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
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!
Where God has seen fit not to give an explanation or specific facts as to reasons, it is best that Man not try to fill the gaps God left open. Prov. 14:12
There is no profit in speculation. Only in reception. What the Holy Spirit illuminates one can hold onto. Best to discard the rest.
Cain’s offering was a selfish offering, Cain thought that he knew best to what God wanted and when God rejected his offering Cain sulked and got upset. He got upset because he/Cain didn’t get his own way. This is why God said “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?” Cain couldn’t accept the rejection. The offering in itself was wrong but that isn’t the message here. Cain couldn’t get his own way. He then approached Abel probably to see if Abel could see it his way but the outcome suggests that Abel didn’t side with him either. So Cain just like a spoilt brat boiled over and killed Abel. Cain was warned by God saying “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.’” Cain couldn’t let go, he was stubborn and arrogant and thought that he knew what was best for others. Does this remind you of anyone? Anyway, before Cain could control his temper Sin had already entered. What Cain did was to please Cain not God. Cain was only thinking of himself nobody else and when Cain couldn’t get what Cain wanted he didn’t want to listen to what God had said so he ran to Abel for support and when he found out that Abel wouldn’t side with him, Cain became infuriated and killed him. Cain couldn’t get over anyone questioning his actions, he couldn’t handled being told what to do. He wanted to inflict his ways onto others in so doing what’s best for Cain only. If you read what is being said slowly and carefully then you can see what is happening.
One way to interpret our first reading from Genesis is to see it as a mutiny. From this perspective Cain is not so much jealous of Abel, as enraged with righteous indignation at God’s behavior. Cain’s self image has been wounded, and his prerogatives as the elder, even if it is only as the first of twins, have been threatened. Cain sees God’s regard for Abel’s sacrifice, while having no regard for Cain’s sacrifice, as fickle and capricious. Though God does not reject Cain as a supplicant, nor does he overtly reject his offering, that is of little comfort to Cain, who feels rage as well as shame, a lethal combination.
After all, Cain tills the ground East of Eden ,“by the sweat of his brow” like his father, while the sheep are tended to by the “kid” brother. With only the concrete directives given to Mom and Dad by God before evacuating Eden, Cain creatively initiates the notion of offering a sacrifice, For his part, Abel, the classic younger brother, imitates “big brother”. His attempt to outdo his older sibling has a barely noticeable edge of competitive rivalry. The classic pattern of sibling rivalry is set in motion with a vengeance.
Cain’s gift may not earn a divine regard, but he surely he is the apple of his mother’s eye. Eve rejoices at his birth, declaring that she “acquired” a man, and names him “acquisition”, Kayin in Hebrew. She offers no comment at Abel’s birth, not even exercising her prerogative to name him. Those, like Cain, who open the womb, often carry the burden of great expectations, and with them a sense of entitlement. Adam is nowhere to be seen; the first father is also the first absent father. And now, Cain has been upstaged in the presence of the ultimate parental figure.
With this action Abel quickly moves to his rendezvous with destiny as history’s first innocent victim– wrong place, wrong time – the first example of “collateral damage”. Like most subsequent victims, it is Abel’s very behavior that inadvertently triggers his own demise. And, as has been so true of victims throughout millennia, it is Abel’s very naïve innocence that renders him so hopeless, helpless, clueless, and thus, such an attractive target. One can only imagine the total obliviousness with which Abel follows his brother out to the killing field. He has nothing to say for himself; or about anything else, for that matter. The “silence of this lamb” will become prototypical throughout history.
The real drama in this plot, however, is between Cain and God; Abel actually seems little more than a cipher. After the first case of manslaughter or murder, depending on one’s point of view, Cain is confronted by God’s query, “Where is Abel, your brother?” Cain responds, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” Now the role of “keeper” is an exclusively divine function. Thus, if the pronoun “I” is emphasized, Cain’s rhetorical retort could easily imply that God was the absent parent who failed to protect his creation. Furthermore, due to a Hebrew language that is often maddeningly ambiguous, Cain’s defiant answer could just as easily be translated, “I did not know that I was my brother’s keeper”, thus pleading ignorance.
The crux of the matter, however, is the following question:
Why did God have regard for Abel’s offering, but not for Cain’s?
