Cain and Abel in the Bible
Bible Review’s Supporting Roles by Elie Wiesel
Read Elie Wiesel’s essay on Cain and Abel in the Bible as it originally appeared in Bible Review, February 1998. First republished in BHD June 1, 2015.
Mankind’s first murderer, a weary Cain contemplates the death of his brother, Abel, who lies face down (at right) in this 1944 painting by the German-born artist Georg Grosz. Chaotic skeletons struggle at Cain’s feet in Grosz’s painting, titled Cain, or Hitler in Hell. As Elie Wiesel points out in the accompanying essay, the first death in biblical history is a difficult one, raising questions not only about Cain’s responsibility for the death of his brother, but about Abel’s own culpability and God’s role in the killing. The final lesson, according to Wiesel: Killing a man is killing a brother.
Born in Berlin, Georg Grosz (1893–1959) emigrated to the United States in 1933, just a few days before Adolf Hitler took office as German chancellor. Grosz’s paintings present a biting satire of German society, criticizing militarism, blind obedience to political leaders, and moral corruption. Photo: © Estate of Georg Grosz/Licensed by Vaga, New York, NY.
Cain and Abel: The first two brothers of the first family in history. The only brothers in the world. The saddest, the most tragic. Why do they hold such an important place in our collective memory, which the Bible represents for so many of us? Mean, ugly, immoral, oppressive—their story disturbs and frightens. It haunted mankind then and still does, working its way into our nightmares.
At first we become attached to Cain. He shares with his younger brother, Abel, the generous idea of offering gifts to the Lord. But for this, Abel might never have felt the need to do the same. For reasons the text does not bother to explain, however, God accepts the gift from Abel after refusing the gift from Cain.
An unjust Creator of the World? Already? How can we understand this favoritism? What did Abel do so great, beautiful or praiseworthy as to merit the divine sympathy denied to his brother? Cain, innocent victim of unprecedented heavenly discrimination—how can we not wonder about his fate?
As always, the midrasha comes to the rescue in our attempt to fill the gaps left by the biblical text. There we learn that God would have preferred Abel’s gifts—they were of choicer quality.
Until then brothers united, surely devoted one to the other, the two would never be close again. A fight erupted. And Cain killed Abel.
FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.
For the first time in history, death occurs. And the first death in history, it is worth underlining, was a murder. Of course we are angry at Cain. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to understand his resentment, even his rage. But he should have restrained himself. One does not kill an innocent person, and certainly not one’s brother. If Cain wished to reproach someone, he should have addressed God, and not his younger brother. Abel succeeded in winning God’s favor? Cain, the older brother, should have been pleased for Abel! Was Cain unable to control his anger? Well, that is understandable. But to throw himself on his more fortunate brother and kill him! Too much!
In the midrashic literature, the antagonism between the two brothers is not limited to the story about their offerings to the Lord. In the midrash, they inherited their dispute from their parents: Cain took the land for himself, and Abel received everything else. Another midrashic suggestion: Cherchez la femme—so let us look for the woman. According to this explanation, the two brothers were both in love with their mother; in another version, with their sister. A third theory: Each wanted to have the Temple of Jerusalem built in his domain. In short, the first fight in human history was also the first religious war.
These three hypotheses suggest an interesting viewpoint—that Cain is not the sole guilty party. God’s role in this quarrel is no longer the main issue. We can now consider each of the participants as an accomplice.
As a matter of fact, at a still higher level, the Talmud does not hesitate to insinuate precisely this. It asks, “Since there is no death without sin, why did Abel merit death?” There is a marvelous answer. It relies on the text, which says, “Cain spoke to his brother Abel. And when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother and killed him.” But the text makes no mention of what Cain told Abel before killing him, nor what Abel answered. Is it possible that Abel did not pay attention to what his brother said? That Abel’s mind was elsewhere? Was that his sin? His brother, rebuffed, rejected, needed to tell someone of his grief—and he, Abel, was not even listening! This insensitivity is what makes him guilty.
Read “What Happened to Cain in the Bible?” and “Who Was the Wife of Cain?” in Bible History Daily.
