Episode 8: A Tale of Two Altars
One of the world’s oldest debates began outside the Garden’s gates. This is the story of two men and one God.
Quotes from the Bible were were taken from the English Standard Version (see ESV copyright here) or the New King James Version. For the other sources, including commentaries, websites, or articles, you can find links and references in the show notes below in the order they appeared. If you have any questions, there’s a place to contact me at the bottom of the page.
Show notes:
We don’t know what Adam and Eve’s house was like. I’m guessing the climate was fairly nice, so I imagine their hut much like you would find today in tropical parts of the world. For roof thatching see here.
For the chronology of the first 11 chapters of the Bible and how many years they cover, see Jones, F.N. (2015) Chronology of the Old Testament (p. 278). Master Books.
For the details of Samoset, Squanto, and the Plymouth colony, see here.
There is some debate about what Eve meant when she said she’d gotten a man, “the Lord.” On the one hand, maybe she knew the promised descendant would be the Son of God. On the other hand, there’s no evidence Adam and Eve were given those details of the plan of Salvation since those pieces are only explained later in the Bible. In figuring this out, it’s important to remember that we can’t limit what Eve knew to what’s written down in Genesis 3. Like I said, Genesis is an abridged version of history. We don’t know what else God may have explained that’s not recorded there. In other places in the Bible, people mention details of history that aren’t recorded in Genesis and may have passed down through other traditions. For instance, if you look in the New Testament, Jude 1:14 quotes something Enoch says that’s not mentioned in the story about Enoch found in Genesis (see Genesis 5:21-24). In short, we have to take what Eve said at face value. She said, “I have gotten a man, the Lord,” so she either thought Cain might be the Deliverer or, perhaps, he was just the first proof there would be children that would lead to the promised Deliverer. For the literal translation of Eve’s words when Cain was born, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Eve using “YHWH” to refer to Cain, see the lexicon here. For the suggestion that Eve might have thought Cain was the promised Seed God mentioned in the Garden of Eden, see Matthew Henry’s comments here. Another commentary suggests she at least saw Cain’s birth as significant and related to God’s promise. For the suggestion Eve’s reference to YHWH was a general statement of faith in the promise and that name was only used to refer to God specifically later on, see here. For the Jews refusing to pronounce the name YHWH for fear of desecrating it, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 1192). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the reference that Eve would have a descendant that would crush the serpent’s head, see Genesis 3:15.
Because Genesis doesn’t have the phrase “and she conceived,” and because of some other unusual ways of putting things, commentators like John Calvin have suggested Abel was Cain’s twin brother. This is possible but far from certain. For more, see here, here, and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Supporting the idea that shepherding and gardening were each, on their own, fine professions to go into, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Cain may have become a farmer because he followed Adam’s occupation, according to this reference. For evidence God told Adam to work as a farmer in Eden, see Genesis 2:5 where it says that plants hadn’t sprouted because there was no man to “work the ground,” and Genesis 2:15 where it talks about how Adam was put in the garden to “work” it, with “work” being the same basic word in both cases, a word referring to “cultivate.” For more on the actual words used in Hebrew, see here and here. In addition to Cain’s gardening as an occupation sanctioned by God, there’s some speculation here about God giving Adam and Eve the job of taking care of livestock as a way to get their clothing.
Genesis doesn’t say, but it’s possible God gave Adam and Eve an explanation of the reasons and symbolism of the a sacrifice when he supplied them with skins to cover their nakedness in the Garden of Eden as mentioned in Memories of Eden, part 3. Interestingly enough, the words used to describe the skins God gave Adam and Eve is similar to the way Moses later describes the garments the priests were to wear when they served in the tabernacle. Exodus 29:4-5. In addition, the priests also had to be naked before being clothed with the new garments. For more, see Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:21, note. Andrews University Press. For the bringing of offerings as evidence both Cain and Abel recognized God’s superiority, see here.
There are a lot of interpretations about Cain and Abel bringing their harvest at “the end of days.” One commentator thought it referred to when Cain and Abel had grown up and were old enough to give offerings. Another thinks it is talking about the Sabbath at the end of the week. Elsewhere, it’s suggested it refers to harvest-time or the end of the year, which seems plausible as it fits with Leviticus 23:9-10 where the Israelites are commanded to bring their first fruits as an offering to God. This idea also comes up in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. A summary of commentators and their different viewpoints can be found here.
