Scripture Reading: Genesis 4:1–16
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.
Introduction
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.
The First Brothers
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.
The First Offerings
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.
God's Acceptance of Abel
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
God's Rejection of Cain
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
Hebrews 11 as the Answer
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.
The First Murder
Now, let's look finally at the first murder in verses 5b to verse 8.
Cain's Anger and Its Cause
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.
God's Question and Offer of Grace
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,
The Warning: Sin at the Door
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.
The Premeditated Murder
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,
Application
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.
Closing 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.