Right at the beginning of the book here, God reveals the strange whimsy of his favour. Here God begins to display the pattern of choosing or preferring one person or group of persons over another.
It may simply be Abel’s fat portions that God prefers to Cain’s plain fruit and veg – it may be the clean, smooth body of Jacob that God prefers to the hairiness of Esau, it may be the legitimacy of Isaac’s birth over the bastard Ishmaels – and it may be Joseph’s beautiful coat rather than the grubbiness of his brothers that incur God’s blessing. Or is there a different pattern emerging here in the story of God’s favour – one that Jesus encapsulates in the parable of the labourers in the Vineyard.
For all of these brothers are younger. In none of these cases does it seem necessary for God to favour one son above another, but God goes out of his way to do so. It seems that right from the very start of civilisation God has a bias towards younger sons.
In the parable of the labourers in the vineyard the landowner pays the labourers the same amount whether they had worked a full day or merely an hour. When the labourers complain the landowner says, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ Jesus then sums up the parable thus: “So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matt 20:13-16).
Throughout the Old Testament Gods appears to be acting out this very scenario of the last being first. In fact at times it appears he takes it further than the parable – by ‘paying’ the final labourers even more than the early labourers.
It is curious that this pattern begins within the very first human family – even before a culture of privilege could have been established for the elder son. But there are clues within the text that we are not dealing with the first human family here, such as the mention of other people wanting to kill Cain in v14. It also seems as though certain cultural rites have been established by this point – such as the ritual of sacrifice, which is not explained in the passage, suggesting it is already a common practice.
God may be responding to a culture of privilege in the Cain and Abel story therefore, and it certainly seems as if Jesus advocates a God who privileges the underdog.
In the parable the landowner chooses to hand out the pay beginning with the last and finishing with the first, so that by the time the first receive their wages they assume they will receive more. And this is the source of their discontent. In the story of Cain and Abel God does not ask for a sacrifice, God does not promise a blessing or to respond in a certain way to their sacrifices. The fact that God responds to Abel’s sacrifice in a positive way does not take anything away from the fact that Cain made a sacrifice to God, in the same way that the last labourers pay takes nothing away from the first’s. Cain should not assume a positive response, as God can do what he chooses with what belongs to him.
So the story can be seen as an instruction against jealousy and the expectation of something that is not yours to presume. And indeed when we look at the motivating factor in much of the bloodshed of history, jealousy – particularly in the context of land – has played a dominant role. Certainly the parable of the prodigal son re-enforces this idea, with the elder brother’s jealousy blinding him to the fact that the father shares all that he has with the elder brother (Luke 15:31).
However, does God truly subvert the idea of privilege by switching it on its head? What does the ‘first being last’ model achieve and where does it end?
When we take the Cain and Abel story in the context of the other ‘brother’ stories, particularly Isaac/Ishmael and Jacob/Esau we see that the older brothers do indeed suffer through God’s actions of ‘choosing’ the younger. It is not a matter of them ‘taking what belongs to them and going’ as the landowner advises in the parable, for Jacob steals what is Esau’s, and Isaac is referred to as Abraham’s only son (Gen 22:2), denying Ishmael his entire identity.
There is no real getting away from the fact that God’s choosiness is at times quite unfair – a fact that the syro-phoneocian woman picks Jesus up on. God does indeed appear to like choosing people – he chooses Noah and his family and wipes out the rest of humanity. He chooses the Israelites and commits genocide against various other nations. Some translations of the parable of the vineyard include the closing words “for many are called but few are chosen.” Indeed this model fits in with a salvation mindset that depends on the saying of a specific prayer, which is only possible if you have been lucky enough to encounter a Christian evangelist in your life – rendering millions and all other religions to the pits of hell.
The story of Cain and Abel is an interesting story of violence and the beginnings of violence. For Cain is reacting to the violence of God’s preferential treatment, which the likes of our advanced culture today would see as a very unhealthy parental model. Indeed, children who are not praised and valued often go on to struggle in later life, and this can be outworked in many destructive ways. So does the real cycle and pattern of violence begin with Cain who cannot master the sin of jealousy lurking at his door, or does it begin with a self-confessed jealous God who cannot master responsible parenting?
Rebecca Worthley