Multiple reasons have been conjured up by scholars and believers. We feel a palpable compulsivity to find reasons—so as not to contemplate a God who is unreasonable, a God who just might be as fickle and capricious, as his creation seems. Upon pondering that possibility, Albert Einstein once mused: “God does not play dice with the universe. God may be inscrutable, but he is not devious.” Oh, REALLY!!!!!!!
Among the many possible explanations for God’s behavior that scholars have given us, are the following:
Contrary to the notion of primogeniture, where in the first born inherits the manor, God repeatedly has a fondness for younger family members, such as Jacob over Esau, and Joseph and his technicolor coat, and King David, who both had multiple older brothers.
Another explanation: God’s preference for the blood sacrifice of an animal over mere grain or produce from the earth.
One more: God’s preference for the values associated with the nomadic pastoral lifestyle, as opposed to settled agriculture and its inevitable urban civilization.
But the grand daddy of all explanations goes something like this: Abel’s sacrifice was somehow morally superior to Cain’s: e.g. Cain offered “some” of his produce, perhaps leftovers, whereas Abel brought the “first born”, “with fat” mind you. Apparently, this creator God has a craving for cholesterol. This moralistic tendency is basic to the Western perspective on life.
But in the end, does the Sovereign of Creation need a reason? After all, as Blaise Pascal once wrote, “The heart has its reasons which Reason cannot comprehend”. Must God conform to human rules of justice and fairness? If the sovereignty of the Creator is absolute, then does not God retain the right to be fickle and capricious? Certainly the story of Cain and Abel presents us with that possibility.
And I would maintain that this interpretation certainly rings true with the experience of many human beings. Indeed, for some, the ultimate question may be: “Is God capricious, merely inscrutable, or actually malevolent?” To many, God appears as cleverly contemptuous, mocking us, his creatures, like Zeus on Mt. Olympus. Upon his brother’s death, Robert Kennedy quoted Aeschylus in his drama, “Agamemnon”, “Thus does Zeus decree: He who would become wise must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of Zeus.”
It maybe that while Cain was looking for justice and fairness, with its qualities of accountability, predictability, control and security, he should have been learning one of life’s hard lessons: As Karen Armstrong writes in her book “In the Beginning”, “Some people have the gift of inspiring affection and others do not……Unless human beings can bring themselves to accept this early familial injustice and make their peace with it, they will remain fixed in vengeful patterns learned in childhood…We have all felt the bewilderment of Cain when faced with this arbitrary injustice of life”.
I like your perspective; however, my one note about the “arbitrary injustice of life” or even the question of whether or not God is capricious/fickle or unjust is this: we just don’t know. As a believer, I err on the side of mystery and free will. Some things I will not understand at this moment and some things are due to human free will. For example, my childhood was filled with abuse and injustice (as was the childhood of many people). Why – why was I born into that particular family rather than a loving family? I don’t know – it is a mystery. However, my family was also filled with adults who chose of their own free will (or at least what choices they were capable of) to commit evil actions against me. But at the end of the day, given this bad hand I had been dealt, it is up to me, as an adult, to decide how I am going to play it. Am I going to be Cain, a person who continually makes my own choices of evil and wrongdoing, like my parents did? Or am I going to choose to do good, to get any and all assistance I might need to make the best choices for myself and for others around me (btw, the answer is yes)? God gave Cain that choice before Cain chose the killing field, but Cain pulled out the violence card instead. Nevertheless, God remained merciful, as God always does. Because God is merciful to all of us. If I want God to be merciful to me, I must expect that God will be merciful to everyone.
Was the sacrifice of both Cain and Able an attempt to bribe God? Did God ask for some food? Does He eat anything at all? How did Cain know that his sacrifice was rejected? Did the brothers quarrel over something very different such as who had the easier life/work?
The story of two original brothers quarreling and one being killed by the other is world-wide: did these stories (with different names and settings) all originate from that in the Hebrew Bible and spread round the world with humans migrating ever further east thousands of years before missionaries?
The purpose of history is not to merely teach us what happened but for us to learn a lesson from every item of every stage of human history. The Hebrew Bible is an historical record and also a moral guide which has never been been bettered. If possible, it should be read in the original Hebrew which has been copied accurately in the belief that it is divine and even a single letter may not be altered even by accident. Whether Jesus was or was not divine, he taught Judaism based on the Hebrew Bible and his sayings are from Jewish sources. It was his later followers who claimed that they were original sayings and moved their teachings away from Jewish morality to proclaim and stress the divinity of Jesus.