For bananas with large seeds, see here. For the history of the Hass avocado, see here. For the Fuerte avocado, see pg. 28 here.
It’s only a guess to imagine what kind of sheep Abel herded, but for both goats and sheep being in a shepherd’s flock in the places Moses lived, see here.
For speculation Cain and Abel made their offerings at the place where God stood guarding the way to the Tree of Life, see here and here. See here for the suggestion Adam and Eve worshiped facing paradise.
Genesis 8:20 is the next sacrifice mentioned in the Bible, and an altar is built in that case, so it seems reasonable to expect Cain and Abel to build altars here, too. For the rules given later in the Bible about how to build an altar, see Exodus 20:24-25. For various types of altars found by archeologists, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (pp. 32–33). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the use of flint knives for surgery in the Bible, see Exodus 4:25 and Joshua 5:2-3. For the history of the use of flint knives as surgical instruments, see pg. 382 here, which goes on to talk about obsidian and its use in surgery as well. There are further comments about obsidian on pg. 19 here. Steel scalpels outshine stone ones in their ability to be mass produced, and the fact that obsidian is brittle, as mentioned here. No one likes a scalpel that might shatter.
The method for killing a sacrificial animal isn’t explained in the Bible, and while we don’t know that it is what Abel did, the best guess might be the traditional kosher methods used today as explained here. The word “altar” comes from a word meaning “to slay” to Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. or “to slaughter” according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 33). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
We don’t know how Cain and Abel knew whether their sacrifices were accepted or not. One author suggested it was either an audible or visible sign, specifically mentioning fire from heaven as one option. The origins of this “fire from heaven” theory aren’t obvious. This commentary thinks the idea is only speculation based upon fire coming down to consume sacrifices in other instances in the Old Testament (see 1 Kings 18:38, 1 Chronicles 21:26, and 2 Chronicles 7:1). Regardless of how the idea started, it was supported by Theodotion around the 2nd century A.D., and another commentary referenced Jerome and Chrysostom. Other writers are mentioned here. Overall, fire from heaven is a common idea for about the last 1800 years. One commentary refers to the idea, but thinks it is bad practice to embellish Bible story with this sort of unsupported detail. Fire or not, the relevant key seems to be that it was somehow clear Abel’s offering was accepted by God, and Cain’s was not.
For details about “bolts from the blue,” see this article. For the distance to the horizon being less than than 25 miles (unless you’re standing on something tall, an even worse idea in a lightning storm), see here. For the temperature of a lightning bolt, see here. For a description of what happens when fire from heaven hits a sacrifice, see 1 Kings 18:38-39.
We don’t know how God talked to Cain, but one idea is that it was in a vision or a dream. For this story as evidence that God was still making personal contact with men and that God was trying to reason with Cain, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 239). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
This source affirms that for Cain to have willfully done wrong implies that there were rules he knew. For Cain’s lack of argument with God when God confronted him as evidence he knew what the rules for sacrifices were, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 235–236). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For comments that sins are only forgiven by the shedding of blood, see Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22.
One commentary argues that Cain was probably jealous of Abel because Abel’s flocks were growing and Cain’s farm wasn’t doing well, but if Cain was truly so poor he couldn’t afford an animal, the laws regarding sacrifices also included a provision where the very poor were allowed to offer flour for their sins (see Leviticus 5:7-13). Cain probably didn’t fit this category, but it does suggest the animal-versus-plant question wasn’t the only reason Cain’s offering wasn’t acceptable.
From the Bible we can’t say for certain that the lack of life in Cain’s offering was the problem. Besides the more recognizable offerings for atonement, there were also offerings of first fruits (see Deuteronomy 26 and thank offerings (see Leviticus 2) where it was fine to bring grain. See also Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. The word used in the original Hebrew to refer to the offerings Cain and Abel brought is usually used to refer to plants, though here it must include both the plants Cain offered and the animals Abel brought. For more, see here. For it being logical for Cain to bring plants and Abel to bring animals if there weren’t rules to the contrary, see here.
