Please see Styx thread on the Registered Shipmates consultation for the main discussion forums - your views are important, continues until April 4th.
Kerygmania: Why did Cain murder Abel?
genesis4:1-8
Cain and Abel were the participants in the first murder in the Bible.
But why did God reject Cain's offering in the first place?
And why did Cain murder Abel?
Cain and Abel were the participants in the first murder in the Bible.
But why did God reject Cain's offering in the first place?
And why did Cain murder Abel?
Comments
It seems that Cain murdered his brother out of anger at God's response to their offerings.
Perhaps it's an early story with a theme that is repeated in the Oklahoma musical song The Farmer and The Cowman.
What is more significant to me is that the punishment by God is less than we might imagine and that to kill (execute) Cain will return sevenfold vengeance, whatever that might be. And we may see an allusion to this in Peter's suggestion that we forgive someone who sins seven times.
But 'He' is. That is consistent throughout the Bible. 'He' claims all firstborn one way or the other. Refuse Him and He kills them. One way or another. The parenthesis is not about maleness, it's about the fact that this is how we make Him up.
No.
It's about having no restraint in worshipping, honouring, sacrificing for God.
I have read interpretations of the sacrifices of Cain and Abel which suggest that Abel gave of his best indicating his passion in worship whereas Cain gave an ordinary gift reflecting his indifference to worship. That's one side of the coin.
The other is the rather horrible doctrine of election which does seem to crop up in the Bible. There is also the parallel story of Esau and Jacob. But there is also the indication that Esau had contempt for the true value of his birthright.
Perhaps Cain and Esau were both lacking in a sense of true spiritual priorities and that explains why they forfeited their favoured position as the firstborn to their younger brothers who showed a greater sense of understanding about what it is that the Lord truly values.
The early church saw the sacrifices of Abel and Melchizedek as being the OT precursors of Holy Communion. In the C6th Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna you see both scenes in mosaics on the wall of the chancel.
Bertrand Russell in one of his books says more or less the same thing, ie. the story is supposed to exemplify the superiority of pastoralism over agriculture. Though as usual with Russell's commentary on anything besides technical philosophy, I suspect he just popularizing someone else's theory.
That's probably about it. And to set the stage for the sacrificial system which is high in lambs and doves and low in kale and leeks.
Of course it also illustrates that one is meant to love one's brother but Cain wasn't Abel...
It's OK, I can see which coat's mine...
Well there are offerings of wheat, and oil, and I think wine. The "shewbread" wasn't sweetbreads.
There's no theology going on. Well there is. Purely human constructs. The ways of God are another matter entirely.
In a system that is emphasizing God's grace over human works, an offering that symbolizes human work is going to get much shorter shrift than one that symbolizes God's gracious provision.
I say this as a gardener, so you know I don't have a down on agriculturalists!
It seems like eating animals is a temporary provision that is not what is best in God's eyes.
Indeed, here it's still an insult to call someone who has a sheep or cattle property a farmer rather than a grazier.
I'm tempted to reply that the writer's worldview was in no way influenced by the idea of evolution as we commonly use the term today, but then I suspect you'll come back with some other gnomic utterance meant to imply a question like "But what does evolution really mean?", or some such, and I'll be no further ahead in my explanation.
Anyway, as to what other "regard" it could mean, I'm not an anthropologist, and I have no special insight into why why Old Testament pastoralists would have regarded sheep-herding as superior to farming. I'd guess probably just for the same reasons that people often prefer their own way-of-life over an upstart rival eg. old-school corporate types think that being a lifelong company man is preferable to being a member of the millenials' "gig economy", and vice versa.
Other than that, some enlightenment may possibly be found in the posts following the one of yours that I am replying to.
Russell, as far as I recall, was not expressing his own views on pastoralism vs. agriculture. He was explicating the worldview of the author of Genesis.
During WWI Caleb thinks he's found the way to earn his father's approval, by growing lots of beans to feed the army and making a huge amount of money. He brings this to his father who is furious because to honorable Mr. Adam Trask, this is taking advantage of the country at war and a despicable thing to do. Caleb runs off ashamed and heartbroken.
( Just one writer's interpretation.)
I think Churchill did get it basically just for that one series of history books he wrote, but the prize was still given in his name, not that of the books.
No wonder there was a taboo on molesting them, which is presumably what the mark of Cain is really about.
