Genesis chapter 4, beginning
in verse 1, Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and
bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man from the Lord. And she
bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of
sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in the process
of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the
fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn
of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel in
his offering, but he did not respect Cain in his offering.
And Cain was very angry and his countenance fell. So the Lord
said to Cain, 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 lies at the door, and its desire is for you,
but you should rule over it. Now Cain talked with Abel his
brother, and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. Then
the Lord said to Cain, where is Abel your brother? He said,
I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper? And
he said, what have you done? The voice of your brother's blood
cries out to me from the ground. So now you are cursed from the
earth, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood
from your hand. When you till the ground, it
shall no longer yield its strength to you. A fugitive and a vagabond,
you shall be on the earth. And Cain said to the Lord, My
punishment is greater than I can bear. Surely you have driven
me out this day from the face of the ground. I shall be hidden
from your face. I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond
on the earth. And it will happen that anyone
who finds me will kill me. And the Lord said to him, Therefore,
whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.
And the Lord set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should
kill him. Then Cain went out from the presence
of the Lord and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden. Amen. Well, essentially, chapter
four is concerned with the genealogy of Adam via Cain. That will continue in verses
17 to 26, but there is this lengthy digression in verses 3 to 16
concerning Cain's murder of his brother Abel. Now certainly this
shows how quickly sin spreads, how it escalated, and how it
is indeed a universal problem. It also shows in the final verse
how it drives a further wedge between man and God. He is driven
out from the presence of the Lord and dwelt in the land of
Nod on the east of Eden." So certainly Adam and Eve were cast
out of the garden and now Cain is cast out even further. And
so when we come to this particular passage, it does record for us
the first murder. Now we're going to just take
up the first half tonight. verses 1 to 8. Some of this is tentative,
some of the language is a bit difficult to navigate through,
the Hebrew, and so I will give you what I suspect is the likely
interpretation of some of the key passages here, but it does
record not only the first murder, but it indicates for us the first
brothers, verses 1 and 2, the first offerings in verses 3 to
5a, and then the first murder in verses 5b to eight, and then
after that we find the first trial when God comes to deal
with Cain on a judicial level, and he deals with him in terms
of his particular sin. So let's look at this passage
first considering the first brothers. Now we all know their names,
they are in fact Cain and Abel. Sometimes, and thankfully so,
people name their kids Abel. I don't know many Cains, I guess
there are Cains out there, but Usually not in the Christian
church. I don't know that boy twins or twin boys are ever named
Cain and Abel But Cain the margin will help you in terms of the
understanding of the name the meaning is likely to acquire
or to get and many believe that Eve saw this as perhaps the fulfillment
of Genesis 315 remember God's curse upon the devil he says
I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your
seed and her seed and He shall bruise your head and you shall
bruise His heel." Understanding that promise and responding by
faith, Adam calls his wife, according to verse 20, Eve, because she
was the mother of all living. So now she is pregnant and she
is giving birth to a son. she may have in mind the idea
that she is getting or acquiring the blessing that God had promised
in terms of the skull-crushing seed of the woman. Now, the language,
Adam knew his wife Eve. That's a modest way to relate
that they had relations. They were intimate together,
and so she conceives and bore Cain. The second son is called
Abel. Now, certainly It seems to me
that there is succession. In other words, Cain is older
and then Abel. They're not necessarily twins.
Some of the older commentators said there's only one conception
mentioned and two children, so they must have been, therefore,
twins. I don't imagine you'll go to
hell if you take that particular position, but it seems to me
that we're supposed to understand Cain and then later Abel. But Abel, the meaning is likely
vanity, breath, or nothing. I don't think that indicates
that it's a great disappointment for Eve in her second-born son. Calvin has a pretty interesting
statement concerning this. Cain was what she thought the
promise of God's blessing of Genesis 3.15, so she acquires
or she gets, she obtains the promise of God. And then as she
reflects upon Abel, she is still mindful of the fact that this
is a sin-cursed world. She's still mindful of the fact
that they are in the plight they are in because of her sin and
because of Adam's sin. I think that's a likely or at
least a helpful sort of background in terms of why she'd name her
son with such a negative sort of a meaning. But it really is
an unwitting prophecy of what's going to become of this young
lad. He's not going to be around very long. His life is going
to be vanity. It is going to be breath. It
is going to be nothing as he dies at the hands of his murderous
brother. Now, in this, we see the first
instance of a familiar pattern that we'll notice throughout
the books of the Bible, specifically, but in the book of Genesis. The
second-born son has preeminence over the firstborn. Now here,
specifically, we know how this story ends. God receives, God
respects, God accepts Abel's offering, or Abel and his offering,
but he does not do so with Cain. Remember in the case of Isaac
and Ishmael, it is Isaac. not Ishmael, that is the preeminent
one. In the case of Jacob and Esau,
it's Jacob, not Esau. In the case of Joseph's sons,
it is Ephraim and not Manasseh. And it's David, the youngest
son of Jesse, that is the preeminent one. And so this, you know, begins
an early pattern. In fact, there are many things
in Genesis chapter 4 that will appear later on in the books
of the law. We simply don't have time to
