After Cain killed his brother Abel, the Lord punished the first recorded murderer saying, “So now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond you shall be on the earth” (Genesis 4:11-12, emp. added). Critics have accused God of error in His sentencing of Cain. According to Dennis McKinsey, Genesis 4:12 represents “one of the earliest false prophecies” in the Bible. “Instead of becoming a vagabond as was forecast, Cain took a wife, built a city, established a line of descendants and seems to have led a settled life” (McKinsey, 1995, p. 298). Skeptic Steve Wells contends Genesis 4:16-17 indicates that “Cain will settle down,” but “[t]his is not the activity one would expect from a fugitive and a vagabond” (2014, emp. added). So which is it? Did Cain become a wanderer or a settler?

Moses recorded fewer than 30 words (in Hebrew) regarding what Cain did after God conversed with him and sentenced him to being a vagrant and a wanderer. All we know about the rest of Cain’s life is that he “went out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch” (Genesis 4:16-17).

Sadly, skeptics (once again) have assumed the worse about God and the Bible writers. They assume that the few words recorded about Cain in Genesis 4:16-17 must mean Cain could not have been a drifter the rest of his life. Yet a man can still be a wanderer while also having a wife and son. A vagabond may “settle” in various places for brief periods of time. What’s more, a man could work to build various structures that become part of a “city” without settling down for a long period of time in the city.

Of interest is the fact that the Hebrew of Genesis 4:17 does not indicate that Cain completed the city. The text actually says that “he was then building a city” (NIV; see Leupold, 1942, p. 216). And the “city” may very well have been nothing more than “a walled enclosure with a few houses” or tents (Leupold, p. 216). Bible writers frequently used the Hebrew term iyr to refer to a city “in the widest sense (even of a mere encampment or post)” (Strong, “iyr”). Thus, Cain very easily could have worked for a few months on building an encampment, post, or walled enclosure of some kind before drifting to another area of the world, or at least to another part of the land of Nod.

The fact is, nothing in Genesis 4:16-17 indicates that God’s prophecy failed. The skeptic may wish it had failed, but he cannot prove that it did. And if he cannot prove that it failed, then it cannot be justly assumed that it did. Indeed, God and the Bible writers are innocent until proven guilty.

Problem: In the OT, murderers were given capital punishment for their crime (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12). Yet Cain was not only set free after murdering his brother, but he was protected from any avenger (Gen. 4:15).

Solution: There are several reasons why Cain was not executed for his capital crime. First, God had not yet established capital punishment as an instrument of human government (cf. Rom. 13:1–4). Only after violence filled the earth in the days before the flood did God say, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man” (Gen. 9:6).

Further, who would have killed Cain? Cain had just killed Abel. At this early stage only Adam and Eve were left. Surely, God would not have called upon the parents to kill their only remaining son. In view of this, God, who alone is sovereign over life and death (Deut. 32:39), personally commuted Cain’s death penalty. However, in so doing, God implied the gravity of Cain’s sin and implied he was worthy of death by declaring that “the voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me [for vengeance] from the ground” (v. 10). Nonetheless, even Cain seemed to recognize that he was worthy of death, and he asked God for protection (v. 14). Finally, God’s promise to protect Cain from vengeance implies capital punishment would be taken on any who took Cain’s life (cf. v. 15). So, Cain’s case is the exception that proves the rule, and by no means does it argue against capital punishment as established by God

Expanded from John 8:3–11:
John 8:3–11 (cf. Rom. 13:4)—Did Jesus repudiate capital punishment in this text?

Problem: Passages like Romans 13:4 present a good case for capital punishment, for the passage says, “for it [the government] does not bear a sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil” (nasb). In John 8 a woman is caught in an adulterous situation, which was cause for stoning according to the Mosaic Law. Yet Jesus did not seek her death, but rather forgave her sin. Did Jesus thereby reject capital punishment?

Solution: First, the authority in Romans 13 is the Roman government and the authorities in John 8 are Jewish ones. The point is that the Jews had to act under Roman law. For instance, if they were really going to stone a woman, why did they seek the help of Pilate in the crucifixion of Jesus? For in John 18:31 the Jews respond to Pilate saying, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” But in the case of the adulterous woman, they were ready to stone her.

Second, they did not act in accordance with the Law itself. The Law stated that both the parties, male and female, had to be brought before the people (Deut. 22:22–24). Since this woman was caught in the very act (v.4), why wasn’t the man brought out with the woman to be stoned? The scribes and Pharisees who were supposed to be law abiding citizens failed in a key aspect of their own law.

Third, the motives of these scribes and Pharisees were wrong. They used this opportunity to try to trap Jesus so that they might have a reason for accusing Him (v.6). The crime of adultery did not seem important to them. Rather, it seemed more important to find cause for accusation against Jesus.

This passage, then, is not a good text for anyone who wants to propose that Jesus opposed capital punishment. In fact, other places of Scripture seem to support the very idea (see Gen. 9:6 and Matt. 26:52).

.