Genesis 4:1–16 is a well-known narrative following the ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden. It is an essential aspect of Genesis’ theological unity that consists of a combination of stories that show separation within family and state. The narrative is rich in alternating developmental plot and served as a significant pointer to the divine-human relationship. Obviously, at a time and in settings in which it has become increasingly painful to look at life, as individuals and communities witness the collapse of the pillars of social life, this article identified values and principles, and offered perspectives for dealing with the sequence of violence in order to create possibilities for communal solidarity. In view of the fact that the narrative is rich in its developmental plot, this article exegetically highlighted the textual sub-units in the narrative and theologically attempted to rethink violence from the perspectives of the perpetrator and the victim in God’s creation. The theological datum of the article is that violence in the narrative of Genesis 4:1–16 is an offshoot of perceived divine arbitrariness in which the perpetrator is unable to acknowledge divine prerogative. Consequently, the failure of people to manage their dissatisfaction and to control their impulses in the face of incomprehensible divine arbitrariness, hides the inevitability of violent conflict in daily human experiences.
The article drew theological and moral implications that will challenge contemporary readers of the Cain-Abel narrative, who are faced with the most profound existential issues of human relationship and thus struggle with violent behaviours of individuals and groups, to embrace its instructive potential for faith and life.
The Cain-Abel narrative of Genesis 4:1–16 is generally recognised as one of many difficult passages in the Old Testament (Castellino
There appears to be a long-standing interpretive crux in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1–16) regarding why God looks with favor on Abel but not on Cain. The interpretive instinct to determine the reasons for God’s favor is perhaps quite natural: religiously speaking, a deity who favors or disfavors without reason could appear arbitrary or unjust, an issue to resolve (p. 485).
Whatever the origin, Zucker (
Genesis 4:1–16 is an abbreviated reflection of a narrative that was known to Israelite society before the setting down of the Torah … The narrative is characterized by gaps, silences and fateful unexplained actions that provoke more questions than solutions. (p. 8)
The narrative falls within certain dynamic accounts that are full of action, crises, humour, irony, anthropomorphism and emotional tension (see Gn 2:4b–25; 3:1–24; 4:1–16). These narratives are believed to have been skilfully written by a Yahwist who is conceivably a sophisticated storyteller (Levin
Whilst the narrative of Genesis 1–2 portrays an ecstatic paradise filled with intimacy in relationships between the LORD and his creatures, and Genesis 3 describes fragmented intimacy between the LORD and humans, Genesis 4 is interpreted as a narrative of shattered social solidarity between two brothers who sought God’s favourable attention (Coats
As a well-known narrative, Genesis 4:1–16 follows on the ejection of Adam and Eve from the garden. The passage records the births of Cain and Abel, God’s blessing on Adam and Eve (Gn 4:1–2); the religious service (offering) of Cain and Abel (vv. 3–5); God’s dialogue with Cain, indicating divine prerogative and Cain’s violent response to God’s prerogative (vv. 6–8); and God’s judgement on Cain (vv. 9–16). The following sub-sections present a textual analysis of the unfolding developments in the plot of the passage.
