Exegesis of Genesis 4:3-5

 

The verses discussed in this paper are set in the context of
what is known as the “Cain and Abel Story,” Gen 4:1-16. This account of the
second generation is concerned with how humankind will relate to God now that
they are out of the garden, now that they are born into the world familiar to
the reader. These new human beings who have never had the experience of
Paradise and have never walked with God in the intimacy of Eden, will reveal
for the reader how the Yahwist understands the human condition and the
divine-human relationship.

SETTING

The “primeval history,” within which this story is placed,
sets the stage for the call of Abraham in Genesis 12. These first 11 chapters
move from the glory of creation, through the breaking of humankind’s
relationship with God, to the tale of how that break affects not only the
divine-human relationship but also the relationship between humans. They help
the reader understand that the Abrahamic covenant is God’s first step in his
attempt to restore the broken relationships in a new beginning after the
cleansing flood. Whereas Adam and Eve’s failure in the garden leads to the
murder of one brother by the other, Abraham’s obedience to God is promised to
lead to blessing (Genesis 12:2).

Likewise, the whole of Genesis sets the stage for the story
of the Exodus. Although Exodus is the primary formative story for the Hebrew
people, Genesis helps us understand that God had chosen and was redeeming a
sinful people, a people unworthy of but recipients of God’s grace.

FORM

In this prototypical brother-conflict story the reader
encounters a motif that becomes important in the larger context of the book of
Genesis – that of rivalry between brothers and the conflict arising from the
apparent favoritism of the younger over the older. This motif is apparent in
the stories of Jacob and Esau and in the Joseph cycle.  In reading these later stories the reader,
being familiar with the story of Cain and Abel, know to expect that rivalry
will lead to violence. When the stories deviate from this expectation, the
reader must take notice. Because we expect Esau to hate Jacob and to kill him
for his usurpation (as he swears to do in Gen 27:41), his later acceptance of
Jacob becomes all the more poignant. Similarly because we understand the
conflict that leads to Joseph’s brothers’ callously tossing him into the pit we
are all the more sure that the positive outcome of the Joseph story must reveal
the guiding hand of God. Thus the Cain and Abel story as the prototype of the
brother-conflict story sets up a norm against which the other stories may be
compared and understood.

INTERPRETATION

After introducing the two children of Adam and Eve by
describing their births and their occupations, the storyteller immediately
moves on to the most important question: What is the relationship between this
new generation and God?  In exploring
this question the narrator uses Cain as the focal point around which the story
revolves. This is not truly the story of “Cain and Abel” but the story of Cain
in relationship to brother, juxtaposed with Cain in relationship to God. By
setting the two stories together we are enabled to see that, from the
beginning, the two relationships have been inseparably intertwined.

In order to show these relationships, the narrator begins by
relating the account of the gifts, the minhahs,
that Cain and Abel bring to God. The description of Cain’s gift is brief, vague
and ambiguous. Cain offers “some” of the “fruit of the earth” implying a gift
from the abundance of Cain’s domain (as the tiller of the field) but not
necessarily from the fruit of Cain’s own labor. Abel’s gift on the other hand,
is detailed as ‘the first-born of his flock, even the fat portion.’ The use of
the term “first-born” indicates that this is clearly from the best that Abel
has to offer, a gift of something valuable to him, produced through his own
effort.

A closer look at both the gifts themselves and the attitudes
of the givers reveals how the relationship between Cain and his brother Abel
should be interpreted.  On the surface
Abel’s gift seems superior, and yet even this is somewhat ambiguous. After all,
Cain is the first to offer the
gift.  His offering from the  “fruit of the earth” is more in line with the
Levitical understanding of the “cereal offering” (the usual meaning of minhah). Finally, since the term “fruit
of the earth” often signifies abundance, Cain may be bringing the sort of gift
talked about in Joel 2:13-14 – that of a gift given back to God in recognition
that one has been the recipient of God’s gifts.  Looked at in this way, the stress laid on
Abel’s gift being from his sheep could imply smug arrogance in his own
labors[1],
not to mention one-upmanship in trying to outdo his brother by offering the
“perfect” sacrifice.