kind of go through all of that. But then notice, and perhaps
you noticed as I read the text, the repeated emphasis on the
relationship between Cain and Abel. Now we certainly know they
are brothers, Not only because verses 1 and 2 tells us, but
because Moses doesn't stop telling us. Over and over and over again,
it is emphasized that Abel is his brother. Notice in verse
2, we're told by way of narrative report, his brother. Notice in
verse 8, Cain talked with Abel, his brother. At the end, his
brother, and killed him. Verse 9, where is Abel, your
brother? Verse 9, my brother. Verse 10,
your brother, verse 10, your brother. I mean, there is a conspicuous
attempt by the author to let us not forget just what's happening
here. Kyle and Dalich say that Moses
intentionally repeats again and again the words, his brother,
to bring clearly out the horror of sin. Cain was the first man
who let sin reign in him. He was of the wicked one, according
to 1 John 3, 12. And that emphasis is there. It
is constant. As well, we see what was prophesied
in Genesis 3, 15 played out in this family. We see the seed
of the woman with reference to God's blessing in terms of Abel,
and then we see the seed of the serpent, the seed of the devil,
which is Cain. And that antithesis will carry
through until the decisive victory by our Lord Jesus at the cross,
and then with reference to the consummated glory. And then note
their callings. Not only are they given names,
but it's told to us what they do. And Abel was a shepherd and
Cain was a farmer. Pretty simple, pretty straightforward. And I think we learn a couple
things. Both occupations are lawful. And when we move through
the narrative and we ask the question, why did God accept
Abel and he did not accept Cain? I don't think the answer is because
God favors shepherds over farmers. Some have suggested that, but
that's, I think, an awkward reading of the text. But both occupations
are, in fact, lawful. Calvin makes a good observation
as well, that it proves or highlights or demonstrates for us the diligence
of Adam. Adam prepared his sons to do
something. Adam prepared his sons to work.
He says, this therefore is to be maintained in the first place,
that both exercise themselves in labors approved by God and
necessary to the common use of human life, whence it is inferred
that they had been well instructed by their father. It's kind of
a Puritanic approach or a reformer approach, and then the Puritans
certainly duplicate that, but it's a valid and good deduction. They didn't just sit around in
that early phase of human history. They worked, they labored. Remember,
we saw the dignity of work. in our studies in Genesis chapter
3. It's present before the fall
and it's present after the fall. And while it's attended by difficulties
after the fall, it is nevertheless noble and good and excellent
and men must work. And that is precisely what is
highlighted here with reference to their vocations. Now, let's
move to the first offerings in verses 3 to 5a. In the first
place, note the specified time. In verse 3 it says, and in the
process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering
of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of
the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. If you're using
the New King James, look at the marginal reading with reference
to verse 3. It's literally at the end of
days. Not in the process of time, though
that isn't a bad translation, but literally it's at the end
of days. Some suggest that it's at the
end of the days of the year. So it was a once a year sort
of a sacrifice in tune with what would become later Israel's calendar. Some suggest that in the process
of time is a good interpretation. Others see at the end of days
being at the end of the days of the week. The end of the days
of the week, a pattern established by God in creation when He sabbathed
on the seventh day, when He rested on the seventh day. Matthew Poole
takes it this way when he writes, more probably at the end of the
days of the week or upon the seventh and last day of the week,
Saturday, which was then the Sabbath day, which was before
this time blessed and sanctified. Of course, he refers to Genesis
chapter 2, verse 3. In other words, God's pattern
or God's sort of practice in Genesis 2, 3 became a paradigm
or a pattern for His creatures to follow, this rhythm of six
days' labor, one day rest. It wasn't just developed out
of hot air, but rather it was given or imposed by God upon
His creatures, ultimately for their well-being. Remember that
Jesus says man wasn't made for the Sabbath, but rather the Sabbath
was made for the man. God in His goodness and kindness
gave him this gift so he could find his joy and blessing in
the presence of God and so that he could rest from his labors.
So Sabbath, that principle already seems to be applied or carried
out in the worship of Cain and Abel. Now notice the offerings
of the sons. Cain brought an offering of fruit
of the ground to the Lord and Abel brought the firstborn of
his flock and their fat. And I would argue that this was
received from Adam. Adam learned about sacrifice
from God. In Genesis 3.21 we read, Also
for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin and clothed
them. Any reader of the Old Testament
will know that animal sacrifice plays a very big part or a big
role in Israel's religious life. all of it obviously pointing
forward to the Lamb of God who would take away the sins of the
world. They were typical, they were types, they were shadows,
they were pointing forward to the substance of the work of
Jesus Christ on the cross. These young men didn't just develop
the concept of sacrificing to deity, rather it was as was Sabbath,
divinely imposed by God by way of His practice or by way of
patterning after Him. Calvin again says, the custom
of sacrificing was not rashly decided by them, but was divinely
delivered to them. Now, if we just confine ourselves
to verses three and four, we notice something that we noticed
when we looked at the Pharisee and the publican in Luke's gospel
in chapter 18. Remember, Jesus says, two men
went to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee and one was
a publican, or one was a tax collector. And before we got
into the dissimilarities or the things that they differed in,
we noted the similarities. They both went to the temple.
They both prayed. They both engaged in religious
worship. And from a casual observer, both
of them looked like they had it together. Well, as you move
through that particular parable, you learn that the Pharisee certainly
doesn't have it together. In fact, he is consigned to hell.
