What a Dog

Adam's apple didn't fall far from the tree. Adam was a laborer upon the earth who ate from the produce of the ground with much toil, 

". . . Cursed is the ground because of you; through toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life"Genesis 3:17. 

His first born, Cain, was a slave to the earth as well, i.e., a "tiller," 'obed in Hebrew(in the sense of "laborer, worker, servant, slave," or even "worshiper," form of abad) of the "ground" adamah; a slave of the earth. But the second son Abel/Habel/Hebel was the ruler/keeper/shepherd ro'eh, from ra'ah "to pasture, tend, graze," the one who pastures the flocks, leads the sheep, make them to go or lie down, a "shepherd" roi. Therefore Abel was roi-alty to the son/tsone "flock, sheep and goats." His lording over the flocks could maybe be considered to be easy work compared to slaving away tilling the earth. From this we can see that there might have been some judgment on Cain's part of his brother's profession. Cain worked his ass off in the fields(or his oxen) . . . and his brother, Hebel, sat around "vainly, being useless, worthless" hebel, as the meaning of his name might suggest. Perhaps Cain viewed this behavior as foolish. Since Cain worked hard, of course he was better, more righteous, and would obviously be more pleasing to YHWH.

    The Children's Bible, 1962, Abel taking it easy keeping his flocks, Cain slaving away in the field, photo by Julie O. /chthonickore

That is to take a negative angle on the name, Abel, of course, and there is certainly nothing wrong with being a shepherd, or with having things come easily, or enjoying ones occupation. There are things to be learned from both working hard(striving), and also letting things flow to you, as through grace. How hard, or how much you suffer through your work is not the measure of righteousness. However, it seems that Cain equated hard laborious work with righteousness, and therefore was angered when the Lord did not care to regard his offering. 

Cain worked very hard. He toiled in the fields(itstsabon "toil, pain," consequence of the fall of Adam) and thought he deserved a reward, but his offering was not pleasing to the LORD. Abel was a keeper of the flocks, and maybe had a lot of down time, yet his offering was pleasing to the LORD. People generally say this is because Abel gave the firstborn and "fat" cheleb of his flock, i.e, the choice part to God, and that maybe Cain was stingy in his offering. Perhaps this was true, but in any case we do know is that Cain offered the "fruits/produce/reward" peri of the ground to God, 

In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, Genesis 4:3

whether they were the first or finest, is not clear. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that they were the first and finest fruits, might there have been another reason why Cain's offering was not regarded(shaaw "gaze upon, look, respect, pay attention") by the LORD?

    Thank Offering Unto the Lord, Offering of First Fruits, by Providence Lithograph Co., c 1896-1913

How did Cain know in the first place that his offering was not acceptable to the LORD, and that Abel's was? Did the LORD talk to them directly? Or did the LORD maybe "tell" them in some other way? It could have been that Abel prospered and was blessed with many healthy, fat, lambs, but Cain's fields did not produce well. And if you equate prosperity with favor, then this would be a visible sign to all that Abel pleased the LORD and Cain did not. Perhaps this was their "face" to the world, i.e., what they produced through their occupation. Abel could hold his head high because his offering was acceptable to the LORD and he did well. Cain's face, however, was "brought low" kana("humbled, subdued"). This would be reason for Cain's "face/countenance" to fall as well. 

but for Cain and his offering he[YHWH] had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his[face fell / countenance fell / face was downcast / face was gloomy, etc]. Genesis 4:5

The phrase in Hebrew is  panaw[his countenance] wayyip.pelu[and fell], from (panaw)paneh "face" and (pelu)nephal "to fall, fail." The reason that Cain had an angry surface or exterior and began to "look cross," could be because he began to "look bad" by means of his crops ceasing to produce well, i.e., his "face" paneh/panim fell(and in Latin panis/panem(acc.) "bread; (figuratively) food, nourishment," so we might say Cain's "bread failed," or his livelihood was reduced). He was humiliated. Cain looked bad, his crops did not produce well, so he knew that the LORD was not happy with him. But why not after all his hard work? It isn't fair! The LORD then told Cain that he shouldn't be angry that his crops had failed him(i.e., that he was not regarded by the Lord), rather he should just do well/be good and then he too would prosper and things would be well/good with him. 

