Cain and Abel, A new look

[SpiritMeadow]

Today I was reading Clement I First Epistle to the Corinthians and I came upon something that truly puzzled, but at the same time enlighted me I think.

Reference to Gen. 4:5 and thereafter. Now my Jerusalem Bible, says the following:

“…Why are you angry and downcast? If you are doing right, surely you ought to hold your head high! But if you are not doing right, sin is crouching…”

The translation of Clement wherein he discusses the same passage says as follows:

And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why art thou grieved, and why is try countenance fallen? If thou offerest rightly, but dost not divide rightly, hast thou not sinned? Be at peace: thine offering returns to thyself, and thou shalt again possess it.

Now this makes sense to me. I see what Cain did was cheat on his tithe? I have never understood before what Cain did wrong. This makes sense as I said. Sorry if everyone knows this but me, but I sure remember having this discussion and nobody having a good answer.

Now what translation was Clement using? Or was he only paraphrasing. I’ve not found an answer to either. All I know so far is that Clement’s originals are in Greek. and he wrote this around 96 CE. during the Domitian persecutions.

Your thoughts?

 

[mommyof4]

I don’t know the answer, but I’m looking forward to seeing what the answers are.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4* and Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

Note that Abel brought his first fruits. That he brought the fat portions may indicate that he prepared them in some way. On the other hand Cain appears to have just grabbed up a handful of produce and offered it. This might indicate that Abel went to some effort to please God with his offering, while Cain just went through the motions.

There is a lot of speculation there, but it might be worth pursuing.

 

[MH84]

I thought that the sacrifice was not acceptable to God because it was the an offering from his crop (fruits and vegtables), a that it needed to be a lamb or other livestock.

 

[TOP]

Cain’s offering reminds me of this offering in Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, 2 And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? 4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Cain’s offering reminds me of this offering in Acts 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, 2 And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. 3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? 4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

This does seem similar to what I suggested. I just found it intriguing, and wondered if anyone knew from whence Clement got his version. I kind of assumed that the manuscript, assuming he was using one, was otherwise flawed and considered not a good translation in other respects. It sure does make this periscope more sensible to me though.

Someone suggested it was more that Abel took care to select the best, while Cain didn’t but that assumes a lot and the argument that he was supposed to present an animal is counter to other wheat offerings made throughout the OT that are acceptable.

Hopefully someone will have run across something that can help us be more certain.

 

[cpayne]

I thought that the sacrifice was not acceptable to God because it was the an offering from his crop (fruits and vegtables), a that it needed to be a lamb or other livestock.

This is what I’ve always thought, not that I know. Cain didn’t approach God with a blood covenant offering for sin, but Abel did. So Cain was approaching God on his own terms, his own “religion” rather than God’s, so to speak.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I like Clement’s translation also. It doesn’t seem right that a crop farmer’s offering would be turned aside just because it was grain/veggies instead of an animal. I have heard both that it wasn’t “first fruits” and that it wasn’t sufficient in quantity/preparation. I think either of those explanations can be a lesson to us to be careful of our offering. Cain of course had an attitude problem also because his first reaction wasn’t to correct his own error, but to go after his brother. In that we are also similar in that we often look for someone else to blame when the mistake is our own to correct.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

Now what translation was Clement using?

Since he was Roman (not a Christian Jew), and the time period is pre-Vulgate, I would assume his OT was the Septuagint.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

This is from Brenton’s translation of the Septuagint:

Genesis 4
5 but Cain and his sacrifices he regarded not, and Cain was exceedingly sorrowful and his countenance fell.
6 And the Lord God said to Cain, Why art thou become very sorrowful and why is thy countenance fallen?
7 Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

Obviously if you compared the Greek of Clement’s epistle, and the Septuagint in Greek, you’d know right away.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I like Clement’s translation also. It doesn’t seem right that a crop farmer’s offering would be turned aside just because it was grain/veggies instead of an animal. I have heard both that it wasn’t “first fruits” and that it wasn’t sufficient in quantity/preparation. I think either of those explanations can be a lesson to us to be careful of our offering. Cain of course had an attitude problem also because his first reaction wasn’t to correct his own error, but to go after his brother. In that we are also similar in that we often look for someone else to blame when the mistake is our own to correct.

**Thank you. The beauty to me of new versions or ideas of translation is that it leads to new and wonderful insights we can benefit from **

Since he was Roman (not a Christian Jew), and the time period is pre-Vulgate, I would assume his OT was the Septuagint.

Yes, I figured it was the Septuagint. I guess I’m not so clear on all these manuscripts floating around. If it was the Septuagint does that mean we KNOW the translation? or was it only one of several Greek translations known at that time? I’m a bit weak on this area I admit.

