Why Cain's Life is Spared.

Reaping the fruit of redemption from the tragic seeds of death

Reports of people flooding into churches overtook social media feeds following the news of Charlie Kirk’s courageous life and tragic death. This was the first time many encountered God’s word. Others began the next step of reading the Bible themselves, revered as the source and foundation of Charlie’s deeply held convictions.

Though I encounter new insights from scripture on a regular basis, I have been steeped in bible stories since childhood. It’s difficult to imagine what someone might experience reading it for the first time. Pastors often encourage people to start with one of the Gospels, which is a good idea. Readers will quickly encounter Jesus in dialogue with opponents whom He loved, pioneering the method that Charlie tried to emulate.

Others will start reading the way that ignorant people usually do– from the very beginning. The redemptive story that begins in Genesis is quite long from a Christian perspective. But as I continue to reflect on the events of Charlie’s death, and the ongoing prosecution of his assassin, I can’t help but notice the value in the way the story unfolds. Those who pick up the book in response to various tragedies will encounter similar circumstances within a few pages.

My hope and my prayer is that people from both sides of the political aisle will begin to reassess our divided world in light of that unfolding story. That they see not only their own experiences echo across the pages, but begin to understand those they once called enemies as well.

That story begins with the goodness and innocence of an uncorrupted world, a setting rarely mirrored as closely as the experience of the average American childhood. That paradise is corrupted by the sinister insertion of the seed of doubt, from an envious voice that colors the perception of Adam and Eve, teaching them to view the safety and liberty of paradise as a prison of oppression.

Those most focused on the tragedy of Charlie Kirk’s death will certainly see the parallels in the story of Cain and Abel, and this is where my hope rests in the unfolding story of our own day, to help us understand and interpret the ancient tragedy.

Like Abel, Charlie’s work in this world is now complete, though his legacy will carry on. Like Cain, an indelible mark has been placed on the head of his killer, Tyler Robinson. Our expectation is that justice will be served in light of his clear guilt, but the final length and outcome of his future remains unknown.

Justice and the Rule of Law

Many are saying that justice for Charlie would be best served by the execution of Tyler Robinson.

Charlie Kirk inspired many to rediscover the great freedoms given to us as citizens of the United States, rooted in our constitution, and advocated taking up the responsibility to maintain and protect our liberty.

He would have agreed that the system of Government established by our founding fathers was an excellent, if imperfect expression of human wisdom, rooted in the infallible truth of God’s word. Like many who have studied it earnestly, and defended it, he would have agreed with the sentiments of Benjamin Franklin, who consented to its adoption “because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”

Charlie was a conservative. He advocated for a return to the original understanding of the constitution. Like many other conservatives, he arrived at this position in response to the abdication of responsibility on the part of our leaders, who exploited the interpretive framework of our founding document for selfish and often evil reasons.

Foregoing the execution of violent criminals is not necessarily the chief sin of our liberal leaders, so much as their refusal to keep them incarcerated. These policies are responsible for the deaths of many innocent victims such as Iryna Zarutska.

The constitution neither explicitly demands or condemns the death penalty, but permits it under judicial discretion. In the case of punishing and preventing future violence, life imprisonment is just as effective as execution.

The constitution does forbid “cruel and unusual punishments”, language that has been cited by those on opposite sides of the debate to condemn both life imprisonment and the death penalty, though it has been more successfully applied against particular kinds of execution.

Charlie Kirk advocated for the death penalty, and appealed to a higher authority, defending it on Biblical grounds. Like many other Christians who hold the position, he believed that the symbolic act of public execution was meant to serve as a warning of the consequence of taking a human life. It is therefore quite reasonable to assume that he would have wanted the death penalty for Tyler Robinson. But it is far from certain.

The Higher Law of Grace

Although he was still a young man, Charlie Kirk was also a Godly man, and he would have recognized the wisdom in Benjamin Franklin’s reflections on the constitution he reluctantly adopted:

“For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

Indeed, even in his short life, Charlie spoke about the exceeding value of knowledge gained through time; time that was necessary to discover his own shortcomings, including his own guilt, and his need for a savior. This is the message of universal truth spilled across the pages of scripture “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

Those who come to recognize their own need for a savior, who have experienced the grace and forgiveness of God, have been vocal in their hopes and prayers that Tyler Robinson would also come to know the same love of God. They recognize that this is what Charlie would have wanted. For many, this desire is not mutually exclusive with the belief that justice requires death; they simply hope that such a miracle would come in the time allotted by a judicial process that ends in execution.

It is here that I hope fresh eyes might begin to see more in the timeless truth of scripture, and that the circumstances of reality may teach us to understand our ancient past.

Cain and Abel

The story of Cain and Abel has been floating around in the conservative milieu for the last decade, thanks in large part to Charlie Kirk’s friend, Jordan Peterson. Peterson is obsessed with the story, marveling at the deep wells of insight contained in a mere ten sentences, and has stated that he has been contemplating its implications for something like forty years. Despite all his time wandering in that symbolic wilderness, he has yet to uncover the most crucial meaning of the story.

I will not claim that the interpretation that I share here is definitive, nor that my insights are novel and unique. Elements of this story have been articulated and rediscovered countless times over the centuries, by various Jewish and Christian sages. But I will outline how I think they all hang together, and let the reader decide where I am right and where I am wrong.

The story begins with the birth of two sons:

Now Adam knew Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. - Genesis 4:1-2

It then skips to the time when they are both grown, and the beginning of their famous conflict.

