Read Time: 18 minutes

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Gen 4:8-16, NIV).1

Rhetoric

Genesis is silent as to how long after Abel’s death God inquired of his whereabouts. Probably not long. The idea of “blood crying from the ground” (Gen 4:10) suggests that Abel’s corpse might still have been fresh when He confronted Cain.

At some point after Abel had been slain, Cain must have approached the cheru- bim or come into its presence (for what purpose is unclear). God, as manifested by the cherubim, confronted Cain about his brother. However, the Lord did not confront him with an accusation, rather He posed a question: “Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen 4:9). The question was rhetorical. God knew where Abel was. Rather, His question was an accusation, meant to elicit from Cain an admission of guilt (or self-reflection) — the first step towards forgiveness and ultimately instruction in righteousness.

This wasn’t the first instance where God posed a rhetorical question. In the Garden, God asked Adam and Eve, “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9). Of course the omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Deity knew where they were hiding; what He wanted was for them to acknowledge what they had done. God phrased it as, “Where are you?” in order to point out to them that, having eaten of the forbidden fruit, they were no longer in a place or state God recognized — they had changed in some way and were mortal, sinful.

The second instance where God posed a rhetorical question is in the aftermath of Cain’s rejection, when He said to Adam’s eldest: “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?” (Gen 4:6). Again, God knew the answer to this question. What He was really pointing out was that Cain had no right to be angry. For, as He explained, “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?” (Gen 4:7).

In the case of Adam and Eve, God’s use of rhetoric did elicit the proper response, for Adam and Eve admitted to what they had done. However, unlike his parents, Cain did not do “what was right,” nor later did he admit to his sin when God asked, “Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen 4:9).

In this latter example, God’s rhetoric failed to illicit from Cain an admission of guilt. Instead, Cain was audacious enough to respond to God’s question with one of his own: “I don’t know… Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9).

Cain’s response to God was a lie. Obviously he knew where Abel was — for some- where in that field, his brother’s body lay, rotting in the earth. What isn’t clear is why Cain lied. Was it merely the instinctual response of a guilty man, or did he really imagine that he could lie to the Almighty? If the latter is true, then what does it say about Cain’s perception of God?

As has already been discussed, Cain, in his willing neglect of spiritual instruction, did not realize who God really was. We might find that surprising, but Cain did not think of God as we do: an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator. Instead, his perception of the deity was limited to that of cherubim: those fright- ful, mystical creatures that guarded the entranceway to the Garden of Eden with their fiery or flashing sword (Gen 3:24). And, as such, their nature and purpose informed his understanding of God.

As the guardians of the way to the Tree of Life, the cherubim were bound to a specific geographical location. That this was Cain’s understanding is evidenced by Genesis 4:14, when, in considering his exile to Nod, Cain concluded that he would be hidden from the presence of God, since the cherubim guarded the entranceway to the Garden of Eden.

Thus, when confronted by God concerning Abel’s whereabouts, Cain must have asked himself, “How could these creatures, who are bound to a specific, geographi- cal place, possibly know what I have done to Abel?” And thus he concluded that they could not know what had transpired, and decided to lie to God (the cheru- bim), not realizing that they, a manifestation of God — who knows all and sees all — already knew the truth.

My brother’s keeper

“Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4:9) — this next part of Cain’s response. Was it genuine or rhetorical, as if to say to God: “I am not my brother’s keeper”?

Given what we already know about Cain and his character, it seems likely that the latter is true; he had answered God’s rhetorical question with one of his own. Therefore, he was making a statement about how he felt towards Abel, and by doing so, he revealed two things: one, that he did not love his brother; and two, that he was an ignorant man.

As to the first — why did Cain not love his brother? — the simple answer is that pride or ego has a way of blinding oneself to everyone else; it creates a selfishness that has no room for the welfare or concern of others. As has been shown, Cain placed great pride in his name — even Jehovah — along with the identity that he built around this “birthright,” which had the effect of blinding him to everyone, including Abel. This explains why he was able to respond to God by saying, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” By responding in this way, Cain sent the message to God that he felt nothing for his brother. Hence his indifference. And even when Cain was confronted with his crime, he still showed no signs of guilt or remorse. He did not clasp his hands together and cry out, “What have I done!” Rather, all he cared about was himself, for he said to God:

“My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen 4:13-14).

