Slaughter, Fratricide and Sacrilege Cain and Abel Traditions in 1 John 3 In 1 John 3,11-18 Cain symbolizes the antithesis of brotherly love. With his notoriety as the first murderer, Cain represents a compelling illustration of what it means to hate one’s brother. The figure of Cain stands in direct contrast to Christ. Cain took another’s life; Christ laid down his life for others. At one time NT scholars would comment that the mention of Cain here was the only direct reference to the OT in this document (1). This seemed enigmatic since the Epistle was certainly Jewish in nature. But Judith Lieu has demonstrated that the lack of OT references is not a contradiction of the Epistle’s Jewishness. Rather it reflects a tradition of biblical interpretation and application that is found in literature contemporaneous with the Epistle (2). When the author of 1 John reached for the story of Cain and Abel it was not only Genesis 4 that was in his mind (3). He also had access to a rich set of interpretive traditions that had been attached to the original story. The author’s choice of the Cain illustration seems to presume a degree of familiarity with the story on the part of the readers. The mention of Cain is concise and lacks some significant details. Abel is not mentioned by name and God’s seemingly capricious acceptance of his sacrifice is glossed over. The only indication as to why Cain killed his brother is that Abel’s works were righteous while Cain’s were evil. But even this meager piece of detail is absent from the Genesis 4 story since we are never told what exactly motivated Cain to kill his brother. Yet it was assumed the reader would understand how it was that Cain stood in contrast to Christ. In 1 John 3,2-7 readers are told that they should be pure and righteous just as (kaqwv") Christ is pure and righteous. They are also told that in order to be true children of God they must be free from sin and love their brother. This is contrasted with Cain in 3,12 who should not (ouj kaqwv") be a model of behavior. Although Cain is only mentioned briefly in the chapter, Lieu’s assessment is certainly correct when she states that: “the presence of Cain extends beyond 1 John 3,12 to cast its shadow over both language and thought of the whole (1) C.H. DODD, The Johannine Epistles (London 1947) lii; R. BULTMANN, The Johannine Epistles (Philadelphia 1973) 54. S. SMALLEY, 1, 2, 3 John (WBC 51; Waco, TX 1984) 183-184. (2) J.M. LIEU, ‘What was from the Beginning: Scripture and Tradition in the Johannine Epistles’, NTS (1993) 458-477. (3) Lieu has outlined a number of Cain and Abel traditions that seem to be in the mind of the author. One interpretative tradition identified Cain as the offspring of the devil. This is probably what stands behind the claim that Cain was “from the evil one” in 3,12 (“What was from the Beginning”, 467-472). For other descriptions of Cain and Abel traditions in antiquity see H.-J. KLAUCK, “Brudermord und Bruderliebe. Ethische Paradigmen in 1 Joh 3, 11-17”, Neues Testament und Ethik. Für Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. H. MERKLEIN) (Freiburg 1989) 151-169; and J.L. KUGEL, Traditions of the Bible. A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Harvard 1998) 145-169.