In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. v.3-4a

It is here that the confusion of the meaning begins, due in part to difficulties of translation, as these early chapters represent the most sparse and primitive writing in the texts. But the details of this story point us right back to the events a chapter before. First, we notice Cain’s success as growing crops, a task that God had made difficult for his father Adam, in response to his disobedience of God’s commandment:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree

of which I commanded you,

‘You shall not eat of it,’

cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

By the sweat of your face

you shall eat bread,

till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken;

for you are dust,

and to dust you shall return.” - Genesis 3:17-19

But Cain is free from this curse, which was given to Adam as an act of fatherly discipline– something that is intended to produce change and growth within him. Cain begins his life in the relative ease that his father had experienced before his fall. He is gifted in growing crops, and brings a good sacrifice. Indeed, his brother’s sacrifice is brought in imitation of his brother Cain, whom he must have admired, as all younger brothers do. (Ari Lamm has done the work to parse out the text for this interpretation.) But alas, the circumstances that follow often cause us to search for reasons when none are given:

And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. - v. 4b-5a

This difference in God’s regard towards the two brothers and their sacrifices is the place where most interpreters begin to stumble, because we always want to understand the reasons why. Was it because one brought grain and the other brought meat? Both are part of the later offerings accepted in the tabernacle. Was it the relative quality of their goods? No, both brought free will offerings. The “firstborn” status of Abel’s gift is parallel with Cain’s fruit - he offers the fruit, not the plant, Abel offers the offspring, not the parent. (it may also be an offering of milk, not meat. The Hebrew rendered as “fat” can mean both.) Other speculations make assumptions about the intent of the brothers, but again, Abel is acting in imitation. As far as he was concerned, Cain had no ill intent.

No. It is the brother that is chosen, and the offering is simply the means through which we discover which brother is chosen. This raises the question; chosen for what? And that is not explicitly spelled out, but we can piece together an idea by looking at later stories within the text.

The book of Genesis is written to answer the problem of brothers that fight. Cain and Abel are followed by the sons of Noah, the sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, the sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, and the twelve sons of Jacob, later called Israel. In each instance, the thing determined is through which line God’s ultimate promises will be fulfilled. God is selecting an heir; and in this instance, He has chosen the younger brother, Abel.

So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, and you must rule over it.” v.5a-7

Here we can see that God is offering no condemnation, but only condolences to Cain. He is not chosen, but he can still be accepted. Like all of us, he has a role to play in God’s plans. But God gives him a warning about sin, and its desire to take possession of Cain. The language of this warning brings to mind the image of a devouring beast, a creature that wants to eliminate God’s children.

It is very reminiscent of the serpent, who tempted Adam and deceived Eve. He spoke smooth words, but what he wanted was their death. But like all children born of Adam and Eve, the evil inclination already resides within Cain, who has inherited his parent’s desire to be like God. This is what God warns him against.

Cain spoke to Abel his brother. Let us go out to the field. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. - v.8

Mysteriously, the phrase “let us go out to the field” is missing from the Hebrew scriptures, but it is inserted in the various ancient translations of the Samaritan, Greek, and Syriac Jews. But regardless, the field is where they end up, and Abel is killed. But it is important to note that the phrase contains two parts, here translated as “rose up against”, or elsewhere as “attacked”, it is not simply murder. Cain attacks and kills Abel, the same way that Moses attacks and kills an Egyptian taskmaster, it denotes the idea of manslaughter, an unintended death. This detail gives us insight into why Abel was chosen, and for what purpose.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” v.9

God speaks as many fathers do, already knowing the truth, but testing to see if the guilty Cain is willing to confess. Cain is truly the son of his father Adam, who thought that fig leaves would hide the shame of his nakedness. It’s a childish response that should give us insight into the depth of Cain’s moral understanding. But this also gives us a bit of insight into Cain’s character; he is not a practiced liar, nor is he used to making mistakes. This is his first big screwup.

And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” v. 10-12

God reveals that He knows exactly what has happened, just as He knew when Adam and Eve had disobeyed. Previously, the ground had been faithful and obedient to Cain, ready and willing to accept whatever Cain put in, to produce good fruit. But instead of a life-filled seed, Cain has given the ground a taste for blood.

The ground has not changed its attitude or disposition towards Cain, but God curses Cain, by removing his affinity for working the soil. This is like the curse put on his father Adam, who had once been able to reach out from any tree to grab food, and now had to work the soil with great effort. Cain has lost the ability that once came easy to him, and he too must begin a new and difficult kind of work.

But these acts are done for the good of God’s children. The garden of Eden was a place that was designed for innocent people, but it was not a good place for people with open eyes, and evil inclinations. The temptation to abuse its bounty was too great. Cain has now given the ground a taste of something that is not good, and it would not be good for him to try and reap the harvest. Indeed, this story stands in stark contrast to the wisdom of many ancient cultures, where human blood was routinely shed for the sake of a good harvest.

Cain said to the Lord, “My guilt is greater than I can bear. Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” v.13-14

Here I have inserted the alternative translation of guilt from the translator’s footnote, in place of the word punishment, to help us see the judgment of God as an act of fatherly discipline, not a transactional punishment. Commentators often project certain emotions on this speech to support a predisposition towards Cain as a villain. The words can be read as snide and rebellious complaints, but I do not think it fits the fuller context at all. Cain’s worries stem from the fear of an unknown future. Stripped of his greatest skill, the source of his identity and worth, he is now just as naked as Adam and Eve. But God does not leave him in that state.

Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. v.15

The infamous “Mark of Cain” is not a curse, but a protection. Just as God provided coats of skin for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness and protect them from the thorns and thistles of the wilderness, God has put a seal of protection on Cain, ensuring that he will not suffer the same fate as his younger brother. God has placed himself as Cain’s protector, and avenger. This statement acknowledges our natural expectations of justice and judgment, but it is also asymmetrical. It is not an eye for an eye; God pays back seven-fold. What does that mean? It actually follows the principle of sowing and reaping; a seed planted yields a multitude in return.

A person does not have seven lives to give, but it shows the tremendous loss of a life cut short. Not only is the person killed lost, but their future offspring as well. Cain is the first “seed” of the woman. God wants that seed to come to fruition.

Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden. Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. When he built a city, he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch. v.16-17

The events that follow after God’s judgment have been the subject of many biased interpretations that seek to portray Cain as a rebel. Cain does follow God’s pronouncement, by leaving the blood soaked ground of his former home and moving to a new land. Cain remains unable to bring forth food from the ground, but just as Cain overcame the curse that plagued his father, his son is not bound by Cain’s affliction. Yet neither is he afforded the same protection as his father. By building a city, Cain enables his own son to live in safety, and establishes a place to return to, while he is forced to wander far and wide in search of provisions.

To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad fathered Mehujael, and Mehujael fathered Methushael, and Methushael fathered Lamech. And Lamech took two wives. The name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who play the lyre and pipe. Zillah also bore Tubal-cain; he was the forger of all instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah. v.18-22

The spurious claims made against Cain’s descendants are also unfounded. The twin genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5 are often cited as contrasting lineages of evil and good, a dualistic reading that comes from outside the text itself. While the practice of polygamy is clearly portrayed as less than ideal throughout the text, it is a widespread practice that God permits, and redeems, especially in Genesis, when humanity is still struggling to fulfill the first commandment given by God, the creation mandate of Genesis 1:28 – “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth”

Cain’s line clearly fulfills this mandate. They expand their territory, multiply, and discover new means of bringing forth life from the harsh wilderness. Indeed, Cain, the one “seed” protected by God, has culminated in the seven-fold fruit of Lamech, his two wives, and their four children. But a closer analysis of the two genealogies reveals the ultimate purpose of preserving Cain’s line, which ends in the birth of a daughter, by connecting us back to the family of Adam.

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.” v.25

Dr. Alice C. Linsley, an anthropologist who studies ancient texts, explains the reason for the dual genealogies of Genesis 4 and 5:

Genesis 4:25 clarifies the relationship between Seth and Cain. They were brothers and their descendants intermarried. Their daughters married their patrilineal cousins and named their first-born sons after their fathers (the cousin bride’s naming prerogative). The practice of patrilineal cousin marriage is attested in Numbers 36:11 where we are told that Zelophehad’s daughters—Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milkah, and Noah—married their patrilineal cousins.

Cain’s un-named daughter married her cousin Enosh/Enos and named their first-born son Kenan/Kain after her father. Irad’s un-named daughter married her cousin Mahalalel and named their first-born son Jared/Yered/Irad after her father. Lamech’s daughter Naamah married her cousin Methuselah and named their first-born son Lamech after her father. This is an authentic kinship pattern which reveals endogamy among the royal houses of Cain and Seth.

This explains not only how Noah and his sons gained the skills and tools necessary to build the Ark, but how all the developments of Cain’s descendants are carried into the new world. It also suggests the possibility that this particular story, the only story in the antediluvian text in which women other than Eve are mentioned, may have come to be preserved, through Noah’s grandmother, Naamah, who named her son Lamech after her own father.

But there is another curious detail that emerges in the naming of Lamech’s sons. The names Jubal, Jabel, and Tubel-Cain are all variations on the name Abel. Not only has Cain’s line been fruitful, he has preserved and multiplied the seed of his brother who perished. By prolonging and protecting the life of Cain, the memory of Abel was not erased from the earth.

Abel and Charlie

The future outcomes of the tragic death of Charles James Kirk are still unknown, although many good fruits have already begun to spring forth. Not only are people opening their bibles and returning to church, I have seen one child born with the name Charlie James to honor the legacy of the martyred son, and I am sure many more will follow. My wife, whose grandfather was also named Charles, asked me to reconsider it for our soon to be born son.

The circumstances of Charlie’s death are clearly not identical to those of Abel, but there are important parallels that we ought to consider. Foremost is the recognition that God did not demand the life of Cain, but sought to preserve it, so that Cain could come to understand both the extent of his tragic actions, and the goodness of God’s mercy. Since his death, Charlie’s widow Erika has confirmed that this is what Charlie would have wanted for Tyler, even offering words of forgiveness at her husband’s memorial.

But God also preserved Cain because it provided an opportunity to bring forth good.

That good fruit has still not reached the full extent, as the story continues to teach and guide us away from the tragic consequences of sin and violence. But we can explore some of its immediate implications through simple extrapolation of the details provided.

First, let us consider the circumstances of Cain and Abel’s upbringing. As the firstborn son, Cain was seen as the solution to the problems that began in the garden, which God promised would be solved through the defeat of the serpent, whose head would be crushed by the seed of the woman.

This idea would be further reinforced by Cain’s apparent skill at growing food, something that his father was cursed to do with great difficulty. It’s not hard to imagine that he inherited many of the traits typical of first-born sons, who are often siddled with enormous pressure to succeed. Especially when we consider the contrast between his parent’s attitude toward Abel, who seems to be an afterthought, almost ignored. His tending of the flocks was of secondary importance to the important work of his brother and father.

