Hello form Sullivan County!

Visit Sullivan County, Tennessee

Genesis 4

Liz Shields (c.) 1998

The story of Cain and Abel in Genesis (4: 1-17) has long been regarded as the account of the first "murder", which taught a lesson of fellowship to humanity best illustrated by the well known passage from verse 9 "Am I my brothers keeper?" But if the narrative is read without inferences or assumptions, then the story clearly does not fit the typical scenario that most Jewish and Christian traditions claim. In fact, by separating the actual text from all outside interpretations, the text itself does not reveal the motives of the characters in chapter four.

What the story does not tell

Without probing deeply into the story, the text does not mention or include certain concepts or words that have been drawn in by Jewish and Christian interpretations--which is the classical interpretation. These assumptions are as follows:

1) That the story makes use of words such as "evil"; "judgment"; "repentance"; "murder"; "jealousy"; or "hatred". These key words have been routinely applied to the text as moral value judgments even though they are not found in the text.
2) That the meaning of "sin" in verse seven refers to the Christian conception of "original sin". "Original sin" is later theological concept and does not apply to the book of Genesis. The word "sin" in the text is refers to Jewish law breaking and is considered an infraction that can be redeemed easily.
3) The common assumption that Cain's character is wicked or evil. The story is lacking in any description of the characters' personality. Again, without the value judgments imported by the classic interpretation, the text does not indicate that Cain is a villain.
4) That Cain was corrupted by the devil, or Satan, or any kind of demonic character; Satan does not appear in the story, or in the Old Testament for that matter. Christians tend to use Satan as a narrative device to impose moral judgments on the characters in the story. Satan is a convenient way to explain most of the gaps in chapter four, but the author does not use this particular device.
5) That the mark Cain received was a curse. According to verse 15, the mark of Cain will protect him from "human vengeance".

Gaps in the Narrative

There are several crucial questions that the story creates, but fails to answer within the text, which are therefore left for the reader to answer. These gaps lead to the following questions, all of which are problematic for the classic interpretation:

1) Why does Cain make an offering to God? God never asked Cain for a offering. Cain choose to make an offering, possibly to show thanks to God. The story leaves the motivation of the offering unanswered.

2) Why does God accept Abel and his offering and not Cain's? The text does not contain an explanation for why God choose Abel over Cain.

3) Why does Cain kill Abel? The text does not show a cause and effect relationship between Cain's anger and Cain killing Abel. Was Cain angry with God? And if so, why does he not confront God?

4) If Cain is punished by God, then why is he marked for protection against human vengeance? And who wanted to kill Cain? The mark placed on Cain protects him when he wanders east of Eden to the land of Nod.

5) Why does God never answer Cain's question, "Am I my brother keeper"? God never tells Cain that he was or was not responsible for Abel's death. Which makes the reader question whether or not Cain is actually being punished.

6) Why does Cain disobey God by building a city, instead of wandering for eternity? Cain was punished with eternal wandering. God's punishment was not carried through because Cain settled in the city Enoch.

A Classic Interpretation

Most Christians think that Cain was tainted with evil at birth by Satan. In this view, it is believed that God recognized Cain's wickedness and rejected his offering. After God accepted Cain's younger brother Abel's offering, Cain led Abel to a field and unjustly murdered him. For Cain's crime, God cursed Cain with a mark and sentenced him to a lifetime of wandering the earth. But before this, Cain asked the famous question, "Am I my brother's keeper?". Although this classical interpretation makes a great moral tale of how humanity should behave, this version is clouded by a whole array of theological concepts from external sources (i.e. New Testament, Midrash, Milton) that simply do not occur internally within the story.

Close Reading

Many specific objections can be made to the classic reading, but from a broader perspective, the classic interpretation distorts the context by excluding both the beginning and the end of the story as it appears in Genesis 4. It neglects a description of Cain's and Abel's births, the actual fate of Cain after the killing, and more importantly it depends upon an assumed interpretation of the Adam and Eve story, and without this assumption the classic interpretation is rendered meaningless. Without what most Christians call "The Fall", Adam and Eve were not bound to original sin and the origin of Cain's wickedness cannot be explained. Thus, without the "Satan vehicle" it is impossible to travel across the narrative gap in the actual text, and arrive at the comfortable classic interpretation.

