Cain = Slave master of humans, Abel = Teacher/guide of humans?

Full Disclosure: I do not attend any church nor subscribe to any faith. That does not prevent me from gleaning extremely valuable perspectives from all sources of information available.

If it is your desire to attack Christianity/Judaism/Islam... this is not a valuable thread for you. This is for those who wish to start with the story as is and explore a variation from what most of us have been taught it means. It is an exercise, not a claim of fact.

-------------

Something has consistently bothered me about taking the interpretation of the Cain and Abel story literally... especially regarding their "professions" and the subsequent rejection of Cain.

In particular, no rational reason is offered for why The Lord would accept an animal offering over a plant offering. There is no indication that the harvesting and eating of plants is displeasing to The Lord in principle. "It's just what they were told to do" also doesn't hold up except as a cop out.

However, if we take this situation and move the role of Cain and Abel to be tasked with elevating "common humans" up to their full spiritual potential and the different offerings the brothers made interpreted as metaphors for the methods they chose to fulfill their task... an entirely different and VERY intriguing meaning emerges.

View the following concepts as metaphors for these two types of human beings: Freemen and Slaves

A herd animal still has a mind... a self. It can be guided, but it can also choose to "go elsewhere". Regardless of whether this is to its detriment or betterment... it can still make a "choice". Have a will. It is a freeman though it can benefit from the guidance of the "herdsman".

A plant has no mind... no self. It is incapable of going anywhere but where it was planted... and it is utterly dependent upon the soil it is planted in, the water it is given, the sun that can reach it. It can not make a choice or have a will. It is a slave to the "tiller of soil".

So taking these metaphors and considering the culture they were primarily transmitted in... we get a story more like this.

Abel was cultivating freemen from the stock of "common humans".

Cain was cultivating slaves from the stock of "common humans".

Cain was then cursed to slavery for having done so. Reap what you sow.

It of course will not do to tell common humans they are being cultivated by "higher beings"... thus the story gets told indirectly so that those who know will understand, but everyone else will simply interpret it as a story about "Cain didn't obey The Lord so he was punished... so obey The Lord... or else."

Abel = Teaching humans how to follow "higher laws" through Will and Choice. Freemen.
Cain = Making humans follow "higher laws" through mindless obedience. Slavery.

It would appear the war between the method of Abel (teacher/student) versus the method of Cain (master/slave) continues and rages today. With the "slave" method becoming increasingly more sophisticated and subtle and the "freeman" method continuing to get people killed when they pose a threat to the master/slave dynamic.

Thus the Mark of Cain is ultimately the master/slave relationship... and the curse is that a master soon finds they are a slave to their slaves and do not know how to be without them. However to kill a master also effectively kills the slaves due to the inability to self guide... so it is a double bind curse for both the master and the slave.

Finally... if a master can't make a slave of someone threatening to them... the only option they have is to kill them.

This paints the reasoning for the acceptance of one and the rejection of the other, as well as the eventual murder, in a *completely* different light.

Not just in a "I like Freemen more because it's what I want because I'm the Lord" way... but in a pragmatic and compassionate "The Master/Slave dynamic is ultimately self destructive and does not survive" way. Cain ultimately cursed himself through his choice but blamed others.

Thus when the story was being passed down, it was to help guide those taking on the responsibility of elevating "common human" spirituality of the reason for avoiding resorting to the master/slave dynamic... even if it appears to work initially.

Post Note: Keep in mind the concept of a "herdsman" back then is dramatically different from what we see now of "shepherds" with sheep permanently fenced in with guard dogs and feeding troughs. Thus the imagery in the metaphor for the original listeners would be quite different from our typical imagery today.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


An interesting idea. I've heard the classic version of the story, of course, but never considered it likes this. It certainly seems to make a lot of sense the way that you've explained it.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


4th paragraph. Are you kidding? Don't you know why the plant offering was rejected? That is tiny tot bible story stuff.

It's because Cain didn't offer the 'best' of what he had and Abel did.

Please don't start threads on religious stuff if you can't get basic kids bible story interpretations right...especially when the reasons is so clearly in black in white even for the non religious to see clearly.

Cain took a shortcut and thought it is enough, he might have been proud of what he had produced and as a produce his sacrifice had no deeper meaning. Abel´s offering was a blood sacrifice and all living stock is valued and animals are loved, therefor Abel´s offering had a deeper meaning and it was also a "loss" for Abel himself.