God’s choice of Abel, which made Cain upset, must have felt extremely confusing, and unfair. Cain had not done anything worthy of condemnation, rather he was surprised by God’s unexpected choosing of Abel. He became unmoored from his purpose and identity. When God speaks, He is telling Cain that the pressure is off; he will be accepted if he does good. Whether or not Cain thought his chosen status would return with the elimination of Abel, the evil inclinations at work desired to frustrate God’s plans.

At first glance, it appears that they succeed. It seems we don’t get to see Abel fulfil the role for which he was chosen. But that is not the case. The most obvious reason that people insist that Abel’s sacrifice was better than Cain’s is because of his acceptance. This idea also seems to be backed up by the author of the book of Hebrews, who says:

“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.” Heb 11:4

There is a curious facet to this expression here; a singular sacrifice, and multiple gifts are accepted. This is sensibly interpreted by the fact that Abel’s sacrifice consisted of multiple animals. Yet there are also multiple occasions in which a sacrifice can be accepted; God tells Cain, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” This is the test that Cain fails. But Abel is present, and he succeeds.

Remember that the text tells us that Cain attacked, and killed Abel. Two actions on the part of Cain– and while this could be interpreted as an act of manslaughter, an intentional attack, with an unintended consequence of death, it could also mean something else. It could mean that Abel was not killed at once, but had a choice– a choice to defend himself, or to let himself be killed.

In the book of Hebrews, Abel is most clearly compared to Jesus, of whom the author says:

“For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin.” Heb 12:3

Perhaps here, Abel, who had spent his life in imitation of his brother Cain, faced the choice for which he was chosen, by showing Cain what it looked like to resist sin. To resist one thing often requires the surrender to something else.

“do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” - Matthew 5:39

Perhaps Abel was chosen for righteousness that had not yet come to fruition, just as Christ was chosen to lay down His life long before his blood was shed. Like Christ, Abel’s righteousness was fulfilled in his willingness to accept violence and not return it, to surrender to his evil brother, and to imitate him no longer.

It may have been that the refusal to fight back fueled Cain’s rage, allowing sin to devour him, bringing forth death. Or it may have been that, like Charlie Kirk, who was not pronounced dead on the scene, but succumbed to his wounds later on, Abel’s life extended beyond the moment of impact, giving Cain the opportunity to see the consequences of his actions spill forth in his brother’s blood.

This is Abel’s second sacrifice, one that was not given in imitation, but in faith. Though it was meager in material, it was extravagant in cost. This is the kind of sacrifice that God desires:

But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” - Mark 12:42-44

The woman who offered her meager sum to God was placing her life into his hands. Like the widow of Zaraphath, who gave her final meal to the prophet, she put her trust in the creator of life over the efforts of her hands. We do not know what happened to her, though we can hope she received the same blessing as the widow who fed Elijah, whom she imitated. We do know that Abel did not receive his own life back, but rather purchased the redemption of his brother Cain.

Tyler and Cain

But now we must return to the other killer, and consider Tyler Robinson in light of the life of Cain.

Cain had been given a test, and warned that he must resist sin. But what is sin? And how do we resist it? First, we must understand the source of its power and influence.

“But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.” - James 1:14-15

Cain had desired acceptance and approval, which God told him how to achieve. Cain had also expected that approval to come in a particular way, to be chosen above his brother Abel. Just as Eve noticed the desirability of the forbidden fruit, Cain desired something that was not meant for him, and this was the genesis of his sin.

The sin of Adam was contrasted by the sinlessness of Christ, each rooted in their desires, or lack thereof. Jesus, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” (Philippians 2:6) stands in contrast to Adam and Eve, who reached out to take hold of the fruit that promised to make them like God.

But there is an opportunity for grace towards Cain, just as there is for Eve, and even Adam. The command against eating seemed arbitrary to her, because she did not have the same context of understanding as Adam, who had seen and explored the goodness of God’s creation to a fuller extent. In the same way, God’s decision to choose Abel seemed arbitrary to Cain, who had done everything right according to the purpose laid out for him by his parents.

And though Adam did know the commandment of God, he was reluctant to hold onto the good gift that had been given to him– the woman. He was not willing to allow her to be taken by the serpent.

Now Cain encountered a test, much like the one his parents had failed. How much had he been warned of the subtle words of the serpent? What did it mean to resist sin, crouching at the door? Who had Cain seen or remembered crouching at his door?

Cain had surrendered his life to a prophetic vision. As the seed of the woman, there was only one thing that he had not done– crush the head of the serpent’s seed. With no other path laid out before him, no other creature with which to wrestle, he unleashed his instinct to crush on his brother Abel.

Charlie Kirk was not the brother of Tyler Robinson, but he very well could have been. In fact, Charlie seems very much like the kind of son that Tyler’s parents tried to raise.

Matthew Carl “Matt” Robinson and Amber Denise (née Jones) Robinson, have been married for about 25 years. They are longtime residents of Washington, Utah, a suburban community near St. George and Zion National Park. They raised Tyler and his two younger brothers in a close-knit, active family environment described by neighbors as “great” and “respectable.” They were deeply involved in the local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints congregation, attending services regularly and participating in community events.

Both of his parents are registered Republicans, and have been vocal supporters of conservative causes, including Donald Trump—family social media from 2017 shows Tyler in a Trump costume for Halloween, and his grandmother, Debbie Robinson described the family as “staunch Republican and Trump-loving.” His father, who owns and runs a small construction company, embodied the conservative values of hard work and entrepreneurship.

