Genesis, Creation, and Ancient Interpreters: Why Did Cain Murder his Brother?
"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.
In my last post on Cain’s birth, we looked at the problem that Adam and Eve’s sexual activity caused for ancient biblical interpreters. Since Eden was understood to be a temple and Adam a priest, some interpreters could not accept that Cain was conceived in the Garden, despite the clear indication in Genesis to the contrary (Genesis 2:24-25).
This week we look at an entirely different issue: Why did Cain kill Abel? What was it that “made” him do it? On one level, the story seems clear enough. Nevertheless, answers to these questions—however important they are—are not obvious because the text does not address them specifically.
Genesis attributes Cain’s murder to a clear motive: Cain was angry because God preferred Abel’s sacrifice to Cain’s—presumably out of jealousy (although Genesis 4 does not use that word).
God’s words to Cain in Genesis 4:6-7 seem to suggest that God expects Cain to get control of his anger toward Abel (v. 5) before he does something he will regret.
The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 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.
Like every verse in the Garden story, these have been subject to a lot of careful thought. We can’t crack all of that open here. It is fair to say, however, that God is more or less telling Cain, “Don’t let your anger get the better of you.” But, like his father Adam, Cain ignores God’s words. Instead of checking his anger, in the very next verse we read that Cain cons Abel into walking out into the field with him and murders him.
So, Cain kills Abel because he is angry, and that anger is sparked by jealousy. But the more griping question is why: Why would Cain be angry in the first place? And why did he see murder as the best solution? On this matter, the story of Cain is notoriously ambiguous. Early interpreters looked for clues in the text to explain why Cain did what he did. Those clues were not hard to find, if you knew how to look.
Born a Man
Genesis 4:1 says the following:
Now Adam knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain [Hebrew qayin] saying, “I have produced [Hebrew qaneh] a man [Hebrew ‘ish] with the help of the LORD.”
Several things jumped out at early interpreters as they tried to explain who Cain was and what he did to Abel. First, note that Eve calls her baby a “man.” The Hebrew word ‘ish can mean a number of things in the Old Testament, but not baby. Perhaps Eve only means “human” in this context, but ‘ish is still a rather startling way of announcing a birth. Early interpreters thought surely there was a hidden meaning in referring to a newborn this way.
For some interpreters, ‘ish indicates that Cain was born with adult-like abilities—perhaps a lingering effect of his father having been made as a fully formed adult. One interpreter found some added significance in Cain’s Hebrew name, qayin. Ignoring the connection to qaneh (produce) of Genesis 4:1, this writer felt more elaboration was required to explain Cain’s “manly” attributes.
And she [Eve] bore a son and he was lustrous. And at once the infant rose, ran, and brought in his hands a reed [qaneh] and gave it to his mother. And his name was called Cain [qayin] (Life of Adam and Eve 21:3).
In Hebrew “reed” sounds like “Cain.” And so this interpreter found in this wordplay a way of explaining Cain’s abilities.
Furthermore, Cain was born—as English translations have it—“with the help of the Lord.” In Hebrew, however, the phrase is simply “with the Lord” [‘et-yahweh]. Cain’s birth was “with God,” and so, it was thought, he was endowed with special powers.
As fanciful as these explanations may sound, each of these ambiguities continue to puzzle biblical commentators today.
The Devil’s Seed
Viewing Cain as a special child given great abilities by God himself is one way of interpreting his birth, but it is not without a hitch—which did not escape the eyes of early interpreters. How could this blessed boy in time become the first murderer?
A good number of interpreters said that Cain had been evil from birth because he was the offspring of the Devil himself. This may appear to come wholly out of left field, but it is not without some basis. You may recall from the previous post that some interpreters surmised that Eve and the serpent had been in some sort of relationship—which is why they were able to have such a casual conversation in the Garden and why the serpent conned them into eating the fruit, out of jealousy against Adam.
That detail is relevant here as well. When Genesis 4:1 says that Adam “knew” Eve—a common euphemism for sexual relations—some interpreters chose to take this word more literally: Adam did not “know” Eve sexually, but knew something about her, what she had been up to.
As odd as this may understandably sound to our ears, this interpretation is found quite commonly among Jews and Christians. We see it in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, where we read that Eve conceived Cain by Sammael, a wicked angel. A medieval rabbinic text, Pirqe deR. Eliezer 21, comments that the serpent himself impregnated Eve, and that Adam’s “knowing” referred to him finding out.