The Genesis account of Cain and Abel is only an allegory of what is the universal religion: the solar religion, astrotheology.
You can find the explanation of this allegory here: https://www.academia.edu/11478699/The_good_and_the_evil
God’s standards are absolute. He would accept only sacrifice of blood as has been mentioned numerous times in the discussion. Now, Cain, instead of enquiring from either God or Abel, which naturally anyone would if his or her gift is not accepted, is enraged and that too with the wrong person. This passage shows that hatred has little or nothing to do with the person you hate.
The reason why Abel was killed is stated in Hebrews 11:4: Cain’s offering lacked the motivation of faith that made Abel’s sacrifice acceptable. It was not that Cain’s offering was faulty in itself; God’s Law later allowed the offering of the produce of the ground. (Lev. 6:14, 15) But the Bible says of Cain that “his own works were wicked.” (1 John 3:12.) Cain evidently thought that the mere outward show of devotion to God was enough. His lack of real faith in or love for God quickly became apparent through his actions.
But the problems must’ve appeared long before they offered the sacrifices. When Adam and Eve’s first child was born, they named him Cain, or “Something Produced,” and Eve said: “I have produced a man with the aid of God.” Her words suggest that she may have had in mind the promise God made in the garden, foretelling that a certain woman would produce a “seed” who would one day destroy the wicked one who had led Adam and Eve astray. (Gen. 3:15; 4:1) Did Eve imagine that she was the woman in the prophecy and that Cain was the promised “seed”? What is more, if she and Adam fed Cain such ideas as he grew up, they surely did his imperfect human pride no good. In time, Eve bore a second son, but we find no such high-flown statements about him. They named him Abel, which may mean “Exhalation,” or “Vanity.” (Gen. 4:2) Did that choice of a name reflect lower expectations, as if they put less hope in Abel than in Cain? We can only guess.
More details: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102013271
I presume God gorgave Cain who goes on give birth to Enoch and line goes upto Lamech also kills Cain and Tubalcain and claims God’s righteousness, but his line ends there abruptly, which doesn’t make any sense. I feel Lamech gave his daughter Namah to Jared of Seth’s line on God’s inspiration, which gives us the second Enoch. Jared’s not getting a son for 162 years simply prove God’s plan to mix both Seth and Cain lines by second Enoch. OK
Sylba [#3] seems to be the one to best understand the issue: without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin [Heb 9:22.] Abel somehow understood this principle because of Gen 3:21 – Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. The Lord killed animals to obtain the skins for clothing – and the clothing ‘covered their nakedness’ [sin]. God tried to pacify Cain by saying, ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.’ Cain made an offering of his *works* – which is anathema to the Lord. The rejection of his ‘good works’ is what angered Cain… he could not react in anger against God so he succumbed to attacking his brother in sibling rivalry. Did Cain know that his action would ‘kill’ Abel? We cannot be sure.
All ancient cultures understood the principle of the shedding of blood as sacrifice for sin. It seems surprising that Elie Weisel would not perceive this.
In Genesis 3, we read that when Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to cover their nakedness with plant leaves. God teaches them a very important lesson, in that He, God killed one of His animals, and covered Adam and Eve with the skin of the animal. The order is set, the instruction is clear, an animal must die to cover the sin of man, leaves simply were not adequate.God even told Adam that the ground was cursed, and thus the produce of the ground would be similarly cursed.
In the age before TV, or Radio, or books or even writing on the walls of caves, how many times do you think that Adam and Eve told their sons the story of how God had provided for their atonement – that it was not of their own works, but of grace.
Abel learned the lesson and followed the instruction to the letter. We must remember that the animal that Abel killed was only killed for the purpose of sacrificing to God – Abel – and all man – were vegetarians; so Abel killed the lamb, and drained its blood – probably getting some on him in the process, and then the whole animal was offered by fire to please God and to show until Messiah come the proper covering for our sins.
Cain did not learn the lesson. He offered vegetables – plucked from the curse ground, possibly, but not necessarily washed in the waters that had run over the same cursed ground, and offered them to God – knowing he would then, after the service, take the vegetables home and feed the wife and kids with them, that night. I can hear Ms Cain now “you did what with the veges you picked today – you go right back out and pick them up and get them home so I can feed the kids.