As time passed, Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground. Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering, but he didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell.
Show the surrounding paragraph
Genesis 4:3-5 sits inside this longer paragraph.
The man knew Eve his wife. She conceived, and gave birth to Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man with Yahweh’s help.” Again she gave birth, to Cain’s brother Abel. Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. As time passed, Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground. Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering, but he didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell. Yahweh said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why has the expression of your face fallen? If you do well, won’t it be lifted up? If you don’t do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it.” Cain said to Abel, his brother, “Let’s go into the field.” While they were in the field, Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and killed him.
Parallel Translations
-
As time passed, Cain brought an offering to Yahweh from the fruit of the ground.
Abel also brought some of the firstborn of his flock and of its fat. Yahweh respected Abel and his offering,
but he didn’t respect Cain and his offering. Cain was very angry, and the expression on his face fell.
-
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Show all 3 translations
-
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering;
but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (2)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (30)
- Hebrews 11:4 (vv4–5) By faith, Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had testimony given to him that he was righteous, God…
- Proverbs 3:9 (v4) Honor Yahweh with your substance, with the first fruits of all your increase:
- Exodus 13:12 (v4) that you shall set apart to Yahweh all that opens the womb, and every firstborn that comes from an animal which you have. The males shall…
- Job 5:2 (v5) For resentment kills the foolish man, and jealousy kills the simple.
- Numbers 18:17 (v4) “But you shall not redeem the firstborn of a cow, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat. They are holy. You shall…
Show all 27 cross-references
- 1 Peter 1:19-20 (v4) but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish or spot, the blood of Christ, who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the…
- Numbers 18:12 (vv3–4) “I have given to you all the best of the oil, all the best of the vintage, and of the grain, the first fruits of them which they give to…
- Psalms 20:3 (vv4–5) remember all your offerings, and accept your burned sacrifice.
- Leviticus 3:16-17 (v4) The priest shall burn them on the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasant aroma; all the fat is Yahweh’s. “ ‘It…
- 2 Chronicles 7:1 (v4) Now when Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and Yahweh’s glory…
- Hebrews 9:22 (v4) According to the law, nearly everything is cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.
- Genesis 15:17 (v4) It came to pass that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold, a smoking furnace and a flaming torch passed between these pieces.
- Leviticus 9:24 (v4) Fire came out from before Yahweh, and consumed the burnt offering and the fat upon the altar. When all the people saw it, they shouted, and…
- 1 Chronicles 21:26 (v4) David built an altar to Yahweh there, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called on Yahweh; and he answered him from the…
- Acts 13:45 (v5) But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with jealousy, and contradicted the things which were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed.
- Leviticus 2:1-11 (v3) “ ‘When anyone offers an offering of a meal offering to Yahweh, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it, and put…
- Numbers 16:35 (v4) Fire came out from Yahweh, and devoured the two hundred fifty men who offered the incense.
- Judges 6:21 (v4) Then Yahweh’s angel stretched out the end of the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened cakes; and fire went…
- 1 Kings 18:38 (v4) Then Yahweh’s fire fell, and consumed the burnt offering, the wood, the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the…
- Isaiah 3:10-11 (v5) Tell the righteous “Good!” For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them; for the deeds of his…
- Luke 15:28-30 (v5) But he was angry, and would not go in. Therefore his father came out, and begged him. But he answered his father, ‘Behold, these many years…
- Revelation 13:8 (v4) All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life…
- Genesis 31:2 (v5) Jacob saw the expression on Laban’s face, and, behold, it was not toward him as before.
- Genesis 31:5 (v5) and said to them, “I see the expression on your father’s face, that it is not toward me as before; but the God of my father has been with…
- Numbers 16:15 (v5) Moses was very angry, and said to Yahweh, “Don’t respect their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, neither have I hurt one of…
- 1 Kings 18:24 (v4) You call on the name of your god, and I will call on Yahweh’s name. The God who answers by fire, let him be God.” All the people answered,…
- Matthew 20:15 (v5) Isn’t it lawful for me to do what I want to with what I own? Or is your eye evil, because I am good?’
