We all know the story of Cain and Abel; it has been used as the backdrop for books, movies, television series, and it is a story as old as time. Two brothers bring their sacrifices to God; Abel's is accepted, Cain's is not. In a jealous fit, Cain drags his brother out into the field and kills him. But Cain’s sin carries a price, in that he is branded with a mark and sent out from the family group. But does familiarity breed contempt? Is there another deeper storyline if we will just carefully study the text?

What’s in a name?

If we begin with the names Cain and Abel come from the Greek Septuagint, an over-2,000 year-old Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, where their names are written as “Kain” and “Abel.” But these names are simply Greek transliterations of the original Hebrew, Cain is קין (qayin) and Abel is הבל (havel).

If we look at Cain first, we see the word קין (qayin, which comes out of the root QN) means to acquire or possess something which is why Eve (chavah in Hebrew) said, “I have gotten/acquired (qanah, also from the root QN) a man” (Gen 4:1).
Similarly, if we look at Abel we see the word הבל (havel) which means to be empty, and is frequently translated as vain or vanity in the sense of lacking substance.

There is also value in looking into the Hebrew word for ‘name’, which is ‘shem’ and literally means breath or character. Thinking with a Hebrew mindset you could say that a name is an indication or reflection of character. Applying this line of thinking, we can say that the Hebrew meanings of the names of Cain and Abel are like windows into their characters. These suggest that Cain is a possessor, someone with substance, while Abel lacks substance.

Thinking with a Hebrew mindset you could say that a name is an indication or reflection of character.

Now this seems to turn things upside-down for us. Our assumption has been shaped over years to be that Abel was the good guy and Cain the bad, which is certainly what the apostle John states in 1 John 3:12. But maybe, whilst true, this is an oversimplification, because their names suggest that Cain is what we would call ‘a man of character’, whilst Abel is ‘vain’.

Were Cain & Abel twins?

We all know from our bibles that Jacob and Esau were brothers, but what is not generally known is that Cain and Abel were most likely twins as well. We see a very strong suggestion of this in the way in which consecutive births are described in the Bible. For example, Genesis 29:32-33 tells us that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. Look at the comparable text in Genesis 4:1-2: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; and again, she bore his brother Abel.”
It is noteworthy that in this text there is only one conception, but two births. The word translated here as ‘again’ is ‘asaph’, which means to add something: in this case, the birth of Abel being added to the birth of Cain – a very strong suggestion that Cain and Abel were twins.

What’s in a job?

The Bible tells us that Abel was a shepherd; the KJV uses the word ‘keeper’, but the Hebrew word ‘ro'eh’ clearly means shepherd. In contrast Cain was a ‘tiller of the ground’, or farmer. The Hebrew word that is used here is ‘o'ved’, which quite literally means a ‘servant’. It is also worth noting that the word ‘o'ved’, is the participle form of the verb ‘avad’ and the verb ‘avad’ is found in Genesis 3:23. Adam is expelled from the garden of Eden that he was sent to ‘till’ (avad). Therefore, we are safe to say that Cain, the older twin, follows in his father’s footsteps, a very common occurrence in Hebrew culture.

What’s in a sacrifice?

When Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to God, Cain, the farmer, brought fruit from the ground he worked. Abel, as a shepherd, brought sheep from his flock. They both offered from their labour. However, the Bible tells us that whilst God had respect for Abel's sacrifice, he didn’t for Cain's, but there is no explanation for this. There are clues, however.

Our first clue comes when Cain is annoyed over his sacrifice not being accepted. In response God gives him some instructions. God begins by saying “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” I read this as God telling Cain that he can get over this. That all he has to do in the future is bring the correct sacrifice, and then all will be well. But God goes on to say, “and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door”. In other words, if you continue to bring me the wrong sacrifices then you will be committing sin. Finally God tells Cain, “and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”. I think it is fair to say that when we read this then we assume that the ‘his’ and ‘him’ here refers to ‘sin’, and other versions, such as the NIV, translate it this way. However, it doesn’t really make any sense when you look into it.

What we have to remember is that a Hebrew noun can either be masculine or feminine. As an example, the earth is feminine, but the sky (heaven) is masculine. Another example is the word for fish being feminine, but the word for bird being masculine. Where that is all relevant here is that the Hebrew word for sin is ‘hhatah’, and it is a feminine noun. If the ‘his’ and ‘him’, which are the correct pronoun gender for this text, were referring to ‘sin’, then the correct pronouns would have been ‘hers’ and ‘her’. So I believe we can see that the ‘his’ and ‘him’ are referring to something, or someone, other than sin.

What’s in a relationship?

If we make a literal translation of this text we read, ‘and toward you is his desire but you will rule over him’. Well, what does all that mean? Well, I would suggest it relates back to Genesis 3 and God talking to Eve about her relationship with Adam. This text says, ‘and toward your husband is your desire, but he will rule over you". These two passages are, other than the pronoun genders, identical. So, what is going on?

