Certain Evil & Possible Hope: an Exploration of The Tragic Tale of Cain and Abel

Introduction

People nowadays do not seem to take the concept of ‘evil’ very seriously, least of all amongst academic circles. The notion of ‘evil’ is a non-starter as an intellectual topic. For example, in an article on the Cambridge psychopathology professor Baron-Cohen, he is quoted of having said the following when proposing a new theory on human cruelty:

“replace the ‘unscientific’ term ‘evil’ with the idea of ‘empathy erosion’: ‘People said to be cruel or evil are simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum,’ he writes.” (Carlisle, 2012)

Evil, it seems, is not a phenomenon worth any genuine research. This, however, was not always the case. Goodness and Evil were two concepts widely accepted for centuries and there were those who lived their lives in accordance with this fundamental belief. However, with the coming of the postmodern age, so too came a rejection of such ideals.

Postmodernism believes that everything is relative, and that the very fabric of reality is constructed by political, social and historical perceptions. Nothing, therefore, can be adequately explained by any sort of theory, idea, or meta-narrative. Indeed, Nietzsche’s famous claim that ‘God is dead’ epitomises that which is championed by postmodernism. God is dead, and therefore all value structures have collapsed. The death of God, within this context, refers to the death of all absolute values and postmodernism teaches that immutable truths – those fixed for time and eternity – do not exist. Evil, therefore, is left for the theologian, clergyman or naïve to worry about. The questions of whether evil is a fundamental to the nature of man or not, or whether evil acts are interconnected or not, are cast aside and not to be taken seriously in a postmodern world.

Despite the problems of postmodernism, the problem of evil has long haunted philosophers and theologians of theistic persuasion. Clearly, if God does not exist then evil (if accepted to be real) requires no explanation; and if there are multiple gods or eternal principles, evil can be explained as the result of a conflict amongst them. Theism, however, must be concerned with the problem of evil. One commentator has written that: The problem of evil is a main concern of theodicy and as important and interesting as an exploration into the area of theodicy is – I have a different focus.

“Perhaps the best solution is no solution at all, for what makes evil such, what gives evil its enormous power, is the very mystery of its existence – the fact that it cannot be explained, and yet it is there.” (L. González, 2005)

For my purposes, I wish to understand what the Bible can tell us about evil. What does the book, that sits at the cornerstone text of Western civilisation – specifically Genesis and the story of Cain and Abel – tell us about the origin of evil? This fratricidal story has long been associated with the fallen nature of man and his capacity for evil, and I wish to explore this in as much depth as this task allows. This tragic, short tale of two brothers is found at the beginning of the Christian story and I wish to discover what hope, if there is any, can be gleaned from such a text. The claim that the bible sits at the foundation of our culture does not seem to be a difficult claim to defend. There have been numerous works and extensive research done on this topic. See for example ‘The Influence of the Bible upon the English Nation’ written in the Journal of Bible and Religion (Vol. 7, No. 1 (Feb., 1939)) or ‘The Influence of the Bible on Civilization’ written in the The American Journal of Theology (Vol. 19, No. 2 (Apr., 1915)). These are but two samples from a list which is not exhaustive.

Points to Note

Before beginning an exploration of evil and violence in this story, there are certain points that I wish to state at the beginning of this work. Firstly, it is the notion that Cain and Abel are the first two human beings, born in history, according to the biblical narrative. The story of Cain and Abel takes place directly following the expulsion from paradise. Therefore, Cain and Abel exist post-fall – the exist in history. They are working, they are self-conscience and as far as one can tell, fully-fledged people. The two brothers are the prototypical human beings. It is also important that Cain is the first human being in the bible. He is not like Adam nor Eve, both of whom were made directly by God and born in paradise. Who among us, after all, were created like such? Clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has written;

“Cain and Abel are really the first humans, since their parents were made directly by God, and not born in the standard manner… Cain and Abel lived in history… They must make sacrifices, to please God, and they do so, with altar and proper ritual. But things get complicated.” (Peterson, 2018)

One of the first acts committed outside of Eden is murder, despite God and pre-meditated. It is made worse because it was and not just murder, but the murder of a family member, a sibling who was innocent, a brother who was the ideal. The first human being is a murder and the fact that the Bible makes a point of stating this, is something that should kept in mind and is something that is worth taking very seriously indeed. Interestingly, this idea that the first man is a murderer and that humans as a result is naturally drawn to evil and violence is not just seen in the Bible - it has place in the Qur’an also. However, most interestingly, Peterson also points to the ancient Mesopotamian religious belief that; mankind was ‘made from the blood of the worst demon’ imaginable. For an elaboration on this thought see Petersons’ lecture series on the Psychological Significance of the Biblical Texts.