It is the publican that went to his house justified. And as
we look at this particular passage, we ought to note the similarities
in terms of the formal approach to God, or in terms of the actual
ritual, the practice. What we know at this point, if
we had nothing further in the passage itself, we would suppose
or assume or believe that Cain was well with God. Cain was right
with God. I'm going to argue in just a
moment that it's not the fact that Cain didn't bring blood.
It's not the fact that Cain was a farmer and not a shepherd. It's because he didn't bring
the heart. He went through the formal, he went through the ritual,
he went through the external, but he didn't bring the heart
to Yahweh. That's what differentiates both
Cain and Abel. But at this particular time,
Cain looks all right in the performance of his duty. But then we see
the divine response. Notice in verse 4b, and the Lord
respected Abel and his offering. That's a beautiful way to describe
it. I'm always reminded of 1 Timothy chapter 4, where Paul tells Timothy,
take heed to yourself and to your doctrine. It's the implication. If you take heed to yourself,
then the doctrine will follow. The same idea is here. God had
respect for Abel and his offering. And what I think is going on
here is that Abel is rightly related to God by faith, so that
when Abel comes to God with this offering, with this sacrifice,
it is an expression of, a manifestation of, or an evidence that His heart
is in fact right with God. Again, Calvin says he begins
with the person of the offerer by which he signifies that God
will regard no works with favor except those the doer of which
is already previously accepted and approved by Him. In other
words, works do not avail with God or sacrifices are not acceptable
to God unless they are offered up by one who has faith in God. The only way that a good work
can be biblically defined as good or identified as good is
if it flows out of a heart of faith. It's not the case that
we can do good works and then thereby gain God's approval and
then we are rightly related. Abel's already rightly related,
Abel's already rightly connected to him, and this offering of
blood is an evidence of that. And so God has respect for Abel
and his offering. He goes on to say, and no wonder,
for man sees things which are apparent, but God looks on the
heart. Therefore, he estimates works
no otherwise than as they proceed from the fountain of the heart.
I think that's a great and a grand emphasis, and I think that's
specifically what we are supposed to understand when we see that
the Lord respected Abel and his offering. In other words, brethren,
it is good to engage in religious duty. It is good to practice
good works. It is good to seek by the grace
of God to obey the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. But
it's not by doing or in doing those things that we somehow
have acceptance with God. No, rather God has respect for
us and for our offerings by virtue of the finished work of our Lord
Jesus Christ. That's how Abel went to the Father. It's through the mediation of
the Son. You say, well, the Son hadn't
come yet. Remember that the old covenant saints were looking
forward based on this promise of Genesis 3.15, and they were
looking by faith to the Son of God who would indeed give himself
for sinners. Abel didn't enter into the presence
of God in a way that differs from the way that you and I enter
into the presence of God. God has respect for us and for
our offerings. Not because we're respectable,
not because we're worthy, not because we deserve it, but by
virtue of our union with Jesus Christ. Because God made him
who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might become what?
The righteousness of God in him. That's the means by which he
receives Abel. And then notice his rejection
of Cain in verse 5. But he did not respect Cain and
his offering. Now, I think some rightly ask
the question, how did anybody know? How would it have been
known? I mean, I think as the narrative
unfolds, we know all too clearly because of the way that Cain
responds. But at this particular time,
was there a bell in heaven when Abel offered up his bloody sacrifice? Was there sort of a buzzer when
Cain offered up his firstfruits? How did they know? Well, some
of the older Jewish commentators said that perhaps God sent fire
down to consume that. which Calvin says is absolutely
bonkers and nuts and we shouldn't read miracles into the Bible
where there are no miracles. And others have said Calvin should
have gone a little easier because other Protestants and Puritans
have taken that particular view. Namely, John Gill, though Calvin
wouldn't have known that, and Matthew Poole, though Calvin
wouldn't have known that. But it's not outlandish to consider
or to think that there was some sign accompanying wherein Cain
knew that Abel was respected. or him and his offering was respected,
and Cain's was rejected. But it is intriguing. We notice
the rejection of Cain and his offering, and then, as I mentioned
earlier, people ask the question, why? And the answers are probably
at least five. We'll just deal with three of
them. But one of them, and this is legit. Somebody says, God
prefers shepherds over farmers. I don't know where the exegetical
basis would be for that, because God put Adam in the garden to
do what? To cultivate and tend the land. As well, others have suggested
the fact that Cain failed to present blood. There's some basis
in this, or some merit to this, because in 321 we read that God,
when He comes to clothe Adam and Eve, He doesn't use vegetable
matter. He doesn't use leaves of the
trees. He actually slays an animal and
uses that to make tunics for Adam and Eve. The later sacrificial
system highlights, of course, bloodshedding. but not all sacrifice,
or rather offerings. The word here is offering. It's
not necessarily sacrifice. There is a bit of a distinction
in the Hebrew. But there were non-bloody offerings associated
with the Mosaic cult. And by cult, I don't mean Jehovah's
Witness. That just means the form of ritual
that was in service to God Almighty. So some suggest he preferred
shepherds over farmers, the fact that Cain failed to present blood. The thing that really intrigues
me is the failure of Psalm to just reckon with Hebrews 11.