And Adam knew his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. And she said, ‘With [ |
וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת־חַוָּה אִשְׁתֹּו וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד אֶת־קַיִן וַתֹּאמֶר קָנִיתִי אִישׁ אֶת־יהוה׃ | 1 |
---|---|---|
Likewise, she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. | וַתֹּסֶף לָלֶדֶת אֶת־אָחִיו אֶת־הָבֶל וַיְהִי־הֶבֶל רֹעֵה צֹאן וְקַיִן הָיָה עֹבֵד אֲדָמָה׃ | 2 |
The narrative of Genesis 4 begins with the sexual union of Adam and Eve that resulted in the birth of their firstborn child Cain. The Hebrew verb יָדַע [knew] is used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse (Briscoe
And Cain had sexual relations (וַיֵּדַע) with his wife and she conceived, and gave birth to Enoch; and he built a city, and called the name of the city Enoch, after the name of his son (Gen. 4:17). (Callender
In verse 2, the narrative introduces the birth of Cain’s brother, Abel (
Whilst the birth of Cain was celebrated by Eve, no interjection of joy whatsoever is recorded regarding the birth of Abel (Blenkinsopp
As the days go by, Cain brought some of the fruits of the ground as an offering to the LORD. | וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ יָמִים וַיָּבֵא קַיִן מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה מִנְחָה לַיהוה׃ | 3 |
But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. And the LORD looked with favour on Abel and his offering, | וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם־הוּא מִבְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנֹו וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן וַיִּשַׁע יהוה אֶל־הֶבֶל וְאֶל־מִנְחָתֹו׃ | 4 |
But on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain became very angry, and his face was downcast. | וְאֶל־קַיִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָתֹו לֹא שָׁעָה וַיִּחַר לְקַיִן מְאֹד וַיִּפְּלוּ פָּנָיו׃ | 5 |
In Genesis 4:3–5, the narrative placed Cain and Abel in conflict with one another. The expression,
The narrative in Genesis 4:4 employs two words to distinguish the offering of Cain (מִפְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה) from that of Abel. Abel brought (וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא) and offered ‘the firstborn of his flock’ (בְּכֹרוֹת צֹאנֹו) and ‘from their fat portions’ (וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן). It is not clear whether the two offerings took place simultaneously or sequentially: Abel’s offering immediately after Cain’s offering. The Hebrew verb שָׁעָה [to gaze at intently, pay attention, regard] is used by the narrator (Gn 4:4–5) to cast Abel and his offering very positively, and Cain and his offering more negatively. The narrative shows that the LORD looked with favour on Abel and his offering, but did not consider either the person of Cain or his offering. Whilst the narrator does not give reasons for the acceptance and/or rejection of their religious devotion, a number of Jewish and Christian liturgical texts have commented on the divine preference of Abel over Cain.
The narrator seems to have used the story to draw attention to polemical hints in favour of a nomadic culture rather than a sedentary one (Antwi
Within the narrative, one can observe a clear chiastic and stylistic variation in the arrangement of the order of the brothers: the movement from Cain to Abel and Abel to Cain. Although it is expected that the order of the brothers is followed in the process of presenting their offering, there is a reversal in the response of God. The normal rule of family authority and primacy of the firstborn and the younger child is in disarray. In both content and style, the narrative indicates that God regards Abel first and Cain last. This reversal motif – the preference of the younger son to the firstborn – is frequently and consistently found elsewhere in the Bible and, especially, in Genesis. Although David’s ascent over his brothers is seen as a later development of the same motif, God’s preference of the offering of Abel over Cain’s is obviously the first in the series, whilst the response of Cain is the most ruthless (Hendel
The immediate reaction of Cain to the rejection of his offering was his expression of excessive anger and utter disappointment and depression. The Hebrew verb חָרָה is translated as ‘burn with anger’ (Kyle
And the LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? | וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־קָיִן לָמָּה חָרָה לָךְ וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶיךָ׃ | 6 |
If you have done what is right, would you not have been accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must exercise dominion over it’. | הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב שְׂאֵת וְאִם לֹא תֵיטִיב לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתֹו וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בֹּו׃ | 7 |
And Cain said to his brother Abel: And it happened that while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. | וַיֹּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל־הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיְהִי בִּהְיוֹתָם בַּשָּׂדֶה וַיָּקָם קַיִן אֶל־הֶבֶל אָחִיו וַיַּהַרְגֵהוּ׃ | 8 |