As noted, Cain’s response to God also revealed his ignorance, for by saying to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” he revealed that he did not understand the very nature of God, which is love (1John 4:8).

According to John, to know God is to know love. Christ confirms this when he sums up the Mosaic Law:

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself ’ ” (Matt 22:37-39).

By saying to God, “Am I my brother’s keeper,” Cain was telling the Lord that he did not need to love Abel, and, by doing so, he was in fact saying to God — unknow- ingly — that he did not care to understand or know the Almighty. For as John says,

“Whoever does not love, does not know God, because God is love” (1John 4:8).

Thus, through his response, Cain confirmed his ignorance in spiritual matters, including the very nature of God. But of course, his ignorance of God and his lack of desire to know the Lord better is something he expressed throughout his life: first, when he failed to offer a blood sacrifice and again, when he limited his understanding of who God was to that of the cherubim.

Blood cries out

When God first approached Cain, His tone was that of restraint. There was no expression of anger in the Lord’s words: “Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen 4:9). However, after Cain’s audacious response, God’s tone changed dramatically: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground” (ibid., 10).

At this point, God’s tone was accusatory, for He said, “What have you done?” More- over, He demanded Cain’s attention by exclaiming: “Listen!”2 In this moment, God was no longer going to be ignored.3 And once He had Cain’s attention, the Lord continued by telling him that Abel’s blood “cries out to [him] from the ground” (ibid.).

Now, we might be tempted to think that this is how God found out about the crime, but bear in mind that God is all-knowing — He didn’t need “Abel’s blood” to reveal to Him that Adam’s younger son had been murdered by his older brother. Moreover, the blood crying out was not literal, but rather a personification of a martyr’s cry for justice and vengeance.

Future justice

Firstly, there are many instances of personification in the Bible. For example, Proverbs 1:20 says, “Wisdom calls aloud in the streets; she raises her voice in the public square.” As we know, wisdom is not an actual being, “calling aloud” as a human might. Like- wise, there is no reason to suspect that the “blood of Abel” had a voice and cried out to God. As such, “blood crying out” is clearly an example of personification.

As noted, the blood cried out for justice and vengeance. This might seem out of character, since we don’t often associate Abel with the idea of wanting to be “re- venged.” Yet, even Hebrews recognized that this is what Abel, as a righteous man slain, represented, for it says:

“Jesus the mediator of a new covenant and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24).

Commenting on this comparison, Ellicott wrote that the reason Jesus’ blood spoke better than Abel’s was that, while Abel’s voice cried for justice and retribution, Jesus’ voice cried for “reconciliation and peace.”

However, we should not be fooled into thinking that Christ also does not intend to administer justice or seek to avenge the slain. Just because Christ initially came to bring reconciliation and peace, does not mean that, at some future date, he won’t return to administer justice and retribution. For Revelation 6 reveals that God, through Christ, intends to do just that when He sends His son back to the earth.

“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’ ” (Rev 6:9-10).

As Revelation reveals, these souls under the altar4 are the voices of those who have been slain because of their testimony — Abel being the first of such living “souls.” Though dead, they metaphorically plead to God for justice and vengeance, since He, alone, is their avenger: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay” (Deut 32:35). In re- sponse to the souls’ query, “How long?” Revelation 6:11 says that their blood will not be avenged until “the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killedastheyhadbeenwascompleted.”Whenwillthisoccur?Revelationcontinues:

“Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and everyone else, both slave and free, hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can withstand it?’ ” (Rev 6:15-17).

The Lamb is Christ, and his “wrath” is revealed when he sits on the throne, which of course can only occur upon his return. Thus, Christ will, when he comes again, avenge the souls under the altar; dispensing justice and avenging the slain, which, in Revelation, is described as “the wrath of the Lamb” or God’s vengeance.

The “wrath of the Lamb” is, however, a future event. And yet, God was faced with a murderer. So, what does one do with a murderer in those early antediluvian days?

An aspect of murder is that when someone commits it, he/she can no longer be trusted not to do it again. The mistrust and fear that inevitably follows in the wake of murder weakens a community’s cohesion, and, with the threat of more violence, threatens a community’s reason for existence — that is to be united so as to benefit all members. As such, a murderer can no longer remain in society and must therefore be removed.

