e. A Political Door-way
When we start arguing the pros and cons of different forms of human society and interaction - rather than just describing them - and promoting a particular way as the best way, we move from sociology to politics.
In the ancient Middle East there was a general sense of optimism about human 'progress' as many Mesopotamian texts suggest. But some biblical texts give a very different impression, with the history of human life unveiling instead "the inexorable advance of sin."[34.]
The political questions of the story of Genesis 4 relate to this contrasting perception: is there really progress at this point or is sin marching on?
And for us who read it now:
Are we on or off track in the way we organise our political life?
Political Systems in Ancient Israel
In early Israelite history a familial- and kinship-based Mode of Production structured social and economic relationships. With time a tributary- and monarchy-based Mode became dominant and by the reign of Solomon it became entrenched[35.]. Genesis 4 was likely put in written form during the time of Solomon and it seems to be a product of its values. It is argued that in these early chapters of Genesis human origins are presented in a way that shores up the new monarchy-based establishment.
Traditional familial relationships drew multiple generations of siblings together as kin and put loyalty to this extended family ahead of all other loyalties. If these traditional extended kinship bonds care loosed, an alternative of primary loyalty to monarch and state opens up and, with it, greater state control of people's activities. The story of Cain and Abel is a lesson in the dangers inherent in sibling relationships and, by presenting these dangers as if they were inherent or unavoidable, promotes a policy of caution and even distrust among kin. Genesis 4 is therefore interpreted to be a royalist work composed during Solomon's reign:
…the narrative's dominant ideological concerns are those of the state, which needs to justify the creation of large privately owned estates together with the dispossession of peasant farmers from their inherited plots. The story legitimizes this process of dispossession by a new class of estate holders under the protection of the monarchy[36.].
Sympathy for the Pastoralist
Abel may be the loser in the story, but the point is to generate sympathy for him as the victim. The story is to shift political sympathies away from the Cains of the time - those continuing to work the land in small, family-based agricultural units - towards the Abels - the owners of extensive pastoral territory, often resident in urban centres and functioning as absentee landlords. Cain's sacrifice parallels the way "the monarchy exacted tribute from village peasants"[37.] - it is wanted but undervalued. It seems that what the agriculturalist brings is not what the dominant ideology values. The pastoralist's products are much better in the ruling viewpoint.
Contemporary Politics and Devalued Sacrifice
Contemporary farmers in Aotearoa New Zealand know what it feels like for one's work to be publicly underrated by the prevailing politics. Promotion of the 'knowledge economy' as the way of the future, and of a need as a country to move away from primary production as a major source of national income, suggests the 'sacrifice' of farmers is being rejected because it is deemed outmoded and is holding the country back on the international scene. The politics of the story of Cain and Abel, in this reading, maintains that only Abel's work, only large property ownership and elite economic leadership, are the way of their future. Cain's life is outmoded, his production methods inefficient and the insistence of his kind to continue in their way of life is a block to national and economic development.
Contemporary farmers might well ask:
How are people to live without primary products, i.e. food?
The Cains of Solomon's world may have asked: how can everyone be fed without cereal and vegetable crops? Can meat alone feed all, with none going short?
Politics and Food
This is itself a political issue: how city dwellers are to get what they need to live, and how all are to be fed and not just the elite. When the descendants of Cain developed cities their food came from the people who continued to sweat and toil with the land. It was the peasants who provided the food and it has proved hard for cities throughout history to get what they need from struggling peasants with appropriating by exploitative and even violent means[38.].
This suggests a world where human life is ruled by a politics of the powerful. It's not surprising that in the biblical narrative this world turns out to be "ripe for the Flood."[39.]
f. A Door-way that asks: "Who's in Charge?"
"The main problem we encounter at the conclusion of the Eden story concerns the extent to which God will prefer freedom of will to obedience, and to what extent man [sic] in his turn will disrupt God's harmony." [40.]
The first half of the quotation presents a major issue of human existence. It is the issue of power:
Who is in control of the events of this narrative?
Who is in charge of this world we live in?
God's Ambivalence About Giving Life and Creativity
God seems to be in the business of giving in the early chapters of Genesis, but then something happens that sees God acting to reclaim the gift, banishing the human couple from the garden because of their disobedience, banishing Cain from the land because he killed his brother. God seems to have some ambivalence about who owns life and who has the ability to create new possibilities for life. God entrusts human beings with responsibility and gives them, through their choices, their own creativity. Yet God also seems keen to stay in charge and therefore reclaims authority when circumstances require it.
Contrast Eve's joy-filled and confident naming of her child Cain at the start of Genesis 4 with her response to the birth of Seth at the end. She seems to have learnt to be more modest in her claims and go cautiously with the God with gives and takes life. God seems to have taken back the right to control life-giving, just as in the mark of protection for Cain God takes back the right to control death-dealing.