The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? . . . Genesis 4:6-7

But, but, but… he WAS doing well! How was he not being good? He was working hard! He was doing everything RIGHT! Why was that not acceptable? 

For I desire[take pleasure in/delight in] mercy and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6 

So, it was the disposition of Abel's heart that made the sacrifice pleasing to the LORD. He trusted in God to provide. It was not the "sacrifice," i.e., the blood and sweat, hard work suffering of Cain that he desired.

By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous… Hebrews 11:4

    The Body of Abel Found by Adam and Eve, William Blake ca. 1826, Tate Gallery, London

Why is this so hard to understand, Cain? If things are not well with you, the problem lies with yourself, not anyone or anything else. We can't say, "I'm doing everything right, but all those sinners(losers like Hebel) are messing up the world and making my life bad." Nope. If things are not well with you, the fault is your own. 

"Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin(i.e., the bad, evil) is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it." Genesis 4:6-7

Cain/Qayin was made kana("bring low, humble, subject") because he didn't please the LORD with his offering. So he was qanah "jealous" and killed his brother. How did he kill him? It doesn't say. Possibly it was with a cane, or a "spear" qayin/cain. He may have caned his brother over his head with some sort of agricultural tool. If there had been others around it is easy to imagine Cain inciting a mob to anger against Abel with pitch fork in hand, or being the first to throw a stone.

    Lorenzo Lotto, Stoning of St. Stephen, Oil on Wood, 1513-1516 (men holding qayin/cain, canis in the foreground)

That's really sad. Cain killed his bother in the sadeh "field" in Hebrew. Sadeh in the sense of the open wild area, i.e., the bush, where Cain's deed would go unobserved. This would have made Qayin/Cain the cause of the qinah "lamenting" of his parents. 

I don't think this is what his mother, Eve/Havvah "Life," had in mind when she named him. She didn't know what grief Cain would eventually bring her when he was born. After his birth she said,

"YHWH 'et 'iš qaniti " Genesis 4:1

That is, "With the LORD I have acquired a man/male(iš)." 

Qaniti is a form of qanah meaning "get, acquire, buy." So Eve qanah(acquire) a boy child and then named him Qayin(spear). 

It is interesting that the passage states that "the man"(ha'adam), knew his woman/wife/other half('išša/ishshaw), and she conceived and brought forth Cain. Then Išša(the female), i.e., Havvah(Eve), says "I have gotten(qaniti) an 'iš(man/male) with(or with the help of) YHWH. She does not say she has gotten an 'iš from her'iš(man/husband), i.e., Adam. Eve gives the credit for helping her to acquire a son/male child/'iš, to God, not to man, or her husband. However, then this male child('iš), Cain, grows up to be a man(adam) who thinks that one acquires(qaneh) through man(adam) and not through the LORD. You qanah do it yourself Cain! There are deeper causes at work in the world. It is through favor with the LORD that he will grant you wisdom and you will prosper, 

for even if one is perfect among the sons of men, yet without the wisdom that comes form you he will be regarded as nothing. Wisdom of Solomon 9:6 

Send her forth from the holy heavens, and from the throne of your glory send her, that she may be with me and toil, and I may learn what is pleasing to you. For she knows all things, and she will guide me wisely in my actions and guard me with her glory. Then my works will be acceptable . . . Wisdom of Solomon 9:10-12

The man who toils without wisdom toils in vain. 

For creation, serving you who have made it, exerts itself to punish the unrighteous, and in kindness relaxes on behalf of those who trust in you. Therefore at that time also, changed into all forms, it served your all-nourishing bounty, according to the desire of those who had need, so that your sons, whom you loved, O Lord, might learn that it is not the production of crops that feeds a man, but your word preserves those who trust in you. Wisdom of Solomon 16:24-26

Canis is "dog" in Latin, kuon κύων in Greek, keleb in Hebrew. A dog is bound and wears a collare Latin for "chain for the neck." A dog is a servant to man(adam),

And Hazael said, "What is your servant, who is but a dog(keleb), that he should do this great thing?" Elisha answered, "The Lord has shown me that you are to be King over Syria." 2 Kings 8:13

     Canaan Dog

And Cain was a servant of the ground(adamah), so we might say figuratively that he was a dog[...who also became a king].