Moreover, there is also the fact that murder creates in others a desire for revenge (more on this later when dealing with the mark of Cain). Thus, whether it is to keep the community safe from the murderer, and/or to prevent more bloodshed as a result of vengeance, God had to remove Cain from his family/community.

Crime and punishment

While exile caused Cain obvious worriment — “My punishment is more than I can bear” (Gen 4:13), it was, in fact, merciful — especially compared to the death sentence a murderer would have received under the Law (Num 35:16-18). That punishment — death — did not allow for the forgiveness of sin. Thus, even in spite of the nature of Cain’s crime; in spite of his lie; and in spite of his “bad attitude,” God — by exiling him — was being merciful. And by doing so, the Lord gave Cain an opportunity to ask for forgiveness — assuming, of course, he chose to do so.5

There is another aspect of Cain’s exile that is important to his story. Though the reasons above are valid, and certainly played a role in God’s decision to exile Cain, the Lord, himself, states that the agent directly responsible for causing Cain’s exile was that he was “under a curse”:

“Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you” (Gen 4:11-12).

The result of this curse was that it transformed Cain from a farmer into a nomad: “You will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (v. 14). Unable to stay stationary, Cain was forced to move, which resulted in his being exiled.

God’s cursing of the land is the second of such occurrences; the first happened after Adam’s transgression (Gen 3:17-19). However, Adam’s curse was universal. It began to take effect following his transgression, and it did not reach its zenith until the birth of Noah. At this point, the effects of the curse must have been particu- larly acute, since Lamech, Noah’s father, makes the first mention of it since Adam:

“He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed” (Gen 5:29).

Unlike Adam’s curse, Cain’s curse was specific to him. It seems as though God pronounced a double curse on the earth, in so much as it concerned Cain. There- fore, he not only experienced the general curse felt by all as a result of Adam’s curse, but his toil, specifically, was so difficult, that it had the effect of driving him from the ground. As a result, Cain was forced to abandon his vocation as a farmer and instead had to find other means to feed himself and his family. Thus, in time, as he wandered in the land of Nod, he naturally began hunting and gathering. This transformed Cain from a farmer into the first hunter-gatherer — but not for long.

Although Cain wandered for a time, he eventually gave up a nomadic life and built the first permanent settlement or city, which he named after his firstborn son, Enoch (v. 17). Why did Cain settle down? Why did he not continue existing as a nomad? Perhaps he was not that particularly successful at hunting and gath- ering — after all, his skills were farming, not hunting and foraging. Or, perhaps the temptation to lay down roots was just too strong.

Another possibility is that he feared an avenger. As we shall see, Cain understood that murder creates in others a desire for revenge, and it is therefore possible that Cain, even though he lived in the land of Nod, feared that one day, someone would come to avenge Abel. In an effort to protect himself, Cain may have settled down and “built a city” (Gen 4:17). The word for city is this verse is ‘iyr, meaning city, town, a place of waking/guarded. The last part of this is significant — “guarded” — because it suggests that the settlement Cain built was somewhat fortified. But fortified against whom? — the unknown but inevitable avenger.

This possibility certainly paints a vivid picture of Cain in his latter years: we can envision him as an old man, surrounded by high-walls, staring out from his for- tifications, ever watchful, ever fearful of the day when a stranger or someone he knew would approach his town and enter it with the purpose of seeking revenge for Abel’s murder.

The mark of Cain

Cain’s exile was complicated by another factor: revenge. He might have been ignorant of God and spiritual wisdom, but he understood, whether by instinct or by reasoning, that as a murderer, he was prone to vengeance. For he says, “I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen 4:14).

Ever since sin entered the world, there has existed a causal relationship between murder and revenge, but it was not revealed until Cain killed Abel. This relation- ship is well illustrated in Joshua:

“Then the Lord said to Joshua: ‘Tell the Israelites to designate the cities of refuge, as I instructed you through Moses so that anyone who kills a person accidentally or unintentionally may flee there and find protection from the avenger of blood’ ” (Josh 20:1-3).