 

[Benadam]

I think that Abel’s offering was a revelation of Truth.Their offerings are expressions of their relationships with creation. They both reveal themselves in how they live. The way they live from and rule the earth I think is key to the quality of their offerings. Abel is a sheapard Cain is a husbandman.

Abel lives in harmony with what nature already does thus preserving it’s dignity and obeys the command to rule the earth appropriately. Notice Abel must go where his sheep go and shares in their natural life. The sheep are not hindered from their natural means of producing their kind. Therefore Abel’s offering is not called the produce of the earth. His life offers a means to offer God a testimony of Truth. It is prophetic in that it reveals the Good News and it also condemns sin. He offers God the 'first born, of his flock and God accepts this. I doubt that was missed by Cain who probably identified himself as that first born of the flock. Probably the reason his jealousy was resolved by killing Abel as well.

Cain’s way of ruling the earth ‘husbandry’ and the offering that results from it suggests that he does not live in harmony with what nature already does but has manipulated it from it’s natural means of producing it’s kind so it will produce within his vicinity. He has learned to manipulate it into producing the most of it’s kind with the least amount of human effort no doubt affording himself leisure and the possibility of idleness. Notice Cain does not have to go anywhere ( his punishment is to wander over the earth and it not yeild it’s produce) He has also chosen a way of life that seems more to describe the curse of Adam’s sin though he does not submit to the primary condition but instead contrives to circumvent what it presents to human life “by the sweat of your brow”.

I’m sure Cain thought his offering would reveal a life that fully observed and fulfilled the command to rule the earth and it’s rejection probably wouldn’t have been personal if Abel hadn’t killed the first born of his flock and that being acceptable.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Reading Genesis requires picking out the parallel structures first. I don’t have time to go into this level of explication. However… my take on C&A is that this is the first story of man’s encounter with death.

Yes, it is about the tithe. Remember that Abel was a herdsman. Before Noah came out of the flood, men were vegetarians. Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel had no idea what death was!

The animal which Abel sacrificed was likely the first born – in which case Abel would have had the longest relationship with this animal – and the best, most beautiful animal – in which case Abel would have delighted in the fullness of its life. For Abel to sacrifice this animal, took a lot faith.

Now is the story of Abraham and his son Isaac not a parallel story? What does that tell you?

Now scripture says that Cain and Abel went out into the field. Likely Cain wanted to know why Abel’s gift was preferred. And Abel was probably weeping too hard to tell him. Did the first human family know what weeping was? No, I don’t think so. Neither death, nor weeping. But Abel knew both.

Did Cain kill Abel from envy? Maybe. But more likely he wanted to emulate his action. If he killed his brother it would be like his brother killing the family pet. And then he would win God’s favour. Because the death would grieve Cain. It would be a true sacrifice.

When Cain says “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is that rhetorical? Is it a brushoff? Or is it a true question? Is he not saying am I the keeper of my brother like my brother was the keeper of his animal? Can I not sacrifice my brother as my brother sacrificed his animal?

We know that the Law is written on our hearts. So Cain would have known that murder is a sin even eras before Moses received the Ten Commandments. But did Cain know the difference between sacrificing an animal and murdering a brother? How? He didn’t even know what death was.

Cain says “my punishment is too great to bear.” I believe that Cain, now knowing what death meant, went insane. God put a mark on his head so that he would not be harmed by folks thinking him odd.

The whole Bible is about death and resurrection is it not? Look for the parallel structures. The polysemy.

Well, that’s a start. I am sure we can nip and tuck that. Takers?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

This is what I’ve always thought, not that I know. Cain didn’t approach God with a blood covenant offering for sin, but Abel did. So Cain was approaching God on his own terms, his own “religion” rather than God’s, so to speak.

Is grain not one of the requisite offerings in Leviticus? God has liked frankinsense, myrrh, cedar. None of these are blood offerings. None of these required sacrificing a personal relationship – slitting the throat of the family pet.

Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable because it hurt. Because Abel learned what death was. How could the Fall have any use to men, if men did not know what they had lost by falling? Cain’s gift was not a sacrifice. He knew he could grow some more.

Now this is significant. Because, if Cain had given ALL his grain, then it would have hurt, because Cain would have gone hungry. Are we asked to give ALL our gifts? Or only our first and best?

What about the parable of the talents? What further insights does that give us into how much we are asked to give? How much pain we are asked to offer up?

Are we being asked to give up things or only our attachment to things?

 

[StMarkEofE]

Today I was reading Clement I First Epistle to the Corinthians and I came upon something that truly puzzled, but at the same time enlighted me I think.

