And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now [art] thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. — Genesis 4:9-12

***

Before I continue, let me address a comment that was made to the last entry in this series.

George writes that the points presented in the post about the garden

attempts to play both sides of the fence. Most of what you have here is caricature, and not sound argument.

For instance, the whole bit about how “unethical” God is in the situation relies on one of two foundations – that the Creation story pictured in Genesis 2 is historical fact or allegory – neither of which is required or expected of the story once properly deconstructed.

I probably should have made the distinction before beginning this series, but I thought it would have been taken for granted. When making arguments, especially ones about religion, one sometimes has to speak as if something in question actually exists or that the opposing argument is sound. This is done in order to explore the consequences of those realities.

For instance, in the last post, I asked “How moral is God?” if he knowingly placed the tree of knowledge in the garden knowing all along that man would fail. This question assumes that God exists, but only within the context of the argument. I have to assume God exists at times, and the garden, and Adam and Eve, and the serpent because this is what the Bible actually claims. And it claims that their existence and ensuing actions have grave implications for the rest of us. Perhaps my “Now comes the fun part” was unnecessary (and my writing tone can be cutting at times), but I didn’t add that comment to suggest caricature, only my enjoyment in textual criticism and in pointing out logical inconsistencies. My treatment of Genesis is, indeed, not caricature because if the Bible takes itself seriously and millions of Christians still believe in it as literal truth, so too do I take its claims seriously and deal with it critically and, if deserved, without compunction. That many things in the Bible are comical or ridiculous, I don’t deny, but I’m not being a caricaturist for merely pointing them out.

In the second part of the above comments, I’m not clear on the point he was making, but it seems to suggest that we don’t need to read the creation story as either historical or allegory to get the application. If it, indeed, is only allegory or just made up altogether, then from where does the original sin concept, a central doctrinal point of Christianity, come? Without the garden scene, God presumably has condemned man from birth without any progenitor to foul things up for us. I don’t buy either scenario; I’m just pointing out the difficulties in believing any of them. Since I pointed out the logical inconsistencies of the story and the ethical problems of its god, I also wonder what would pass as a “sound argument” for a criticism of Genesis. In any case, George is free to continue the discussion at any time.

***

Picking up in Chapter 4, man has now been booted from the garden, and angels, with a flaming sword no less, are guarding the gate to make sure Adam and Eve don’t try to sneak their way back into Eden. Apparently getting into Eden was child’s play for Satan himself, while man requires a flaming sword to keep him away from Eden and the tree of life.

In the first verse of the subsequent chapter, Adam “knew” Eve and bore a son, Cain, who grew up to be farmer, or in the biblical KJV vernacular, “a tiller of the ground.” Eve then had another child, Abel, who became a “keeper of sheep,” better known in other passages as a shepherd.

Now, before I move on, I can’t fail to mention the symbolism here, which to modern eyes, should be read in light of what comes later in the New Testament, not, as New Testament writers themselves did, back into the earlier texts, that is, seeking to make Old Testament stories foreshadow a coming messiah. That said, it’s striking here that Cain is a mere farmer (What did God have against farmers? He himself gave Adam dominion over all the plants. Of course, he also set Adam up to fail by placing the forbidden fruit in the garden and then allowing Satan to sneak in unawares, so maybe God does have something against farmers after all. Recent news stories make a good case. But then again, here I go assuming God exists in order to follow through on the logic of an argument again!) In any event, Cain takes up farming as an occupation, while Abel devotes his time to shepherding, which reminds us of a nickname that would later be assigned to Christ himself, the Good Shepherd.

In God’s eyes, Abel is, for whatever capricious reason and to Cain’s consternation, the good brother, while Cain, the first born, apparently “doest not well.” Up until that point in the story, Cain hadn’t had much time to “doest not well,” but in the next verse, he “doest not well” indeed by killing his brother in the field. Why did God not accept Cain’s offering but lauded Abel’s? The only possible reason that I can imagine is that this is the first episode in a long string of messy tales that highlight God’s insatiable thirst for blood sacrifice and the killing of animals (later himself, or Christ or, whatever …) for the atonement of sin. One can claim that Abel had a purer heart and Cain was a brooding, dark figure, but from the text up to that point, it’s not certain. Hebrews 11:4 attempts to soften this passage by claiming that Abel provided a “more excellent sacrifice,” but that, like much of the New Testament is embellished and/or conjecture.