After the birth of Cain, Eve took great care in naming her first born son (Cain in Hebrew means "dirge"). She said, "I have produced a man with the help of the Lord." Scholars, like Gordon Wenham, have been bewildered by what this phrase means -- due to grammatical structuring of the sentence, the meaning is unclear (103). However, the meaning has little bearing on what the author of the narrative says about the attitude Eve had for her first born son. She appeared to be proud of him and did not see him as evil. In contrast, Abel's naming and birth was not emphasized like Cain's. He was only the second son with a name that means "vapor" in Hebrew. Abel's role in the story is much like his name, since he appeared in the first scene and was killed by verse 8. He is never mentioned again, even after God is aware that Cain killed him. A reasonable question might be: Is there something behind the naming of the characters? The fate of the characters in the story may be parallel to the meaning of their names. Cain, meaning dirge in Hebrew (as in a "funeral dirge") killed his brother. Abel, born second and with less fanfare, disappears like vapor completely from the story.

The names may tell of the fate of the characters, but a physical description of the characters and their personalities are lacking within the story. From what is included in the text, Eve did not see Cain as a trouble-maker, and there is no suggestion that he was any sort of villain. If clues from the Garden of Eden episode are inferred, then the reader knows that Adam and Eve were farmers. Cain, as a farmer, had done what he was supposed to do. In contrast, Abel had gone against his family and God, by not obeying what he commanded humankind to do. Cain, up to this point, did not fit the bill of the jealous, vengeful, murderer that the classical reading assumes. In fact, compared to Abel, Cain seemed to be more obedient.

After the brothers' identities were established, Cain spontaneously decided to offer some of his grains to God. But what prompted Cain to make an offering? God never asked for a portion of Cain's harvest and Cain never explained in the story why he wanted to show his thanks to God. Abel followed Cain's example and offered a portion of a firstborn lamb. It only seems logical that each brother offered what was available to them. The differences in their offerings are due to the differences in their occupations, which they consciously chose for themselves. At this point the reader is not aware of whether or not Cain and Abel's offerings were acceptable in God's eyes. It is obvious that Abel had violated an order laid down in the previous chapter by God.

However, in verse 5 God disregarded the order he created when he accepted the offering of Abel, and showed no regard for the grains Cain brought to him. The nagging question that needs to be answered is why did God reject Cain's offering. If Cain has followed God by becoming a farmer, was he not worthy of God's recognition? Without filling in the gaps with Satan or any other literary device, God's character seems irrational and even unfair with his choice. For reasons not disclosed in the text, God chose to disregard Cain along with his offering. And Abel, who apparently had not lived up to God's standards, was favored by God. So was it something Cain did to offend God, or was there something wrong with his offering? The story leaves the reader ample room to speculate.

The Midrash, for example, explains that Cain's offering was inferior because it was not the best portions (Beresheis 22). Cain offered "the fruit of the ground", while Abel offered the fat portions which were considered the best parts. It was not a character flaw, but rather a flaw in Cain's offering. Early Christian writers (such as Augustine) concluded that Cain had a history of sin and evil deeds, while Abel was righteous and good (Kugel 92). But it is understood that Cain could not possibly have been evil because the reader is not informed of any past deeds within the text. All demonic influences applied to the story come from outside sources and do not exist internally in the story. Other commentators from the Midrash applied the "past history" theory by creating a feud between Cain and Abel over presupposed twin sisters (Beresheis 61). Cain wanted to marry Abel's twin, but Abel would not allow it. Cain plotted against his brother and killed him to attain Abel's twin (Beraishis 62). This version of the story explains why God preferred Abel over Cain, but then explaining the twin sisters becomes a problem because the reader is never told that Eve gave birth to twins in the actual text. Most explanations given by commentators on the Cain and Abel account draw from their religious traditions. But what is apparent in the text is that God did not give a reason for his irrational choice, and the reader really does not know why Abel was favored over his brother.

Cain reacted to God's unjust treatment in verse 5 of the text. He is described as "...very angry, and his countenance fell." It is apparent to the reader, as the text reads chronologically, that Cain had every right to be upset with God. Cain, the obedient farmer, was entitled to better treatment by God. Cain upset the order of the story by taking his frustrations (which God caused) out on Abel. This is important when the reader reaches the climactic point of the story. The cause and effect relationship between God disregarding Cain's offering, Cain becoming angry, and Cain killing his brother do not follow logically. Why would Cain haved killed his brother if he was angry with God? It may seem logical to infer that Cain was attempting to "get at" God by murdering Abel; but this would suggest that the author intended to convey the message that anger with God leads to anger with others. The text does not say that Cain's actions were directed at God. In fact, prior to Cain killing his brother God asked in verse 6, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?". God was not aware of the division he created between Cain and Abel, but God did identify Cain's angry emotions. God tried to caution Cain in verse 7 saying, "If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." Much like 4:1, verse 7 is obscure in meaning due to unusual words which force most commentators to choose new meanings for "sin is lurking at the door". A good example comes from Ben Yashar when he changes the meaning of "will you not be accepted" and "door" to "first-born dignity" and "first-born" (Wenham 104). The verse then reads, "If you do well, there is honor due to the first-born. If you do not do well, sin crouches for the first-born". But Ben Yashar, like other biblical commentators, changed the original text to make it conveniently agree with his religious tradition, and of course this defeats the purpose of reading the story as it appears in the original text.

