encompassing: when one forsakes God, one forsakes all of His commandments. Thus, whenever a prophet chastised Israel for idolatry, other sins were not always indicated, but nevertheless implied. This was a very economical way to treat Israel’s general state of wickedness.
The New Testament: Individuals as villains
In contrast, the New Testament letters were generally addressed to specific people (Theophilus, Timothy, Philemon, etc.) and small groups of believers or ecclesias (Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.). Although the apostles routinely drew upon Israel’s history in order to connect the present with the past, when it came to exhorting believers on how to personally emulate Christ, God understood that historical individuals are more relatable than nations or peoples.
Moreover, while the Old Testament routinely condemned a wicked nation of idolatry, the New Testament most often focused on people who believed in God. Whether New Testament audiences faithfully understood and applied Christ’s teachings or whether they intentionally or otherwise misinterpreted and/or misapplied his teachings, they at least appeared to worship God; they were not, as in days of old, abandoning God for pagan gods.5
Furthermore, Cain was a murderer. As the first of such creatures, he was designated by God to be a sign concerning the relationship between murder and revenge (in that murder arouses in others a desire for vengeance). Thus, Cain, as a sign or a mark, is associated with vengeance. His absence from the Old Testament arises in part from the fact that the Law of Moses made some provision for vengeance.
The Law explicitly states:
“Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD” (Lev 19:18).
Yet, in spite of this decree, God recognized that killing, whether deliberate or accidental, would nevertheless occur, and avengers would consequently arise.
In the case of premeditated murder, the Law stipulates: “The murderer is to be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death” (Num 35:18-19). In the case of manslaughter (accidental death), the Law took a more pragmatic approach by providing the murderer with a place of refuge from the avenger (Num 35). If, however, the murderer met the avenger before they arrived at one of the seven cities of refuge, then “the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder” (Num 35:17). Because the Law made allowance for some instances of vengeance, Cain, as a sign or a mark to deter vengeance, would hardly have been relevant.
For these reasons, Cain was excluded from the Old Testament, but included in the New Testament. However, there are additional reasons for Cain’s inclusion in the New Testament: Cain also shares characteristics with the false brother: a type of person who emerged from within the Christian brotherhood to corrupt and destroy the truth. Moreover, Cain’s legacy and its relationship to the fate of the antediluvian era is a powerful reminder for Christians not to repeat the same mistakes.
Cain: A false brother
Although Christianity celebrated an initial period where it closely resembled the spirit of Christ, it was short-lived. The letters of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude, which were written in the latter part of the first century AD, reveal that the simplicity and purity of Christ’s message was in danger of being corrupted by false ideas introduced, spread, and practiced by members of the ecclesia; men and women who appeared as though they were part of Christ’s flocks, but were in fact self-serving individuals intent upon twisting God’s word to serve or justify their own wickedness. Christ had warned the disciples to be on guard concerning this type of person: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matt 7:15).
Paul clarified from where these “wolves” would emerge:
“Keep watch over yourselves and all the flocks of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flocks. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears” (Acts 20:28-30).
Paul wasn’t alone in warning the ecclesia about this enemy within, for Peter also cautioned his readers:
“There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them — bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
“Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings; yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not heap abuse on such beings when bringing judgment on them from the Lord. But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you. With eyes full of adultery, they never stop sinning; they seduce the unstable; they are experts in greed—an accursed brood!
“For they mouth empty, boastful words and by appealing to the lustful desires of the flesh, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them” (2 Pet 2:1-3; 10-12; 18-19).
As did Jude:
“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
“Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling — these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. […] These ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct — as irrational animals do — will destroy them.
“Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 4-13).
Christ refers to them as “false prophets,” Paul calls them “savage wolves,” Peter declares them to be “false teachers,” and Jude notes that they are “shepherds who feed only themselves,” but regardless of the terminology used, they are all speaking about the same type of person: a false brother or sister.
Although Jews and pagans were the declared enemies of Christianity in the beginning, the real threat to the ecclesia came from within; individuals such as Diotrephes, who, at the time when John wrote his third letter, “desired to be first,” and consequently was trying to discredit him and others by spreading malicious gossip (3John 9-10). Moreover, Diotrephes refused to welcome John and disfellowshipped anyone who did so. Because Diotrephes appeared as though he belonged to Christ, but acted in a contrary way, he is a chief example of the false teacher, savage wolf, false prophet, and self-serving shepherd, which Christ and the apostles spoke about. As has been shown, specifically in Jude’s letter, Cain was referred to in the context of the false brother. This is because he shares many of the same characteristics, which were also exemplified in Diotrephes. As the following comparison shows, Cain, Diotrephes, and the false brother are one and the same type of person.
Diotrephes and Cain: Men of authority
Diotrephes was a brother of some standing in the first century ecclesia AD. Although it is unclear as to what role he held (whether he was a presbyter, teacher, deacon, or elder), John’s third letter indicates that he was some type of leader, for he says that Diotrephes “loves to be first” (vs. 9), which is an indication that he stood out among the brethren in his ecclesia. Moreover, John says that he was spreading malicious nonsense about him and others (vs. 10). In order for gossip to spread, it must be repeated by more than one person, which was the case in Diotrephes’ ecclesia. It is obvious that brothers and sisters were spreading the lies he told, and for people to have listened to his lies, he must have been a brother of some standing within the ecclesia. Furthermore, Diotrephes possessed the power to refuse to welcome (disfellowship) certain brothers, including John (vs. 10). The power he held must have been placed in his hands by others, which once more illustrates the sway he had over his fellow brothers and sisters.