27 distinct cross-references across this passage (30 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (21 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv4–5 4. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, etc.…
4. And the Lord had respect unto Abel, etc. God is said to have respect unto the man to whom he vouchsafes his favor. We must, however, notice the order here observed by Moses; for he does not simply state that the worship which Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but 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. And no wonder; for man sees things which are apparent, but God looks into the heart, (1 Samuel 16:7;) therefore, he estimates works no otherwise than as they proceed from the fountain of the heart. Whence also it happens, that he not only rejects but abhors the sacrifices of the wicked, however splendid they may appear in the eyes of men. For if he, who is polluted in his soul, by his mere touch contaminates, with his own impurities, things otherwise pure and clean, how can that but be impure which proceeds from himself? When God repudiates the feigned righteousness in which the Jews were glorying, he objects, through his Prophet, that their hands were “full of blood,” (Isaiah 1:15.) For the same reason Haggai contends against the hypocrites. The external appearance, therefore, of works, which may delude our too carnal eyes, vanishes in the presence of God. Nor were even the heathens ignorant of this; whose poets, when they speak with a sober and well-regulated mind of the worship of God, require both a clean heart and pure hands. Hence, even among all nations, is to be traced the solemn rite of washing before sacrifices. Now seeing that in another place, the Spirit testifies, by the mouth of Peter, that ‘hearts are purified by faith,’ (Acts 15:9;) and seeing that the purity of the holy patriarchs was of the very same kind, the apostle does not in vain infer, that the offering of Abel was, by faith, more excellent than that of Cain. Therefore, in the first place, we must hold, that all works done before faith, whatever splendor of righteousness may appear in them, were nothing but mere sins, being defiled from their roots, and were offensive to the Lord, whom nothing can please without inward purity of heart. I wish they who imagine that men, by their own motion of freewill, are rendered meet to receive the grace of God, would reflect on this. Certainly, no controversy would then remain on the question, whether God justifies men gratuitously, and that by faith? For this must be received as a settled point, that, in the judgment of God, no respect is had to works until man is received into favor. Another point appears equally certain; since the whole human race is hateful to God, there is no other way of reconciliation to divine favor than through faith. Moreover, since faith is a gratuitous gift of God, and a special illumination of the Spirit, then it is easy to infer, that we are prevented by his mere grace, just as if he had raised us from the dead. In which sense also Peter says, that it is God who purifies the hearts by faith. For there would be no agreement of the fact with the statement, unless God had so formed faith in the hearts of men that it might be truly deemed his gift. It may now be seen in what way purity is the effect of faith. It is a vapid and trifling philosophy, to adduce this as the cause of purity, that men are not induced to seek God as their rewarder except by faith. They who speak thus entirely bury the grace of God, which his Spirit chiefly commends. Others also speak coldly, who teach that we are purified by faiths only on account of the gift of regenerations in order that we may be accepted of God. For not only do they omit half the truth, but build without a foundation; since, on account of the curse on the human race, it became necessary that gratuitous reconciliation should precede. Again, since God never so regenerates his people in this world, that they can worship him perfectly; no work of man can possibly be acceptable without expiation. And to this point the ceremony of legal washing belongs, in order that men may learn, that as often as they wish to draw near unto God, purity must be sought elsewhere. Wherefore God will then at length have respect to our obedience, when he looks upon us in Christ.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv3, 5 This declareth that the father instructed his children in…
This declareth that the father instructed his children in the knowledge of God, and also how God gave them sacrifices to signify their salvation, albeit they were destitute of the sacrament of the tree of life.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv3–5 Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came…
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Ver. 3. In process of time.] That distance of time between the creation and the general flood, Varro, the most learned of the Romans, calleth ‘Aσηλον, obscure or unknown, because the heathen had no records of that which we now clearly understand to have been then done, out of the Holy Scriptures.