You know, Hebrews 11 is divine commentary on what's happening
here. It's almost like some people are afraid to use Hebrews 11
to answer the simple question, why does God receive Abel and
he rejects Cain? Well, Hebrews 11.4 makes it very
clear. By faith, Abel offered to God
a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained
witness that he was righteous. And if you ponder that particular
statement for just a moment, we'll flesh it out in a little
bit more detail in terms of the actual context, but that Hebrews
11.4 really sounds like what James is doing in James chapter
2. Notice in Hebrews 11.4, "...by
faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain."
That's just the legitimacy. By faith, he offers a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain. Through which sacrifice, he obtained
witness that he was righteous. Isn't this how James treats the
whole Abraham paradigm? When Abraham marches Isaac up
to Moriah, and he lays him on the altar, and he's about to
put the knife into him, and God stops him, James tells us, do
you see? When Abraham does that act on
Moriah, when Abraham is about to kill Isaac, it demonstrates
the reality that he had been justified by faith in God. Remember Genesis 15, 6, Abraham
believed God and it was accounted unto him as righteous. Genesis
22, he goes up to sacrifice Isaac. That sacrifice of Isaac or potential
or almost sacrifice of Isaac points to the reality of that.
And that's precisely what Hebrews says. By faith, Abel offered
to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Through which sacrifice,
we can add, he obtained witness that he was righteous. So God
had respect for Abel and his offering. The offering was a
witness or a testimony that he was respected by God or accepted
by God, and Hebrews tells us it's by faith. Brethren, never
be afraid to take divine answers to your questions. Well, you
know, would Moses have known that? Would Abel himself have
known that? Would Cain have known that? It
doesn't matter what they would have known. It's what God tells
us is the truth. Do you understand? There's a
type of biblical interpretation that's afraid to look later on
in the book to find out the answers. You can do that with the Bible.
You're not in a 7th grade math class. You're not prohibited
from looking at the answer key in the back of the book. When
Hebrews 11, 4 tells us that by faith Abel was accepted by God,
we go back to Genesis 4 and we don't have to needlessly scratch
our heads and say, I don't know why. Was it that God prefers
shepherds over farmers? Is it because Cain didn't bring
a bloody sword? No, it's because Cain didn't
have faith and Abel did. Now, we know that God gives the
faith. It's not celebrated as an act
of or a work of Abel, wherein he is given these blessings or
conferred upon these good gifts, but rather by faith. The fact
is that he has this divine testimony. And then when we look at the
text itself, it sort of gives us some further confirmation
of that. If you look at the language of
verse 4, Abel also brought of the... What does he bring? He
brings of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. Now,
this is all stuff that's going to come out in later legislation
that God demands. He eats the fat, or rather, he
doesn't eat the fat, but he likes the smell or the aroma of the
fat. As well, the Lord God commands,
bring the firstlings, bring the firstborn, bring the best of
your flock. So it's not the case that Abel
is doing this to manipulate from God a blessing, it's the case
that Abel has faith, he's rightly connected to God by Jesus Christ,
and as a result, he brings his firstlings, he brings his fat,
he lays it before Yahweh in happy gratitude because God has been
merciful to his soul. And then when you look at Cain,
and specifically how he brings his offering, verse 3, And in
the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering. Now, it could be the case that
that packs as much punch as firstborn and fat, but it certainly doesn't
seem to. He brings an offering of the
fruit of the ground. The text seems to indicate to
us that what Abel is bringing is more consistent with a heart
of gratitude that has been justified by grace through faith in Jesus
Christ. And then as we move through the
narrative, this is all further confirmed in the way that Cain
responds. Brethren, if ever there is a
time in your history as a worshiper where it seems that you have
not been accepted by God, the problem is never with God. I can guarantee you the problem
is not with your brother. The problem is not with any relationship
you may have. The problem is yours. Cain gets
angry, which shows us the evidence or the confirmation that the
man is not rightly connected to God. If you are rejected by
the Lord, the answer is not to get angry at the Lord and bash
your brother's head in with a rock. The answer is to humble yourself
under the mighty hand of God. The answer is to repent from
whatever sin it is that you are harboring in your heart. It's
not to get so upset to have your countenance fall, and that's
literally his face fell. You as parents know this, right? When your kid gives you some
look, and you say, don't give me that look. That phrase has
a long heritage. It goes right back here to Genesis
chapter 4. His face fell. His countenance
fell, it was visible, it was evident. You've probably been
around people, you might yourself be the kind of person that does
not have the ability to hide your feelings. People know when
you're cross, people know when you're a gloomy goss, people
know when you're down, because that's written all over your
face. You hear things like, he had
guilt written all over his face. That's legit. That's biblical. God comes to deal with Cain,
and he says, why has your face fallen? You're wandering around
there like a pouty, whiny, little baby. And instead of dealing
with your sin the way that you're supposed to, by faith, coming
to God, asking for forgiveness, you continue to dig in your heels,
and you end up engaged in the sin of murder. That's what's
happening in this particular passage. The response of Cain
in verses 5b and following indicates that his offering was not offered
in faith. It was external. It was a token. It was perfunctory. There was
no heart in it. There was no desire in it. There
was no design behind it to express gratitude to God for the good
gifts that God had given. This is the sin that Israel will
fall into later at the time of the prophet Malachi. Oh yeah,
they're going to the temple, and oh yeah, they're bringing
sacrifices, but the problem is the sacrifices they are bringing
are lame, or they're maimed, or they're blind, or they're
just nigh unto death. God's command was to bring the
very best of your sacrifice. And then to one up all that,
God says to them through the prophet Malachi, you steal a
sacrifice. Can you imagine that on your
way to church on a Sunday? Oh honey, I forgot the checkbook.