Likewise, Cain was a child of unique standing within the Adamic family. He was special among men, for he was the first to have been born from a woman. Genesis, more than any other book in the Old Testament, emphasizes the importance of being the eldest. The eldest son was often the favorite of the father, as was in the case of Isaac. Moreover, the eldest was the recipient of the birthright (inheritance) and the blessings (designation as the head of the family). As such, much responsibility and promise was placed upon the eldest’s shoulders.
As the eldest, Cain was responsible for looking after his younger brothers’ and sisters’ spiritual well-being. In this role, Cain should have been the spiritual shepherd, not Abel. However, just as Esau did not take his familial responsibilities seriously, but instead traded away his birthright to his younger brother, Jacob, for a bowl of stew (Gen 25:28-30), Cain likewise neglected his obligations as the eldest, which were taken up by Abel.
Just as Diotrephes was invested by his brothers with authority, Cain also occupied a position of responsibility within his family. Yet, both men abused their positions of authority and in doing so displayed characteristics common to the false brother:
“There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories” (2 Pet 2:1-3).
Diotrephes and Cain: The appearance of men of faith
Diotrephes had the appearance of a brother in Christ. He was one of many believers who John desired to visit. Moreover, John had, at one time, considered Diotrephes to be his brother, since he expected to be welcomed by him upon his arrival (3 John 10).
Likewise, Genesis makes no distinction between Cain and Abel before they presented their offerings to the Lord, other than to note their order of births, their names, and their vocations. With hindsight, much can be deduced about his character from these scant details, but it must be acknowledged that Genesis makes no overt judgment concerning Cain’s faith before he presented his offering to the LORD. Moreover, because Cain presented an offering to God, it suggests that, in the very least, he appeared to worship the LORD.
Although both Diotrephes and Cain initially appeared as men of God, in time they manifested their wickedness. Their metamorphosis from the appearance of believers into unrighteous men is another characteristic exhibited by the false brother:
“They come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matt 7:15).
“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:28).
“There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies” (2Pet 2:1).
“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people…” (Jude 4).
Diotrephes and Cain: Pride and ignorance
The apostle John was one of the first disciples; he had personally known, loved, and been loved by Christ, and he was invested with the Holy Spirit, a sign of God’s authority on the earth. In spite of John’s spiritual credentials, Diotrephes’ desired “to be first” (3John 9). This desire was the source of his pride, and it resulted in making him ignorant of Christ, who says: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35). These words were spoken by a man who demonstrated the supreme act of putting oneself last and others first:
“Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!” (Phil 2:6-8).
Diotrephes’ example demonstrates the cause and effect relationship between pride and ignorance: pride blinds one to spiritual wisdom, since the obtaining of wisdom requires humility: “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom” (Prov 11:2). Thus, by his pride, Diotrephes was made ignorant of Christ and subsequently God.
Cain’s prophetic name also instilled within him a great sense of pride, which blinded him to wisdom. As a result, he grew up ignorant of God, not knowing who He was or what He required. This resulted in the following errors: not knowing what sacrifice meant, Cain presented an offering devoid of blood; lacking humility, he refused to learn from his mistake and accept God’s advice to “do what is right;” unwilling to discover who God was, he believed that the Creator was merely the cherubim and this faulty assumption led him to believe that he could lie to the LORD about Abel’s whereabouts; and his pride in his prophetic name, along with his status as the eldest son, made the welfare of others, including that of Abel, beneath his concern, for he said to God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Pride and ignorance — qualities Diotrephes and Cain both possessed — are chief characteristics of the false brother:
“Bold and arrogant, they are not afraid to heap abuse on celestial beings. …
These people blaspheme in matters they do not understand” (2Pet 2:10, 12)”“These ungodly people … reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand…” (Jude 8-10).
To be concluded
In the next (concluding) article, we will finish our look at the contrast and similarities between Diotrephes and Cain, and then conclude with looking at the legacy of Cain in the times since Christ.
- In Ellicott’s commentary on the Flood, he quotes Prof. Tayler Lewis in Lange’s Commentary: “We have no right to force upon him (the author of Genesis) and upon the scene so vividly described, our modern notions or our modern knowledge of the earth, with its Alps and Himalayas, its round figure, its extent and diversities, so much beyond any knowledge he could have possessed or any conception he could have formed.” Of course, this is just one opinion.
- “If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times,” (Gen 4:24).
- Balaam is the one exception. He is referred to by Nehemiah and Micah. Korah is mentioned in 1 Chronicles, but it is purely for the recounting of history and not for purposes of exhortation.
- Excluding Genesis, of course.
- At least not in the first century AD. As Christendom progressed, however, the simplicity of the truth was so corrupted with pagan and humanistic ideas that the worship of Yahweh was eventually transformed into a pagan concept, as is most notably expressed in the form of religion practised by Catholics.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One