Musings and Questions About Cain (Genesis Ch. 4)

[3DOCTORS]

In the process of deepening my understanding and would be interested in your insights. All plausible interpretations welcome whether more literal or less literal – I can sift and sort through the mix and see what it yields.

My earliest learning was thus: When I was in CCD and we were taught about Cain’s story in Genesis 4, the emphasis was on Cain as the first murderer. And there was also the implication that God didn’t think the sacrifice of grain was as good as Abel’s animal sacrifice. Which is a little puzzling too – if Cain was a farmer, a grain sacrifice would be the appropriate tithe for him, right? (I come from farming ancestors, btw! )

Now I’m reading through Genesis with the mind of an adult, and I’m curious as to how to interpret the rest of the chapter. Seeing that God didn’t strike Cain down for his crime. Cain was punished by being destined to be “a restless wanderer on the Earth.” And Cain was afraid so God promised that if anyone killed Cain, Cain would be avenged sevenfold.

I guess my question or bit of confusion is why was Cain treated relatively leniently if he was a murderer? Is it to emphasize God’s mercy, or is it because if God struck down Cain there would be fewer people to have children in the early days? Or is it as the footnote to the NAB says, that Cain is the “prototype of nomadic peoples . . . [or] . . . sedentary peoples with higher material culture”?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

In the process of deepening my understanding and would be interested in your insights. All plausible interpretations welcome whether more literal or less literal – I can sift and sort through the mix and see what it yields.

My earliest learning was thus: When I was in CCD and we were taught about Cain’s story in Genesis 4, the emphasis was on Cain as the first murderer. And there was also the implication that God didn’t think the sacrifice of grain was as good as Abel’s animal sacrifice. Which is a little puzzling too – if Cain was a farmer, a grain sacrifice would be the appropriate tithe for him, right? (I come from farming ancestors, btw! )

Now I’m reading through Genesis with the mind of an adult, and I’m curious as to how to interpret the rest of the chapter. Seeing that God didn’t strike Cain down for his crime. Cain was punished by being destined to be “a restless wanderer on the Earth.” And Cain was afraid so God promised that if anyone killed Cain, Cain would be avenged sevenfold.

I guess my question or bit of confusion is why was Cain treated relatively leniently if he was a murderer? Is it to emphasize God’s mercy, or is it because if God struck down Cain there would be fewer people to have children in the early days? Or is it as the footnote to the NAB says, that Cain is the “prototype of nomadic peoples . . . [or] . . . sedentary peoples with higher material culture”?

A few thoughts (that are solely my own opinion) come to mind. Granted, the OT law hasn’t been given yet in the narrative, but God has to play by his own rules, right? The law that will eventually come down regarding the conviction of a murderer is that you need two witnesses (e.g. Numbers 35:30) which are absent here–arguably the “blood” might be one, I don’t know. Further, it would be hard to argue that Cain really understood the implications of what he was doing (no one had ever been killed before) so premeditation may be foggy. But the Genesis text does seem to at least allude to the possibility of “revenge execution” which is required under several situations involving murder (again, refer to Numbers 35 or even Genesis 9:6). Legally (again in this sort of my imagined ex post fact sense), Adam would have been responsible for killing his own son to avenge the death of his other son, perhaps even putting the entire human race at risk should Cain decide to fight back.

All in all, I think God made a good legal decision and followed the spirit of the law (to come), even though he knew the perpetrator was guilty.

 

[3DOCTORS]

A few thoughts (that are solely my own opinion) come to mind. Granted, the OT law hasn’t been given yet in the narrative, but God has to play by his own rules, right? The law that will eventually come down regarding the conviction of a murderer is that you need two witnesses (e.g. Numbers 35:30) which are absent here–arguably the “blood” might be one, I don’t know. Further, it would be hard to argue that Cain really understood the implications of what he was doing (no one had ever been killed before) so premeditation may be foggy. But the Genesis text does seem to at least allude to the possibility of “revenge execution” which is required under several situations involving murder (again, refer to Numbers 35 or even Genesis 9:6). Legally (again in this sort of my imagined ex post fact sense), Adam would have been responsible for killing his own son to avenge the death of his other son, perhaps even putting the entire human race at risk should Cain decide to fight back.

All in all, I think God made a good legal decision and followed the spirit of the law (to come), even though he knew the perpetrator was guilty.

Insightful!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Rabbi David Fohrman has written a series on The World’s First Murder. I don’t know how much is Jewish tradition and how much is his speculation, but I found it fascinating. Rabbinic reasoning is very instructive.

The link will take you to the first installment. There is a search box to the upper left that will get you to the rest. There are 15 installments in all I think.

He suggests that Cain made his offering in the form of a payoff to keep God as his partner. Abel on the other hand made a true gift of thanksgiving.

3 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.

Genesis 4:3-5 He says that Cain gave a percentage of the crop while Abel gave the best of the flock.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Depends on how you look at it.

At times, a guilty conscience is worse than death.

 

[ryanoneil]

I don’t know the answer to your question but God didn’t strike down Adam and Eve either, even though he told them “The moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die” (Gen 2:17).