Reference to Gen. 4:5 and thereafter. Now my Jerusalem Bible, says the following:

“…Why are you angry and downcast? If you are doing right, surely you ought to hold your head high! But if you are not doing right, sin is crouching…”

The translation of Clement wherein he discusses the same passage says as follows:

And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why art thou grieved, and why is try countenance fallen? If thou offerest rightly, but dost not divide rightly, hast thou not sinned? Be at peace: thine offering returns to thyself, and thou shalt again possess it.

Now this makes sense to me. I see what Cain did was cheat on his tithe? I have never understood before what Cain did wrong. This makes sense as I said. Sorry if everyone knows this but me, but I sure remember having this discussion and nobody having a good answer.

Now what translation was Clement using? Or was he only paraphrasing. I’ve not found an answer to either. All I know so far is that Clement’s originals are in Greek. and he wrote this around 96 CE. during the Domitian persecutions.

Your thoughts?

I also got the impression that Cain in addition to not giving a proper tithe was not offering to God his best produce either. Abel on the other hand took the best of the lambs for his sacrifice.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Is grain not one of the requisite offerings in Leviticus? God has liked frankinsense, myrrh, cedar. None of these are blood offerings. None of these required sacrificing a personal relationship – slitting the throat of the family pet.

Abel’s sacrifice was acceptable because it hurt. Because Abel learned what death was. How could the Fall have any use to men, if men did not know what they had lost by falling? Cain’s gift was not a sacrifice. He knew he could grow some more.

Now this is significant. Because, if Cain had given ALL his grain, then it would have hurt, because Cain would have gone hungry. Are we asked to give ALL our gifts? Or only our first and best?

What about the parable of the talents? What further insights does that give us into how much we are asked to give? How much pain we are asked to offer up?

Are we being asked to give up things or only our attachment to things?

I must say, I’ve never seen or heard it put that way. I’ll have to think long and hard. It’s a unique interpretation for sure, but beautiful in its own way. It calls for some serious meditation.

I also got the impression that Cain in addition to not giving a proper tithe was not offering to God his best produce either. Abel on the other hand took the best of the lambs for his sacrifice.

Yes, I can glean that as possible too. Well in short order, I’ve sure gained some lovely insights.

 

[Benadam]

Submitted for your approval ( Rod Serling Twilight Zone)

I think that Abel’s offering was a revelation of Truth. Both of their offerings are expressions of how their lives relate to creation. They both reveal themselves in how they live. Abel is a sheapard Cain is a husbandman. The way they live off of and at the same time rule the earth. I think this is an important aspect about the quality of their offerings. A good stewards life would inherently reveal truth and that would be expressed in the gift offered as it did Abel’s. Abel’s truth should have humbled Cain to the core of his being.

Abel lives in harmony with what nature already does, with the order that God established, thus preserving it’s dignity appropriately fulfilling the blessing to rule the earth. Notice Abel must go where his sheep go and shares in their natural life. The sheep are not hindered from their natural means of producing their kind or the natural environment they fulfill that blessing within. Therefore Abel’s offering is not called ’ produce of the earth’. His life offers a means to glorify God and offer a testimony of Truth. It is prophetic in that it reveals the Good News and it also condemns sin. He offers God the 'first born, of his flock and God accepts this. I doubt that was missed by Cain who as the first born of humanity probably identified himself as that first born of Abel’s flock. Probably the reason his jealousy was resolved by killing Abel as well.

Cain’s way of ruling the earth ‘husbandry’ and the offering that results from it suggests that he does not live in harmony with what nature already does but has manipulated it from it’s natural means of producing it’s kind so it will produce within his vicinity. He has learned to manipulate it into producing the most of it’s kind with the least amount of effort . Notice Cain does not have to go anywhere which would appropriately be punished by having to wander over the earth and because he did not preserve it’s natural dignity it will no longer yeild it’s produce. He has also chosen a way of life that seems more to describe the curse of Adam’s sin ( And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herbs of the earth. 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to the earth,) though he does not submit to it’s condition but instead contrives to circumvent what it presents to human life "

I’m sure Cain thought his offering would reveal a life that fully observed and fulfilled the command to rule the earth in a way that would satisfy God ( it only satisfied himself)and it’s rejection probably wouldn’t have been personal if Abel hadn’t killed the first born of his flock and that being acceptable.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Doing a quick hyper-hyper-literal translation of an LXX text I have.