Yes, very good at repeating a widely taught interpretation as if I wouldn't be fully aware of it.

However there is a huge flaw with that interpretation.

Abel kept flocks.
Cain worked the soil.

There is not one verse that says he kept any animals for himself.

It was his method that was the problem. The but is highly significant and meaningful.

Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

It was his method that was treated.

When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength;

MadMax9
Please don't start threads on religious stuff...

I will.

It is 4am so I will have to return to the thread tomorrow.

A brilliant interpretation. Thanks for sharing.

Division (Specialisation) and ego will prevent many from even entertaining the idea. It seems you understand that from your OP but still I will say don't let them faze you.

op....of course a ' plant has no mind''.. Doesn't make it a slave, and doesn't make Cain a slave master. .............................................. God gives hints to Cain, by telling him ''had you done what is right, it would have been accepted''.... Doing the 'right' thing was for Cain to have sincerely given the best of his produce.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


I like your take on this. Another thing to consider is how a person's will determines their production of fruit in this world. Using the example of Cain as the farmer, you find that he was offering the produce of his hands. He was giving God what he produced. Abel was giving the unblemished animal back to God. The symbolism here is clear. We do not approach God from a boasting of our works, but instead, we give to God by offering the best of our self. Offering up the animal nature to God as unblemished (Unstained by sin) is the only sacrifice God accepts. Translate this according to the thread I recently did on the mark of the beast and how it relates to temple sacrifice: Mark of the Beast for Dummies

In the example of Jacob and Esau, we have a reverse situation emerge. Jacob was a farmer and Esau was a hunter. In this example, Jacob walked the path investing in the land to produce more than what he took. In this case, the will of Jacob was to give. Esau was a hunter. His will was to take what was produced by nature. How does a hunter operate? They harvest, but what is taken is not given back. The farmer, on the other hand, produces more than he takes.

Both of these examples of the higher and lower nature of man reside in the will to give and receive, or the will to take for self. Only a thief can take. Cain took the life of the one giving the perfect sacrifice. In this instance, Abel was an archetype for Christ, the unblemished lamb. Cain is a personification of Israel taking from God for self. In the example of Jacob, he was planting with a plan to harvest. Esau was hunting with the aim of taking what was already there for self.

Flashing forward to our own history, the three aspects of our current world that Jesus condemned were the Money Changers (Bankers), the High Priests (Experts in the Law) and the Builders who reject the Chief Cornerstone (Masons). Who are the three suspects reflecting the thieves in our world today?

The true stars of humanity that will shine as a light to the world are those who choose to give, thereby overcoming the animal nature of the beast.

Daniel 12

2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

When Christ came in the first century, he was the first fruits of those who sleep in the dust. This is the concept of being born again from death. We are baptized into the waters of life again (Transmigration of the soul) so that we can live in repentance and overcome the beast. We have each been here before in antiquity. We are all here again in the waters of life for one reason. We are living to overcome the beast inside. We must overcome our desire to take as a robber. Some will shine. Others will do the opposite.

The flood of Genesis represents the metaphor for baptism. The Ark is Christ. We repent so that we can use the water to put out the coming fire. Those who fail to overcome will be burned up in the baptism of fire, yet even this saves.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


There is/was no shame in tilling the ground. That's what Adam was created to do!

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Anyone who has ever foraged for fruit knows that the "fruit of the ground" is full of worms! It's the fruit that's ripe and still on the tree that's the best fruit.

Cain was lazy and gathered the fallen fruit that was full of worms and gave it to God as an offering for a Thanksgiving feast. God rejected it because it was rotten. Able brought his youngest and tenderest livestock, not some old tough and chewy animal on it's last legs, that was ready to die anyway.

When Adam and Eve were booted out of the garden, they were relinquished to a life of slavery, serving the earth in order to survive. Cain was not the first slave and master, Adam and Eve were.

reply to post by windword

Excellent reply. +star. Thank you.

That said, I've seen people who still interpret it the traditional way read "fruit of the ground" as "vegetables"... not rotten fruit. This is strengthened by the fact that you don't really do much "tilling of the ground" in orchards beyond the initial planting and not even very much then.

However tilling is an ever-constant activity (profession) when raising vegetables. To me it is difficult to identify anywhere the suggestion that Cain brought what he knows is garbage rather than what he truly believes is good, but doesn't understand the consequence. This fits closer with his earnest confusion and frustration at the rejection. The slave "looks correct" on the surface.