Creativity is certainly at stake, a point brought out by the meaning of names, Cain's and Seth's in particular. The name Cain relates to the verbs 'acquire' and 'gain', and also to 'create'. It is argued that Cain's creativity proves to be his downfall, or rather his presumptions about his own ability as a "producer" and not just a "watchman of God's creation."[41.] Seth comes on the scene as a contrast: his name suggests "an acknowledgement of the limitedness of human creativity vis-à-vis God."[42.]
God gives freedom for the sake of responsibility
Genesis 4 is clear in this respect, which can be observed by looking closely at the dialogue involving the voice of God. God questions Cain to highlight his responsibility for his actions and response to events in a way that respects his freedom to choose. Again God is picking up from Genesis 3: after the human couple eat the fruit of the forbidden tree knowledge of good and evil is a 'given' of human life. Humans live with choices for good or ill and the advice from God to Cain is to choose responsibly.
It seems that God is trying to get these new human beings to exercise their knowledge of good and evil. Carrying through from chapter 3 God wants them to use their knowledge and freedom constructively. Carrying through from Genesis 1 we could understand it as a matter of actually being the image of God. If 'likeness to God' means human beings ruling over the rest of creation then that has been debunked by the events and dialogue of Genesis 2-3. Perhaps likeness to God could have meant immortality, but that was ruled out when the barrier was installed at the end of Genesis 3 to prevent access to the Tree of Life. The meaning that now remains is that "the human can really be like God only by acting rightly, by ruling over sin (cf. 4.7)."[43.]
The goal for Cain is therefore to be responsible in this way and overcome his frustration and the temptation to do wrong. He does have the power to deal with it and God seems to be testing human ability to its limits in order to release this power within him.
How have you learned how to choose well?
What have been the best lessons and who have been the best teachers?
Avoiding Responsibility
There are other power plays also at work.
God gives responsibility, but Cain balks at the hard task of being responsible. He shifts the onus back to God, as the one in authority who is in charge of - and therefore responsible for - proceedings[44.]. Faye Kellerman understands Cain's question 'am I my brother's keeper?' to reflect just this issue of responsibility: Cain is saying to God "You created this whole world. You created my parents. You created us. Who's the real keeper around here?"[45.]
But God wants Cain to graduate beyond this: like a teacher God is trying to find the best way to educate this particular student. Brueggemann puts it in these terms: "By his seemingly capricious rejection of Cain, Yahweh has created a crisis. He poses the crisis to Cain and insists that Cain resolve it."[46.]
Facing Realities of Life on Earth
Human beings need to face the realities of life outside Eden. The arable earth produces only with hard toil and there will always be uneven results. Human beings cannot escape life with the soil - there is no other life and livelihood for adamah, the creature of the soil - but neither can they cruise along sure that every year will be a boom year. Human beings today cannot escape life with the Earth - the planet and its tapping of the sun's energy is our sole resource base and it won't keep on providing if we foul it up.
Uneven results for these early farmers suggest that equality is less the rule and more the exception in normal human experience. If we keep wanting to get a reason for every instance of inequality, we miss the point of dealing with it well or badly. Siblings and other family relationships are a universal reminder of how basic and ordinary inequality is, and that it is in some measure unavoidable. You are born who you are and where you are in the family, and that is that. 'Face it, deal with it or else live in isolation' seems to be the message. The best response to any crisis, like the crisis put in front of Cain, is to employ the knowledge humans have of good and evil. The advice for constructive human living is to utilise the power, exercise the creativity and claim the independence granted by the one who set the world in motion.
There is another piece of advice here: namely, that it is counter-productive to presume that, when things are unequal, there will always be opposition and antagonism between the unequals. There is much more to gain by being a responsible, creative and independent individual in constructive relation with others, linking up in power and purpose with others involve. The image is of synergy, with a policy of interacting rather than attacking.
Does this suggest that violence is not an essential or unavoidable feature of human existence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[34.] Gordon J. Wenham, World Biblical Commentary Vol 1 Genesis 1-15, word Books, Waco Texas: 1987, 98.
[35.] Yee, Gale A., "Gender Class and the Social Scientific Study of Genesis 2-3", Semeia 87 (1999): 177-192.
[36.] Gunn and Fewell, 26.
[37.] Mosala in Gunn and Fewell, 27.
[38.] Wittenberg, 122.
[39.] ibid., 113.
[40.] Gelander, 46.
[41.] ibid., 173.
[42.] ibid., 174.
[43.] Brett, 42.
[44.] Cf. Gelander, 64.
[45.] Moyers, 100.
[46.] Brueggemann, 57.