This decree suggests that when someone has been killed, an avenger of blood will almost certainly arise. It demonstrates that murder, whether accidental or inten- tional, has the effect of creating in others a desire for revenge. Cain understood this, which is why he says: “My punishment is more than I can bear!…Whoever finds me will kill me” (Gen 4:13-14).

God, however, placed a “mark” on Cain so that “no one who found him would kill him” (ibid., 15). This might seem odd, for why should God care about preserving the life of a murderer? But recall that exile was a demonstration of God’s mercy,6 and it allowed the opportunity — should Cain choose it — for repentance and forgiveness.

Furthermore, the mark was an attempt by God to deter others from seeking ven- geance for the murder of Abel. By doing so, God was trying to prevent the cycle of vengeance from beginning. For the Lord knows that, once set in motion, the cycle of vengeance is near-impossible to stop (humanely speaking, of course), and, moreover, it has the power to engulf the whole world in violence, as was the case in the antediluvian age and which led to God’s decision to destroy that age in a flood (Gen 6:11).

However, it’s important to note that the mark — whatever it was — only had the power to deter, not stop, vengeance from occurring. For as a deterrence, it gave people the ability to choose either vengeance or forgiveness, thereby maintaining free will. Had the mark been able to prevent all acts of vengeance from occurring — somehow miraculously — it would have negated free will, and thus undermined our uniqueness as humans amongst the instinct-driven creatures in God’s creation.

Physical or symbolic?

The “mark” has always been somewhat of an enigma. Was it a physical mark, such as a scar, a disease,7 or was it something else, perhaps symbolic? Moreover, how did the mark actually protect Cain in its function as a deterrence?

The Hebrew word here, owth or “mark,” is defined as a sign, warning, omen, token, miracle, banner, distinguishing mark [which may or may not be physical], or a remembrance” (Young’s Literal Translation). As a “distinguishing mark,” owth is used once in the Old Testament, and only in regard to Cain. All other 78 uses in the Old Testament refer to something abstract. Thus, it seems very probable that the nature of his “distinguishing mark” was not physical.

In Ezekiel 9:3-6, God placed a mark8 on the righteous in order to distinguish them from those who were set apart for destruction:

“Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side and said to him, ‘Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.’ As I listened, he said to the others, ‘Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark’ ” (Ezek 9:3-6).

The individuals marked by the man clothed in linen could not actually see their mark, nor was it literally inscribed upon their foreheads. Ezekiel’s vision was a metaphorical description of God’s selection of the righteous from the unrighteous. These men and women would be a sign of the following: His mercy; His recognition of their righteousness; and His action of setting them apart from the wicked. Although they received the mark on their foreheads, which represents the knowledge centre of the body (the brain) and, as such, indicates understand- ing in relation to the things of God, they were inseparable from the mark itself, since this part of the body (the forehead or brain) is inseparable from the rest, a feature that is established in 1 Corinthians 12:25: “…there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other.” In other words, they in effect became the mark or sign.

In regards to Cain’s mark, Genesis is silent. No specific part of his body (such as the forehead, for example) is noted. Therefore, we can surmise that Cain, in his entirety, was marked or he, as a whole, represented the mark (again, based on the principle in 1 Corinthians 12:25).

It is also important to note that while God is the agent (via an angel) doing the symbolic marking in Ezekiel 9:3-6, and in Genesis 4 (whether or not via an angel), it is really the actions of the individual that marks them. For example, the righteous men and women in Ezekiel were marked because they were those “who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it” (Ezek 9:4). Likewise, although God placed a mark on Cain, it was Cain who distinguished himself as a murderer through his violent action.

Thus, since many instances of the mark in the Bible concern something abstract, Cain’s mark could therefore have been an abstract one. Moreover, since no specific part of his body was noted by Genesis, the mark was non-specific. Just as the mark symbolically received by the righteous in Ezekiel — but brought about by their righteous actions transformed them into a mark or a sign that distinguished them from the wicked — Cain’s mark (or his violent actions) also transformed him into a mark or sign, but of a very different kind: murder in relation to vengeance.

One final thought: while I have reasoned that Cain’s mark was not physical — and it wasn’t — if there was anything at all physical about the mark, it was the murderer’s outward expression of fear in being avenged, which was surely visible in his eyes, on his face, or in his general demeanor.