For the first fruits offering being made up of the best part of the first ripe produce, see Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 369). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For the description of Abel’s offering as a reference to the best Abel had to offer, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. For the suggestion that Cain brought only common stuff rather than the best, see here. This commentary references the idea of “leftovers.” For the belief that Cain’s gift indicated thoughtlessness, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:3-4, note. Zondervan.
For the idea that no acceptance came for Cain because he only brought the gift because he had to, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
Commentators also point out that God accepted first Abel, then his sacrifice suggesting how the person came mattered more than what the person brought (see here, as well as the paragraph starting “Abel, on the contrary,” here, and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 239). Review and Herald Publishing Association.). For commentaries that focus on the attitude of Cain as the main issue deciding the acceptability of his offering, see here, here, here, and here. This commentary refers to the great difference being in the state of mind of the two brothers. You can also find this idea in Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:3-5, note. Zondervan and the Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 4:3-5, note. Andrews University Press.
The suggestion that Cain was arrogant might be derived from the second part of Genesis 4:5 since Cain gets angry when he’s not accepted, a reaction that might be expected to accompany disappointed arrogance. Proverbs 21:27 may also shed some light on Cain’s frame of mind. See Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
For the background of Matthew Henry, see here. For his comments about the difference of attitude between Cain and Abel, see here. Matthew Henry was a nonconformist. A nonconformist was an English protestant who didn’t follow the Church of England, as defined here. For Martin Luther’s idea that Cain came with the belief that he was good enough on his own, see the paragraph starting, “And it is in this manner,” here.
For the idea that Cain was bringing only an offering acknowledging God’s authority, see here. Supporting the idea that Abel’s faith was important is Hebrews 11:4. For a comment suggesting it was the state of Cain and Abel’s hearts that mattered, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
God had this conversation with Cain in the form of questions. For the idea that God knew the answers to the questions but was trying to get Cain to realize his error, see here. For the reference that the phrase “lifting up” is referring to Cain’s countenance rather than forgiveness, as might be suggested, see here as well as Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Sometimes the idea of Cain having “charge” is thought to refer to Abel, but it better fits the context of having charge over sin. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
There is a suggestion that the term “sin” in Genesis 4:7 ought to be “sin offering” since it is translated that way in nearly half of the places it shows up in the Old Testament, but there’s a grammar challenge there. Instead, Moses might be trying to draw an analogy between “sin” and a wild animal. For more, see here, here (where it is noted that the word refers to both the sin and the sin-offering), and Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Admittedly, there’s a chicken-and-the-egg problem with Mesopotamian mythology. Cain came before the Mesopotamians, but Moses came after them. Either the Mesopotamians remembered the analogy given to Cain by God of something “crouching at the door,” and updated it to refer to a demon hiding outside and waiting to pounce, or Moses used the possibly well-known Mesopotamian analogy to illustrate in his own words the point God was making. Since Genesis presents this as something God said, I went with the first option. In either case, a similar idea is presented in the New Testament in 1 Peter 5:8 where the devil is compared to a roaring lion looking for someone to eat. For more, see Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.
I paraphrase C.S. Lewis’ comment. The actual quote about the fastest way forward being to turn around if you are going the wrong way is on pg. 28, here.
In modern times, being born a few minutes after your sibling usually doesn’t make much of a difference unless there are very particular circumstances. For instance, twins born around midnight might have their birthdays on different dates. If that midnight was December 31, they might have birthdays in separate years. If they were born near February 29, one child might have a birthday only every four years while the other has them at the regular clip. The most interesting scenario is twins born while a ship or plane is crossing the international dateline going from west to east. In that situation, the child born second has a birthday that comes the day before the child born first. Today, outside of monarchies, being the oldest son of a family doesn’t matter much, but in Bible times those benefits, referred to as a “birthright,” were significant. The son who received the birthright became the priest and judge in family affairs as well as receiving twice as much inheritance as his brothers. After Cain’s offering was rejected, several commentaries (see here, here, here, and here) suggest Cain was upset because he believed Abel would get the birthright, but as no one had ever inherited anything in history up to that point, it’s hard to know if the birthright tradition even existed at that point. For more, see “Birthright” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers.