Read full note →
Cain brought of the fruit.] They brought their sacrifices to Adam, the high priest of the family, who offered them to God in their name. {a} So in the Levitical law, though a man’s offering were never so good, he might not offer it himself, upon pain of death; but the priest must offer it. And the priest was to offer as well the poor man’s turtle, as the rich man’s ox. To teach that none may present his service to God, how good soever he may conceit it, but in the hand of the high priest of the New Testament Jesus Christ, the Just One, who will not only present, but perfume the poorest performances of an upright heart, with his odours. {Rev 8:3}
{a} Godw. Hebr. Antiq., p. 27.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv3–5 1. In general, at the return of the set…
Either,
1. In general, at the return of the set time then appointed, and used for the solemn service of God. Or,
Read full note →
2. At the end of the year, when there might be now, as there was afterward among the Jews, more solemn worship and sacrifices; the word days being often put for a year, as Lev 25:29; 1Sa 1:3; 27:7. Or,
3. More probably at the end of the days of the week, or upon the seventh and last day of the week, Saturday, which then was the sabbath day, which before this time was blessed and sanctified, Gen 2:3.
Cain brought an offering, either to the place appointed for the solemn worship of God, or to his father, who at that time was both king, and prophet, and priest. Or brought, i.e. offered.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v3 Here we have, I. The devotions of Cain and…
Here we have, I. The devotions of Cain and Abel. In process of time, when they had made some improvement in their respective callings (Heb. At the end of days, either at the end of the year, when they kept their feast of in-gathering or perhaps an annual fast in remembrance of the fall, or at the end of the days of the week, the seventh day, which was the sabbath) - at some set time, Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord, for the doing of which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God's favour to him and his thoughts of love towards him and his, notwithstanding their apostasy. God would thus try Adam's faith in the promise and his obedience to the remedial law; he would thus settle a correspondence again between heaven and earth, and give shadows of good things to come. Observe here, 1. That the religious worship of God is no novel invention, but an ancient institution. It is that which was from the beginning (Jo1 1:1); it is the good old way, Jer 6:16. The city of our God is indeed that joyous city whose antiquity is of ancient days, Isa 23:7. Truth got the start of error, and piety of profaneness. 2. That is a good thing for children to be well taught when they are young, and trained up betimes in religious services, that when they come to be capable of acting for themselves they may, of their own accord, bring an offering to God. In this nurture of the Lord parents must bring up their children, Gen 18:19; Eph 6:4. 3. That we should every one of us honour God with what we have, according as he has prospered us. According as their employments and possessions were, so they brought their offering. See Co1 16:1, Co1 16:2. Our merchandize and our hire, whatever they are, must be holiness to the Lord, Isa 23:18. He must have his dues of it in works of piety and charity, the support of religion and the relief of the poor. Thus we must now bring our offering with an upright heart; and with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 4. That hypocrites and evil doers may be found going as far as the best of God's people in the external services of religion. Cain brought an offering with Abel; nay, Cain's offering is mentioned first, as if he were the more forward of the two. A hypocrite may possibly hear as many sermons, say as many prayers, and give as much alms, as a good Christian, and yet, for want of sincerity, come short of acceptance with God. The Pharisee and the publican went to the temple to pray, Luk 18:10.
II. The different success of their devotions. That which is to be aimed at in all acts of religion is God's acceptance: we speed well if we attain this, but in vain do we worship if we miss of it, Co2 5:9. Perhaps, to a stander-by, the sacrifices of Cain and Abel would have seemed both alike good. Adam accepted them both, but God, who sees not as man sees, did not. God had respect to Abel and to his offering, and showed his acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven; but to Cain and his offering he had not respect. We are sure there was a good reason for this difference; the Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, does not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns.
Read full note →
1. There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering. Cain was a wicked man, led a bad life, under the reigning power of the world and the flesh; and therefore his sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord (Pro 15:8), a vain oblation, Isa 1:13. God had no respect to Cain himself, and therefore no respect to his offering, as the manner of the expression intimates. But Abel was a righteous man; he is called righteous Abel (Mat 23:35); his heart was upright and his life was pious; he was one of those whom God's countenance beholds (Psa 11:7) and whose prayer is therefore his delight, Pro 15:8. God had respect to him as a holy man, and therefore to his offering as a holy offering. The tree must be good, else the fruit cannot be pleasing to the heart-searching God.