They emphasized family bonding through outdoor activities like camping, hunting trips, and visits to shooting ranges—Amber often posted photos of their sons (including Tyler) posing with firearms during childhood outings, exhibiting the responsible enjoyment of the 2nd amendment rights.

Tyler, their oldest son, was academically gifted. He scored a 34/36 on the ACT (top 1% nationally), earning a four-year academic scholarship to Utah State University in Logan. Tyler was the kind of kid that one might have expected to be involved with an organization like Turning Point USA, which reflected all the values his family held in high esteem. His path seemed to reflect the idea of the American dream; that through education and hard work, he might achieve more than his parents, and create a brighter future for the next generation.

But something went wrong with that plan. Although he enrolled in a pre-engineering program, he ended up dropping out after one semester, returning to live with his family while pursuing an electrical apprenticeship at Dixie Technical College. Even without delving into the nature of his online activities, such a decision reflects a trend among young men of Gen Z.

Young men currently represent just 40% of college graduates. His pursuit of a job in the trades, long perceived as a second-best choice, reflects the dire circumstances sensed by many young white men, who are largely excluded from the career paths that they once dominated, through social justice campaigns that incentivize the hiring of women and racial minorities. As career prospects dwindle, the hopes of marriage and family are also pushed farther out of reach.

These problems are intrinsically linked to the other looming problem of his online radicalization. Tyler’s parents allowed him to pursue an interest in computer gaming from an early age. But unlike the video game consoles that became ubiquitous during his parent’s youth, Tyler’s gaming hobby came with unfettered access to the internet. By connecting with other gamers, he received a deluge of information and opinions from peers who were likewise exposed to all manner of complex and powerful images and ideas, long before they acquired the maturity to handle them.

The online culture of Gen Z’s has developed into a complex mixture that blurs the boundaries between the political, religious, and sexual ideologies. The language of rights and freedoms, social justice and equality, are tethered to the exploration of fantasies fueled by pornographic images. Many have pointed to Tyler’s ‘deviant’ interests as proof of his degeneracy. He pursued a romantic relationship with a transgender individual, a boy who was trying to live as a girl.

If we step back to observe the flow of culture, we can see powerful forces at work. Early exposure to sexual content is always a tragedy. In my youth, such exposure meant seeing things developed for mature tastes. Such exposure engendered a pursuit of maturity; a warped view of maturity, but a type of maturity nonetheless. Early glimpses of a pornographic magazine might drive a young man to put away childish toys, to pursue romantic and sexual encounters early on in his teenage years, pushing towards a lifestyle of womanizing. The nature of life before the internet age meant that such men would have to concern themselves with making themselves attractive, earning money, working on their ‘game’, by developing the skills necessary to seduce women. Even though their desires were warped away from marriage and family, their pursuit still forced them to become more mature adults.

This process of warped maturation is also what happens to young women who encounter sexual content early on, who instead learn to recognize a potential within themselves to be the objects of desire, to wield power over men.

The ‘deviant’ nature of online porn culture reflects something very different. The path for young women is largely the same, though it has accelerated, with large numbers of young girls starting their own ‘businesses’ creating content as soon as they turn 18, earning absurd amounts of money, mostly from much older men. As tragic as this story is, for young men like Tyler, things are much worse.

The proliferation of animated pornography, furries, transgenderism, and (tragically) pedophilia, point to a very different kind of problem. Rather than pushing people towards a warped sense of maturity, these forces are infantilizing young men. The pathway towards mature adulthood, as a necessary precursor for pursuing sexual relationships with women has become extremely difficult to navigate. What they see of their female peers online distorts their perceptions of women, who seem only to be interested in courting the impossible ideals of the ‘Chad’ - six feet tall, six figure income, and even then, faithfulness is by no means a guarantee.

The recent Harper’s article on “gooners” depicts a generation of men that have resolved themselves to only ever experiencing the normal pleasures of adulthood vicariously. The other alternatives end up like Tyler, and his friends. The politics of extreme inclusion rely on the total exclusion of one type of person; the white heterosexual male.

White heterosexual men have been demonized from all directions, with “whiteness” viewed as the root problem of racial disparity, “toxic masculinity” as the root of feminist persecution, and “cisnormativity” and various “phobias” as the root of all gender and sexual discrimination. These toxic qualities stand in opposition to justice, acceptance, love, and equality. Once someone adopts these beliefs, any amount of hate, vitriol, or violence can be justified. In the presence of such messaging, it is no surprise that young men learn to despise their own nature.

These problems are only compounded by the fact that conservative voices have so little compassion for these young men. The conservative image of healthy masculinity is not a purely biblical one, and often lies closer to the older version of warped maturation. It is too abrasive in its style of communication, with pundits celebrating “owning the libs” like a frat party drinking game. It has far too much of the playboy in it as well, especially since the embrace of Donald Trump. A conservative vision aimed at protecting the rights and privileges of mature, consenting adults to bend and break the rules they espouse presents a stumbling block to these young men who can’t find a way to grow up.

The admixture of sex with cartoons, video games, and stuffed animals, tied to a schoolyard morality centered on fairness, bullying, and revenge, all points to a generation of young men who are both desperately anxious to become adults, and terrified of the exact same thing.

Consider then what someone like Charlie Kirk represented to Tyler Robinson. Charlie’s popularity and success represent the kind of path that seems unavailable to most young men. His beautiful wife represents a kind of fairy tale romance, her vocal support and admiration for him seem like an impossible dream, a hope eroded by cynicism towards hypergamous women. But what’s more, Charlie received the encouragement and admiration of men like Donald Trump, a man that Tyler’s own father admired, who poured out fatherly affection that is almost impossible to find.