But they lost something even greater than natural life when they sinned; they lost supernatural life, the life of grace in their souls. I don’t know if that directly relates to Cain, but God had already prophesied in the garden that the human seed would be mixed between the good and evil. (Gen 3:15)

 

[Della]

Along with reading the daily Mass readings, I’ve been reading the commentary from Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 edition (because it’s online and convenient). Cain and Abel’s story is commented on here: haydock1859.tripod.com/id331.html.

It seems to be from what I’ve read, that God separating Cain from the rest of humanity was punishment enough. He was apparently, a whiner who never appreciated what he had or what God had done for him. The Scripture doesn’t say he offered grain to God, but that his offering was not acceptable. It may be that he took the skinniest, oldest and least likely to be of any use to anyone animal to offer to God unlike Abel who offered the best of the flocks–an animal of real worth to God. Either that or Cain offered the worst of his crop, which was an insult to the God who had made him and given him the ability to grow his crop. Cain’s only concern was his own hide. He never repented of killing his brother, but only whined about how he might be treated, even after God had been so lenient with him. It shows that no matter how good and merciful God might be some people will still think only of themselves and have an attitude of ungratefulness towards God and others.

 

[Benadam]

I think what Cain had to offer didn’t come in best to middlin’ varieties. From his produce he could only offer a portion.

This is my take on the offerings.

Cain took the life that would sustain him, out of the place it lived and surrounded himself with it.

Abel went to the place where the life that would sustain him lived. Wherever it went he would go. The place where the life that sustained Abel lived became Abel’s place. Abel wandered.

Abel sustained his life with respect to the nature of the creatures he consummed.

Cain sustained his life without respect to the nature of the creatures he consummed.

Cain must become a wanderer.

 

[Crumpy]

In the process of deepening my understanding and would be interested in your insights. All plausible interpretations welcome whether more literal or less literal – I can sift and sort through the mix and see what it yields.

My earliest learning was thus: When I was in CCD and we were taught about Cain’s story in Genesis 4, the emphasis was on Cain as the first murderer. And there was also the implication that God didn’t think the sacrifice of grain was as good as Abel’s animal sacrifice. Which is a little puzzling too – if Cain was a farmer, a grain sacrifice would be the appropriate tithe for him, right? (I come from farming ancestors, btw! )

Now I’m reading through Genesis with the mind of an adult, and I’m curious as to how to interpret the rest of the chapter. Seeing that God didn’t strike Cain down for his crime. Cain was punished by being destined to be “a restless wanderer on the Earth.” And Cain was afraid so God promised that if anyone killed Cain, Cain would be avenged sevenfold.

I guess my question or bit of confusion is why was Cain treated relatively leniently if he was a murderer? Is it to emphasize God’s mercy, or is it because if God struck down Cain there would be fewer people to have children in the early days? Or is it as the footnote to the NAB says, that Cain is the “prototype of nomadic peoples . . . [or] . . . sedentary peoples with higher material culture”?

these are great questions and I want to work on this and follow along in the discussion. But, note at the outset: We might assume that there is natural law applicable here, to convict Cain of murder. But, that’s not in general how it was treated, as you can see just from reading the text.

The lesson is that a commandment against murder doesn’t come along until the covenant at Sinai. So, it seems only that Cain suffers a natural sort of punishment. I never thought about it previously, but the “mark” of Cain may have been a disfigurement which made him repulsive to people, and so, destined to wander. That’s just some impromptu wild speculation.

You’ve stepped over another puzzle, why Abel was a herder in the first place, as Adam was condemned to till the soil all his life. There’s no explanation for Abel’s profession, that I can see, nor why these sons were making offerings, at all. That too was not codified until the covenant at Sinai.

If Cain was a farmer by instinct, then being condemned to wander would have given him some sense of lifelong alienation from his profession, or maybe forced to adopt Abel’s lifestyle and profession, as well.

Adam and Eve’s sin was against God, and Cain sinned against a human being. so, these are the two categories of commandments later to be codified in the Decalogue.

 

[Crumpy]

I saw Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavens in an episode of their old series, Our Father’s Plan.

A couple weeks ago, Hahn was saying that Genesis 1 paints a picture of the universe as God’s temple. the Second Creation account involving the garden seems to paint it as the Holy of Holies within that temple.

Being cast out of Eden is a precursor of people being excluded from the camp of Israel for intentional sins, especially against God.

---

grain was a perfectly good offering for God. You can see in the grain a distant precusor of the grain used for the institution of the Eucharist.

 

[Crumpy]

The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press) offers several comments on the Cain and Abel account.

as a matter of speculation, this may have been, at one time, the first story of original sin and expulsion from paradise, maybe later replaced by addition of Chap 1 of Genesis, which seems to be of later origin than this section. Like in the case of adam and eve, there is an element of expulsion involved.

this is probably the first of a couple stories where God shows a preference for the younger sibling. (Jacob and Esau, the prodigal son). This account shows Cain’s lack of acceptance of God’s will in such matters.

Perhaps Abel made an offering with greater devotion (abel brought the choicest of the firstling of the herd) but Cain simply made an offering.

Cain is flippant about the whereabouts of Abel, contrary to the spirit of the later Sinai covenant.

the story may show God’s favoring of the pastoral life, common to later patriarchs and kings.