2. There was a difference in the offerings they brought. It is expressly said (Heb 11:4), Abel's was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's: either (1.) In the nature of it. Cain's was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more, and, for aught I know, they might be offered in innocency. But Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. Or, (2.) In the qualities of the offering. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, any thing that came next to hand, what he had not occasion for himself or what was not marketable. But Abel was curious in the choice of his offering: not the lame, nor the lean, nor the refuse, but the firstlings of the flock - the best he had, and the fat thereof - the best of those best. Hence the Hebrew doctors give it for a general rule that every thing that is for the name of the good God must be the goodliest and best. It is fit that he who is the first and best should have the first and best of our time, strength, and service.
3. The great difference was this, that Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. There was a difference in the principle upon which they went. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and God's glory as his end, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer; but Cain did what he did only for company's sake, or to save his credit, not in faith, and so it turned into sin to him. Abel was a penitent believer, like the publican that went away justified: Cain was unhumbled; his confidence was within himself; he was like the Pharisee who glorified himself, but was not so much as justified before God.
III. Cain's displeasure at the difference God made between his sacrifice and Abel's. Cain was very wroth, which presently appeared in his very looks, for his countenance fell, which bespeaks not so much his grief and discontent as his malice and rage. His sullen churlish countenance, and a down-look, betrayed his passionate resentments: he carried ill-nature in his face, and the show of his countenance witnessed against him. This anger bespeaks, 1. His enmity to God, and the indignation he had conceived against him for making such a difference between his offering and his brother's. He should have been angry at himself for his own infidelity and hypocrisy, by which he had forfeited God's acceptance; and his countenance should have fallen in repentance and holy shame, as the publican's, who would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, Luk 18:13. But, instead of this, he flies out against God, as if he were partial and unfair in distributing his smiles and frowns, and as if he had done him a deal of wrong. Note, It is a certain sign of an unhumbled heart to quarrel with those rebukes which we have, by our own sin, brought upon ourselves. The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and then, to make bad worse, his heart fretteth against the Lord, Pro 19:3. 2. His envy of his brother, who had the honour to be publicly owned. Though his brother had no thought of having any slur put upon him, nor did now insult over him to provoke him, yet he conceived a hatred of him as an enemy, or, which is equivalent, a rival. Note, (1.) It is common for those who have rendered themselves unworthy of God's favour by their presumptuous sins to have indignation against those who are dignified and distinguished by it. The Pharisees walked in this way of Cain, when they neither entered into the kingdom of God themselves nor suffered those that were entering to go in, Luk 11:52. Their eye is evil, because their master's eye and the eye of their fellow-servants are good. (2.) Envy is a sin that commonly carries with it both its own discovery, in the paleness of the looks, and its own punishment, in the rottenness of the bones.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv3–5 And in process of time it came to pass,....…
And in process of time it came to pass,.... Or "at the end of days" (c); which some understand of the end of seven days, at the end of the week, or on the seventh day, which they suppose to be the sabbath day, these sons of Adam brought their offerings to the Lord: but this proceeds upon an hypothesis not sufficiently established, that the seventh day sabbath was now appointed to be observed in a religious way; rather, according to Aben Ezra, it was at the end of the year; So "after days" in Jdg 11:4 is meant after a year; and which we there render, as here, "in process of time". This might be after harvest, after the fruits of the earth were gathered in, and so a proper season to bring an offering to the Lord, in gratitude for the plenty of good things they had been favoured with; as in later times, with the Israelites, there was a feast for the ingathering of the fruits of the earth, Exo 23:16. The Targum of Jonathan fixes this time to the fourteenth of Nisan, as if it was the time of the passover, a feast instituted two thousand years after this time, or thereabout; and very stupidly one of the Jewish writers (d) observes, that"the night of the feast of the passover came, and Adam said to his sons, on this night the Israelites will bring the offerings of the passovers, offer ye also before your Creator."
