Defending Lamech

[Biblebeliever]

I am writing to ask why everyone who has commented on the story of Lamech blatantly says he was a murderer. My Bible says in Genesis 4:23-24, One day Lamech said to Adah and Zillah, "Listen to me, my wives.
I have killed a youth who attacked and wounded me. If anyone who kills Cain will be punished seven times,
anyone taking revenge against me for killing that youth should be punished seventy-seven times!"
This clearly sounds to me like it was self-defense. Lamech was attacked and wounded first. Obviously he
did not have a phone to call police for help. Had he not acted, Lamech could very well have been the
murdered victim. He knew he had a family of two wives and four children to care and provide for. Had he
not acted they likely would have been left as widows and orphans. He knew that anyone who killed Cain
would be punished seven times. The fact that he stated that anyone who took revenge against him should be
punished seventy-seven times means he clearly did not feel that he was a murderer like his ancestor Cain.
He was simply defending himself and his families, and he should not be labeled a murderer.
We should be thankful to Lamech that he was the first mentioned person in the Bible to understand Biblical
polygyny properly and give us an example to follow. He raised two great families, and through his training
and encouragement, those children gave us all the gifts of housing, livestock raising, music, and metal-working.
How about instead of treating him like an unredeemed sinner, we consider his life as contributing redeemable qualities? No one should be judged because of what family he came from and what his ancestors did.

 

[NetWatchR]

I kind of agree with you but maybe not to the level that you have.

I have always been confused by this whole scene, starting with Cain's mark. Why did Cain think anyone would want to kill him? It's not like the news of Able's death went out on World News Tonight. Why was God's protection necessary? Why would God feel like protecting him? I really don't get that. But, back to Lamech...

It is hard to read that passage while putting aside a couple decades worth of preconditioning. We're usually taught that he was an evil man and braggadocios of his "murder". But if I read it now and look at only the words used, I don't read it that way anymore. It reads to me like he's scared. But, it is hard to justify his reaction. The word used for the killing is harag (H2026). That's a pretty strong word that is not only used for private homicide but also used to describe slaughtering one's enemies in war. Now, Lamech did this slaughtering/slaying of two people (the way i'm reading it) in response to a relatively minor wound and a bruise. That's pretty extreme.

Now, looking at his statements about vengeance, I'm further perplexed. Maybe it has to do with my lack of understanding with Cain, his mark and WHY he needed to be protected. It seems like he is saying that he thinks he deserves 7 times the protection afforded Cain. Ok, so Cain flat out killed his brother, was punished by God, then protected by Him. Lamech killed someone for injuring him, wasn't punished by God (that we know of) and says he deserves 7 times the protection. What i don't quite get, is Lamech's (seemingly) overreaction to an injury and then fear for his life that he would expect protection.

 

[Shibboleth]

This is fascinating... I was dubious when I saw the thread title, but I see now that when you re-evaluate Lamech's polygamy as representing his social status, rather than a condemnation of his moral character, the whole story clicks together.

Here you have an older man (he has three adult sons), who is "high status" enough in the society to attract two wives. In fact, this apparently entails owning enough wealth that his sons are able to avoid "tilling the ground" to support themselves, and are able to invent more refined cultural pursuits -- livestock, music, and metallurgy (if you're struggling to make ends meet, you don't have the luxury of wondering what happens if you melt rocks, or pluck strings). And then you've got this "young man" (I just looked it up: "yeled" [Strong's 3206] can mean child, boy, or youth) who attacks you, and wounds you, and you strike back in self-defense, and end up killing the guy. So of course, now you have to justify why you killed this man, and explain why you shouldn't be punished for it.

As a side note, I don't see it as two men attacking (as NetWatchR alludes to). Rather, I see that as the typical Hebrew poetic parallelism: "a man for wounding me" and "a youth for striking me" refer to the same individual. That Lamech would speak poetically even makes sense, in light of his family's cultural inventions, and especially Jubal's inventing music.

So essentially, you've got what we might call a young "punk" attacking this older, wealthier, high-status man. Why was the younger man attacking? From the newly-understood context, it seems quite likely out of envy for Lamech's social status. You could imagine a number of specific excuses: he couldn't find a wife, and took it out on the guy that had two, or Tubal-Cain wouldn't hire him for the iron-workers guild, or he just felt like he deserved a cut of what Lamech had. But basically, this now looks similar to the modern concept of "class warfare".

What had originally seemed an odd mismatch of random facts (number of wives and children's professions), combined with an arrogant boast about randomly killing a man, now becomes a quite recognizable social dynamic that remains with us to this day.

 

[Shibboleth]

So, I've continued to wrestle with this idea in the back of my mind over the past few days, of whether or not Lamech might have been justified for killing in self-defense. It's frustrating, because there's not really enough detail to go on in the story, but then I came across something that almost renders this a moot question.

While separately researching the question of vows, I came across the interesting fact that the Hebrew word for swearing or taking a vow or oath [shaba, H7650], is directly derived from the word "seven". I'm not sure, but I think the idea is that you are declaring your word seven times, therefore it is completely true, (seven representing completion). I don't generally care for arguments based on alleged meanings of numbers, but in this case, the meaning seems baked into the language itself.

Anyway, this ties back into Cain's potential murder being avenged seven times (i.e. completely avenged). So obviously Lamech's self-justification, with its claimed seventy-seven-fold vengeance, goes far beyond being merely complete, to the point where its ridiculous to even ask whether he would be avenged. And that brought to mind a stunning comparison between this story, and Matthew 18:

Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Until seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I don't tell you until seven times, but, until seventy times seven.

Forgiving seven times might have indicated a "complete" forgiveness, but in a rhetorical/numerical turn of speech that's shockingly similar to Lamech's, Jesus shows that the question itself is absurd, and that there was no limit to forgiveness.

To summarize: in the story of Lamech -- even if we understand it as a relateable, and possibly justifiable act of self-defense -- we see Man's reaction of justifying unlimited vengeance, while Jesus' reaction is to offer unlimited forgiveness.

 

[NetWatchR]

interesting. worth pondering.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Along the same lines, God gave the Israelites grace for seventy "7s" or shabbats. At the end of that time, they were removed from the land until the land had experienced its sabbaths. (Also known as the shemitah year or sabbatical year)
I find it interesting that in this instance there was not an unlimited indefinite amount of grace, just seventy "7s". A very definite number that is historically supported.

Also interesting to note is that if you count backwards from the destruction of the Temple the 70 shemitah's, you would end up in the proximity of Samuel's death as being the last observed shemitah.

 

[NetWatchR]

So, where are we on this?
Was he a pompous and proud murderer or some guy that had to defend himself and is worried about retaliation from the public?
This is where we need a "preacher" (as opposed to a teacher) to break it down, put it in a little box and get it ready for public dissemination.

If someone could go ahead and wright a paper on it, that'd be great.

Not It!