Do the dead return to haunt their killers?
Question:
Dear brethren,
I hope I find you well. I need your input on whether the dead return to haunt or get revenge on their killers. It's a hot topic in this region. One preacher wrote the following arguments in favor of the spirits avengers.
Afternoon, Brother's.
Allow me to draw back a little bit with my humble submission. Let's critically have a proper hermeneutical analysis of (Genesis 4:10-16).
God said, "What have you done? Listen, your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground."
Analysis: The blood of the victim after death cries out. It should be clear that the dead can speak to God and seek vengeance.
Two things emerged: 1) "Now you are cursed" and 2) "the ground opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood."
Analysis: Killing another person is a serious offense from the divine, natural, and civil law. God can forgive sin killing, but not the consequence of a sin (cry and haunt). However, it is clearly a curse because of killing and an avenger who cries to God for justice.
Cain said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear." Cain is in anguish from being tormented. This does not refer only to a guilty conscience, as a psychologist would allude to, but something he refers to as punishment!
Analysis: Consequentially, there is a degree of punishment one who has killed suffers despite handing himself to God, which is beyond us as humans. In African Traditional Religion, this is called "ngozi." Let's not forget that this word is used variably to refer to extreme danger and being unredeemable.
Because of the act, Cain felt driven off from God to be a wander and vagabond, which connotes desperation.
Analysis: When one is desperate, he is without options to avoid the severity of his suffering or condition. Cain is thinking of taking himself away from the face of God. To God, the sin is boldly clear. African Traditional Religion had the means to rehabilitate such a one eg. "kutanda botso" - to expose yourself to the community telling everyone how bad it is to beat a parent. People would throw all dirty things, ashes, makoko esadza and give him or her zviyo. This was a way to accept him back into the community. And you get confidence that you are forgiven. In Christianity, it is expected that you come on your own, in front of the church, confess your sin, shame yourself, and then get settled that you are forgiven.
Apparently, God hears the concern of Cain that he is going to be killed by people or otherwise, for his offense of killing his brother, but God gave him a mark!
Analysis: The mark meant that Cain would not be killed but remain suffering for his iniquity as a wanderer and vagabond in Nod. The punishment for killing Cain would be sevenfold. This is why our civil law protects the mentally disturbed.
Summary: Ngozi, then, is the cry of a departed innocent soul, deceased (but still crying), and the consequences that follow killing (commandment) are from the text of Genesis now.
Conclusion:
- Before Christianity came, Africans were religious (J. Mbiti).
- Hebrews contrast two religions: the Hebrew religion and Christianity. I like the acknowledgment of such Hebrew religion and the raising of the superiority of Christ. We can't just demonize the Hebrew religion.
- When an avenging Spirit speaks, that's not Satan or demons! To call Abel's cry "Satan" or "demon" is a poor explanation of the Scripture.
- Western people wrote useless volumes, especially if they were writing to open-minded or learned theologians on a religion that they didn't understand at all. I saw some Westernized adherents posting various types of research on these Western (inferiority complex). Let's have Africans who faced the phenomenon tell us about Ngozi.
- I liked Elijah when he launched the contest on Mt. Carmel. He acknowledged the existence of other gods but stood to uphold the religion of Yahweh. I mean, Islam, Hinduism, and African Traditional Religion are religions, but we are Christians because we venerate Christ above all other things.
- Lastly, imagine if you were born in India. Would you be a Christian today or a Hindu or Muslim?
Thank you, brothers.
Answer:
When we die, we return to God. "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it" (Ecclesiastes 12:7). The Bible is clear that the dead have no interaction with the living. "So man lies down and does not rise. Until the heavens are no longer, he will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep" (Job 14:12).
"He said, 'What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to Me from the ground'" (Genesis 4:10).
Blood does not have a voice. Therefore, we are dealing with a figure of speech. Cain claimed he didn't know where his brother was, but God pointed out that the evidence of what happened was clear to Him. God is stating that the blood on the ground cannot be overlooked. It is as if it was crying out for attention.
The letter writer changes this from literal blood to Abel's spirit without proof. He decides that the blood (Abel's spirit) demands vengeance, though the text does not state this. He claims that this is "proper hermeneutical analysis." However, I don't see anything proper in his analysis.
"Now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth" (Genesis 4:11-12).
Cain is cursed from the ground. Genesis 4:12 explains the curse: Though Cain is a farmer, the ground will no longer yield crops for him. He will no longer be able to raise his own food.
The ground doesn't have a mouth, so again, we are dealing with a figure of speech. God says the ground absorbed Abel's blood as if it had drunk it. Since Cain had polluted the ground with the blood of a murdered man, God saw fit to use the ground to punish Cain.
The letter writer changes "cursed from the ground" to verbal words instead of rejection by the ground, which is discussed in the context. Proper hermeneutics requires staying with what the context supplies and not adding details not supported by the text.
"Cain said to the LORD, 'My punishment is too great to bear! Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me'" (Genesis 4:13-14).
Cain complains about his punishment. It is not left to guesswork what that punishment is. Cain complains he is driven from the land since he can no longer farm it. He also claims that God will no longer pay attention to him (hide His face). This was an embellishment by Cain because God never said this. Cain moans about being sentenced to a life of wandering, and he claims that as a result, he is going to be killed. In other words, Cain is claiming that God is making him to be an easy target for vengeance by one of his relatives. This is not guilt speaking. Cain is claiming his punishment exceeds his crime! Ironically, he is concerned about being killed when he had no concerns about killing his brother.
I have no idea why the writer, when discussing the Scriptures, appeals to African Traditional Religion as if it is a credible source. The author imagines Cain is desperate but also assumes the desperation is due to haunting. Such is not stated.
"So the LORD said to him, 'Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.' And the LORD appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him" (Genesis 4:15).
God gives Cain what he wants (protection from being killed by his family), but the result doesn't give Cain the peace that he imagined it would bring him. His mark not only protects him but also announces to everyone who he is and what he has done. It increases the likelihood that he will be shunned by mankind. It further promotes his need to wander.
The author of the letter assumes Cain became mentally disabled, but again, this is not stated in the text. It comes solely from the author's imagination.
The conclusion is that the author hasn't proven his point. His "conclusions" do not follow from the points he attempted to make. He seems to think that other religions have some reality behind them. His final question is purely hypothetical. You and I weren't born in India, so there is no way to determine what choices we would have made in different circumstances. However, I saw the reasonableness of Christianity and chose to be a Christian. My country did not choose for me.