As mentioned in a footnote on Genesis 4:8, a bunch of old texts add Cain suggesting to Abel that they both go out to the field, but this isn’t found in the original Hebrew and seems like an insertion as mentioned here, though it does fit the context according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 240). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
In Hebrew, “Abel” means “vanity” or “nothingness” according to Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association. His name might also mean “transitoriness” according to Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 3). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For a comparison of “Abel” to “breath or vapour” see here. It’s interesting that the same word comes up in Psalm 39:5 where it is translated “vanity” as referenced here and here. There is also a suggestion that “Abel” is a cognate with a Sumerian word for “son” from the Akkadian language, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., though this might be due to Sumerians remembering Eve’s son named Abel, and using that name as a generic term in the same way “adam” was the generic term for “man” in a few different ancient languages as mentioned under “Adam” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers. For suggestions that the names of Cain and Abel weren’t given at birth, but later on, see here for Cain, and here for Abel. This idea is also mentioned in Horn, S. H. (1979). In The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Dictionary (p. 3). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the story of John Hancock, see here.
The word “Cain” might sound like the word for “possession” according to a footnote on Genesis 4:1 as well as a similar comment here, but elsewhere it is translated as literally meaning “a lance” here and “a spear.” in Easton, M. G. (1893). In Easton’s Bible dictionary. New York: Harper & Brothers, which also mentions the “possession” reference. Beyond those definitions, another idea is that “Cain” is related to a word meaning “to strike” and that the name was a reference to his killing of Abel.
For John’s comment in the New Testament about Cain and Abel, see 1 John 3:12. For the meaning of the word “murder” in 1 John 3:12 see here.
For commentaries that reference this passage, see here, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238–244). Review and Herald Publishing Association., and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.Genesis 5:3-4 says that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, but he may have counted his age from when he was created or from when he sinned and would someday die. We don’t know how long Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden before they sinned, but considering they were commanded to multiply at creation (see Genesis 1:28) and that hadn’t happened by the time they sinned, it probably wasn’t long.
For the idea that there were already more people on the Earth than just the four mentioned in the story so far, see here, here, here and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., as well as this source which specifically mentions the idea that Adam and Eve probably had lots of kids and their descendants continued the pattern. For the minimum and maximum global birthrates for the last 60 years, see here.
Various commentaries have different opinions about how God had this conversation with Cain. Apparently Martin Luther thought Adam said it (see here, paragraph starting, “Moreover Moses has arranged all this narrative”). while another writer thought it was a voice in Cain’s heart. One commentary thought the voice probably came from between the cherubim at the entrance to the Garden of Eden, but all three ideas are speculation.
For the idea Cain was claiming it wasn’t his job to baby-sit Abel, see here and here. For “keeper” as a play on words referencing Abel’s job as a keeper of sheep, see here.
For the meaning of the word “keep” in the original Hebrew, and the fact that Cain used the same word about Abel that God used for Adam’s job in the Garden of Eden and for the description Genesis gives of God blocking the way to the Tree of Life, see here.
For the idea Cain may have premeditated the murder of Abel, see here as well as Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:7, note. Zondervan. For the opposite position, that Abel’s murder wasn’t premeditated, see here and here.
For the number of times Abel is referred to as Cain’s brother, and the suggestion it is a way of emphasizing the seriousness of Cain’s crime, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 238). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
In the original language, the reference to Abel’s blood is plural. It is the voice of “bloods,” which probably refers to all the children Abel would have had if he hadn’t been killed (see here and here). For the use of “Hark!” instead of “voice” see here. For evidence of the belief in blood crying out in the Bible and needing to be covered by soil to be silenced, see Job 16:18. There’s also a reference to the idea of Abel’s blood speaking in Hebrews 12:24. See also, here.
For this being the first time a human was cursed in the Bible, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For this curse referring to any plot of ground Cain might farm, and not all ground in general, see here and here. The fact that human blood pollutes the ground is brought up specifically in Numbers 35:31-33. For the idea that Cain had polluted the ground by pouring blood on it see here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association. It’s interesting that in refusing to grow things, one commentary suggested the ground was, essentially, more horrified by Abel’s murder than Cain was. For John Calvin’s comment that the earth acted as a witness against Cain, see here.
