CAIN’S GUILT

Cain is often invoked as the archetypical murderer the one who purpose­fully chooses not to curb his criminal impulses instead opting to slay his own brother The narrative is constructed so that Cain’s premeditation and intent is clear - this was not a crime of passion even though Cain’s over­whelming anger is manifest.

³In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, ⁴and Abel for his part brought of the firstlings of his flock their fat portions And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering ⁵but for Cain and his offering he had no regard So Cain was very angry and his countenance fell· ⁶The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? ⁷If 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.” ⁸Cain 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 4:3-8)

The narrative thrust of the story which leaves off in verse 5 only to resume again in verse 8 is interrupted by a short commentary on the action by God himself It is God’s words which frame Cain’s emotion as potentially sinful and yet ultimately conquerable; God tells Cain and the narrator tells the reader that Cain’s murderous deed is a freely willed choice The resumption of the narrative in the following verse then accentuates Cain’s pre-medita- tion. Cain did not merely ‘‘rise up against his brother’’ but he lured him away to a deserted location and killed him there ³

Thus Cain not only murders but he murders after he has been told explicitly that his act can be avoided and after he has been warned implicitly that if he does not control his passions he will not ‘‘be accepted’’ As Johnson Lim writes ‘‘Cain cannot claim ignorance or helplessness as he was given divine counsel’’ (2002, p. 155) He therefore knows right from wrong, but he chooses wrong nonetheless His awareness of the shamefulness of his deed is underscored when he is confronted by God and he ‘‘tries to cover up his murder by lying’’ (Lim 2002, p.

⁹Then the LORD said to Cain ‘‘Where is your brother Abel?’’ He said ‘‘I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” ¹⁰And the LORD said “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! ¹¹And now you are cursed from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand (Genesis 4:9-11)

Cain does not show remorse nor does he confess Instead he claims ignorance of his brother’s whereabouts But God confronts Cain with undeniable evidence of his crime; he tells Cain that it is his brother’s blood that condemns him Indeed it is the very physicality of the spilled blood which reveals Cain’s murderous deed As John Skinner (1930, p. 108) explains,

The idea that blood exposed on the ground clamours for vengeance is persistently vivid in the Old Testament In this passage we have more than a mere metaphor for it is the blood which is represented as drawing Yahwe's attention to the crime of Cain. (1930, p. 108)

Cain is trapped by the evidence of his own crime; his guilt is portrayed as unequivocal, fully meriting the measure of punishment which God deals him

This biblical narrative establishes a model of guilt, which includes motive, knowledge of right from wrong uncoerced choice and lack of repentance. In Gerhard von Rad's (1972, p. 105) summary ‘‘man's responsibility to sin is not in the least annulled; on the contrary this [narrative] imposes on him the whole responsibility'' If the first homicide reveals the deficiency of the human condition it also indicates that the source of responsibility for evil can be identified and as a consequence purged through individualized punishment