In Genesis 3 Eve is told that she will follow her husband who will rule over her. I would suggest that in this passage Cain is being told that he is to follow Abel, who will rule over him. In effect, he is going to lose his first-born rights and become the follower. Apparently, Abel is taking advantage of having his sacrifice accepted and will take over the leadership. Which feels in keeping with the name characteristics, where Abel's was towards vanity.

What’s in a fight

Genesis 4:8 reads as follows, “and Cain talked with Abel his brother, and it came to pass that when they were in the field Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him”. That all feels pretty straight-forward. But the passage has been amended and extended in an effort to make it read easily for us. This is a far-too-frequent trait of translators and, in my opinion, does the text a great disservice. Genesis 4:8 literally says, “and Cain said to his brother”. Well, OK, so what did Cain say to his brother? We don't know that because the Hebrew text doesn’t tell us, and to get around this inconvenience the KJV translators changed the translation from ‘said’ to ‘talked’. Now, this may all sound a bit trivial, but there is something important going on here. In the rest of the bible when this phrase ‘vai'yomer’ is used then the actual subject of the conversation follows, but it doesn’t here. Could it be that at some point when the scroll was being copied, a copier accidently skipped over what was said by Cain?

Young's Literal Translation (incidentally my wife’s favourite version) reads, “and Cain said to Abel his brother (Let us go into the field) and it came to pass in their being in the field that Cain riseth up against Abel, his brother, and slayeth him”. Now Young's remains true to the Hebrew with the ‘said’, but goes on to add, “Let us go into the field”. So where did Young's get this? They got it from the Greek Septuagint, which reads as follows “and Cain said to Abel his brother, let us go out into the plain, and it came to pass that when they were in the plain Can rose up against Abel his brother and slew him”. So the question we have is where did the Septuagint get the “Let us go out into the plain?” from? We simply don't know. Either they were translating from a Hebrew scroll that includes the conversation, or like our modern translators, they ‘fixed’ the text by adding the sentence in order for the passage to make sense.

The reason we are labouring this point is to ensure we all get that there is a problem with the text, and we do not know with any certainty the facts surrounding this murder. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Cain murders his brother and as a result is punished for it. Incidentally, this is strong evidence that God gave his commands to Adam and Eve, specifically ‘you shall not murder’, long before he reiterated it to Moses (Exodus 20:13).

What’s in the punishment?

Cain’s punishment comes in two stages and both deal a hammer blow to his very core. First, Cain is told that he is will no longer work the ground. His farming days are over. Secondly, he is banished.

Quite understandably Cain is greatly distressed and tells God that his punishment is more than he can bear. There seems to be no indication of remorse in Cain. He is simply worried about his punishment, actually more worried about his punishment than the evil act he did to his brother. However, the original Hebrew translated as punishment is ‘avon’. ‘Avon’ is a fascinating word, which means ‘iniquity’ or ‘guilt’. (Incidentally, Avon Cosmetics was set up by Jewish people who knew exactly what the name of the company meant.) But reading ‘avon’ I would suggest Cain is actually saying, ‘my guilt is greater than I can bear’, which suggests great remorse. He goes on to say “behold thou hast driven me this day away from the ground, and from thy face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth and whoever finds me will slay me”.

What is it about Grace and Mercy?

So many of us have been taught that the Old Testament taught Law and it took Jesus and the New Testament to teach us Grace. However, we find grace time and time again throughout the Old Testament (the word ‘hesed’, which means grace, can also be seen frequently throughout the text). With Noah, the Exodus, and David grace abounds, and there is grace here for Cain. “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Not so! If anyone slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold’. And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him.”

We find grace time and time again throughout the Old Testament. With Noah, the Exodus and David, grace abounds, and there is grace here for Cain.

I would contend that this text clearly evidences that God believed Cain's murder was not deserving of death, neither by his, nor anyone else's, hand. This may be an indication that there is more to this story than we have traditionally held. We do not know the details of the conversation between Cain and Abel and we do not know if there are elements of this story that we do not have possession of.

But what is the mark that God placed on Cain? Again, we cannot tell with any certainty, but there are some biblical clues. The Hebrew word translated as ‘mark’ is the word 'ot’, which is translated throughout the Bible as ‘sign’. Outside of the bible it is also translated as ‘letter’, as in a letter of the alphabet.

It is in Ezekiel 9 that we read of God issuing an instruction for the men who “sigh and groan over all the abominations committed in the city” to be marked on their foreheads, with the Hebrew word ‘tav’ being used for mark. So quite literally the instruction is to put a ‘tav’ on their foreheads. In the paleo-Hebrew picture alphabet ‘tav’ was written as two crossed sticks and was a sign of covenant. Maybe, just maybe, the ‘mark’ placed upon Cain’s forehead was that same letter ‘tav’ and was a sign that God remained in covenant relationship with Cain, despite his wrongdoing.