One commentary argues that Cain was probably jealous of Abel because Abel’s flocks were growing and Cain’s farm wasn’t doing well, but that doesn’t seem well supported. If the ground only stopped yielding its strength (see Genesis 4:12) at this point, it would seem Cain must have been doing well as a farmer up until then and not that he was struggling and envious of Abel’s success. Instead, as stated in 1 John 3:12, Cain hated Abel because Abel did righteous things and Cain did evil things. He hated Abel for following God.
There is a popular theory that before humans knew how to cultivate land and grow crops, before they knew agriculture, they roamed around and ate what they could find growing in the wild. This idea of human society beginning as ‘hunter-gatherers’ misses the beginning of the story. Cain was a farmer first, and then a wanderer only later, after he murdered Abel. There’s irony in the punishment God pronounces. Cain liked to stay in one place. Abel liked to roam with the sheep. Now Cain was condemned to a life of wandering.
For the practice of vengeance for the death of a clan member in the ancient world, here, as well as Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. For where the idea shows up in the Bible, see Numbers 35:9-34 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13. For other examples, see here. For the idea that Cain is realizing everyone on Earth would be a near kinsman of Abel, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
For God changing the death penalty to exile, Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 241). Review and Herald Publishing Association. Some translations of Cain’s response suggest that Cain was either saying his sin was too great to be forgiven or asking if it was too great to be forgiven, but most commentators agree Cain was focused on the punishment, not feeling guilt for the crime. For their comments, see here, here, here, and here. For Cain going from defiance to despair and complaining about the punishment rather than expressing remorse for the crime, see here, here, and here as well as Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 238–244). Review and Herald Publishing Association. For Cain seeming to suggest the punishment was unfair or cruel, see here and here.
For God being against human revenge, see Deuteronomy 23:35. For God giving Cain a mark in order to keep humans from getting involved in revenge, see here.
God says that Cain’s hypothetical killer will be punished “seven times” more than Cain. What this “seven times” means is up for debate. One commentary suggested it might be that if Cain were killed, seven other people would be killed in response. Another idea is that it was just a way of saying “lots more,” perhaps similar to how someone today might say they had, “a ton of work” when they aren’t actually referring to 2000 pounds of material. For more, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 241–242). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Some commentaries suggest that the “mark” referred to was some sort of sign to reassure Cain that he wouldn’t be killed, but it seems that it would also need to be something physically obvious so other people would recognize him later on. A few places noted that the mark of Cain was a sign of protection from God, but that protection seems more like a warning than a shield. Cain was worried that anyone who found him might kill him, and when God gave him the mark he said “if any one kills Cain…” It seems that Cain still could be killed, but the mark was there as a deterrent, a warning, of what the consequences would be for any would-be murderer. For the purpose of this mark as something to make Cain stand out from other people, perhaps something visible, see here, here, and here. For the idea that Cain wasn’t branded but given some sort of sign as a promise, see here, here, and here. A good overview of the different opinions can be found here. See also Zondervan,. NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, eBook (Kindle Locations 7512-7546). Zondervan. Kindle Edition and Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
These are not all the possible translations of “Nod.” Like other pre-Flood geography, any details of the land of Nod were lost in the Flood. For the meaning of “Nod” see the footnote on Genesis 4:16 as well as other definitions offered here and in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 242). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the suggestion that Cain went where he thought God couldn’t see him, see here. For his abandonment of the worship of God and of following any of God’s laws, see here and here.
Scholars sometimes see the story of Cain and Abel as a discussion of the competition between farmers and shepherds, see Kidner, D. (1967). Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 79–82). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. This commentary source suggests wandering flocks were prone to stray onto cultivated land and that maybe Abel’s flocks did that to Cain, but the idea is speculation.
For examples of histories that might have roots in the story of Cain and Abel, there are two stories archeologists in Mesopotamia found about competitions between a shepherd and a farmer. In one version the farmer wins, in another the shepherd does (see pgs. 63-64 here for the first story and the second one here). In another example folklore in Mexico describes two brothers, the sons of a the first god and goddess, offering sacrifices to the gods before a great flood (see here).