That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord; corn, herbs, seeds, &c. the Targum of Jonathan says it was flax seed; so Jarchi makes mention of an "agadah" or exposition, which gives the same sense; and another of their writers (e) observes, that Cain brought what was left of his food, or light and trifling things, flax or hemp seed. This he brought either to his father, as some think, being priest in his family; or rather he brought and offered it himself at the place appointed for religious worship, and for sacrifices; so Aben Ezra, he brought it to the place fixed for his oratory. It is highly probable it was at the east of the entrance of the garden of Eden, where the Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, was, and appeared in some remarkable manner.
Read full note →
(c) "in fine dierum", Pagninus, Montanus; "a fine dierum", Schmidt. (d) Pirke Eliezer, c. 21. (e) Ib. Vid. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 8. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv3–5 In process of time - At the end of…
In process of time - At the end of days, either at the end of the year when they kept their feast of in-gathering, or at the end of the days of the week, the seventh day; at some set time Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God's favour notwithstanding their apostacy.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv3–5 Verse 3. In process of time] מקץ ימים mikkets…
Verse 3. In process of time] מקץ ימים mikkets yamim, at the end of days. Some think the anniversary of the creation to be here intended; it is more probable that it means the Sabbath, on which Adam and his family undoubtedly offered oblations to God, as the Divine worship was certainly instituted, and no doubt the Sabbath properly observed in that family. This worship was, in its original institution, very simple. It appears to have consisted of two parts:
1. Thanksgiving to God as the author and dispenser of all the bounties of nature, and oblations indicative of that gratitude.
Read full note →
2. Piacular sacrifices to his justice and holiness, implying a conviction of their own sinfulness, confession of transgression, and faith in the promised Deliverer. If we collate the passage here with the apostle's allusion to it, Heb 11:4, we shall see cause to form this conclusion.
Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering] מנחה minchah, unto the Lord. The word minchah is explained, Le 2:1, &c., to be an offering of fine flour, with oil and frankincense. It was in general a eucharistic or gratitude offering, and is simply what is implied in the fruits of the ground brought by Cain to the Lord, by which he testified his belief in him as the Lord of the universe, and the dispenser of secular blessings.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv3–5 Gen 4:3. In process of time — After many…
Gen 4:3. In process of time — After many years, when they were both grown up to man’s estate; at some set time, Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God’s favour, notwithstanding their apostacy.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On v4 Had respect. That is, shewed his acceptance of his…
Had respect. That is, shewed his acceptance of his sacrifice (as coming from a heart full of devotion): and that we may suppose, by some visible token, such as sending fire from heaven upon his offerings. (Challoner) --- The offerings of Cain are mentioned without any approbation: those of Abel are the firstlings and fat, or the very best; by which he testified, that he acknowledged God for his first beginning. Sacrifice is due to God alone, and to Him it has always been offered in the Church. We have the happiness to offer that truly eucharistic sacrifice to God, of which those of ancient times were only figures. What sacrifice can our erring brethren shew? (Worthington; Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv3–4 in process of time--Hebrew, "at the end of days,"…
in process of time--Hebrew, "at the end of days," probably on the Sabbath.
brought . . . an offering unto the Lord--Both manifested, by the very act of offering, their faith in the being of God and in His claims to their reverence and worship; and had the kind of offering been left to themselves, what more natural than that the one should bring "of the fruits of the ground," and that the other should bring "of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof" [Gen 4:4].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv3–5 3. In process of time — Heb, at the…
3. In process of time — Heb, at the end of days. Of how many days is not specified, and some understand at the end of the year, or at the time of the gathering of fruits; others explain the phrase indefinitely, as our version, or as Keil: “After a considerable lapse of time.” It seems better, however, to understand it of the days of the week — that is, at the end of the ordinary and well-known week of seven days. In this sense we have here another trace of the original institution of the Sabbath as a day of worship.