Finally, before I begin to discuss whether there is a horizon of hope to the tale of Cain and Abel – I must first analyse just how tragic the events of this narrative are. As I will discuss later, hope, in the theological sense, requires one to see just how bad a situation truly is. Furthermore, it seems important to state that I do not wish to delve too deeply into an argument around whether this story could be defined as a tragedy in the literary sense – I simply use the term loosely, I could just as easily have described this story as disastrous, catastrophic or calamitic. This is not a literary critique, rather an attempt at a theological discussion on such matters.

Cain and Abel – A Tale of Murder

It is difficult to understand how people, with even a cursory knowledge of the events of the 20th Century, can deny the existence of the phenomenon evil or, simply discard it as an idea not worth taking seriously. From both World Wars, the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis, the deaths of nearly twenty million people under Stalin’s reign, to the tens-of-millions of deaths during Mao’s rule in China, it seems clear that the 20th Century was full of evil and violence. I say this to make it clear at the outset of this work that I am not debating whether evil exists or not – I am accepting its existence and I am using the story of Cain and Abel to explore this concept at a greater depth.

The story of Cain and Abel is one of the most profound stories ever written. It can be told in under a minute and yet there are so many ways in which the story can be interpreted. Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, are hostile brothers;

“Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord.” Next she bore his brother Abel.” (Genesis 4:1-2 NRSV)

Both Cain and Abel were working men – Cain farming land and Abel breeding cattle. Both bring an offering to God and once this occurs, the story begins to take shape. God shows favour for Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s. Abel is then lead to a field where Cain kills him in cold-blood. We, as the reader, are given no explicit reason from the text explaining why Abel’s sacrifice was favoured or why Cain decides to kill his brother. It is a story of two men, engaged in a struggle, which ends in the death of the best one of them – a tale all too familiar that has been acted out throughout human history. This story, clearly tragic, speaks to the very nature of man and, perhaps in searching for an explanation of evil and violence, this tale of murder may be a worthwhile place to begin.

The Inequality of Man and the Murder of Abel.

By the time Cain and Abel appear in the biblical narrative, mankind seems to have already realised how to make sacrifices to God. This is the crux of the story. Both men make offerings to God in an attempting to regain the favour that was lost when mankind was removed from paradise;

“In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.” (Genesis 4:4-6 NRSV)

The account in Genesis offers no reason why God has no regard for Cain’s offering. It is not clear and there has been endless speculation over such. It seems that this is the introduction of inequality into the human story – people will always have varying talents and thus are unequal in standing - here-in lies the foundation of evil and violence in the human narrative.[footnoteRef:4] Unresolved inequality, jealousy or anxiety amongst people today inevitably leads violence - and in Genesis we see the first man fall prey to such a doctrine. Cain, we can safely assume, had become jealous and bitter at unequal treatment he and his brother received from God. It is easy to sympathise with Cain at this point as it would be understandable if he had been rejected for making no sacrifice. Indeed, this would have been preferable as it may have capped his rage as he would have known he was at fault. However, the fact that this was not the case, the he had worked the ground and presented to God with an offering was too much, and there were no limits to be placed on his rage. He reacts: Interestingly, Pope Francis concurs, announcing to the world, in 2014, that; “Inequality is the root of all social evil.” See the Pontiff’s twitter account.

“So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?” (Genesis 4: 5-7 NRSV)

It is difficult to think of a time when arguing with God would be a good thing to do, and, it is evident that this was not the best way for Cain to react to rejection. God responds, without remorse, and explains that he had nobody to blame but himself. It is a fascinating twist - we do not know the nature of the brother’s offerings. Was Cain’s fruit of the ground not his best fruit?[footnoteRef:5] Was Cain’s fruit not as much of a sacrifice as Abel’s firstling? It is difficult to know, and, as the reader we can do naught but infer at this point. Regardless, from Gods reply, we understand that Cain was at fault; [5: It is generally accepted that Cain did not offer his best offering to God and that Abel did. This is because it explicitly states that Abel’s offering was of high quality does not treat Cain’s in the same manner, however, this remains the subject of heated debate - certainly in the Christian tradition. This is the same in the Islamic tradition, with ambiguity throughout.