Let's stop by the pawn shop, go in and hold it up and take
a few hundred bucks out and give it to the church. Do you actually
think that's a sacrifice? Do you actually think that that's
somehow a good thing? No, none of us do. But that's
what happened in Israel at the time of Malachi. This is Cain's
problem. It's not that he lacked blood.
It's that he lacked heart. It's not that he lacked a goat.
It's that he lacked any concern for God's glory. It's not that
he lacked what Abel had in terms of his produce or the firstlings
or the fat. It's that he didn't have a heart
rightly connected to God. by faith in Jesus Christ. That's the problem. And Hebrews
11, 4 underscores that and confirms that for us. And we ought never
to be afraid to answer with Old New Testament Scripture that
interprets for us what's happening in the Old Testament. I think
I mentioned this recently and probably have mentioned it a
lot. I happen to be reading a book on this very subject right now.
Prior to the Enlightenment, Everybody that interpreted the Bible did
so as the work of one author, God. Post-Enlightenment affected
everything. It affected the church so that
we do it in piecemeal fashion, in disjointed sections, and we've
come up with sort of rules that we can't let Romans 5 help us
understand Genesis 3. That particular fellow that makes
that statement doesn't have any problem with you using Calvin's
commentary. Now just think for a moment in
that sort of vein of thought. You can use John Calvin to help
you understand Genesis 3, but you can't use the Apostle Paul
in Romans chapter 5. That's hermeneutics gone amok. That's bad. A pre-Enlightenment
reading of Holy Scripture saw it as the work of one divine
author. This is where the great principle
of Scripture, interpreting Scripture, is embodied or enshrined in our
confession of faith. The best interpreter of Scripture
is the Holy Spirit speaking through Scripture. That's how we're supposed
to understand. And so don't sit there going,
man, I wonder why God took Abel. It was simple, because Abel had
faith. He was rightly related to God
by faith in Jesus Christ. Now, let's look finally at the
first murder in verses 5b to verse 8. The anger of Cain. I mean, we saw this in Genesis
chapter 3, and I think as we ponder our own sort of history,
our own personal lives, the way that we function, the way that
we respond to sort of external stimuli and sin and various sort
of scenarios, I think we see a lot of affinity with Adam and
Eve, you know, that whole blame-shifting thing. the woman whom you gave
me, the, you know, she gave me to eat, this running and hiding
from God and trying to cover ourselves and avoid any accountability. I think we see, you know, I hope
you see at least some semblance of you in that passage. But here
in Genesis 4, isn't this typical of sinners to get mad instead
of repentant? Why is that? We're dealing with
an absolutely holy God. And when God doesn't have respect
for us and our offerings, instead of saying, please God Almighty,
reveal unto me the problems of my heart and grant me the repentance
and faith so that I can climb out of whatever hole I'm in.
I think that's the legitimate response when we come to that
place in terms of this idea that God's not accepting us. You know,
the psalmist nails it in Psalm 66. He says, if I regard iniquity
in my heart, O Lord, you will not hear me. In other words,
if I go to my prayer closet and I'm holding on to sin, I ought
not to leave the closet saying, boy, I can't imagine why God
doesn't hear and answer my prayers. Or in 1 Peter 3, Paul, or rather
Paul, Peter tells the believers there, with reference to men
loving their wives and men treating their wives as co-heirs together,
excuse me, of all the benefits that Christ has given. He says,
so that your prayers may not be hindered. In other words,
husbands dwell with your wives in an understanding way or according
to knowledge. Husbands love your wives lest
your prayers be hindered. Let me say, I don't know why
my prayers aren't being hindered. Well, maybe because you're terrible
to your wife. Do we ever consider that? Maybe
you're terrible to your husband. Maybe you're just a terrible
human being. And yet, instead of saying, God, please humble
me and make me a less than terrible human being, we get mad. That's
what Cain does here. And God knows it. Verse 5, he
did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was not just
angry. He was very angry. And again,
his countenance fell. There was no hiding it, there
was no disguising it, there was no sort of, what do you mean,
I'm not angry. So the Lord says in verse 6,
well just back for a moment, his anger is obviously toward
God, for God's having not accepted him. And his anger is obviously
toward Abel, for God's having accepted him. Do you realize
that the first murder recorded in Scripture was religious in
nature? I mean, you see that antithesis of Genesis 3.15 come
to fruition already here in Genesis chapter 4. There is war between
the seed, between the seed of the woman and the seed of the
serpent. And Cain is upset at God and at Abel. And why is he
mad at Abel? because Abel was accepted by
God. That's truly diabolical. Isn't
that what envy is? Envy isn't just wanting what
somebody has, but it's wanting them not to have it. That's the essence of envy. If
I'm not accepted by God, I don't want Abel to be accepted by God.
You terrible person! Why does it bother you that this
man is accepted by God? But it did. It drove him bananas. It drove him nuts. It drove him
to this place of murderous rage. And I think that connection is
very specifically noteworthy. There is this anger, harbored
in his heart, undealt with, that turns to murder, full-on murder.