Some of our sources go very far in pleading Cain’s case. When God accused him of murder, he could have made a convincing argument: “How was I to know that by hitting Abel he would die, since no one had lost his life before him?” Or, “Since You did not want me to kill my brother, why didn’t You stop me from going all the way? If a thief penetrates into a forbidden garden, is it not the guard’s fault?”
Cain nevertheless remains the archetypal murderer. His flash of anger is not enough to make it a crime of passion worthy of extenuating circumstances. If he was justified in holding a grudge, it should have been against God; he was wrong to lay the blame on his brother. Had he cried out to the heavens to express his pain, even to vent his rage, all would have been forgiven. Powerless against God, Cain took vengeance on the only being near him. That was his fault. And his crime.
Is this the lesson, profoundly human and humanistic, we should draw from this somber story? Perhaps. But there is a second lesson: Two men may be brothers and still become the victim or the killer of the other. And a third: He who kills, kills his brother.
Translated by Alissa Martin.
FREE ebook: Exploring Genesis: The Bible’s Ancient Traditions in Context Mesopotamian creation myths, Joseph’s relationship with Egyptian temple practices and 3 tales of Ur, the birthplace of Abraham.
Elie Wiesel
The author of more than 30 novels, plays and profiles of Biblical figures, Elie Wiesel received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. This online publication is adapted from Wiesel’s article “Supporting Roles: Cain & Abel,” which was published in Bible Review in February 1998. The article was first republished in Bible History Daily on June 1, 2015. At the inception of Wiesel’s Supporting Roles series in Bible Review, BAS editors wrote:
We are pleased—and honored—to present our readers with the first of a series of insightful essays by Elie Wiesel, the world-renowned author and human rights advocate. Wiesel is best known for his numerous books on the Holocaust and for his profiles of Biblical figures and Hasidic masters. In 1986, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. His occasional series for BR will focus on characters in the Bible that do not occupy center stage—those who play supporting roles.
Read an interview BAR Editor Hershel Shanks conducted with Elie Wiesel and Biblical scholar Frank Moore Cross, republished from BAR, July/August 2004 >>
Notes:
a. Midrash (plural, midrashim) is a genre of rabbinic literature that includes nonliteral elaborations of biblical texts, often for homiletic purposes.
More “Supporting Roles” by Elie Wiesel in Bible History Daily:
Related Posts
Feb 3
The Horns of Moses
Jan 29
James or Jacob in the Bible?
Must-Read Free eBooks
Want more Bible history?
Sign up to receive our email newsletter and never miss an update.
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
Interesting point of view and accurate because all men came from Adam and Eve and all are thus related; so, it would be true that he who kills a man is killing his or her brother or sister.
Adam and Eve had already sinned so spiritual death already was in the world and since the Messiah was yet to come salvation would be in looking forward but Cain did not look forward, he chose anger and death instead.
Free will to be obedient or disobedient is the issue and the choice is yours.
I would disagree and say the author’s speculation is all wrong. Internal evidence indicates the reason for Cain was to make him the founder of civilization. He built a city and his offspring were the masters of arts and crafts. The story of the killing of Abel, like the story of Seth was a later addition to the text. Cain has the mythological role of Enki and Centaurus. He is part of the same cosmic myth as them and occupies the same spot cosmically in Centaurus, which was a larger constellation in the past. When the constellation was broken up, the Victim and Southern Cross were added. Abel became the Victim and The Southern Cross became the mark of Cain (consult midrash for what it looked like).
Document hypothesis scholars agree the story of Seth was a later addition to cleanse the line to Noah by eliminating Cain who was a murderer. It seems odd that one would make Cain a murderer to begin with, the man who founded civilization and was the ancestors to the chosen people. This logic of scholars can only be taken seriously if we eliminate the murder from the original text. Then the question begs, “Why did they add it?” One could attempt to do a lot of Joseph Campbell psycho-babble as Wiesel does and offer a multiple choice quiz or accept the fact the story was astrological and changed when the constellations changed.
BTW the Bible shows multiple changes (as does the midrashim) when constellations changed. I have documented them. It isn’t a multiple choice guessing game.