“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4: 7-8 NRVS)

It would not be easy to be told that your rejection, despite your efforts, is your own fault, and then be told that you must control your feelings considering this rejection. It certainly was not easy for Cain. God’s response, lacking apology, adds to his resentment and anger. Cain becomes bitter and begins to plot the murder of his brother who has received nothing but praise. Then, he leads Abel to a field and murders him, committing the worst sin possible;

“Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him.” (Genesis 4: 8 NRVS)

Cain’s Punishment and the Implications for his relationship with the Earth

The tragedy of this tale is also exemplified in the punishment of Cain:

“And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear! Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.”  (Genesis 4 11-15 NRSV)

Cain’s punishment is delivered and in response, we hear a fervent response from him. The punishment hurt Cain. Angry, frightened and maddened, Cain now pleas with God despite having ignored God’s own call earlier in the tale.

Firstly, I would like to point out that the punishment delivered to Cain has a connection to his relationship with the earth. Cain was a farmer once and he received sustenance from the ground – it was his livelihood – but no longer. The earth would no longer provide for Cain because the earth was forced to open her mouth and receive the blood of Abel. Interestingly, it has been recently argued in an article written by Mari Jørstad, that the ground may be more than simply the setting, but instead, a character in the story. In establishing a pattern between Adam, Cain and Noah, Jørstad presents a different analysis of reading Genesis 1 – 11. In his article, he argues that;

“By establishing a close and unique connection between Adam, Cain, Noah and the ground, Gen 1-11 ruminates on the nature of the relationship between humanity and the ground sand the extent to which the ground is available to human choice and control.” (Jørstad, 2016)

The relationship between humans and the ground is an intimate one. Indeed, like Cain, we have depended on the ground yielding her fruit to us for millennia to ensure our survival. It may be a worthwhile endeavour to study what the ground might do, independently of people, and what shape that action might make. Furthermore, the ground in this story has been personified, the ground is the only subject of an active verb in the verse that states “Which has opened its mouth to receive your brothers blood”.[footnoteRef:6] Ultimately, the question of our relationship with the earth is certainly an element of this narrative, Jørstad continues: It has been argued that believe because the nature of the grounds reaction was such, the ground is not only character, but potentially an accomplice to the murder of Abel.

“The curse on Cain is not primarily a punishment of the ground; it is, rather, an expression and description of the ground’s loyalty to God’s will. If humans attempt to use the ground for destructive and noncreative ends, the ground will resist.”

This is certainly an interesting idea and worthy of further research and study, however, for my purposes an elaboration on such will not be possible. It is worth noting that this is but another notch of tragedy in the tale. Like Cain, are we making the mistake of disregarding our ecology to suit our own purpose? Are our sins at odds with mother nature herself?

Similarly, throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, in God’s relating, the earth can be made to morally sensitive. A long time after the events of Genesis 4 take place, the Israelites are warned that if they should not follow the laws that God has laid out before them, the land itself would vomit them out;

“Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these practices the nations I am casting out before you have defiled themselves. Thus the land became defiled; and I punished it for its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.” (Leviticus 18: 24-26 NRSV)

The consequence of this rejection by the earth had sever implications for Cain. He would no longer have a settled place to live nor would he be able to practice his trade to provide for himself. He would thus ever be restless, a perpetual exile, and alienated from working the land, thus dependant on others for the sustenance which he himself once derived from the earth.

Cain’s Punishment and its Implications for Mankind

While the relationship between Cain and the ground may have forever changed and thus man’s relationship with the earth also, this was not as immediately dangerous for Cain as the other part of his punishment. Cain receives a mark from God, representing God’s promise to protect Cain despite their divorce. Exegesis varying forms of early scripture, particularly the Septuagint text, presents Cain’s a ‘groaning and shaking upon the earth’ – his mark leaving him to suffer in pain (Byron, 2011).[footnoteRef:7] Interestingly, Cain’s decision to wreak havoc does not stop with him – his offspring are equally inflicted with the seed of evil and violence, and the tragedy of this tale seems to perpetuate throughout his family line. In his rage, Cain kills once. However, his descendent, Lamech, says; [7: The Septuagint collection is the earliest Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew. It was probably made for the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the common language throughout the region. See Byron’s listed work for more detail. ]