There is still a division even among the literal/traditional interpreters between those who believe it must be a blood sacrifice and nothing else is acceptable... and those who believe it is about bringing your "best" whether it is a firstling lamb or ripe fruit directly from the tree.

Naturally there is nothing wrong with literally tilling the ground. However if a message is being communicated via symbolism and metaphor... other avenues of understanding appear and a literal reading will misdirect.

"I will hit you up" is a symbolic expression... not literal... for example. "Shooting the bull" is symbolic, not literal in most usage except very specific circumstances on ranches, etc.

I think the emphasis on tilling is critical and casts a shadow over the idea of rotten fruit being offered.

I've seen no indication Adam/Eve interacted with Cain/Abel in a master/slave relationship. What reason do you believe these parents were not following the teacher/student relationship with their children?

usernamehere
A brilliant interpretation. Thanks for sharing.

Division (Specialisation) and ego will prevent many from even entertaining the idea. It seems you understand that from your OP but still I will say don't let them faze you.

Thank you for taking the time to contemplate it!

We have a couple of ways of viewing the subsequent punishment in light of the proposed crime between the literal versus metaphorical interpretations.

Proposed Crime #1: Bringing rotten fruit/Not bringing the best meat for offering.
Proposed Crime #2: Turning the beings you were tasked with elevating/teaching into slaves.

Punishment: The Curse upon Cain and potentially upon all his descendants.

One of these things is not like the other.

The master/slave dynamic is rife with examples of Crime #1 being excessively punished, even to the point of punishing family members to ensure nobody else will disobey. The master expects to have the best house, the best food, etc. while the subjects live in sub-conditions, even if some of those sub-conditions are quite comfortable. Crime #2... well... there is no aim to elevate others so...

The teacher/student dynamic is rife with examples of Crime #2 being dealt with by ensuring the student experiences that which they have done to others. So that the student eventually learns why it is to be avoided. Crime #1 however... is a slap on the wrist and told to go get something more suitable for the feast.

Masters *expect* to live in superior material/food conditions from their subjects and leave whatever is left to them. Mistakes from the slaves are not tolerated and punished.

Genuine spiritual teachers (as opposed to masters in disguise) are often demonstrated to live in material conditions below those they teach. Mistakes from the students are expected and guided.

It is the teacher who offers the best *they* have to their students while patiently knowing the students are learning and will not always be able to be at their best as they grow, make mistakes, and learn.

reply to post by BardingTheBard


Very interesting take on things,

Keep seeking Truth,

God bless

EnochWasRight
I like your take on this. Another thing to consider is how a person's will determines their production of fruit in this world. Using the example of Cain as the farmer, you find that he was offering the produce of his hands. He was giving God what he produced. Abel was giving the unblemished animal back to God. The symbolism here is clear.

I greatly appreciate the expanded way of looking at the symbolism offered even in this bit alone.

Thank you. Your contribution to the exploration of this is invaluable. Here and in your own threads.

My view it's the aged old conflict between settled farmers and nomadic cattle men..a conflict that was played out ALL through out history and as late as a hundred yrs or so ago in the Western United States between cowboys and farmers(Dodge City)..interesting also is that fact of Cain's name??...if the etymology is correct Cain means to beat??

Spider879
My view it's the aged old conflict between settled farmers and nomadic cattle men..a conflict that was played out ALL through out history and as late as a hundred yrs or so ago in the Western United States between cowboys and farmers(Dodge City)..interesting also is that fact of Cain's name??...if the etymology is correct Cain means to beat??

That's approximately the same message communicated in Ishmael and I would agree that the dynamic between those two groups are a real world example of the fundamental principle.

Nomadic cattle men depend on all participating to be relatively self sufficient and capable of "taking the reigns" should someone fall. Everyone must be able and educated in how to act to their fullest, even when left all alone. Dependency on another is a liability to all.

Settled farmers began needing helping hands and construction of a hierarchical social structure where organization comes from above while those below are required by necessity to be subservient to the hierarchy for order and control of the farm/settlement to be maintained... and no single unit is capable of operating or surviving independently. Especially as the settlement and dependency on it increases.

BardingTheBard

Spider879
My view it's the aged old conflict between settled farmers and nomadic cattle men..a conflict that was played out ALL through out history and as late as a hundred yrs or so ago in the Western United States between cowboys and farmers(Dodge City)..interesting also is that fact of Cain's name??...if the etymology is correct Cain means to beat??