Genesis 4:6 opens with God’s dialogue with Cain. There are two aspects in this initial dialogue. In the opening part, God gave a lovely counsel on how Cain could rectify the past and in the closing part, God gave warnings on the evil that may likely take place if he allows it. God, in his sovereignty, responded to the attitude which was expressed by Cain with two interrogatives similar to that of Adam and Eve in the garden (Gn 3:9). The two questions, ‘Why are you angry?’ (לָמָּה חָרָה לָךְ); and ‘Why is your face downcast?’ (וְלָמָּה נָפְלוּ פָנֶיךָ) were raised by God by way of trying to assist Cain when God identified the tension that Cain’s grief was causing him and the tragedy that it could produce. God already knew what the answers to the questions are. The LORD’s questions imagine a divine prerogative that was not bias and oppressive; God was fair and just over Cain and Abel and their offerings. Abel and his offering were accepted on merit. The declarative conditional particle ‘if’ in the expression, ‘If you do what is right’ (הֲלוֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב), which could also be written as, ‘If you had done well’, or ‘If you will do well’, highlights the reason why Cain and his offering was not accepted. On the contrary, Cain still has the prospect of making amendment if he would learn to comfort himself, work harder to make things right and be accepted again (Nichol
Within the interval of silence between God and Cain, the narrative unfolds in a moment of conversation between Cain and his brother, which culminated in the murder of Abel. Several ancient versions (such as the Septuagint [LXX], Vulgate [Vg.], Syriac, Samaritan Pentateuch) provide the textual gap in the Masoretic Text’s rendering of Genesis 4:8, ‘And Cain said to his brother Abel …’ Modern versions such as New Jerusalem Bible (NJB), New International Version (NIV), and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), insert ‘Let us go out to the field’ to verse 8 and the New American Standard Bible (NASB), New King James Version (NKJV), King James Version (KJV), English Standard Version (ESV), read ‘they went to the field’. The narrative of verse 8 could be interpreted as deliberate literary technique that is aimed to create tension, because what Cain said to his brother is not indicated.
And the LORD said to Cain, ‘Where is your brother Abel?’ And he replied, ‘I don’t know’. ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ | וַיֹּאמֶר יהוה אֶל־קַיִן אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵר אָחִי אָנֹכִי׃ | 9 |
And he said, ‘What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. | וַיֹּאמֶר מֶה עָשִׂיתָ קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן־הָאֲדָמָה׃ | 10 |
And now you are under a curse from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. | וְעַתָּה אָרוּר אָתָּה מִן־הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר פָּצְתָה אֶת־פִּיהָ לָקַחַת אֶת־דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ מִיָּדֶךָ׃ | 11 |
When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you. You shall be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth’. | כִּי תַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה לֹא־תֹסֵף תֵּת־כֹּחָהּ לָךְ נָע וָנָד תִּהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ׃ | 12 |
And Cain said to the LORD, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear’. | וַיֺּאמֶר קַיִן אֶל־יְהוָה֑ גָּדוֺל עֲוֺנִי מִנְּשׂא | 13 |
Behold, you have banished me this day from the face of the earth; and from your presence I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it will come to pass, such that every one that finds me will kill me. | הֵן גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֺתִי הַיּוֺם מֵעַל פְּני הָאֲדָמָה וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִיתִי נָע וָנָד בָּאָרֶץ יְהוָה כָל־מֺצְאִי יַהַרגֵנִי | 14 |
And the LORD said to him, ‘Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold’. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him. | וַיֺּאמֶר לוֺ יְהוָה לָכֵן כָּל־חֺרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יִקָּם וַיָּשֶׂם יְהוָה לְקַיִן אוֺת לְבִלְתּי הַכּוֺת־אֺתוֺ כָל־מֺצְאוֺ | 15 |
And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. | וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ־נֺד קִדְמַת־עֵדֶן | 16 |
The narrative of Genesis 4 develops dramatically to the point of God’s verdict on Cain. The question, אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ [‘Where is your brother Abel?’] is similar to the inquiry the LORD made of Adam in the garden, ‘Where are you?’ (Gn 3:9). In both situations, the question highlights inherent disobedience. The obvious reversal of roles in the narrative may have added up to Cain’s response to the LORD’s question immediately after the murder of Abel. The response of Cain, ‘I don’t know … Am I my brother’s keeper?’ opens several dramatic paradoxes. Firstly, Cain certainly knew where Abel was, because he murdered him. Secondly, he must have inherited the inclination of attempting to excuse oneself of blame from his parents. Thirdly and more importantly, as his brother’s keeper (שָׁמַר, literally means one who ‘guards’ ‘protects’ ‘keep’), he must have had some sense of responsibility for keeping his brother. His response, however, indicates a denial of the brotherhood relationship with Abel whom he was supposed to keep שָׁמַר and protect from harm.
