GENESIS 4:23-24 - Lamech: Short, Significant, Settlement (Re-examining Polygamy)

Lamech said to his wives,

“Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me;

If Cain is avenged sevenfold,Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”

Short

Tucked in-between the better-known stories of the fall and the flood is a short - 3 verses in total - yet significant mention of a man named Lamech: the first-ever polygamist (verse 19, mentioned in my previous post), second-ever murderer, and first recorded poet of sorts.

Significant

As if the reason for the inclusion of these verses in Genesis weren't hard enough to interpret due to the complete lack of background or context, Lamech's exploits are not mentioned anywhere else in scripture or world history. Genesis 4 is all we have to work from.

I was initially caught off guard by the overwhelming condemnation of Lamech I found in most commentaries, not simply their disapproval but their over-exegesis:

• They read his act as cold-blooded murder, I saw a text that didn't rule out self-defense.
• They read his speech as boastful and oppressive to his wives, I figured this might have been how everyone talked at the time.
• They saw verse 23's description of his son being a forger of bronze and iron to mean they were a family whom relied on metal weapons, I saw it as an excessive inference.
• They saw his proclamation of vengeance to be a prideful twisting of God's word, I thought - assuming it was self-defense - it was a logical enough interpretation of God's word.
  

I decided to examine the word used for 'kill' (harag), having heard on multiple occasions that different Hebrew words are used for murder (malicious intent) versus killing (legal, accidental, self-defense etc.). The word, 'harag' is indeed the same one used to describe Cain's murder of Abel, however, a quick search of other instances in the old testament where it is used reveals the word's intent to be less clearcut than I had been led to believe (instances of 'harag'). In Exodus 4:23 for example, God Himself uses the term, "...and if thou refuse to let him go, behold,I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn."

Settlement

In the end, the most compelling argument came not from anything in Lamech's speech but from the only other information offered to us earlier in the chapter - and the topic of my previous post - that he is a polygamist.

In taking a second wife, Lamech shows himself to be a distorter of God's word (Genesis 3:23 - "...be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."). In light of this, it would seem safe to say that we are meant to read his next ad hoc extrapolation of God's word - the promise of protection - to be wrong.

Re-examining Polygamy

Thus far we've determined that Genesis is a very concise book, and yet, between the major events of the fall and the flood, God finds space to include these miniscule details on a seemingly insignificant man's life. Why? Why not give us the straight facts about Lamech's killing like the Bible does a few verses earlier with the murder of Abel? Why only give us Lamech's twisted interpretation of the event? Obviously because that's all we need to know to get "the point". So what is the point? Well, it's simple enough to summarize what little we are told about Lamech:

1. He was the first ever polygamist (Genesis 4:19)
2. He misinterpreted God's word (Genesis 4:24)
   

So what does that say about polygamy? This to me seems to be the most compelling proof - short of the Word's direct commands - of God disapproval of polygamy from the beginning of time.

(As an aside, while reading up on interpretations of Genesis 4:23-24, every commentator I read agreed upon Lamech's speech being a complete misinterpretation of God's word, with the exception of this completely baffling interpretation by Saint John Chrysostom. History appears to have proven him to be a righteous and Godly man - a saint after all - but his interpretation seems so completely incompatible - and foolish - that I find it impossible to reconcile the two things. Insights are most certainly welcome on this)

(back to Genesis 4)