Canines are known for their canine, dog teeth, or perhaps we might say, cain/qayin "spear" like teeth, or cuspids, from Latin cuspis "point, pointed end."

Cain worked like a canis. He thought he could qanah(acquire) God's good graces because of his own labor. But it didn't work out as it should have according to Cain's wisdom. 

"Behold, you have driven me this day from the face the ground[adamah, i.e., his origin as an adam]; and from your face[paneh, i.e., God's grace, maybe panis "bread of life"?] I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me." Genesis 4:14

However, for Cain's evil deed he was not slain, but rather, God put some sort of indicative "sign"oth in Hebrew, upon him so that he would not be harmed. Was this a gift or punishment? Or maybe just an effect? Cain was a driven, arrogant, worldly man. Perhaps he exerted certain quality of leadership, or charisma, from kharisme/charisma χάρισμα "favor, divine gift." So, because of this oth bestowed upon Cain from God, he was not killed by others, but rather chosen to be their leader. Then because he had this power over men, of course he would have been "avenged sevenfold"(Genesis 4:15) by any who might have tried to harm him. Cain was not his bother's "body guard/keeper" shamar, but he would have had his own body guards for his protection, certainly, after he was married, had a son, and built a city naming it after his son, Enoch. Not just any ordinary yokle gets to build a city and name it after his son. Cain must have been canny and become an important man in the eyes of the world after he killed Abel and left his parents. He was marked (maybe "anointed"mashach so that he would "shine" before his fellow man like an "angel"malak) and was "appointed" malak by God to rule. He then found favor and/or was feared by men and became their Cain or melek "king" in Hebrew). 

    Cain Building the City Enoch, Maarten de Vos, 1583 (Cain with cane in hand)

Out of anger and jealousy Cain killed his brother in the ager Latin for "field." It was an act of aggression. Cain dis-[t]roy-ed Abel, i.e. he took out, dissed the "shepherd" roi. Then Cain went on to build a city and become an important man, unlike his simple, vain, naive brother who sat all day in the "pasture" naveh in Hebrew, with the sheep. Cain's business had been agriculture "cultivation of the land" from genitive agri "field, land" + cultura "cultivating, agriculture," from colere "tend, guard, cultivate, till." This is probably why Cain thought himself to be better, i.e., he was more cultured, cultivated, or polished than his brother Abel. Cultus(past participle of colere) "care, labor, cultivation; tended, culture; worship, reverence," cultus also has the meaning of "polish, elegance."

    Polished Gold Jewlery, Late Canaanite Period, 13th century BC

People who live in cities wear fine clothes and jewelry, and are more refined and polished than the wild people(perhaps villains) who live out in the villages, like the civilized people of Canaan, the descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. The land, so called, "flowing with milk and honey." Exodus 3:17

Wild is from Old English wilde "in a natural state, uncultivated, untamed, undomesticated, uncontrolled," from Proto-Germanic *wildia- (also source of Old Saxon wildi, Old Norse villr, Dutch wild), of uncertain origin. Compare to Welsh gwyllt "untamed").

Although dogs can act like dogs and be kind of ewwy, a dog, iwiw in ancient Egyptian(imitative of their bark) is domesticated, civilized, useful and more reasonable, than their wild, loopy, counterpart, Canis lupus, the wolf, from Proto-Germanic *wulfaz, from PIE root *wlkwo-, possibly also the root of Greek lykos λύκος, and Latin lupus. However, perhaps the wolf is not really the crazy one, but has been vilified for being wild and untamed. Maybe the lykos "wolf" is really one who is quite "bright, brilliant" leukos λέυκός in Greek, for being free, but it's not the kind of brightness that is allowed in the civilized world, is it? Much like children. Children are wild and uncivilized. 