It’s as if Tyler heard God say, “I have not chosen you, but your brother Charlie.” That is the seed of jealousy that took root in Tyler’s heart. I do not believe that Tyler saw Charlie Kirk as a villain, but as the image of everything he wished that he could and should have been, yet was denied. Charlie was chosen; Tyler was not.

Why Cain Was Spared

God’s dual remedy of discipline and protection forced Cain to wander the earth, while making him conspicuous. He would have had to rely on the kindness and generosity of others to acquire food for himself and his family. This humbling experience would have undone his self-reliance. No longer could he count on his skill or ability, he was suddenly as dependent as the little lambs of his brother’s flock.

Cain built the city to protect his family, as a place to return to; but to provide for them required a venture into the unknown. However far the other sons of Adam had spread across the land, Cain would need to make himself known. Unlike the garments of skin that protected Adam and Eve from the thorns and thistles of the wilderness, Cain would have to trust in the word of the Lord, in the mark, which provided no physical barrier to harm.

In every encounter with some distant brother, he would have to confess his sin, and relay the horrible consequences of his brother’s death. As he did so, he would have had to reflect again and again on details not only of that sad affair, but of his brother’s life. As he encountered younger brothers, nephews, nieces, and more distant relatives, he would have had to answer question after question.

Perhaps the first few became rote; “How did it happen?” “Why did you do it?”, but over time, those questions would have expanded into details about a legendary man, the second born son of Adam, unknown to countless generations. “Did you always fight?” “almost never, until that day…” and eventually, “What was he like?” “he was very kind…”

As he travels around the world of that day, the mark he is given serves as a warning and a witness for all future people of the tragic consequences of anger, sin and death. We do not know exactly what he may have said, but his experience is that of a man who lost the brother he had known for over a century. (We can assume this because Adam was 130 years old when he sired Seth, the son born after Abel’s death) He may not have understood why God chose Abel in that moment, but in retrospect he must have pondered the virtue and value of the boy who was considered “nothing” - a type of meaning of the name Abel. Abel, who did not consider equality with Cain something to be grasped, but let go, relinquishing his life to the dust.

Cain’s sentence to wander, with his appearance marked, shows us the means by which God spreads the first law to all the living. This is echoed in the actions of Cain’s descendant Lamech, who after killing in self defense, reiterates the message of God’s vengeance, not to provoke violence, but to discourage it. While it is often read as boastful, it actually represents something far more important: it is the first example of someone turning the tricks of the serpent against him, a pattern repeated throughout Genesis by women like Rebekah and Tamar.

We do not have an epistle of Cain, but we can see the evidence of his lessons learned in the line of his descendants. The sons of his descendant Lamech all share the root of the name Abel; Jubal, Jabel, and Tubal-Cain. Their vocations also mirror and extend from the root of Abel, while incorporating elements of Cain’s later skill as a builder. They raise flocks, live in tents, play music, and forge tools for building.

The final name listed on the tree of Cain’s family is that of daughter, Naamah, a name which means pleasantness or beauty. As the bridge that unites the lines of Cain and Seth, she is well named, as beauty can only be truly cultivated in times of peace. Her name also contrasts and corrects to the name given to Abel, vanity, or vapor, an afterthought viewed as someone without utility to his parents, but treasured and prized by God. Naamah’s name personifies the true value God saw in Abel, someone to be enjoyed simply for who they are.

When we view this story in this way, we can see God using evil for good, and the economy through which it is done, maximizing the benefit of Abel’s sacrifice to promote peace among the living. It is the first instance of God “trampling death by death”. But for those who remain unconvinced, consider the parallels between the death of Abel, and the first tragedy of the new covenant, the stoning of saint Stephen.

The Martyrdom of Stephen, and the Salvation of Paul

Stephen is a deacon, an eager imitator of the apostles, as Abel imitated Cain. Like Jesus and (presumably) Abel, Stephen does not want the sins of his killers counted against them, hoping instead that his death will lead to their repentance.

Paul stands on the side, giving approval of the death of Stephen. This may appear to contrast, rather than parallel the story of Cain, who was stirred by anger. But the parallels between the two are closer than they first appear. Cain’s anger stems from a loss of identity. He does not know how to rest in God, or how to function with his role stripped from him. He sees his value stemming from the results of his work.

Likewise, Paul once correlated his chosenness with his ability to work, deriving his value as a person from his effort.

Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham’s descendants? So am I. Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. - 2 Corinthians 11:22-23

Cain could have made similar boasts: “I was the first born son of Adam, I learned to till the soil and overcame the difficulty that cursed my father’s struggles. I was the one who first brought offerings to the Lord, and Abel was only copying my example! I worked harder than he did, and never took what I did not earn!”

At the moment of Stephen’s death, Paul would not consider himself to have committed any crime or sin. If the stoning of Stephen was unjust according to the law, Saul would not have participated. In his interpretation of the law, Stephen was committing several blasphemies, breaking the commandments against idolatry, bearing the name of God in vain, dishonoring his mother and father, and bearing false witness against God’s people. However, God was silent in response to Paul’s “sacrifice”, just as He was with Cain.

When Paul relates his theology of sin in the book of Romans, we see how he once held himself responsible before God. He reveled in God’s commandments, believing himself superior for his ability to keep them. It is only when Christ appears before him that Paul realizes what he has done, just as Cain realized that the blood of Abel was crying out to God.

