Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Eve gives birth to two sons--a narrative that occurs over and over again in the book of Genesis. The ancient Israelis, perhaps more keenly than any other nation in the world they inhabited, understood the concept of family as one in which healthy and unhealthy patterns occur.
For example, the family of Adam and Eve was one which started only after they had been expelled from the Garden of Eden, only after the "fall." The consequences of the events recorded in Genesis 3 included a complete realignment of masculinity and femininity as they had existed in Adam and Eve before--obviously, this would have had a profound effect on something so basic as the establishment of a human family. The ancient Israelis understood, as we intuitively understand today, that the ways in which families often function do not correspond to an ideal of love and community that, deep inside, they must have sensed should be central aspects of family life.
So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions, and the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering--but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard, so Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.
Remember here that (1) this is a narrative that served, in part, as the "encyclopedia" of Israeli knowledge 3000-4000 years ago, and (2) that this particular portion of it occurs one generation (and one chapter) after the "fall." The latter is important because it establishes (and probably established in the minds of the people who heard these words recited) that the seemingly "harmless" divisions between man, woman, the animal kingdom, and God have consequences both immediate and deadly to our species.
Cain, having inherited the knowledge of good and evil that his parents had essentially stolen with the express purpose of becoming "gods" themselves, sees God as unjust for preferring Abel's offering to his own, without even bothering to inquire why God would have done so. The fact that a reason is never given only serves to underscore the point that to Cain, the reason was unimportant. It is clear (and probably would have been to the story's original audience) that Cain did not concern himself with discovering what he could do to more effectively please his Creator--he only wanted the "blessing" of God, whether or not it was merited in God's eyes--and in the spirit of his mother and father, he attributed it not to his own actions or motives but to God's "lack of judgment."
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
This, in essence, is the "moral" of the story.
Cain, having been raised by parents who rebelled against God, knew what both "sin" and "obedience" were. As I have mentioned before, he also had the ill-gotten knowledge of good and evil twisting its way inside his heart, prompting him to engage in the same evil practices they had modeled only a generation earlier. Therefore, it was important for him to discipline the inclinations of his heart.
Unfortunately, like so many of his parents' descendants today, Cain failed to discipline himself, and instead allowed his thoughts and feelings to assume any direction, regardless of its credibility. It is this failure, above all else, that leads Cain to, instead of talking with God, as his mother and father had done, to stand silently at the altar while God attempts to convince him to see reason. It is this failure, also, that leads Cain to conclude that his brother, not the selfishness in his own heart, is the problem.
Cain told Abel his brother, and it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
From the first sin to the first murder . . . the brevity of space (generationally and textually) between these two events would have been significant to the ancient culture that produced the book of Genesis. Those who heard this verse (and the ones that preceded it) understood, clearly, that any act of disobedience against God, no matter how inocuous it may seem, will have deadly consequences--particularly for one's offspring. Later, we will see the following refrain over and over in the Torah:
visiting the sins of the fathers on the children to the third generation of those who hate him
The Israelis who lived 3 or 4 millennia ago understood the family as not only the unit containing parents and children but a line spanning generations. No one's actions were considered to be isolated--instead, they were potential points of direction for the spiritual vitality (and quality) of a family line and, thus, of central importance to that line's maintenance. It was understood that a wicked man's actions would taint his family line, prompting the Creator to dismantle that line.
Cain is, in essence, committing exactly the same sin that resulted in his parents' exile from the Garden of Eden--in a far more brutal and callous way.
No comments:
Post a Comment