Lamech's Actions: Revenge or Self-Defense?
Lamech’s Actions: Revenge or Self-Defense?
Genesis 4:23-24
Observing the context of a Bible passage can assist every reader to correctly interpret the passage in question. Let’s look at an example of how observing the context of a passage throws new light on how we might understand and interpret it.
Lamech’s spoken words to his two wives[1] in Genesis 4:23-24 have long been interpreted as an example of barbaric boasting and rebellion against God, even a vendetta. Observe:
Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven-fold, Lamech is avenged 77 times.
Genesis 4:24
If we read his words in isolation, apart from the larger context (4:1-24) and the immediate context (4:23-24), it sure seems like Lamech is grossly out for revenge.[2] But the context of Genesis 4:23-24 points us in another direction, another interpretation of his words.
So, let’s examine the context. The immediate context, beginning in 4:19-24), shows Moses is naming the originators of the common elements of the culture in a city built by Cain (Genesis 4:17). For example, he names Jabal as originator of those who live in tents and raise livestock (4:20). He names Jubal (brother to Jabal) as the originator of the various types of the arts and music (4:21). He names Tubal-Cain as the originator of craftmanship and metallurgy, the making of tools forged from bronze and iron (4:22).
So, the description of the various elements of culture in Cain’s city provide the context for Lamech’s words. Lamech is immediately named next (4:23-24). His words to his two wives express an additional element of culture in a city, a system of legal justice. His words reflect a plea of self-defense rather than revenge fueled by hate.
Apparently, an unnamed perpetrator attempted to injure or kill him. Jubal defended himself and killed him, but not out of rage, hatred, or jealousy toward the perpetrator (Deut. 19:6). The perpetrator wounded him and Jubal protected himself in the struggle.
In Jubal’s case, it was a matter of self-defense, a striking contrast with the earlier case of Cain, who murdered his brother out of anger and revenge (4:6-8). So, if Cain, who murdered his own brother with malice-aforethought (pre-meditated) could be avenged, then Lamech also could be avenged since he did not initiate the attack (like Cain did) but simply tried to defend himself against a (guilty) and violent perpetrator. The perpetrator was not innocent.
Sailhamer points us in the same interpretive direction of Lamech’s words:
To show that he had not shed innocent blood, Lamech based his appeal of a plea of self-defense. Lamech’s appeal to the law of lex-talionis bears striking resemblance to the Mosaic Law that provided for a just penalty with the principle of lex talionis (Exod 21:25). On-the-basis of this principle, one could appeal to an “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth.”[3]
Lamech’s words, inserted into the context of the elements of culture in a city, express the beginnings, though not the ideal, but a new system of laws, a foundational element of culture essential for a just and safe society. The principle of law, then, was to ensure citizens of the city that they were safe, that a perpetrator of a crime of violence would be punished, but only with a due sense of justice.
Lamech’s expression of justice may not have been entirely correct or just for that matter. But the entire context is meant to show that the city of Cain contained the common elements of culture: agriculture and animal husbandry (providing citizens with food, transportation, clothing, income), music (stringed instruments and woodwinds), craftmanship (for tools, weapons, building, transportation, housing) and the rule of law (providing safety, security, and justice for citizens). Each of these cultural components undoubtedly had simple and crude beginnings, but they also experienced further adjustment and refinement over time and practical implementation.
What stands out in the cultural elements in the city of Cain, viewed as a “seed of the serpent” (1 John 3:12), is the absence of the mention of God, a sharp contrast with the other family on earth, those men and women belonging to the “seed of the woman” (Genesis 3:15). For example, when Cain built a city, he named it after his son (4:17). Instead of honoring God, Cain and his seed, honor humanity. There’s the basic difference between the two families on earth—using the elements of culture to glorify God or to honor oneself.
The godless family of Cain use the elements of culture (such as musical instruments) they have crafted for self-adulation, self-idolizing, the quest for human applause from the crowd, a mark of a godless human culture, the fingerprint of the seed of the serpent. But in striking contrast, the family belonging to the “seed of the women” use their culture, their musical instruments, for spiritual warfare (against the serpent) and for the glory of Israel’s God (See, for example, David’s use of a musical instrument in 1 Samuel 16:23).
We have observed the words of Lamech in their context, both the larger context (4:1-24) and the immediate context (4:19-24). Can you now see how observing the context helps us better understand Lamech’s words and interpret the author’s point?
Thank you for reading.
[1] Lamech is the first polygamist in Scripture, a direct violation of God’s plan for marriage provided in Genesis 2:24.
[2] Perhaps, then, what Lamech is saying (quite barbarically) is that not only has he killed a man for wounding him, he has not hesitated to kill a mere boy for wounding him.” Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, Volume 1, The Five Books of Moses (New York: W.W. Horton & Company, 2019), p. 21.
[3] John H. Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 115.