Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

“. . . but for Cain and his offering he had no regard” (Genesis 4:5)

One of the most important modern biblical commentators and theologians, Claus Westermann, suggests that God’s choice of one brother over the other is due to the inscrutable nature of God’s discretion. “God’s disregard for Cain’s sacrifice does not go back to Cain’s attitude nor to a sacrifice that was not right nor to an incorrect way of offering the sacrifice. It is saying something about the immutable; it happens so.”[1] God maintains His right to choose whoever is worthy in His eyes: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Exod. 33:19). In other words, God’s choice was essentially inscrutable and capricious. Donald Gowan recasts Westermann’s thesis in succinct and clearer theological terms. The story of the brothers underscores a problem that we see frequently in life–the problem of unexplainable inequality and explains:

Two persons seem equally qualified; one finds work and the other does not. One takes good care of health and gets a severe illness; another breaks all the rules and leads a healthy life. One finds love and friendship from companions; another must struggle daily with unpleasant people. The examples could be multiplied without end. And the reactions vary greatly. I believe the issue raised in Genesis 4:3–7 is precisely the question of how one reacts to the inequalities of life. Some do not ask why but just put up with inequalities as best they can. Others attribute them to luck or fate and may curse their luck. But some see their lot as a matter of injustice and are inclined to blame God for their lack of success. The anger that may result, either from blaming luck or blaming God, has the potential of being directed against society in general or certain favored individuals specifically.

Gowan’s interpretation is intriguing, especially because of its theological relationship to the book of Job. The fact that Abel’s offering was received did not mean that he would have a life of ease and comfort, for being chosen often carries a personal price. Although Abel’s sacrifice was accepted, he was killed! For the Israelite audience listening to this story for the first time, this message must have come across as rather unsettling—there are no ironclad guarantees for those choosing to follow in God’s ways; in the real world, there is a degree of paradox one must be prepared to accept.

Yet despite the philosophical depth of this analysis, there are serious objections that can be raised against Westermann’s (and by extension—Gowan’s) thesis, that God’s acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and rejection of Cain’s was predicated on the mystery of Divine election. Had this been the case, the Torah would not have disclosed the details regarding Abel’s sacrifice, namely that Abel offered his firstlings as well as their fat portions—both of which are details that could have been omitted were the choice defined simply because God chose Abel. Were the election of Abel based merely on the inscrutable will of God, a foregone conclusion that Cain could never hope to change, then why would God encourage Cain that, with an improved attitude, he would surpass his brother? No conversation between God and Cain should have ensued. It would have been more apropos for God to have been silent. This would certainly lead one to think that the Divine choice was arbitrary. The silence of the Divine would have been most telling.

Such a conception is not unknown to Greek drama, where human beings are periodically forced to do something and are then punished for doing it. Westermann’s notion of God in this instance resembles more the Homeric gods and everything that metaphor implies. The Greek gods never granted free will to people and mortals suffered because of their whimsical nature.

In start contrast, the story of Cain and Abel is different. Cain alone, just as his parents before him, is fully responsible for his moral choices. Just as Cain is responsible for his behavior, so are we. Biblical realism does not accept the belief that man is a hapless victim but that he is completely responsible when it comes to the issue of moral evil and its presence in our world.

[1] Genesis 1-11, 296.