Genes 4:5 επι δε καιν και επι ταις θυσιαις αυτου ου προσ-εσχ-ε-ν
but upon Kain and upon the offering of him not add-posessed

και ελυπησ-ε-ν τον καιν λιαν
and grieved the Kain very

και συνεπεσ-ε-ν τω προσωπω
and together-dashed( fell ) the face

**
Genes 4:5
But neither Cain nor his offering was accepted
and Cain was very grieved
and his face fell.
**

Genes 4:6
και ειπεν κυριος ο θεος τω καιν
and said The Lord God to Kain

ινα τι περιλυπος εγενου (middle?)
why around-grief shall [you] be

και ινα τι συν-επε-σ-εν το προσ-ωπ-ον σ-ου
and why together-dash (fell) the face of you

**
Genes 4:6
and the Lord God said to Cain,
why around grief shall you be?
and why did your face fall?
**

Genes 4:7
ουκ εαν ορθως προσ-ενεγκ-ης
not if [you] rightly response-brought (offered-before)

ορθως δε μη διελ-ης η-μαρτ-ες
rightly (but) not [you]cut-before [you]wandered(impf)

ησυχα-σ-ον * stilled repeatedly / quieted repeatedly (impf) ησυχασ-ον (participle, present/fut NNS?) quieting / future quieting

προς σε η αποστροφη αυτου
ready-for/to you(Acc) the apostrophe (desire/petitioner?) of him

και συ αρξεις αυτου
and you will lead/reign of him.

**
Genes 4:7
Not so if you rightly offered before, but you didn’t cut straight before – You wandered repeatedly.
I quieted repeatedly to you the petitioner of him
and you will lead of him.
**

This last sentence is parallel to that of Eve who turns toward her husband who rules over her. So the implication is that the repetitive sinning is married to Cain like a wife, but the results
are more ambiguous. I need to study this passage a bit more some other time and check the grammar carefully. It’s difficult.

It does reference cutting or dividing, probably something to do with the sacrifice.*

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Doing a quick hyper-hyper-literal translation of an LXX text I have.

Genes 4:5 επι δε καιν και επι ταις θυσιαις αυτου ου προσ-εσχ-ε-ν
but upon Kain and upon the offering of him not add-posessed

και ελυπησ-ε-ν τον καιν λιαν
and grieved the Kain very

και συνεπεσ-ε-ν τω προσωπω
and together-dashed( fell ) the face

**
Genes 4:5
But neither Cain nor his offering was accepted
and Cain was very grieved
and his face fell.
**

Genes 4:6
και ειπεν κυριος ο θεος τω καιν
and said The Lord God to Kain

ινα τι περιλυπος εγενου (middle?)
why around-grief shall [you] be

και ινα τι συν-επε-σ-εν το προσ-ωπ-ον σ-ου
and why together-dash (fell) the face of you

**
Genes 4:6
and the Lord God said to Cain,
why around grief shall you be?
and why did your face fall?
**

Genes 4:7
ουκ εαν ορθως προσ-ενεγκ-ης
not if [you] rightly response-brought (offered-before)

ορθως δε μη διελ-ης η-μαρτ-ες
rightly (but) not [you]cut-before [you]wandered(impf)

ησυχα-σ-ον * stilled repeatedly / quieted repeatedly (impf) ησυχασ-ον (participle, present/fut NNS?) quieting / future quieting

προς σε η αποστροφη αυτου
ready-for/to you(Acc) the apostrophe (desire/petitioner?) of him

και συ αρξεις αυτου
and you will lead/reign of him.

**
Genes 4:7
Not so if you rightly offered before, but you didn’t cut straight before – You wandered repeatedly.
I quieted repeatedly to you the petitioner of him
and you will lead of him.

---

This last sentence is parallel to that of Eve who turns toward her husband who rules over her. So the implication is that the repetitive sinning is married to Cain like a wife, but the results
are more ambiguous. I need to study this passage a bit more some other time and check the grammar carefully. It’s difficult.

It does reference cutting or dividing, probably something to do with the sacrifice.

Wow, sounds interesting. Please let me know if you get any further. Wish I knew how to translate koine greek!..hehe

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Benadam:

Submitted for your approval ( Rod Serling Twilight Zone)

Holy toasted whole wheat bagel, Benny! That is a flipping awesome insight. And jibes perfectly with:
Gen 4:11-12:

And you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brothers blood from your hand. If you till the soil it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth (stranger in a strange land).

This part is so very timely, particularly in the wake of Gore’s Nobel Prize (not that I agree with it). Do you know that we are supposed by ingesting 9 sugars from our food but can only get 2 because by the time our food gets to us, it is dead? It is even dead before it comes out of the ground, because the ground is dying.

Cain’s agrarian engineering gives new meaning to the derogatory term ‘tinker’ doesn’t it?

I have often wondered though if this exile is of God’s doing or only an empirical observation God is making of what sin and destruction the now thorougly dotty Cain has brought on his own head. I think God wants to save Cain. That is why he puts the mark on his forehead.

Does the presence of death in our lives not make us insane?

Gosh, I have to say that I so thoroughly identify with Cain. I have so wanted to please God that I have often ‘tinkered’. Receiving from God, being one with Creation, being a child is so difficult. Being still is so difficult. Yet that is what He asks of us, doesn’t He?

Thanks for this, Benny!