Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Cain Caused the Flood
"The BioLogos Forum" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is a former Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.
Last week we saw that Cain’s murder of Abel came to be seen by early interpreters not simply as an isolated act of sin, but as representative of something bigger. Cain did not simply do something wicked, but his wicked act showed a much deeper problem, that he is wicked. This way of reading the story of Cain was taken in various directions by early interpreters. One of those ways was to make Cain the cause of the flood.
Genesis 6:1-4 gives the reason—more accurately, we seem to be given two reasons—for why God inflicted such a cataclysmic punishment on all flesh. Cain is not mentioned.
One reason is the “giants” (Hebrew nephilim) mentioned in v. 4, though we are not told here explicitly what about these figures warranted God’s punishment—although the references to the “sons of God” cohabiting with the “daughters of man” seems to be relevant. It seems that divine beings were cohabiting with human women, and possibly the “giants” were their offspring.
In antiquity, a good number of interpreters seized on this episode to explain why God brought the flood (e.g., 3 Maccabees 2:4; Ecclesiasticus 16:7; Jubilees 5:1-11). Such “cross-breeding” wholly violated the order God had established at creation (Genesis 1), and so played a major role in God’s decision to flood the earth.
Genesis 6:5, however, seems to come at it from a different angle. The blame rests not just with the sons of God or the giants, but with humanity at large. Humans had become thoroughly wicked, with a disposition only toward doing wicked acts.
But this explanation passed by rather quickly for early interpreters—one verse—so they sought to anchor God’s punishment in something more concrete. One of those anchors was Cain’s murder of Abel.
Cain was a “logical” candidate of sorts because his act was the only truly wicked act recorded in the chapters preceding the flood story. Cain’s murder of Abel, therefore, was understood not just an isolated wicked act, but a crucial factor in God’s decision to destroy the world in a deluge. One clear example is from the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon 10:3-4:
When an unrighteous man [Cain] departed from her [from following Wisdom] in his anger, he perished because in rage he slew his brother. When the earth was flooded because of him, Wisdom again saved it, steering the righteous man [Noah] by a paltry piece of wood.
Two things are worth noting here. First, this author sees a causal link between Cain’s act of murder (first sentence) and the flood. Second, note that putting the blame on Cain is not defended or explained, but tucked away in that small phrase “because of him.” This casual allusion to Cain as the cause of the flood indicates that the explanation needed no elaboration because it was already well know at the time in which this author wrote (early in the first century A.D.). By the time this author gave his account of the flood, Cain’s role in instigating God’s wrath was already a commonly accepted explanation.
Defending God
Slightly veiled in this line of interpretation is an apologetic motive: to defend God’s actions. God’s destruction of the entire earth tends to raise a moral eyebrow or two in today’s world, but it also raised challenges in antiquity concerning God’s goodness and justice. In fact, the history of Christian and Jewish interpretation has demonstrated how interpreters have struggled with the how to reconcile the absolute destruction of creation and God’s justice. This is especially true given the ever-so-brief (and puzzling) explanation given in Genesis 6:1-5. One might think that the reasons for something so utterly devastating would deserve a fuller treatment.
Early interpreters found in the Cain story a possible explanation that offered some rationale. Admittedly, the story of Cain is several chapters and many hundreds of years (ten generations) removed from the flood story (according to the genealogies of chapters 4 and 5). Didn’t this distance from the event render Cain an unlikely candidate?
Not at all. In fact, it is precisely Cain’s chronological distance from the flood story that supported their apologetic agenda: the fact that God waited ten generations from Cain to Noah is evidence of his great patience and mercy. This interpretation is found in the Mishnah, the compilation of Jewish oral tradition dating from about A.D. 200 (tractate ‘Abot 5.2).
Connecting the flood to Cain’s murder of Abel was aimed at explaining in a theologically pleasing way why God would wipe out all creation with water. Interpreting the Bible in such a way as to defend God’s justice is common practice among all traditions that take Scripture seriously, modern and ancient.
For example, answers vary about such things as: God’s order to kill Canaanite men, women, and children (Deuteronomy 20:10-20); treating virgin daughters as property (Exodus 22:16-17); stoning rebellious teenagers (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); and dashing the heads of Babylonian babies against the rocks (Psalm 137:9). The answers may vary, but all agree that some answer must be given, since these passages as they stand, without further explanation, are theologically troubling.
Expanding on the story of Cain and connecting him to the flood is one ancient example of this same interpretive phenomenon.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
March 1st 2011
It seems to me that saying God flooded the world on account of JUST Cain is a worse explanation than that God flooded the world on !account of ALL mankind being entirely wicked and violent (as Genesis actually says).
Reply to this commentMarch 1st 2011
How old were Adam and Eve when they had Cain and Abel? Or when they had Seth? How long did people live in that time so that 10 generations is equivalent to “many hundreds of years”?
Reply to this commentMarch 1st 2011
Pete,
It seems that quite a bit of Second Temple literature and first century Christian literature read the Cain and Flood accounts as a polemic against their own Jewish leaders. We see this referenced in the NT by Peter and Jude where they are essentially quoting or referencing the 2nd Temple Enoch or Jubilees interpretation of Gen 6.