The LORD’s question, מֶה עָשִׂיתָ [‘What have you done?’], which is similar to the question God asked Eve (Gn 3:13), is intended to prompt Cain to confess with his mouth what he had done. Cain’s blatant lie לֹא יָדַעְתִּי [‘I do not know’] is erased by the motif of the voice that reaches its climax in the crying voice of Abel’s blood: קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ [‘the voice of your brother’s blood’]; צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי מִן־הָאֲדָמָה [‘is crying out to me from the ground’] (Gn 4:10). The literary motif of the voice of Abel’s blood, shed in violence and crying out to God, is developed in several Jewish and Christian texts (see Byron
In Adam’s case, he was permitted to continue his occupation of farming the ground regardless of the difficulties he would experience (Gn 3:18–19). Cain, however, was driven from his occupation of cultivating the ground. The ground will be unproductive, as it will ‘no longer yield its strength’ to him. The implication here is that he will not be able to farm (West
Cain exclaimed, ‘My punishment is greater than I can bear’ (גָּדוֺל עֲוֺנִי מִנְּשׂא). The Hebrew noun עָוֺן (translated here and in several other translations as ‘punishment’) carries other possibilities such as offence, guilt, misdeed or sin. The Hebrew verb נׇשָׂא [to lift, carry] can be translated as ‘pardon’ or ‘forgive’ (see LXX; Vg.; Gn 18:26; 40:13; 2 Ki 25:27). His complaint in Genesis 4:13–14 indicates a three-fold perspective of his punishment: He was banished from his profession (גֵּרַשְׁתָּ אֺתִי הַיּוֺם מֵעַל פְּני הָאֲדָמָה), concealed from the LORD’s presence (וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר) and became a ‘fugitive and wanderer on the earth’ (נָע וָנָד בָּאָרֶץ) (Gn 4:14). The idea of being ‘concealed from the LORD’s presence’ (וּמִפָּנֶיךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר) is only inferred by Cain, because it was not part of the LORD’s pronouncement. It imagines Cain’s realisation and acknowledgement of his broken relationship with God that has further implications on him.
The narrative does not indicate Cain’s sense of remorse. However, in Cain’s protestation of his punishment, one can observe that Cain understands the weight of his actions and believes that he will be vulnerable. In view of his recognition of the natural community response, Cain discovers that he was vulnerable and thus laments his lack of security and protection. The shift in the narrative is, however, found in God’s corrective and redemptive response to Cain (Gn 4:15). Rather than aligning with the instinctive logical community response to a perpetrator of violence, the narrative shows God’s identification with Cain who lacks protection and whose life is in danger by enforcing Cain’s protection with a sevenfold vengeance (שִׁבְעָתַיִם יִקָּם) and by placing a mark of protection on him (Van Wolde
From the foregoing textual analysis of Genesis 4:1–16, this article attempts to rethink violence from the perspectives of the perpetrator and the victim in God’s creation. Genesis 4:1–16 is essentially about the violence of Cain and his outrageous attack on his innocent brother, Abel. Consequently, readers of Genesis are mostly expected to identify with Abel and his God. In this narrative, Abel is presented as the primeval representation of innocence, and Cain is understood as the embodiment and personification of evil.
