Torah - Cain and Abel, in Sum - Sheet 16

“The Bible is primarily not man’s vision of God but God’s vision of man. The Bible is not man’s theology but God’s anthropology, dealing with man and what He asks of him.” (Abraham Joshua Heschel)

Although officially the Bible begins its chronicle of humanity in the Garden of Eden, its more relatable origins are found in the story that follows. Cain and Abel are the first people to be born from human parents, and they are the first to inhabit a full nuclear family. But perhaps what most qualifies their narrative as humanity’s true debut is its potent illustration of the Bible as “God’s anthropology.” With unflinching candor, the story of Cain and Abel probes the complexities of the human situation: the intrigues, the triumphs and failures, and the epic struggles its characters face as they interact with one another and as they function before God. The truths that emerge are the same truths that animate humanity to this day.

In our close and detailed readings, aided by an array of tools of literary analysis, we have gained access to many of the Bible’s insights into the human condition. We can divide our observations into three categories:

In our explorations, we have seen that Cain and Abel – arguably archetypes for humanity as a whole – are born with distinct predispositions, as well as a host of environmental influences and expectations. But within the established facts of their existence, they have options. As we have seen, Cain – our primary focus – struggles with his choices, moving between following his positive potential for creativity and embracing his dark, competitive, and possessive inner urges. Tragically, even after God reminds him of his capacity to select the better option, Cain allows his demons to prevail.

Once Cain has chosen the ruinous path of murder, the text goes on to illustrate the spiraling effects of his bad choice. To begin with, Cain’s insistent refusal to own up to his crime and repeated embrace of feelings of victimhood widen the distance between him and God. Next, as we have seen, Cain bequeaths many of his attitudes to his descendants. In an escalation from one generation to the next, negative patterns become so entrenched that better choices become virtually impossible. From the progression of Cain’s genealogical line, it appears that rampant evil is all that is possible, and that the ensuing annihilation is nothing less than inevitable.

Yet despite the seeming immutability of negative patterns, the broader narrative of Cain and Abel strongly hints at a robust, albeit thus far largely untapped, human capacity to reflect on past misdeeds, to regret them, and to embark on better paths. One such hint may be found in the repeated opportunities offered by God to Cain – even after Cain’s act of homicide – to express contrition and to seek repair. Even though Cain fails to act on those opportunities, the very fact that God so persistently offers them suggests God’s abiding faith in humanity’s potential to correct itself.

An additional indication of the human capacity to improve its course may be found in the sprinkling of positive figures in the otherwise unfavorable list of Cain’s descendants. From the creative, collaborative efforts of Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain to the extraordinary steadfastness of Na’amah, the broader chronicle of Cain and Abel suggests that even in the face of overwhelming odds, nature and nurture may be bested by an unyielding resolve to seek genuine self-improvement.

In the interpersonal sphere, the story of Cain and Abel explores the sources of human strife and considers the vexing question of how human beings could reach such depths as to take the lives of others.

One insight comes from Cain’s repeated refusal, both before and after the murder, to engage in authentic soul-searching. Despite God’s attempted interventions, Cain clings tenaciously to his self-righteous and defensive stance, deflecting responsibility and blame onto others. With these destructive strategies – demonstrated by Cain and adopted ever after by much of humanity – virtually all actions could be deemed justified, even the ultimate evil of murder.

To cull additional insight into the dogged persistence of human conflict, and as part of our search for signs of “God’s anthropology” in the record of the first murder, we have noted the significance of the story’s focus not only on homicide, but on fratricide. It appears from this story, and from the Bible’s insistent return to the trope of sibling strife, that this relationship provides an essential clue as to the causes of violence on earth.

On a primal level, as we have seen, the sibling relationship bears some resemblance to shaatnez, the forbidden blend of wool and linen. Often, among siblings, incompatibilities are exacerbated by their very closeness. The intimacy and the familiarity that are built into the sibling relationship have the potential to draw out raw feelings of vulnerability and competitiveness. Left unattended, such naked sentiments could devolve into violent confrontation. With keen awareness of this dynamic, the book of Genesis sounds repeated warnings through its narratives, intimating to readers throughout the ages that the sibling relationship, perhaps above all others, requires eternal vigilance.

If we expand our exploration of siblings from the literal to the figurative plane, we can note that most world conflicts stem from a form of sibling strife. Throughout history, the most violent wars have raged between those who are nearest to one another, either ethnically or geographically. It seems that for individuals and for nations, those who are perceived as the greatest irritants, and those who are considered to pose the greatest threats, are those who are closest.

Of special note, and of enduring relevance in the Bible’s depiction of the first interpersonal conflict, is the absence of dialogue between the principal actors. In a subtle yet compelling manner, this detail highlights one of the gravest dangers that hovers above the sibling relationship. When siblings – whether literal of figurative – choose to talk “at,” instead of “to” one another, a descent into violence all too frequently ensues.

Heschel’s notion of “God’s anthropology” sends us on a quest for insights as to how the Bible views humanity in all its complexity. But beyond this, it challenges us to seek signs of what God wishes for humanity. In subtle yet cogent ways, the story of Cain and Abel suggests that above all, God wishes for human beings to behave in just and moral ways. With its dual use of the word “sin” – a term that is missing entirely in the Garden of Eden narrative – the text intimates that in God’s hierarchy of immoral acts, interpersonal crimes stand, ignominiously, at the top. This ordering of God’s priorities is reinforced throughout the Bible: purveying justice is cited as the core purpose of God’s choice of Abraham, and the later prophets regularly berate the people for preferring strict adherence to ritual over practicing justice.

An additional indication of God’s wishes for humanity may be found in the story’s emphasis on an educational, rather than punitive, response to human misconduct. Before Cain’s great crime and after, God challenges him to engage in authentic introspection, from which would spring disquiet and remorse, and ultimately, self-generated change. Had Cain chosen this preferred path, the results would have been more true and more lasting than any external punishment God might have imposed from above. Emerging from God’s educational style is the notion that in the wake of genuine self-reflection, there is no sin that is too great for God to abide; consequently, a return to God’s favor is always possible.

In the story as a whole, there is, arguably, one example of “God’s anthropology” that rises above all the rest, and that relates to all of humanity’s relationships: within one’s self, with others, and with God. This overarching concept is introduced in God’s empowering speech to Cain and is then reinforced in his long list of descendants. Ultimately, what God wishes for humanity is its understanding of this essential truth: At all times, in all circumstances, we are free to choose and are encouraged to choose well. No matter how many grievous mistakes we have made, and no matter what the genetic and societal “facts” of our lives may be, we have the freedom and the power to “rule over” them.