That's approximately the same message communicated in Ishmael and I would agree that the dynamic between those two groups are a real world example of the fundamental principle.

Nomadic cattle men depend on all participating to be relatively self sufficient and capable of "taking the reigns" should someone fall. Everyone must be able and educated in how to act to their fullest, even when left all alone. Dependency on another is a liability to all.

Settled farmers began needing helping hands and construction of a hierarchical social structure where organization comes from above while those below are required by necessity to be subservient to the hierarchy for order and control of the farm/settlement to be maintained... and no single unit is capable of operating or surviving independently. Especially as the settlement and dependency on it increases.

Yes and great round off..I am looking into folk culture of northern and southern cradles,agriculture is a creation of southerners ancient northerners have a tendency to nomadism all though not exclusively as folks can move both north and south,this idea is not my own I first heard from Diop,but I have noticed that fertility dances is mostly southern hemispheric with a lot of swaying of the hips along with rhythmic dancing, think the Hawaiian Hula or belly dancing all connecting with agriculture and fertility,I maybe off in some cases but I think this is generally the case,northerners tend to dance in circles around a bonfire and is more into cremation while southerners tend to bury,one cradle's point of view ..By The sweat of Thy brow thou shalt earn thy bread while another Cradle a southern one Eat Drink and be Merry for tomorrow we die said to have originated with Imhotep as farming and life was relatively easy and food abundant the gods tend to be kind although they must be rewarded through sacrifice, northern cradle the Gods are jealous and cruel like nature , like you said hierarchical social structure came from above, off-course this gave rise to "civilization" and some of it's manifestation a rise to socialism or even communism in it's rawest form..while the northern cradle gave rise to rugged individualism but at the same time extreme selfishness and suspicious of strangers always keep your arms at ready ..I don't know how well this theory will play out but I am looking into it..keep in mind that our modern society and even ancient ones struck an uneven balance between the two depending on the sociaties but it's still in conflict in the case of the United States it is being played out between Liberal and Conservative ideologies..again this is only a theory and not entirely my own.

Inversion time...

Cain recognized that The Lord was consuming the best as both a pleasure and a practice to keep the population repressed. Thus Cain learned to condition/train "slaves" from the worst of his flock to mimic the "best" from Abel's flock in order to help cull the "vermin" of his flock while retaining the best. Giving the potential for human development out of a slave/food like existence.

This of course creates a situation where Cain has a legitimate opportunity to usurp The Lord who quite literally consumes the fruits of their labor. Cain is attempting to satisfy The Lord's appetite by feeding him the human equivalent of junk food in order to protect the budding potential of humanity that was otherwise being perpetually consumed.

What a mess, eh!?!?!?!

a reply to: BardingTheBard

Abel is the archetype for the savage man, slaughtering animals and sacrificing their blood.

Cain as a firstborn son of Adam, he is a son of God, and since Adam means Man, he is the Divine Son of Man, and is the archetype of law enforcement and civil punishment. Still today, law enforcement officers wear badges in their forehead, and if you manage to hiss one off or you attack one, you will soon enough get familiar with their horns. Attacks towards police officers or things like obstructing their job, is charged stricter and more rigorously than normal. Similar to how god would avenge Cain seven fold.

a reply to: BardingTheBard

In particular, no rational reason is offered for why The Lord would accept an animal offering over a plant offering.

once again it was not what was on the table but in there heart and mind that mattered to God.

And as we see,, Able gave the BEST of what he had, been given of , by God.
Cain believed that the BEST belonged to Cain.
then got pissed when God told him so.

a reply to: BobAthome

God would slay the seven headed monster Yamm, also called Rahab and Leviathan if it threatened the Son of Man. Or the Son of Man would slay it just because he can and is the Son of God. You can't just slaughter or sacrifice the blood of firstborn lambs of God like that and expect to get away with it apparently. Still carries on to this day however, seeing how most Christians sanction or even demand the sacrifice of their own LORD as essential, even an existential and foundational doctrine all Christians must adhere to. Humans forced into living like cattle and sheep and sacrificed as such. To the Lamb of God or any other lamb for that matter any killing of men or beasts alike is sacrilegious, atleast killing of sheep. To the lamb, life and grass is sacred and benefits from being torched from time to time. Then again, the world isn't ruled by sheep and hens, and part of the deal with god is to regulate and control the abundance of life to make for sustainability.