A more subtle understanding of this verse is that the two
gifts were offered essentially together, as in the sacrificial meal
outlined in Numbers 15:1ff.  The meal
would not be complete without the contribution of both brothers. Thus, this
scene presents a picture of unity in tension with discord.

Into this scene of fragile unity comes Yahweh. Instead of
the hoped-for communion with both brothers, Yahweh notices Abel and his gift,
but does not look at Cain and his gift.
(While most translators choose to word their translations to make it appear
that Yahweh favored Abel over Cain, the Hebrew word could just as easily
mean to notice or to look at.)  No
indication is given of the purpose or reason for this difference. However,
readers already familiar with the sacrificial system, with the minhah, might begin to suspect that some
reason does exist. For, as seen in Mal 3:3-4, the proper offering of the minhah has as much to do with the
attitude of the giver as with the quality of the gift.

Cain’s response of anger is both understandable and damning.
Understandable because most of us would be angry and hurt at seeing another
enjoy the gaze of God while we go unnoticed. Damning because Cain’s anger
implies much about his reason for offering the gift in the first place.  In offering the gift, Cain had perhaps sought
not to enter into communion with God but to bind God in a covenant on his own
terms. He wanted the guarantees implicit in acceptance of a minhah such as those understood by
Manoah’s wife in Judges 13:22-23. When God refuses to acknowledge such
manipulation, Cain burns with anger.

Cain’s response is, in some ways, parallel to the response
of the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son who cannot understand
his father’s joy at seeing his younger brother. In both cases the older brothers
become angry, not because they are rejected, but because their gifts (Cain’s
offering and the older brother’s years of hard work) go unrecognized. Their
anger indicates that their offerings were not solely out of love but out of
hope for gain. (However, this sort of ulterior motive is much easier for the
reader to identify with; one who gives a gift with no thought of recognition
would be the exception rather than the rule.)

Harder to understand than Cain’s response is Yahweh’s action
in the first place. What does the difference in Yahweh’s notice tell the reader
about his nature and purposes? While enough evidence exists to imply that
Cain’s attitude in offering the gift was improper and therefore unworthy of
Yahweh’s notice, enough ambiguity exists to imply that Yahweh was simply acting
arbitrarily. Deciding between the two options again requires a look at the
broader context – first in the context of Genesis, secondly in the context of
the Torah.

In the context of Genesis, the Yahwist uses the difference
in Yahweh’s notice to pose the same sort of dilemma for Cain and Abel that the
instructions concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of good and Evil posed for
Adam and Eve. The issue is not whether or not Yahweh’s actions “make sense”,
the issue is man’s response to the enigma of Yahweh. What Yahweh seems to be
asking of  Cain are two questions – “Will
you love me and honor me with your gift regardless of whether or not you
perceive my favor?” and “will you allow me to notice/regard/favor whom I will?”
In this generation, as in the first, humans respond in a way that leads to
alienation both from God and now from each other. Cain’s response also proves
just how deepseated is that alienation – that it is characteristic of all
humanity, not just the first two humans.

In the context of the Torah, Cain and Abel could be seen as
broadly representative of those that have Yahweh’s notice and those that do
not. As the “chosen people” the people of Israel would understand that the
recipients of God’s notice and grace are often hated by others.  They would also know that the regard of
Yahweh could be a burden as Job expressed when pleading with God to “look away
from him and desist, that he may enjoy, like a hireling, his day.” (Job
14:6)  Looked at in this context, Yahweh’s
response constitutes a warning for the people of Israel as to how others will
respond to their special relationship with God.

SUMMARY

These three verses, by themselves, indicate that one’s
relationship to God is interwoven with one’s relationship to brother. They call
into question for us the purity of our motives in worshiping God. They also
help us understand that we are ambivalent about God’s regard –we may ask for
God to look our way but we must understand the consequence of divine regard may
be the anger of others. On the other hand we can identify with Cain’s anger
when the attention of God falls on another.

As for the understanding of God presented in these verses,
the narrator offers us a God whose actions are sometimes difficult for us to
interpret and are not always what they seem.
For in the next two verses we see that God’s initial failure to pay
attention to Cain does not mean that he is unaware of Cain. In fact God first
speaks, not to Abel, but to Cain, confronting him with his anger.