Answers in Genesis attempted to answer the question, but ultimately fell back on the old infinite regress of God’s sovereign, decision-making abilities:

Can we even be clear that either Cain or Abel knew exactly what would be pleasing to God as a sacrifice ahead of time? Even with all this circumstantial evidence, we don’t absolutely know that God required a blood sacrifice of Cain. We can’t say for certain that the quality of Cain’s offering was inferior. And we can’t prove Cain’s heart was in the wrong during the sacrifice itself. Although the scriptural account does seem to point to each of these reasons, we can’t be emphatic about any of them. So, what’s the ultimate answer to God preferring Abel’s offering?

We must come to grips with one thing: God, as Creator, is sovereign over His creation. While there are proximate reasons for God’s decrees, what ultimately makes “right” right and “wrong” wrong? God’s sovereign choice. This does not mean God is capricious or arbitrary; God is always reasonable because He is the creator of reason. If God’s actions seem to conflict with or transcend man’s sense of “reason,” that doesn’t mean God is wrong; it means His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8)

I’m glad the writer anticipated the argument about God’s capriciousness. The above statement pinpoints the problem with any and all god hypotheses or arguments about his or her existence: we can endow God with any of the attributes that we as humans have come to respect: reasonable, loving, gentle, kind, just, etc., and I can give the same attributes to any god I choose. For instance,

We must come to grips with one thing: Zeus, as Creator, is sovereign over His creation. While there are proximate reasons for Zeus’ decrees, what ultimately makes “right” right and “wrong” wrong? Zeus’s sovereign choice. This does not mean Zeus is capricious or arbitrary; Zeus is always reasonable because He is the creator of reason.

Further, if God is the creator of reason, we humans are working from a faulty definition, and God should hand down a better understanding of what reason means. Oh wait, he did and hasn’t said a word since. That’s the Bible. OK, so here are some examples of God’s reason from the his text:

• Because of man’s disobedience (Again, was God really surprised by this? If the answer is yes, he’s not omniscient. If no, evil.), God plans to wipe the earth clean of, not just humans, but all animals, who, presumably, played no part in man’s disobedience, unless they too could talk and have conscious thoughts. If they could talk and have conscious thoughts, this wouldn’t be terribly out of character for the writer of Genesis, but it is out of character with reality.
• God colludes with Satan to test Job’s loyalty, and Job is subsequently inflicted by all sorts of personal and physical anguish in a cruel game of playing with God’s own devotee’s life and livelihood. Thus, God creates a problem where there was none. Not only unreasonable but wholly unethical. I would never, for instance, contemplate making a child of mine run a gauntlet or race or obstacle to prove devotion to me. How cruel.
• God says everyone who curses their father and mother should be put to death. But what if one parent is a murderer and the other is a rapist?
• And the related and chilling verse in Proverbs 30: “The eye [that] mocketh at [his] father, and despiseth to obey [his] mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” Sound like a god capable of embodying “reason” itself? Didn’t think so.

If God, then, is the author of reason, reason itself must be modified to also include murderous, barbarous, cruel and sadistic, scheming, as well as capriciousness, which is actually one of his least offensive attributes.

But back to Cain. After telling Cain how he would be cursed for the rest of his life, how he would fail in his farming and that he would be a fugitive and vagabond for the rest of his days, God charitably assuages Cain’s fear of retribution from others because of his cursed state by threatening to kill anyone that kills Cain. Apparently, they could harass or humiliate him all they wanted and would only face judgment after they took Cain’s life. We don’t know whether anyone was smited by God for attempting to kill Cain because Cain went to the land of Nod, wherever that is, built a city named Enoch after his son and was never heard from again.