The mark of Cain: A complex sign

The mark of Cain is basically a cause and effect relationship. To understand it, one needs to know that Cain had committed murder. This is the cause part of the equation. The effect part of the equation is understanding that the mark creates in others a desire for revenge. Moreover, vengeance turns an avenger into a murderer (vengeance is just murder by another name), which creates in others a desire for revenge and creates a seemingly endless cycle of violence. God acknowledges this cause and effect relationship when He responds to Cain by saying, “If anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over” (Gen 4:15). In other words, God says that a murderer will himself be murdered by an avenger, and so forth.

God hoped that a person comprehending killing Cain in order to avenge Abel would look upon Cain (or consider him in their mind’s eye) and understand this cause and effect relationship. That revenge turns an avenger into a murderer and makes the avenger susceptible to vengeance was supposed to deter would-be avengers, and thus prevent the cycle of violence — the inevitable outcome of vengeance — from occurring. It would also place the act of avenging into the rightful hands of the Lord, for vengeance is God’s prerogative: “O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, show thyself ” (Psa 94:1, KJV).

Vengeance is endless

“If anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over” (Gen 4:15). As noted, vengeance creates a cycle of violence transforming avengers into murderers and creating in others a desire for revenge, and so forth. Thus vengeance appears to have an endless or eternal quality; a truth God expresses in Genesis 4:15 through the use of the number seven.

The number seven is usually associated with God,9 and as such is wed to the idea of eternity, since this is His nature. Thus, its use in relation to murder and revenge suggests that vengeance has an eternal or endless quality.10

Mark of Cain: Conclusion

By murdering Abel, Cain introduced the concept of vengeance into the world (just as Adam and Eve’s transgression introduced the idea of sin). Cain’s mark was not a magical talisman that somehow protected him from vengeance. Rather, as a murderer, he represented various aspects of murder in relation to vengeance for the purpose of instructing others in righteousness. Of course, for it to be an effective deterrent, this required understanding on the part of would-be-avengers. And considering how violent the antediluvian world became, it is apparent that Cain’s mark was little understood and much ignored.

Wandering star

The first born of women, the eldest son of Adam, and a man blessed with the name of the Lord,11 Cain had the potential to be a bright star — a burning luminary among the first of God’s creation. Certainly his brother Abel was, as evidenced by repeated references concerning his righteousness throughout the New Testament.11 Instead, “because his own actions were evil” (1John 3:12), Cain became a star, but of a very different kind: “a wandering star, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever” (Jude 13). The apostle’s poetic description of death is the fate that awaited Cain, as long as he continued to believe that, whilst wandering in Nod, he was “hidden from the presence of the Lord” (Gen 4:14); a phrase suggesting, among other things, that he believed he could not be forgiven for murdering Abel.

In the Bible, “wandering” is usually associated with ruin and destruction:

“The Lord’s anger burned against Israel and he made them wander in the desert forty years, until the whole generation of those who had done evil in his sight was gone” (Num 32:13).

“A discerning man keeps wisdom in view, but a fool’s eyes wander to the ends of the earth” (Prov 17:24).

As has been shown, Cain was a “fool” because he disdained Godly wisdom. And yet, in spite of this, he did not, as Proverbs suggest, physically wander “to the ends of the earth” (ibid.). Instead, he travelled eastward13 from Eden, accompanied by one of his sisters, which he took when he left or had already taken as his wife before murdering Abel. In Nod, he hunted and gathered for a time. Eventually, he built the first permanent settlement or city — a fortified place — naming it Enoch after his son (Gen 4:17). There he spent the rest of his days, ever fearful that he may be killed by Abel’s avenger.

A journey eastward into exile

What of Cain’s eastward journey into exile? Where was Nod in relation to Eden, and, for that matter, where was Eden and the Garden of Eden located on the earth? For some, these questions are immaterial. For others, the lack of detail in Genesis merely confirms beliefs that the story of Cain is a myth. Yet, material from recent non-Biblical sources describes scientific discoveries related to the story of Cain. The following brief examination of the Garden of Eden, Eden, and Nod will help establish that Cain and the events associated with him are historical.

personification of a martyr’s cry for justice and vengeance.