After this encounter, Paul finally recognizes his own deception, and comes to understand the effect that the law has on sinners, and the effect sin has on our own hearts:

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good - Romans 7:7-12

Paul could at one time go through the decalogue and check off each commandment that he had kept. But when he gets to the final commandment, he realizes that he does in fact covet, just as Cain coveted God’s acknowledgment of Abel. By denying it, Paul bore false witness against himself. When he finally speaks of the nature of his desire, he comes to realize that just as Jesus said, to look lustfully on the wife of your neighbor is to commit adultery in your heart, and to hate your brother is the same as murder.

Looking back at that moment after his encounter with Christ, Paul understands that he greatly desired to see the death of Stephen. Those sinful thoughts, hidden from all the world, are seen and felt by God, who knows the heart of every man. God is forced to witness the death of his servant Stephen first in the hateful hearts of his enemies, and then through the eyes of all who witness it in the flesh. In that moment of recognition, Paul realizes that he is guilty of Stephen’s murder.

Like Cain, Paul is stripped of his ability to make his way in the world. He can no longer serve in his role as a teacher to the children of Israel. But although he is stripped of the purpose to which he devoted his life, his life is preserved by God. Like Cain, God exiles him to the wilderness to share the story of his sin, and God’s redemption, to all the nations of the gentiles. In that exile he endures many hardships, and is forced to rely on God:

I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers. I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. - 2 Corinthians 11:26-28

Like Cain, Paul endures this suffering, not for himself, but for those he loves, serving the churches among the communities where he can only briefly find some rest. In his ministry, Paul takes on the mantle of fallen Steven.

Both are filled with the Holy Spirit and perform miracles - Acts 6:5,8 and Acts 9:17, 19:11–12

Both men are falsely accused because they could not be refuted. - Acts 6:10, and Acts 25:7

Both men are accused of blasphemy, Stephen in Acts 6:13-14, Paul suffers the same accusations in Acts 21:21,28

Both use the history of Israel to preach and rebuke their accusers, first by in Stephen Acts 7, later by Paul in Acts 13:16–41; Acts 23:1–6; and Acts 26:2–23

Both received visions of the Glorified Christ. Stephen saw “the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God” during his trial (Acts 7:55–56), while Paul encountered the risen Jesus on the Damascus road in Acts 9:4–5, and later in Acts 22:17–21, and Acts 23:11.

Both accepted death as a worthy sacrifice for the sake of their accusers, with Paul saying “I am ready not only to be bound, but also to die in Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” - Acts 21:13

The Seed of death and the Harvest of New Life

The biblical parallels of Cain and Abel, Stephen and Paul, provide a basis for hope in the final redemption of Tyler Robinson. The unjust deaths of Abel, Stephen, and Charlie Kirk offer an escape from an endless cycle of retributive justice.

Rene Girard provided a helpful language to understand this phenomenon.

Cain, Paul, and Tyler were each trapped in mimetic rivalry. Their desires were rooted in their lack. Each one coveted some status of their victim, for being chosen, for being right, or for living up to the impossible standards that have fallen out of reach.

Rather than recognizing the lack within themselves, they sought to eliminate the scandalon that threatened sacred order; the stumbling-stone who exposed their flaws to the world. In each instance, this was a person undeserving of death.

The violence of Cain, Paul, and Tyler does not solve the problem. Instead, each one is transformed into a new stumbling-stone, a violent criminal whose continued presence threatens the sacred order once again. But if any of them are killed, their own killers will become a stumbling-stone to whatever portion of the crowd sympathizes with their motives. This is the endless cycle of retributive justice - “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

But in each instance, the killer is confronted with realization of the innocence of his victim. Cain must wrestle with the memories of his brother, over and over, as he repeats the story to anyone who will listen. Paul must wrestle with the conviction of Stephen’s words; words that laid bare the sinful desires in his own heart. Tyler must wrestle with the fact that he has not rid the world of a villain, but robbed a wife of her husband, children of their father, and parents of a son. His myth, the lie that “words are violence” fell apart once he came to understand the true nature of violence.

Encountering their victims unmasks the myth and collapses the model-obstacle. The only path forward is through positive mimesis, imitating and embodying the self-sacrificial love and forgiveness of their victims, becoming non-sacrificial witnesses who break the cycle of violence by desiring only what the Forgiving Victim desires.

This cycle is inescapable once our blindness is removed. Paul realized that it was not Stephen he persecuted, but the spirit that shone through him, the spirit of Christ, the true innocent victim. When Paul persecuted the other Christians in the wake of Stephen’s death, he was stopped on the road to Damascus by Christ himself, who spoke the words– “why do you persecute me?”

In discovering that Christ identified himself with those who worshiped him, Paul recognized His image in humanity, the image of God in man. This image is not reflected in the way many of us expect. The image of perfection, of innocence is the image of God we first encounter. But it is not where the image of God is most clearly seen. That image is susceptible to the desecration of sin and death. When such tragedies occur, when Abel’s blood is spilled, when Paul looks on in approval, when scoffers revel in the death of Charlie Kirk, we feel compelled to ask “Where is God?”

In each instance, when one man stands whole, and the other lies dead, the image of God is incomplete. God can heal the body, and restore the dead to life. But such an act does not undo the suffering and evil that tarnishes the heart of a killer. There is only one remedy for that.