We find this also among Christian writers. Tertullian (160-220) said that Eve was made pregnant by “the seed of the devil” (On Patience 5:15). The Gospel of Philip (one of the Gnostic Gospels, second or third century) plainly speaks of Eve committing adultery with the serpent, a union that led to Cain becoming a murderer. It is possible that 1 John 3:10-12 refers to the same tradition: ”…we should love one another and not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother.”
Details, Details, Details
Yes, some of these early interpretations—like Cain running around with a reed in his hand—have more entertainment value for us than theological value. On the other hand, appealing to certain details of the text in order to make sense of some difficult parts is a common part of biblical interpretation.
We today do it all the time.
Biblical texts do not always give us every detail to make a final, clear, and permanent determination about what a text means. (Proof of that is the fact that interpretations continue to differ, including today among Christians who agree on a lot of things.) Elements of ambiguity are especially true of biblical narratives. All interpreters “fill in the gaps” of the missing details by looking for direction in the details that are there.
So, we might well ask ourselves, as we read the Garden narrative: Which details do we feel are more important than others? Which details do we prefer to incorporate into our interpretations rather than others? Why?
Pondering these sorts of questions leads to “hermeneutical self-awareness.” Such self-awareness may not lead to the final word about a passage, but it does lead to true humility in interpretation and an encouragement to unity among Christians where they might differ on matters of interpretation.
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.
February 8th 2011
Cain brought some fruit of his labor and sacrificed them to God, while Abel brought the first fruits, the best, of his labor and sacrificed them to God. God accepted Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s. Cain could not take no for an answer nor was he able to learn from his mistake. He took his anger out on Abel. One might say that the first born human being behaved like a spoiled brat.
There are also some echos of the rivalry between farmers and herders in the story, but these do not affect the basic plot, except maybe make the herder the innocent victim.
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2011
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Have any BioLogos readers followed the discussions on health and nutrition that eschew the conventual wisdom of a low fat / whole grain diet in favor of a high fat / no grain approach? Based on God’s response to Cain and Abel’s offerings it would seem that the Lord favors the Paleo diet.
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2011
Pete, that final statement is so excellent. It is one of the great peripheral values of studying the opening parts of Genesis. Hermeneutical self-awareness and humility about our conclusions are extremely important matters.
In conjunction, just coming to realize that a reading of Genesis 1, for example, in its historical-cultural-literary context precludes a modernist-literalist-scientific interpretation that many have given to it is of great use for hermeneutics. That alone, should cause us to step back and develop “hermeneutical self-awareness” - that perhaps our surface or past readings of a text are not always correct and that we bring all sorts of cultural & interpretive baggage to the text. I have used this quite often with others to help them see (as it assisted me) that we need greater humility about our conclusions - which should foster greater unity & peace among Christians. As well as help us back away from an unhealthy and unbiblical dogmatism that often plagues us.
Reply to this commentFebruary 8th 2011
Pete,
Do you think these interpreters were influenced by Greek thought? I’m thinking of the various stories in Greek mythology of gods taking the form of a snake in order to impregnate a woman. Alexander the Great, for instance, was said to have been sired by a god in serpent form. Similar stories were later told of Augustus.
Are these Jewish and Christian interpreters “breathing the same air” as the Greeks and Romans?
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2011
Chris C:
“Have any BioLogos readers followed the discussions on health and nutrition that eschew the conventual wisdom of a low fat / whole grain diet in favor of a high fat / no grain approach?”
I’ve lost 84 pounds on exactly such a diet.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2011
Cain killing bis brother was a echo of Adam problem with God.
Reply to this commentENVY.
Envy with a source in pride is the origin of hatred.
God said cain COULD do as well as abel.
however cAin didn’t care too but wanted the rewards. He didn’t get them and Abel did.
Satan made a suggestion and there was the first murder.
Simple.
Ever since much murder has come from envy.
its alive and well in North America.
February 9th 2011
Greek gods came from Older Middle Eastern Religions. So do Genesis 1 - 11.
Reply to this commentFebruary 19th 2011
Why do you say Genesis 1 - 11? If much of the Bible is based on previous traditions.. then isn’t the whole Bible just a mix of “Older Middle Eastern Religions”. Personally, I think that the Judeo-Christian tradition gives unique material all the way through.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2011
One thing that has always struck me about the Cain story is; when societies turned Agricultural, they inevitably conflicted with Nomadic Hunter Gatherers. Cain is the Agriculturalist. I always thought it was significant that Cain built the city - something Humans were unable to do until Agriculture was established and they were capable of growing enough food that some people could stop working on food production and do something else (urbanization).