“…I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.” (Genesis 4: 23-25 NRSV)

The evil in Cain’s heart is revealing itself in the hearts of his descendants – another aspect of the tragedy that struck Eve’s eldest son. The fact that murder was now a possibility amongst men, made Cain’s separation from God even more worrying. Cain seems aware of the implications of what he had just done. The security, that was once present amongst man was no longer there - people were now threatening and no longer safe in each other’s company. Now that he had murdered his brother, who knows what everyone else was now capable of? As society develops, violence went beyond the simple killing of a brother. The aforementioned Peterson, describes this: Before Lamech there is Tubal-cain, who according to Gen 4: 22, in the NRSV, created “…all kinds of iron and bronze tools.” Depending on the translation however, Tubal-cain is widely regarded to be the first creator of weapons of war. Again, this could be indicative of the violent nature of man.

“You hurt me; I hurt you back. No — you hurt me; I kill you and six other people. The thing that happens after that is, it’s not to make it seven people, but to make it seventy people. And so there’s this idea that once that first murderous seed is sown, it has this proclivity to manifest itself exponentially.” (Peterson, 2017)

Evil it seems, has entered the world when Adam and Eve are removed from paradise. However, it is not acted upon until Cain’s violent act. Evil and violence then become a part of the biblical narrative, the human story, the narrative upon which our society is based. The evil that dwells within the heart of Cain is within the hearts of all his descendants. We see from Lamech’s words how evil and revengeful violent acts are not done in equal measure. Again, this is evident even in today’s world.

A Horizon of Hope?

The tragedy of the story of Cain and Abel is evident. From disturbing nature itself, to Cain’s hellish existence divorced from God, death of the better brother, the curse that seems to have attached itself to the descendants of Cain leading to the creation of weapons and the exaggeration of violence to the inescapable reality of inequality - it seems clear that this tale points us to the unavoidable fact that evil, violence and tragedy enter humanity with the expulsion from paradise. The parallels between the events of this tale and the realities of recent history and the world today are palpable. It seems staggering the authors of this text managed to articulate an absolute truth about the nature of man – he is cursed to experience tragedy, violence and evil throughout his life. It is unavoidable.

Is there any hope to be taken from this story? When discussing such matters, certainly from the theological perspective, it is important to note that hope is not optimism – this is not simply a conceptual distinction but a distinction in motivation. An optimist will not allow themselves to see how grave the situation is whereas hope forces you to see just how bad a situation is – an endeavour I have attempted to undertake thus far. For example, one who sees the glass as half full instead of half empty is not a hopeful person but an optimistic one. The banality of optimism is that this perspective entirely rests upon one’s own point of view. The image of the glass betrays the fact that there is nothing in the situation itself to determine one’s response to it. This image states that that it is simply one’s perspective that matters – an attitude which will lead one to ignore the facts of the situation and maintain and unrealistic view. I have attempted to lay down the facts in this essay- regardless of perspective, the tale of Cain and Abel is one of tragedy and this has been important to glean any hope from such.

In the Christian tradition, hope is one of the theological virtues. Hope, as I have said, is not optimism rather, for Christians it is a continual looking forward to the eternal world. This is not a form of escapism but rather something a Christian is meant to do. An awareness of this hope will affect how we live our lives. The Apostles, for example, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, all left their mark on earth precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. As C.S Lewis rather eloquently wrote;

“It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this [hope]… Aim at Heaven and you will get earth ‘thrown in’: aim at earth and you will get neither.” (Lewis, 1952)

It seems clear that Cain, when murdering his brother, was not thinking of Heaven. As I have laid out, the tragedy of this story is overwhelming yet, understanding just how bad the situation is, may allow hope to enter when reflecting upon this tale.

A Practical Conclusion

The question which often comes to mind at the end of reading this text is; why was Cain allowed to keep his life? Why did God, not only spare his life in his punishment, but go one step further and actively ensure his protection from those who would harm him?

Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.” (Genesis 4: 15-16 NRSV)

The mark of Cain has evoked endless speculation and there seems to be no consensus on its meaning. While there are those who have argued that by ensuring Cain’s survival, God was punishing Cain some more as he must now live with the guilt and shame of his actions on display for all of those who met him. However, there seems to be another element to this. For example, Walter Brueggemann writes:

“God's mark over Cain… may originally have referred to a visible mark as a tattoo, it must now be understood in terms of its function in the narrative. That function is two-edged. On the one hand, it announces the guilt of Cain. On the other, it marks Cain as safe in God's protection. In such a simple way, the narrative articulates the two-sidedness of human life, in jeopardy for disobedience and yet kept safe.” (Brueggemann, 1982)

The acknowledgment of guilt and the reality of grace come together in this narrative. Cain is forced to have his sins displayed to the world yet by the Grace of God has kept his life and can be kept safe. Could a connection be made here to the lives of Christians today? Like Cain, Christians sin and are separated from God a little more by each one committed. Like Cain, they are asked to be aware of their sin and the guilt which accompanies it. Then they must acknowledge it. In doing so they acknowledge their awareness that the penalty of their sins equals condemnation. And yet, like Cain, despite this tragedy, they are kept safe. Through the grace of God and the sacrifice of his only son, Jesus Christ, Christians may receive the promise of salvation.

Furthermore, as I have previously mentioned, Cain was divorced from God and cursed to be a fugitive wandering the lands and never again to see the light of His face. It seems a punishment void of all hope – Cain certainly see it this way. Being separated from God does not seem pleasant but perhaps there is a slight element of hope to such punishment. For example, Terry Eagleton writes;

“For traditional theology, to be in hell is to fall out of the hands of God by deliberately spurning his love, if such a position is actually thinkable…But since there can be no life outside God, who is the source of all vitality, the finality of hell is a matter of extinction, not perpetuity… If there is such a thing as hellfire, it could only be the fire of God’s ruthless love, which burns up those who cannot bear it… Those who live in fear of hellfire, then, can rest assured. The good news is that they will not roast forever and ever. This is because the bad news is that they will simply be consumed to nothing.” (Eagleton, 2010)

Using Eagleton at this point can be helpful. Hell is a state of non-existence rather than the agony and torture of hellfire. Eagleton seems to argue that even amongst the hellfire that God is still present as there can be no life outside of God. The fire can only be the fire of ‘God’s ruthless love’. If one was to apply this to the situation of Cain, one may begin to see some hope. It is true that Cain has been banished and left to wander bereft of God, and yet, he still exists. He still has life. As painful as his rejection is, he still exists within God and hope remains. Perhaps Cain could someday regain redemption or absolution from his sins, or perhaps he may not. But at least he can now begin to live his life in a way that aims at such.

In conclusion, I would like to note that I understand I have not come to any new conclusion that has no already been concluded from a reading of such a text. That was not my aim. My aim was to engage in a discussion around the text and take any insights about evil, the nature of man and hope, that I could do. Ultimately, it seems that like Cain, we as people do not necessarly have to do anything completely wrong for things to get out of control – it is a terrifying doctrine. But it is not a hopeless doctrine. Perhaps there remains a path forward. God will not abandon us totally - despite our sin – and, for the Christian, it is through His son that the door for redemption remains open, all we must do is find it.

References

• Brown, R., Fitzmyer, J. and Murphy, R. (1969). The Jerome Biblical Commentary. London: Geoffrey Chapman, pp.14-17.
• Bastian, T., & Hilgers, M. (1990). Kain. Die Trennung von Scham und Schuld am Beispeil der Genesis. Psyche, 44, 1100–1112.
• Brueggemann, W. (1982). nn, Genesis (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, p.60.
• Byron, J. (2011). Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry. Leiden: Brill, pp.93, 98, 122, 119, 121.
• Eagleton, T. (2010). On Evil. London: Yale University Press, pp.24 - 25.
• Jørstad, M. (2016). The Ground That Opened Its Mouth: The Ground's Response to Human Violence in Genesis 4. Journal of Biblical Literature, 135(4), p.705.
• Carlisle, C. (2012). Evil, part 2: does it Exist?. The Guardian.
• Lewis, C.S. (2012). Mere Christianity. London: HarperCollins, p. 134.
• L. González, J. (2005). Essential Theological Terms. 1st ed. Louisville: John Knox Press, p.169.
• Peterson, J. (2018). 12 Rules for Life - An Antidote to Chaos. 1st ed. London: Allen Lane, p.166.
• Peterson, J. (2017). V: Cain and Abel: The Hostile Brothers. Biblical Series.