The blood of Abel was washed from the earth as the first world perished in the waters of the flood. When God reestablished his covenant with mankind, he added a new commandment:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” - Genesis 9:6

From that moment on, justice required that the blood of killers must be shed. The restoration of the image of God could not be achieved by reversing the shedding of blood, but in relinquishing it freely. Nor God did not exclude himself from the fulfilment of the commandment. God did not declare that “any man who sheds man’s blood” would have his blood shed. But he did require that “by man his blood shall be shed”. And so, God took on human flesh, not to mete out judgement, but to allow his blood to be spilled; to restore the image of God in man, God made himself into an image of bloody death.

This was not a reactive fix to an unforeseen consequence. He became “the suckling lamb, slain before the foundations of the earth.” In so doing, he revealed a mystery, at first, only to those who suffered in the same way. When Abel found himself standing before his maker, he saw a man with wounds.

Conclusion

In the case of the three victims, of Abel, Stephen, and Charlie Kirk, evidence of forgiveness proceeds their sacrifice. In Abel, it is the choice to not fight back. In Stephen, the desire that the sins of his accusers not be held against them. In Charlie Kirk, it was his testimony as a Christian.

In a very real sense, when Cain killed Abel, he died, and Abel was resurrected through his life. In the same way, Paul died, and lived the life of Stephen. But each of these transformations were made possible through the ultimate sacrifice of Christ’s death. We killed Christ, yet now we are Christ.

The revelation of Christ’s death and resurrection allows us a unique opportunity. Realizing, like Paul, that our hearts are full of sinful desires, that our hatred carries the seed of murder, we can offer up our own lives in sacrifice. Those who place their faith in Christ experience his death before their own death, and it is He who lives through them.

Cain was able to receive mercy because his sin came before the law. In the same way, the truth of Paul’s wickedness was hidden from him, until God chose to reveal it. As he wrote to Timothy, “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.” - 1 Timothy 1:13.

We ought to look at Tyler Robinson in the same way. He ignorantly believed that Charlie Kirk’s messages were “hate”, that his words were “violence”, and that his removal would bring “justice” to our broken land. But did not know what any of those words meant. Nor could he know what it means to shed the blood of man. Charlie’s widow Erika graciously offered her forgiveness to Tyler Robinson, on behalf of her husband, with the words of Christ. “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

As Tertullian famously said, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” I believe that seed of transformation has been planted in the life of Tyler Robinson. But its ability to germinate and take root remains dependent on the further cultivation of a stony heart. Erika’s words go a long way towards that effort, yet there is more to be done.

The two sides of our political landscape are divided along the lines of forgiveness and mercy. Those on the left preach tolerance, acceptance, and mercy in this life for those who identify with their sinful flesh. They extend endless sympathy for those who struggle with sexual sin, or those who commit acts of violence in retaliation for perceived injustices. Yet they offer no spiritual forgiveness for those who wish to repent and turn away from their past mistakes.

Those on the right preach the boundless love and forgiveness of Christ to those who confess. Yet they recoil at the thought of extending mercy and grace in the here and now. They offer only the cheap grace of salvation in the life to come, while refusing to lift a finger or cover the cost to love their neighbor through tangible means. But there was no such division in the life of Christ.

But Christ did not come to save souls alone, but to provide freedom from the bondage of sin and its temporal consequences. Consider the response of Christ when the Pharisees scoffed at him for telling a lame man that his sins were forgiven.

“Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” Then the man got up and went home.” - Matthew 9:5

The physical healing served not only as evidence of Jesus’ authority, but a foretaste of the eternal promise; a deposit of faith in anticipation of future fulfillment. Charlie had received that foretaste. The spirit bore witness to the forgiveness of his sins; sins he confessed openly and honestly, so that others might come to receive the same forgiveness. That foretaste allowed him to lay down his life. In the same way, it was that some foretaste of forgiveness that gave Erika Kirk the strength to forgive.

Christians proclaim that the forgiveness of sins is available to the very worst of sinners, if only they admit their need. But true forgiveness is not a magical talisman. It is more than the transaction of cheap words in exchange for eternal life. Those who truly understand forgiveness, like Charlie and Erika, recognize that it comes at an excruciating cost. It is the recognition of the cost paid, the insurmountable size of the debt forgiven, that moves them to give and forgive with the same generosity.

To profess the name of Christ is to recognize that each of us are living on borrowed time. “As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins… we were by nature deserving of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions.” Ephesians 2:1,3-5. That rich mercy was at work long before we came to recognize it. It was by God’s mercy that the consequences of our sins, which should have resulted in death, did not come to fruition until we became aware of God’s forgiveness.

If we honestly desire that a sinner like Tyler Robinson would come to understand the forgiveness that is on offer, we should defer the punishment that would render him incapable of receiving it- the end of his natural life. His guilt is evident, and the punishment deserved is death. But we should not be so quick to hasten the end of his mortal life. He will bear an indelible mark for his sin. He may never again walk among the free. But it may be that preservation of his life can serve to preserve the life of others, to prevent further tragedies, and to bear witness to the love of God in this fallen world.

Tyler Robinson once had the potential to be someone like Charlie Kirk. What if God can still use him towards those ends? What if the seed of Charlie’s sacrifice is allowed to take root and grow in the softening soil of Tyler’s heart? What if he becomes a witness to the glory of God like the apostle Paul? Such potential should be encouraged by any means possible. Therefore, whatever sentence Tyler receives, even if he is sentenced to death, our desire should be that the execution of justice is deferred; that mercy and forgiveness may be made known to Tyler in the flesh, so he may come to believe in the eternal grace of God. This should be the desire of every forgiven sinner.

That is why Cain was spared. It was why each of us was spared. It is why Tyler Robinson should be spared.