So when you think of the Sixth Commandment, you think, well,
I've never actually committed an act of murder. There is hatred
in the heart. This is what Jesus forbids in
the Sermon on the Mount. If you hate your neighbor, your
brother, and your heart without a cause. If there is this kind
of an attitude, when you're confessing through the Ten Commandments,
you violated them all. I mean, this is a practice that
Christians have done throughout history. They confess their sins
using the Ten Commandments. And some will say, well, I'm
not an idolater. and I'm not a blasphemer, and
I probably covet once in a while, so it's only one of those Ten
Commandments. Every single one, brethren, we
have issues with. And if you don't think that you
do, I invite you to take Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 out sometime
and sit alone and sit quietly and just think about your life
and think about those commandments. But with reference to the prohibition
against murder, brethren, hatred, that sort of anger, that character
assassination, that destructive tendency that we harbor in our
heart against others is a violation of the Sixth Commandment. And
just before we move on, we need to notice as well the connection
between theology and ethics. theology and ethics. In other
words, what a man believes about God, or if a man is rightly related
to God or not, affects how he lives. Isn't that evident? Cain is not a believer. He is
not rightly connected to God, and as a result, he goes and
he destroys his brother. Now I'm not saying every atheist
out there is going to engage in fratricide, which is the murder
of a brother. I'm not suggesting that at all.
But I am suggesting there is a close connection between theology
and ethics. Good theology ought to promote
good ethics. Bad theology typically promotes
bad ethics. If it had been the case that
Cain hadn't have killed Abel, Abel would have never killed
Cain. He would have never invited him out to the field for a bit
of a chat and then introduced him to Mr. Rock. And I'm just
supposing that's how he did it. There's no emphasis or mention
in the text. I have often thought about this
text relative to the issue of gun control. Persons say, well,
if we just get rid of guns, then we'll get rid of murder. If we
get rid of guns, then people will murder with knives. If we
get rid of knives, then people will murder with rocks. If we
get rid of rocks, then people will murder with sticks. And
if we get rid of sticks, then people will murder with their
bare hands. That should be as common and
as evident as anything ever, right? Well, John Gill references
some Jewish commentators that made essentially the same argument.
It wasn't in the context of sword control, but it was that most
likely there weren't swords at this particular time, so probably
a rock or a stick was used. Whatever the instrument was,
it doesn't matter, because the problem isn't instruments in
our society, the problem is hearts. And until the heart is right,
we're going to live amidst a bunch of crazed, wicked, terrible people
that want to eliminate one another. The idea that we would say, get
rid of guns and we'll get rid of murder, that is great naivete. We need to get rid of sin in
order to get rid of murder. And the only way to deal with
sin is through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Brethren,
Cain murdered Abel and there wasn't a 38 to be found. Now notice God's response to
Cain's anger. He first questions him in verse
6. Why are you angry and why has
your countenance fallen? This is similar to Genesis 3,
9, 11, and 13. When God comes to interrogate
Adam and Eve, it's not for the purpose of acquiring knowledge.
God already knows the question isn't for Adam and Eve, the question
is for... The question isn't for God, it's
for Adam and Eve in the one case, and here the question isn't for
God, it's for Cain. It's you walking into your kitchen
and seeing your kid covered in chocolate and asking the question,
did you get into the cookie jar? You know he got into the cookie
jar. The question isn't for your benefit, it's for his. So that
he'll say, yes, daddy, please forgive me. But more often than
not, they say, no, why would you think that? I've just been
chilling here in the kitchen, not eating cookies. and they're
covered in chocolate, right? This is what God does in Genesis
3, 6. He comes to him and He says,
why are you angry and why has your countenance fallen? Now,
I think the first section in verse 7 exhibits the grace of
God. I mean, I think the whole thing
does and that He doesn't just open the earth and swallow up
gain. But notice in 7a, if you do well, will you not be accepted? It's almost as if God is saying
to him, even in this angered state, that there's still hope
for you, Cain. There's still a way of access
for you, Cain. It's the way that Abel found.
It's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's coming to me with
an offering that reflects the fact that your heart is right
with me. If you do well, not, you know,
go out and kill a goat and bring me the blood and I'll see if
it's a... It's not an if you do well in terms of works righteousness
and sort of satisfy my requirements and all that. If you do well
in your approach to God, in the way that God demands, in the
way that God commands, or the way that God provides. It's not
an if-you-do-well-works righteousness, but on coming to God in a manner
similar to Abel. The heartless sacrifice and the
subsequent anger of Cain, at least according to 7a, is not
unto destruction at this point. In other words, there's still
a way for Cain to escape. Verse 7, if you do well, will
you not be accepted? Now, I think the next section
either illustrates for us a warning or an exhortation. Either way,
it does one of those two things. But let's look at the text. If
you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do
well, sin lies at the door and its desire is for you, but you
should rule over it. This is a pretty Easy sort of
statement to understand. It's a pretty powerful statement
concerning the power of sin. If you do not do well, in other
words, if you choose to live your life without any sort of
consideration of God, without any sort of faith in God, if
you live your life in an autonomous manner, sin lies at the door.
It's always there. And it's not going to go away.