The classical interpretation of Cain's story usually ends with him asking God if he is responsible for his brother. But it is important to take into account the fate of Cain after he killed his brother. The story continues with God confronting Cain with his deed. God told Cain that because he spilt his brothers blood on the earth it will not yield the same amount of crop as it had in the past. Essentially, Cain was cursed with crop failure and was doomed to live a nomadic life. But was this really a punishment? Cain believed so in verse 13 when he said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear!". It is curious that Cain did not show any remorse for his brother. He was genuinely more worried about what was going to happen when he became a fugitive in a foreign land. He blamed God for driving him out of the land he knew, and feared physical harm would be brought upon him from anyone he might meet. Cain did not fear retaliation from others for killing his brother, but rather, he was afraid of the uncertainty of the outside world. Cain in verse 14 said, "I shall be hidden from your face". He knew he would no longer be protected by God, but God mended this by marking Cain. Cain no longer feared the unknown because God would always be present with the mark he gave to him. Shortly after Cain was marked, he went east of Eden and settled in Nod.

The end of the story leaves the reader wondering if the punishment Cain received fit the crime of murder. The question should be, if Cain killed his brother, then why does not God punish him accordingly? One reason may be God had not told Cain or the other characters killing was wrong. The Mosaic law was handed down much later in the Old Testament (Exodus 20:13). God commanded, "Thou shalt not kill", but Cain could not be held responsible for what he did if he was never commanded not to "kill". Cain's lack of knowledge of the law could have been why his crime did not carry a heavier sentence. The real mystery may be in the meaning of the word "kill". "Harag" is the Hebrew word used for killed in verse 8. The literal translation means, "to slay", which is what Cain did to Abel. In Exodus 20:13 the Hebrew word "ratzach", meaning murder, is used for kill. The author chose his words carefully in order to tell his story, and every word had a specific function in the story (Alter 1). The difference in the meaning of "to kill" may be significant in this context, since Cain's action against Abel (harag) was not the same word that appears in the Ten Commandments (ratzach). God further illustrated the difference between the act of slaying and the act of murdering a human being when he did not answer the rhetorical question Cain asked at the climatic point of the story in verse 9.

The pivotal point of the story began when Cain asked, "Am I my brothers keeper?". God had stumbled upon Cain after he killed Abel and wanted to know where Abel was. It is interesting that God did not know what Cain had just done or at least the reader is fooled into thinking God was clueless. It is possible that God knew something had happened, like a parent noticing their child acting suspiciously. Immediately after Cain asked God if he was responsible for Abel, God condemned Cain for his actions. It may be inferred that Cain gave away his deed when he lied about his brother's location. The fate of the story rests with the reader's answer to Cain's question. A confusing paradox arises when the reader tries to answer the question that even God's character did not attempt to answer. The question, "Am I my brother's keeper" cannot be--and was not-- answered; but rhetorically the reader is responsible for supplying an answer to the question. If the critical gap is filled by the reader negatively (i.e. Cain was not responsible for Abel) then the story has ended. The illogical leap of Cain as a murderer has not been made and the classical interpretation cannot proceed. If the reader answers with a rhetorical "yes", then it has been assumed by the reader that Cain wrongfully murdered Abel even though the text conflicts with this assumption. However, the reader has to answer the rhetorical yes, even if all the evidence within the text points to a negative answer.

An even more confusing paradox is the character of God, which in this story is portrayed by the author (or authors) as flawed, unpredictable, and sometimes making little sense within the boundary of the text. In the case of Cain and Abel, God favored the brother who was disobedient, looked down on the more obedient brother, caused the brother to kill, and then did not really punish him for the killing. Looking ahead to further chapters in Genesis, God would continue to stumble and feel his way through the situations presented to him by other characters in the narratives. However, when the classical interpretation or any other interpretation was taken away from the story, questions that were otherwise answered were left unanswered. The story of Cain and Abel relied on the reader to make an illogical leap which made little sense in the story; but in the process bridged gaps for the purpose of progressing the story towards an end that obviously fulfills theological --rather than logical-- objectives. The ambiguity of the story leaves the reader looking for more than what is offered on its pages.

Christian origins, conflicts, and key players.

 

Homepage Article List 1 Christianity Deism Page

Visitors since
March 2002