Sunday, November 9, 2008

Thesis 14: The Purpose of Cain’s “Suspended Sentence”

Cain rebelled against Godly Patriarchy.[1] Cain’s murder of his brother was worthy of death,[2] but the Lord by Divine mandate had Cain’s life spared.[3] Cain was thus free to establish “the State”[4] (#15), which eventually executed Christ[5] -- the only way His Blood could have been shed for our sins.

Notes
1. Genesis 4:5-8; 1 John 3:12; Jude 11
2. Genesis 4:10; 3:19,21; 4:11-12; Romans 1:32
3. Genesis 4:14-15
4. Genesis 4:17.
5. Genesis 3:15; Psalm 2:2; 1 Corinthians 2:8; Acts 2:23; 3:17; 4:26-28; #47

References

Why Cain Was Not Executed for Murder

How else could a sinless Savior be put to death but by a lawless institution like “the State?” There was no lawful way Christ could be put to death. Cain was spared to set it in motion.

The Patriarchal Power of "Capital Punishment"

GodandtheDeathPenalty.com

Thesis 15: Cain’s City: The Autonomy of the State

4 comments:

Seedshakers said...

Very interesting in deed. Never realized this, that God spared Cain's life to inaugurate the State by which God could send His Son to be lawfully put to death. Fascinating.

Tony

Kevin Craig said...

Of course, Christ's execution was "lawful" by the standards of the Roman Empire, but not by God's Standards. God created the reprobate to put His Son to death (sinfully) for the salvation of the elect.

God's act toward Cain was "pictorial." It's a mini-story within the bigger story. Nimrod is Cain's post-Flood successor.

Seedshakers said...

Yeah, that makes sense. I guess then, the state wasn't necessary to put Jesus to death, that's just the way God predestined it to take place. I can imagine that if the jewish leaders' request to put Jesus to death was not granted by Rome, they would have done it "illegally" disregarding Roman law.

Kevin Craig said...

My first point was that Cain was not necessary for the State. The Flood superceded him.

In response to the idea of the Jews killing Christ extra-legally, I was going to say that Rome could have decided to do it for purely political reasons. But aside from Rome not having sufficient motivation, I think there was something important Scripturally in God destroying Old Covenant Israel, so it couldn't have been done by Rome.