It's crouching. It is there. It is going to be
a constant sort of presence in your life. And then notice, just
for a moment, Gil says, if you do or if you do not do good works,
nor offer an offering as it should be offered, sin lies at the door
of conscience. And as soon as that is awakened
and opened, it will enter in and make sad work there as it
afterwards did," according to verse 13. Some, though, take
this last section where it says, and its desire is for you, but
you should rule over it as a reference to Abel. Now at first I thought
that was a bit of a bizarre interpretation, but it makes sense in the context. So we have this sort of warning
in verse 7. If you do well, this is the encouragement,
will you not be accepted? Then this warning, and if you
do not do well, sin lies at the door. In other words, if you
do not repent, if you do not forsake this heartless approach
of worship and this subsequent anger with me and your brother,
if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is
for you, but you should rule over it. So some suggest that
this is sin's desire for you, but you should rule over sin. But there are those who argue
that it's able. or the last section, verse 7,
and Abel's desire is for you. That hinges on the use of the
pronouns. It's a masculine pronoun. It's not neuter. It's not its.
It's not a reference to sin. And Abel's desire is for you,
but you should rule over it. And essentially, the interpretation
goes like this. Your relationship with Abel is
not beyond repair. This is more encouragement. If
you do well, if you forsake your wickedness, if you come to God
in faith, then you will be accepted. If you do not do well, sin lies
at the door. And you're going to be prey,
and you're going to be victim, not victim in the passive sense.
You're going to be victim ultimately to the consequences and the judgments
associated with that. And by way of further encouragement,
Abel's desire is for you, but you should rule over it. Now,
remember, and again, this seems outlandish because the typical
argument is sin's desire is for you, but you should rule over
it. I mean, amazing sermons on this passage by Albert N. Martin.
If you ever want to listen to some great preaching on Cain
and Abel, listen to A. N. Martin. I mean, he talks,
he takes verse 7 and he just develops that theme of, you know,
how we as sinners look at sin like it's this little domesticated
kitty cat, you know? It jumps into our lap and we
just, you know, stroke it ever so lightly and we just play with
it as we feel that. He says it's not that, it's a
beast of prey. It's this foul fiend, it's ferocious,
it's got fangs, it's got claws, and its desire is for you. Brethren,
Whether that interpretation is right or not, listen to those
sermons, because they're the kind of sermons where you're
just like, man, this is just powerful stuff. So, you know,
I'm kind of, this is tentative. I've always favored that position. But as you think through in context,
Abel's not dead. The recurring emphasis is your
brother, your brother, your brother, your brother, your brother. It
could be that verse 7, the last clause, Abel's desire is for
you. He doesn't want you to go this
way. He doesn't want you to end this
way. He doesn't want you to abandon
your life or to destroy your relationships with God and with
Abel. But you should rule over it.
or over him. In other words, he's not trying
to usurp you. He's not trying to reverse the
whole order of firstborn. You'll still rule over him. In
other words, it might be this last-ditch attempt by God to
sort of grab him by the collar and say, don't kill Abel. This
relationship is not beyond repair. You can bury your anger, you
can come to me the way you're supposed to come to me, if you
don't realize that sin is crouching, lying at the door, and if we
take the other interpretation, its desire is for you. But if
we take that Abel, his desire is for you. I think there's some
merit to it. At first, I read it in Gil, and
I said, gosh, that's just weird. And then I saw it in Poole, and
it just made sense to me that maybe that's what God's doing
here. But maybe not in Albert N. Martin's interpretation, the
one that I've always held to. It's desire, being sin, is for
you, but you should rule over it. That's a perfectly legitimate
way to take it. It's desire, sin, is for you.
It's not ever content with just a little bit. It's not ever content
with just, you know, give me that. It's desire is to rule
over you, but you should rule over it. Now, verse 8 brings
us to the actual murder. Remember that God asks Cain a
question in verse 6. He gives him this statement of
warning or exhortation, combination of both, in verse 7. Cain never
answers God. He never gives a verbal response
to God. I'm angry, God, because you didn't
accept my offering. I'm angry, God, because Abel,
you know, he's always been a mama's boy. I'm angry, God, because,
you know, life just isn't fair. He doesn't answer God verbally. He answers God non-verbally. He answers him indirectly. by
telling Abel, let's go out to the field. It's what the margin
has in terms of the Septuagint. It says that Cain said to him,
let us go out to the field. Now, probably that isn't a legit
section or it's not according to the Masoretic text in there.
Verse 8 just tells us, now Cain talked with Abel, his brother,
but probably he did say, let us go out to the field. I mean,
that's where they ultimately find themselves. He probably
didn't say, you know, let's go out to the field because I, you
know, I have plans to end your life today. It was probably an
enticing, probably a brotherly, hey, let's go play frisbee, let's,
you know, throw the ball or whatever they did to go out in the field.
He gets them out in the field and look at the language. Now
Cain talked with Abel, his brother, and it came to pass when they
were in the field. That language later in subsequent, you know,
legislation, in the field, always argues for premeditation. This
isn't an accident. This didn't just happen. It was
premeditated. The maiden that is raped in the
field, that is a capital offense according to Deuteronomy 22.
What's the implication? In the city, it's harder to pull
off a rape. You take a woman out to the field, nobody hears
her scream, nobody's around to witness it, therefore that shows
premeditation and the guy is held responsible and executed. So this language of in the field
will come up in subsequent legislation in terms of mitigating circumstances
for a more serious penalty involved in a particular crime. So he
takes him out into the field and it says that Cain rose up
against Abel, his brother, and killed him. Now this is premeditated,
it's murder, it wasn't accidental, it wasn't the axe head accidentally
fell off and hit Abel on the head. He acted with malice aforethought
and he went out and he destroyed his brother. So he talks with
him, he rises up against him and he murders him. God willing,
next Wednesday night we'll look at the trial or the investigation
where God comes and again asks a question, what have you done?