Hunter-Gatherers, herdsmen and other non-exclusive Agriculturalists would have lived peripherally around the established Agricultural ones. The Agri-Urban Societies seemed to diverge from a creator-god (Mesopotamian, Egyptian etc.) in favor of a pantheon of gods. In many areas, Hunter Gatherers maintained worship of a creator god (although not necessarily monotheistic). I notice that the Patriarchs - although from the Ur area (Mesopotamia), were worshiping God as Creator (not gods) and seem to be Nomadic herdsmen.
Could this story be pitting the Agri-Urban cultural worship against the Nomadic worship style? The Hebrews considered themselves Nomads, not Mesopotamians. Cain could represent Agriculture/Urban life, while Able represents Nomadic life.
Reply to this commentFebruary 9th 2011
The higher likelihood is that the Cain and Abel story simply represents a retelling through late 1st or early 2nd Temple Judaism eyes. The theological overtones are what drive this story as Cain appears to represent the legalistic priestly class and Abel corresponds to the good shepherd mentality that Ezekiel calls for.
(Gen 4:2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.
I would expect the story is a production of exilic times and is a theme that further Jewish literature continues to develop according to the Gen 3:15 messianic mandates of the good and bad “seed”. I seriously doubt the story is ancient except to borrow from surrounding ANE themes and adapt them for their purpose. This seems to be the approach of all the stories we find in Gen 1-11.
Cain is cast out from Adam’s theological dominion when even his works of the Ground produce no food after he is sent away from God’s face. This story is a statement against legalist Jews as demonstrated by its application in the NT and should be considered a prophetic directive against the bad shepherds of Israel. [Eze 34:2]
Reply to this commentFebruary 10th 2011
But so much of the Adam and Eve story relates to the ancient (and I only mean about 4,000 years ago) Gilgamesh epic. That is much, much older than exilic Judaism. This is why I think Cain and Able belong to a much older religious tradition (although by human time on earth, it is merely a drop - since modern humans have been around for at least 150,000 years, if not 200,000 years - depending on where you start “modern”).
Reply to this commentFebruary 10th 2011
Pete,
Reply to this commentI can’t find the reference in Tertullian to Eve being made pregnant with Cain by the devil’s seed. The translation I’m using says that Satan infected Eve spiritually with his own impatience, & Eve as an infected spiritual source then transmitted this impatience to her children, notably Cain. Maybe a different translation or even a textual variation accounts for what I’m reading in Tertullian?
February 11th 2011
Val,
For the record. I do not think that the Greek gods came from the Middle East. The Greeks are Indo-European who came from a different part of the world, Central Asia, while the Jews are Semitic from the Middle East.
Reply to this commentFebruary 12th 2011
To Roger Sawtelle: I agree about the Jews and Greeks,
First, the story of Adam and Eve was written in the exile in Babylon - the Babylonians adopted many gods and beliefs from an older Mesopotamian culture, the Epics of Gilgamesh - translated in about the 18th Century - has a section about Enkadi and a priestess/temple prostitute, which has many parallels to Adam and Eve - although a different story outcome. To me Adam/Eve is Neo-Mesopotamian, not Jewish in origin.
Second, regarding Greek gods - I was trying to directly respond to Chris Massey’s post - you’re right I should have said Babylonian and Medo-Persian gods - sorry, using modern-day “Middle-East” labels. Greeks have Dionysus - a pre-Greek Persian god, and a handful of others that seem to be from Persia and Assyria, so I don’t think they were drinking the same water, just using the same gods as their neighbors - stuff that happens when your leader (Alexander) and armies live in Persia for a while. All Classic Civilizations believed in an original Mother and Father - Greeks, Arabs, Babylonians, etc. Mesopotamia - the oldest civilization that pre-dates the others by thousands of years - doesn’t have a human Mother/Father figure.
Reply to this commentFebruary 12th 2011
Val,
It is interesting to look at the cultural language backgrounds of Biblical peoples. For instance the Philistines, the traditional enemies of Israel are seapeoples which makes them relatives of the Greeks and most of us, who are Indo-European.
The Canaanites who were thought to be Hamitic, are actually actually Semites closely related to the Hebrews by language and culture. This is probably why the Hebrews were to keep their distance from the pagan Canaanites.
The Egyptians were non-Semitic, although now they claim to be Semites, which was in part why they did not trust the Hebrews and enslaved them.
The other other Middle Eastern nations were Semitic and closely related to the Hebrews, except the Persians (Iranians) who ironically today are Indo-European in a sea of Semitic Arabs.
It is interesting that King David had many non-Hebrews in his court.
It is also interesting is that all the tribes and groups that fought Israel over the centuries have now coalesed into the Palestinians, but they still cannot overcome the Jewish edge.
Reply to this comment