This article shows extreme ignorance of the Bible. Cain’s offering was not what God had required. He required a blood 0ffering because it was the same as it was during the rest of history. God was not showing preference of the brothers, but of the offering. It was not what He required..it was not a sacrifice to offer vegetables, they were just plants. Animal sacrifice was required to cover the sins of the people.
I’m with you, Sylba. That is the traditional (and all that is traditional is not wrong!) Biblical understanding. Let us stick to the Word – it is much safer, and infinitely more sensible.
I have to disagree with all of you. Cain’s sin was not that he did not provide a “blood” offering (“Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.’”-Genesis 4). Cain’s sin was that of the heart. He did not give of his first fruits. He held back in his sacrifices. His sin was that of Greed and Pride. Abel gave of his first fruits…he gave of the best of his flock because in Abel’s heart God deserved his best. Cain then lied to God by stating he did not know where his brother was. Then Cain displayed arrogance by stating to God “…am I my brother’s keeper?” Sin had entered the world through Adam and Eve’s sin. Cain and Abel were born with that original sin which needed to be atone for. These sacrifices were to “pay the price” for that sin. That’s what Jesus came to earth for…to pay the price “…once and forevermore…”
has anybody given thought to the idea that maybe cain didn’t offer the right sacrifice? if we look into the sacrifices asked for by God at certain appointed times, then it’s not too far off to think so. most would probably argue that there was no law at that time so it can’t be so. but just as we don’t know what was said between the brothers we don’t know for certain that there was no law. all the law is is God’s instructions. so it is possible that God had instructed them on the particular sacrifice that he wanted. think also that if there was no instructions (law) how could cain’s murder of able been wrong? cain would not have known what he did was wrong if God had not told them so prior to this event.
HATE made its appearance early in man’s history. The Bible account at Genesis 4:8 says: “It came about that while they were in the field Cain proceeded to assault Abel his brother and kill him.” “And for the sake of what did he slaughter him?” asks the Bible writer John. “Because his own works were wicked, but those of his brother were righteous.” (1 John 3:12) Abel fell victim to one of the most common causes of hatred: jealousy. “The rage of an able-bodied man is jealousy,” says Proverbs 6:34. Today, jealousy over social status, wealth, resources, and other advantages continues to pit people against one another.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200271005
“And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” Matt 23: 35
“…from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary…” Luke 11:51
“By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings” Heb 11:4
A third theory: Each wanted to have the Temple of Jerusalem built in his domain. In short, the first fight in human history was also the first religious war.
It is really necessary to go to the New Testament to get the best explanation for the murder & the exact location of its occurrence. It must be the case that a murder occurring between the altar & the sanctuary, as described in the Matthew & Luke gospel accounts as I’ve quoted above, occurred within an already established location practicing the temple worship practices as set forth in the Torah, this would of course be the future site of the city of Jerusalem, it therefore seems as if the third theory of midrashic literature has weighty plausibility.
The picture we have from the two gospel accounts is of Abel functioning as the High Priest in the Temple at the altar in front of the Holy of Holies when he was slain. Other than the 40 years in the wilderness, the only location for the Holy of Holies & the Temple is on Mt Moriah, which seems likely to have also been the location of the Garden of Eden.
It seems most likely that the reason for the rejection of Cain’s offerings was because Cain indeed was attempting to subvert the location & manner of the temple services by establishing himself in that position. God had ordained Abel to be the High Priest, a job Cain wished he had & was jealous Abel had been chosen & not himself. Now don’t forget, at the time of this incident there likely are thousands of people living having been born as mre progeny of Adam & Eve in addition to Cain & Abel, all living within the area of the former Garden of Eden & all in need for Atonement of Sin.
Any thoughts about this?
I think those saying God wanted a blood sacrifice are wrong; a sacrifice (korban in Hebrew, from the root meaning near) is supposed to be something near and dear to the offerer. If God just wanted a blood offering, well, Cain gave Him one, and He was not happy.
I think the story is an allegory to explain the violence of humanity.
Hi there David,
I don’t necessarily disagree with your position about the the type of sacrifice, there seems to be many factors entering into this debate about just that point. I’ve tried to point out a few things in my post above yours for consideration.