Remember, God's not asking that for God. He's asking that for
Abel. Well, I would suggest the text
offers us a few things to think about before we go. First, there,
I think, is an emphasis on religious worship. I mean, that may be
an indirect application, but I think it's conspicuous. At
the end of days, the Sabbath day, they come to worship God
by bringing offerings, by bringing sacrifices to the Lord. That
further legislation details it, shows us this connection between
what's revealed to us at Sinai and what's already predated in
the book of Genesis. That's an important biblical
theological emphasis that we need to maintain. As well, the
worship of God in the manner appointed by God. It's by faith. Even though Moses here doesn't
tell us Abel was accepted because of his faith, Paul tells us in
Hebrews 11. The emphasis in scripture is
always upon our heart before God. Certainly we engage in the
forms, certainly we engage in the ritual, certainly we involve
ourselves with the externals, but the externals without the
heart are empty and vain, and that is not acceptable to God. I would suggest the text presents
to us the goodness of God. The Lord knows Cain is angry,
but questions him to provoke repentance. He's there sort of
doing, you know, this is language of a man applied to God, doing
everything he can to get Cain to get right. Again, that sounded
Billy Graham-ish, but I think you understand what I mean. God's
taking these steps, as it were, to demonstrate His grace and
His goodness. The Lord instructs Cain that
acceptance is, in fact, available with God. The Lord warns Cain
concerning the power of sin, which should deter him further
from sin. And then, if we take that reading
that it's Abel's desire for you, the Lord encourages Cain that
his relationship with Abel is salvageable. And, you know, we
have just read through this story many, many times. Well, it's
just inevitable. But at that time it wasn't. Abel was still
breathing. Abel was still in fine health.
Abel was happy that he had just, you know, worshipped God. Everything
is good for Abel at this particular juncture. It would have been
a good thing for this relationship to be fixed. And then we see
the rapid escalation of sin. Gordon Wenham says, Cain is portrayed
as a much more hardened sinner than his father. I think this
is what's dangerous about studying, you know, the book of Genesis.
and all of the Bible. Dangerous not in the sense of
don't do it, but dangerous in the sense that it really does
reveal sort of our heritage and where we're at. Sin never gets
better. Sin never gets more manageable. Sin never de-escalates. Sin never
makes things better. I was just thinking about that
today in light of this particular text as I was walking to the
cascade there. And I was just thinking, there's
never a time when you sin and life gets better. It just doesn't
happen. It just doesn't get better. I
mean, if you don't get caught by men and it seems like you
got away with it, you know that God knows, right? And, you know,
the blood-bot realizes when things aren't right with him and his
God. And that's an affecting thing. That's something that
is grievous. But when we read Genesis and
we move our way through the Bible and we see the sorts of sins
that men continue to do and how it escalates, and in just a few
short chapters we'll get to Genesis chapter 6, and what's the indictment
of God upon the world? It was exceedingly corrupt and
filled with violence. Now, back to this quote by Wenham.
Cain is portrayed as a much more hardened sinner than his father.
Adam merely ate a fruit given him by his wife. Cain murdered
his brother. Cain rejects the divine entreaty
and then grumbles about his sentence. Waltke says the sundering of
the familial bond begun in chapter three here escalates to fratricide
in one mere generation. It doesn't take long for the
spread of sin. It's not something that is content
to just lie dormant. It will always, in the language
of Albert N. Martin, it is like that large,
ferocious lion with the fangs and with the claws, and its desire
is for you. Don't entertain it like it's
a kitty. Don't think that you can play with it and have fun
with it and then put it back in its cage and everything will
be alright. You cannot look at sin that way.
It's never alright. It's never okay. It's never acceptable. And it never ever promotes or
produces good things. It causes Cain, or rather Cain
activated by this principle of sin. He's engaged in a heartless
formalistic worship. He's angry with God. He's angry
with his brother. He rejects the overtures of God's
grace. He engages in the actual act
of murder in this environment at this particular time. It's
really a sad, sad portion of Scripture. You remember Jesus
in Matthew 23. He tells us this is a religious
crime. He says that upon you, all the blood from righteous
Abel to Zechariah will be required of this generation. John, the
apostle, tells us that we're not supposed to be like murderous
Cain. We're supposed to guard our hearts
according to 1 John 3, 12 to 15. Cain is of the wicked one. Jude 11 describes the very apostates
as going in the way of Cain. Cain has become, or Cain is,
from this vantage point, a sort of paradigm of wickedness and
evil that we as God's people are supposed to reject and resist
and not pursue. Let us dare to be an Abel rather
than a Cain. Well, let's close in a word of
prayer. Father, we thank You for Your Word and we thank You
for this section of Scripture and what it tells us of the beginnings,
these first brothers, these first offerings, and unfortunately
a first murder. We pray, God in heaven, that
we would learn the lessons from these texts and that You would
help us to see that sin is a terrible thing, it is a powerful thing.
and may you grant us grace to resist it by the power of your
Holy Spirit. Go with us now, we pray, through
Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