For the frequency of sacrifices as a part of religion around the world and throughout history, see here. For the possible origins of sacrifices as a practice, see here. For the story of Cain and Abel as the most likely common origin for the near universal practice of animal sacrifice in the ancient world, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, pp. 235–236). Review and Herald Publishing Association and Andrews Study Bible (2010) Genesis 3:21, note. Andrews University Press. For more on the symbolism of animal sacrifice, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 233). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
Among the anecdotes from ancient Chinese history that line up with this story in the Bible, there is the first emperor of China who also offered sacrifices (see here).
For the Chinese history of the annual sacrifice, according to the best records available, the emperor Shun sacrificed to God around the 23rd century BC. This is before the start of the first Chinese dynasty. For Shun’s sacrifice to the “Highest” God at the winter solstice sacrifice, see pg. 34 here. For the concept that these particular sacrifices were to a supreme God, see the reference to “Shangti” here as well as comments on pp. 24-33 here. For details of the winter solstice sacrifice as given over 3000 years later by the Ming dynasty, see here and pp. 24-25 here. For an overview of Confucius, see here. For Confucius’ reference to the sacrifices, see pg. 404 here. For the building of the temple complex by the Ming dynasty, see here and here. For the layout of the Temple of Heaven complex, see here and here. For the size of the temple complex compared to Central Park, see areas here and here. For use of the Temple of Heaven by by the Ming and Qing dynasties and it’s status as a world heritage site, see here. For the inconsistency of the emperor offering sacrifices in the Temple of Heaven, see p. 842 here. The final use of the Temple of Heaven for the annual sacrifice on the winter solstice was performed (as far as I could find) by Yuan Shikai, the first president of the Republic of China, in 1914 during his futile attempt to legitimize himself as the first emperor of a new dynasty. Shortly thereafter, the Temple of Heaven became a museum and is now a tourist attraction and a United Nations world heritage site as referenced above. Details about the last use of the temple complex come from a number of places. For Yuan Shikai, the first president of the Republic of China, see here. The American ambassador was there during Shikai’s ceremony and describes it on pg. 25 here. For details of Shikai’s use of the temple complex and the previous American desecration of it, see pp. 1-2 and 235-236 here. For British soldiers feasting in the temple complex, see p. 302 here. For the 16th Bengal Lancers looting golden bells from the temple, see p. 100 here which mentions that the looting was a rumor, and here, which tells how the remaining bell was returned in 1994, a comment that seems to substantiate the earlier rumor. For a actual picture of the 16th Lancers, see here. If this seems like an overly detailed footnote, it is. I’d collected this information for an earlier draft of the episode, but it fit poorly.
For a description of the Egyptian afterlife judgment and paradise, see here.
For details on the Mesopotamian beliefs about the afterlife, see here.
Greek beliefs about the afterlife seem to have developed over time according to this article. In the oldest form of the belief, there were only punishments in specific cases, but by the time of Plato there were different tiers depending on whether people were selfish or good during life. Interestingly enough the survival of the spirit in the afterlife, or at least the good part of the afterlife, seemed to depend on people who were alive remembering them in a positive way (see here). For more, see here and here.
For Abel as an example of righteousness and faith in the New Testament, see Hebrews 11:4 and Matthew 23:35.
For one list of Cain’s descent from impiety to murder to abandonment of God, see Barker, K. L. (2002) NIV Study Bible. Genesis 4:13, note. Zondervan. For the concept that one theme of Genesis is how far people fell when they left God and his law behind, see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1978). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 1, p. 204). Review and Herald Publishing Association.
For the meaning of the name “Seth” see here.
Eve didn’t necessarily say that Seth was the Deliverer, only that he was compensation for the loss of Abel, perhaps suggesting he would be another faithful son unlike Cain. Seth did follow God, and he is listed in the lineage of Christ in Luke 3:23-38. John Calvin suggested here that all of Eve’s other children probably went the way of Cain.
Update 3/31/2024: Corrected a page number reference from one show note and removed an extra comment from another.