2Pe 2:4-5 ESV For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; (5) if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Jud 1:6 ESV And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—
The observation starts to form that maybe Genesis was written from the exilic point of view, and that these stories are not as much intended as historical treatises as they are polemics against their own corrupt leaders. That might help make sense out of these veiled messages found embedded in early Genesis extrapolated by the Jews themselves.
Reply to this commentMarch 3rd 2011
Part 2
In terms of treating virgin daughters as property. This law reflects the reality that the father (or the family) has lost something and imposes a penalty. Now the penalty might be death or imprisonment, Without jails death would be the penalty, which benefits none.
As for killing rebellious teenagers, what to do with minors who reject the authority of society? There was no social services. The penalty was severe enough hopely that it was rarely used.
Finally, “(Psa 137:8-9 NRSV) O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us! Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” Since clearly refers to us (Israelites) it seems that the author is speaking on behalf of humans and not for God. On the other hand retributive justice is seen by many as fair.
Jesus did not treat the Law as absolute. He questioned the cleanliness laws and defended His disciples who broke the Sabbath. He did not impose the death penalty for adultery and criticized the Law for making divorce too easy. He demanded a reevaluation of work on the Sabbath. In the end Jesus made it clear that God’s Law is not absolute, but relational.
Reply to this commentMarch 4th 2011
March 5th 2011
It is uncessary to argue that the passage refers to angelic beings corrupting the daughters of men. The book of Jasher Ch4:16-17 records the following which gives a more human explanation.
“And all the sons of men departed from the ways of the Lord in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices and they continued sinning against the Lord. And every man made unto himself a god, and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence.
And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.”
Reply to this commentMarch 6th 2011
@Andrew - #53254
Reply to this commentThat explanation is pretty reasonable, but the authority of the source is extremely dubious, being a forgery .
March 6th 2011
One issue that, as far as I can recall, hasn’t been raised in this entire series is that, in “filling in the gaps” in Genesis, the ancient interpreters worked under significant self-imposed constraints. They did not consider themselves free simply to speculate as far as their imaginations could take them.
Reply to this commentIn the case of Christian (as opposed to Jewish) commentators, those constraints would probably be described as “The rule of faith”. This, in any case, was the phrase applied by Augustine in “City of God” to the various possible legitimate interpretations of Genesis 1.
So an interpretation that speculated that Cain was responsible for triggering the Flood is consistent with the truth that he belonged to the evil one (1 Jn 3.11). That same Scripture might also have encouraged some to wonder if Cain was Satan’s literal son, though the orthodox would soon have found that conclusion in contradiction to Genesis 4.1. You could fill gaps - but not paste over the text.
But an interpretation, for example, that Cain was the injured party suffering from the propaganda of pastoralists biased towards Abel would be quite contrary to the Rule of Faith based on the total Biblical witness.
No doubt similar criteria applied to the Jewish interpreters - and maybe they should to us, as well, if we wish to be in the apostolic tradition.
March 7th 2011
Jon,
March 6th 2011
Jon - undoubtedly the content of the translation of the Book of Jasher we have is open to dispute, although the existence of such a book has long been discussed.
Reply to this commenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Jasher
But my main point is that we do not need to read the passage to imply that angelic beings were producing the giant nephalim - it could have even been merely inter relations between Cain and Seth’s line.
March 6th 2011
@Andrew - #53386
Reply to this commentQuite agree there. There’s not even a statement that the existence of nephilim had any direct relationship to the sons of God/daughters of men episode. Or that the nephilim were giants, for that matter.
The original existence of the Book of Jasher shouldn’t be in doubt. It’s extremely unlikely ever to be discovered, but if were it would be of huge importance because it’s one of the sources the Old Testament claims for itself, as opposed to modern conjectural sources like J, E, D, P etc. So a good motive for forgery!
March 7th 2011
Jon,
Andrew’s quote of Jasher reflects a similar understanding that one can gather from the Book of Enoch and Jubilees which are firmly entrenched in the Jewish mind from around 200BC to Christ and the church. The sons of [Elohim] taking the daughters of man [adam] and corrupting them reflects an anti leadership attitude of Hebrews literature against their own corrupt leaders. Elohim is sometimes used in conjunction denoting leaders and rulers in the OT whom were supposed to be the messengers, emissary’s and leaders of God’s people. The continual story through the OT is how these leaders from times of old until the messiah were corrupt and brought judgment upon themselves and the people. Jubilees and Enoch basically add commentary to Genesis in this regard and this understanding is unfolded by these various writers. Genesis 1-11 is very likely just a stripped down version of this understanding and as I stated above possibly reflects the same mentality because the writers of Genesis and these later books are very likely on the same page. The similarities are too similar to ignore and is why trying to assign science and history to Gen 1-11 is fraught from the get go.
Reply to this commentMarch 13th 2011
Dr. Enns said - “Such “cross-breeding” wholly violated the order God had established at creation (Genesis 1)...”
Reply to this commentI would argue that this also would be an (accidental) argument against macroevolution. “After their kinds” was considered important enough to God to incorporate it within the dietary rules in Leviticus 11 (see M. Douglas, Balentine, and others)