Girl is from c.1300 gyrle "child, young person"(of either sex most often of female, specific meaning of "female child" late 14c.) of uncertain origin, possibly from Proto-Germanic *gurwilon(diminutive of gurwjoz), with possible relationship to Low German gaere "boy, girl," Swedish dialectical gurre "small child." It is said the g-r denotes small children, animals(grunt), worthless(grime), and things past their prime(grandma, grandpa?). So children were not respected historically, then the word came to designate the female child in English. 

    Inger Nilsson as Pippi Longstocking, 1969

Children have a lot of energy and act wild. Little girls("gwils" as my daughter used to say) are gwylt "untamed" before they are shoved into a "corset" and cultured. Corset is from Old French cors "body," from Latin corpus. But sometimes the cultivated corset "body-et", i.e., the woman that is shaped from the girl, ends up being no more than a living corpse. 

    Corpse Bride with Corset, from Corpse Bride, Tim Burton, 2005

A girl or woman's place in the world historically has been to serve, and a woman could get in a lot of trouble for not following the civil rules and acting too wild. Thanks to people like Jesus who attempt to change perceptions and make people free again. In this story below, I'm sure Martha was thinking Mary was a bitch for not helping out, but who really was the bitch(dog, servant) in this case? Martha was the one working like a dog, canis (like Cain) and Mary was sitting idly, "vainly" listening to Jesus(more like Abel).

"Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about mant things; one thing is needful. Mary has chosen the good portion, which shall not be taken away from her." Luke 10:41

    Martha Scolds her Sister Mary, Orazio Gentileschi, Italian painter, oil on canvas, c. 1620

Jesus seemed to have a certain appreciation for the uncultivated, like John the Baptist, and Jesus himself was from Nazareth. "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"John 1:46 (uh . . . Hair of the Dog is from Nazareth 🤷‍♀️), and the pastoral "of or pertaining to the shepherds," is from Latin pastoralis, from  pastor "herdsman, shepherd," and even, the pagan, from paganus classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant," from the adjective pagus "country people; province, rural district." The term pagan came to mean heathen, which is taken from heath, from Old English hæð "untilled land, track of wasteland." The pagans are the ones who were said to be uncivilized, without the knowledge of God, and vilified. But in actually, Jesus had a lot of trouble with the civilized folk(who ended up having him put to death) and spent his time with those who were considered less, and marginalized. 

And behold a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon." But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begging him saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and knelt before him, saying, "Lord help me." And he answered, "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their Masters' table." Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly. Matthew 15:22-28

It is in the cities like Enoch, built by Cain the cultivator, that the so called civilized and cultivated reside. However, the inhabitants of cities often end up being violent and destructive to their fellow man. Like the inhabitants of Sodom/Sedom, a Canaanite city that was near the dead sea. The Sodomites were city dwellers. They should have been civilized, right? But they were really uncivilized, and thought they were shadday-mites, "almighty" people, who could go around raping everybody they felt like[read it, it's not about homosexuality Genesis 19 *commentary]. Dogs! For their crimes, they were leveled like a sadeh(field) and burned to the ground, incinerated. Civilized, indeed! 

    The Destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah, John Martin, 1852

So, it is clear that there is some bias in the language that indicates a distain for the bumpkins. But really there is not necessarily anything bad or evil about those who live in the country or the wild, as opposed to the city folk. Sometimes they are the best kinds of people.

"Let's have no more argument. I have chosen Mr. Baggins and that ought to be enough for you. If I say he is a Burglar, a Burglar he is, or will be when the time comes. There is a lot more in him than you guess, and a deal more than he has any idea of himself. You may (possibly) all live to thank me yet. Now Bilbo, my boy, fetch a lamp, and let's have a little light on this!" Gandolf - The Hobbit, ch. 1.104 

Wild is not bad, civilized is not good, wild is not good, and civilized is not bad. As it turns out no certain group of people is either all bad or all good. So we should never judge people based on things such as race, creed, or place of origin, but rather we should look at people individually and see what their fruit is. If the fruit is good, i.e., love, then they must be acceptable to God. 

What God has cleansed, you must not call common." Acts 10:15

This goes for dogs too. I didn't mean to give them a bad rap.