Is it possible that after long days of work, ancient Israelites sat around the campfire just like we mighty today in the summer? Have any of you held sticks in the fire, waving them around. The adults talk, and eventually the kids ask to be told a story. The adults tell semi-truthful stories, stories to make points about life, families, history, all sorts of things. The kids, bloodthirsty little wretches, almost criminal in their conduct, enjoy some of the stories more than others. The kids then retell the stories, and there are various embellishments and changes over time.
Thus: I suspect there were brothers and they, like my brother and myself, competed with each other, and one my have killed the other, or wished he could have. Retelling and retelling, it becomes accepted as fact. But it probably isn't fact as we consider fact, rather possibly useful to consider as a historical story that might tell us something useful today.
The only indication that we get on why Cain’s sacrifice was not accepted is God’s, ‘If you do well, will you not be accepted?’ Even that IMO is forward focussed, rather than on ‘why the past?’.
Cain' offering is described as
While Abel's are described as
There is a subtle difference in how they are described. Choosing the first whether it is fruit or born is an acknowledgement of God's claim on the whole of which you are only giving a part; the first becomes symbolically representative of the whole. In the Jewish system as in this country until the 19th Century, the thanksgiving for harvest happened when the first sheaf was brought in, not as current practice when the last sheaf. The fat of the animal seems also to have played an important role in the Jewish Sacrificial system.
Exactly how these should be interpreted is a matter of eisegesis. Is it because Abel's offering was right by the sacrificial system? Is it about the fact that this indicated higher esteem for the Lord? Is it the acknowledgement of God's mercy? Is it the triumph of herder overcrop growers?
IIRC, agriculturalists = "Takers", and pastoralists = "Leavers". (I.e. Takers take whatever they want, with no real concern for consequences; and Leavers live close to the land, and only take what they need.)
Good book, and I've read at least one of the sequels. (The one with the girl.)
Do you remember if there was any mention of Seth, the third brother, born after Abel's death? I was thinking he could be an interesting way to explore some sort of middle ground. I did a search, but couldn't find any references to him in reviews, etc.
Thx.
Cain and Abel were identical twins and when an identical twin dies it becomes trapped between this world and the next because it cannot break the psychic bond with the surviving twin and enter the afterlife. This bond then acts as a conduit granting the surviving twin the power of second sight and the ability to work magic.
If a twin dies before its born (vanishing twin syndrome) then the survivor will not acquire these powers until it reaches puberty. The same applies if a twin dies in childhood: the survivor has to wait until it reaches puberty. Specifically that point is the menarche in girls and ejaculation in boys.
In rare cases one twin will deliberately murder the other in order to acquire the gifts of second sight and that's what happened with Cain and Abel. In fact, The Mark of Cain is an explicit reference to Cain's new-won abilities.
Do you have siblings? Or have you ever had a relationship with anyone where jealousy reared its head?
In a nutshell, God didn't seem to acknowledge Cain's offering, which made Cain cross: you can bet that when Cain was asking God why, Abel was smirking at least a bit, and that is likely to have more more cross. And after that, who knows.
The Bible only gives us one view of the story, which is written from the perspective that the dead brother was perfect (see - his gift was acceptable to God, his brother's wasn't !) and Cain isn't given a voice to defend himself. It all goes to point up that there is a lot in the Bible that isn't real, it is just a morality tale (of its time) and needs to be read with that in mind.
A: an animal sacrifice.
How do we record this tradition? By telling a story: There were once two brothers...
Are not such stories meant to be instructive? If they're that opaque, then we can safely ignore them, no? We can learn nothing from them except the inscrutability of God. Which path leads to despair.
We can ignore that aspect on the basis that it refers to something we don't know nor ever can. But the rest remains.
Genesis contains a number of cultural myths which are all explaining important questions of faith to a nomadic people: the story of creation and how the world was made, the story of Eden and how people become separated from God, the story of Cain and Abel and how to make sacrifices to God, the story of the Flood and why the rainbow is a sign of the covenant, the story of Abraham and why Hebrews do not offer human sacrifices to God unlike pagan peoples, the story of Jacob and why the Hebrew people are composed of twelve tribes. The Bible shows us how humans like to understand themselves, their world and their God through stories. And we still do today.
What theological paradox?
And firstborn are more sacrificial as they have been more invested in, more cared for by time, are the largest, fattest and you will have a greater relationship with them.
As Barth explains it: 'Christ is God's self revelation in history, the Word became flesh, God Himself became historical and empirical.'