Instructively, God, who distributes the favours of his providence, empowered Cain to do well. Accordingly, Cain was to maintain a sense of responsibility to God, his brother and the world. The failure of Cain to live up to the height of his responsibility is the primary concern and issue at stake in Genesis 4 (Lacocque
One of the messages of the narrative is that individuals or groups who do not have confidence in God’s prerogative and justice have the potential to perpetrate violence (Noort
In the drama of the narrative, the victims of violence include Abel and, indirectly, also the ground. Abel, the silent, innocent and direct victim of violence is presented as the only divinely favoured figure in the post-Eden drama. Abel is depicted as innocent and helpless. However, at death, his spilled blood assumed a voice that spoke from the ground to God against his murderer (Gn 4:10). This literary motif of Abel’s blood, seeking vengeance
… in which is life, belonged to the group, to the family (אב בית), to the clan (משפחה), and had to be returned in the event of a member of the family or clan being killed. (Noort
It is the responsibility of the community to prevent violence and bloodshed, and once it occurs, vengeance must be sought. Blood vengeance, which includes the basic idea of the
… as the only possible form of doing justice in a world where the legal system has not developed far enough to enable state or society to take over the role of the judge. (Noort
Noort (
In order to remove the responsibility of vengeance from the community, the narrative clearly indicates the outcome of the spilled blood of Abel. In the narrative, the LORD is cast in the role of the avenger of blood. Although the verdict was announced by the LORD, the
Genesis 4:1–16 is a post-Edenic narrative about brothers securing their livelihood outside Eden. As farmers and keepers of livestock, they are inevitably not in any physical opposition. They are, however, two model groups that obviously have contrary concerns. On the one hand, the narrative involves the birth of the two brothers, Cain and Abel, and their religious devotion to the LORD (Gn 4:1–8). Abel and his offering of blood are received favourably, whilst Cain and his vegetarian offerings are unaccepted. Cain’s recollection of his rejection, his inability to comprehend God’s prerogative and justice, his struggle to manage his emotions and understand his responsibility forced him into the act of violence that resulted in the murder of his brother, Abel, whose life passed away like vapour (הֶבֶל). On the other hand, Cain the murderer is cursed by the ground or earth, given protection by God, and destined to be a wandering vagabond (Gn 4:9–16).
The narrative provides a stimulating context for contemplating on and responding to violence in daily human experiences. The Cain-Abel narrative is a noteworthy reminder that violence against humanity is a distinctive characteristic of societal breakdown in the actual world in which inexplicable success or misfortune between religiously, socially, politically and economically determined individuals or groups play a role in everyday life. The narrative does not only show that violence exists in this material world from the very foundation between varying individuals and groups, but also offers perspectives for dealing with the sequence of violence in view of creating possibilities for communal solidarity, peace and growth. Cain’s killing of Abel in the Genesis narrative obviously becomes a constant reminder of the fragility of the bond of brotherly social solidarity and the deficiency of a world where there is no violence (Bremmer
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him in writing this article.
B.O.B. declares that he is the sole author of this research article.
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
The author confirms that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
This article understands violence as a forceful action with the intention to cause unsolicited damage to someone. It could result to destruction of property, psychological harm and death of its target. It is thus an aggressive, violent action by a perpetrator against a victim (Douglas
This article follows Römer’s view in which he describes Cain’s rejection and Abel’s acceptance as emanating from divine arbitrariness giving favourable consideration to some rather than others (see Ex 33:19 – ‘I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy’; Römer
There is an obvious play on words (paronomasia) with respect to the meaning of the name קַיִן and the verbal root
It is suggested that the name could be a product of the curse of God on the woman during child bearing. It could simply be a prophecy concerning the short life he would live, or a name given to someone who will die at a young age (see Skinner
Outside the narrative of Genesis 4:3–5, מִנְחָה appears in Genesis as gifts such as those offered to Esau by Jacob (32:14, 19, 21–22; 33:10), as well as those taken to Egypt by Jacob’s sons (43:11, 15, 25–26). According to Lewis (
For speculations regarding the rejection of Cain’s offering, see Bredin (
Such obvious instances in Genesis includes Isaac over Ishmael (Gn 16; 21:1–21), Jacob over Esau (Gn 25:20–34; 27:1–45), Rachel over Leah (Gn 29:16–35), Joseph over his brothers (Gn 37:1–11; 37–50) and Ephraim over Manasseh (Gn 48:7–19) (Antwi
It is speculated that Cain spoke against Abel or conspired against him. For speculations and expanded discussion of Genesis 4:6–8 in the Targums see Bassler (
Several New Testament passages allude to the cry of Abel’s blood in search of vengeance (see Mt 23:35; Lk 11:51; Heb 12:24)
Byron (
For a theory of justice that requires capital punishment for cases of murder, see Kass (