Cain brought of the fruit — A most natural offering for a tiller of the ground to bring, and a gift sufficiently proper in itself. But his failure to bring also a bleeding sacrifice may well be looked upon as evidence of a want of faith in the doctrine of sacrifices, and a disposition to substitute what was most convenient to him for all that the law of sacrifice required.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv3–5 3. in process of time] Lit. “at the end…
3. in process of time] Lit. “at the end of days,” a phrase for a period of quite indefinite length; LXX μεθʼ ἡμέρας; Lat. post multos dies.
of the fruit of the ground] Probably the best, or the earliest, of the fruit, corresponding to the “firstlings” in Abel’s offering. Cf. Num_18:12, “All the best (Heb. fat) of the oil, and all the best (Heb. fat) of the vintage, and of the corn.”
Read full note →
an offering] Heb. minḥah, lit. a “gift” or a “present,” as in Gen_32:13, when Jacob sends “a present for Esau his brother,” and in Gen_43:11, where he says unto his sons, “carry the man down a present.” The word is used especially for “a gift” made to God; and with that sense, especially in P and Ezek., of the “meal offering,” cf. Leviticus 2; Lev_6:7-10. Here it is used of “offerings to God” generally, both of animals and of the fruits of the earth.
This is the first mention of sacrifice in Scripture. Its origin is not explained, nor is an altar mentioned. Man is assumed to be by nature endowed with religious instincts, and capable of holding converse with God. Worship was man’s mode of approach to the Deity; and sacrifice was its outward expression. The purpose of the offering was (1) propitiatory, to win favour, or to avert displeasure; and (2) eucharistic, in expression of gratitude for blessings on home or industry. It was deemed wrong to approach God with empty hands, that is, without an offering or gift, Exo_23:15; Exo_25:30.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv3, 5 (3, 4) In process of time.—Heb., at the end…
(3, 4) In process of time.—Heb., at the end of days: not at the end of a week, or a year, or of harvest-time, but of a long indefinite period, shown by the age of Adam at the birth of Seth to have been something less than 130 years.
An offering.—Heb., a thank-offering, a present. We must be careful not to introduce here any of the later Levitical ideas about sacrifice. All that we know about this offering is that it was an act of worship, and apparently something usual. Now, each brought of his own produce, and one was accepted and one rejected. Why? Much ingenuity has been wasted on this question, as though Cain erred on technical grounds; whereas we are expressly told in Heb_11:4 that Abel’s was the more excellent sacrifice, because offered “in faith.” It was the state of their hearts that made the difference; though, as the result of unbelief, Cain’s may have been a scanty present of common produce, and not of first-fruits, while Abel brought “firstlings, and of the fat thereof,” the choicest portion. Abel may also have shown a deeper faith in the promised Deliverer by offering an animal sacrifice: and certainly the acceptance of his sacrifice quickened among men the belief that the proper way of approaching God was by the death of a victim. But Cain’s unbloody sacrifice had also a great future before it. It became the minchah of the Levitical law, and under the Christian dispensation is the offering of prayer and praise, and especially the Eucharistic thanksgiving. We have already noticed that Abel’s sacrifice shows that flesh was probably eaten on solemn occasions. Had animals been killed only for their skins for clothing, repulsive ideas would have been connected with the carcases cast aside to decay; nor would Abel have attached any value to firstlings. But as soon as the rich abundance of Paradise was over, man would quickly learn to eke out the scanty produce of the soil by killing wild animals and the young of his own flocks.
Read full note →
The Lord had respect.—Heb., looked upon, showed that He had seen it. It has been supposed that some visible sign of God’s favour was given, and the current idea among the fathers was that fire fell from heaven, and consumed the sacrifice. (Comp. Lev_9:24.) But there is real irreverence in thus filling up the narrative; and it is enough to know that the brothers were aware that God was pleased with the one and displeased with the other. More important is it to notice, first, that God’s familiar presence was not withdrawn from man after the fall. He talked with Cain as kindly as with Adam of old. And secondly, in these, the earliest, records of mankind religion is built upon love, and the Deity appears as man’s personal friend. This negatives the scientific theory that religion grew out of dim fears and terror at natural phenomena, ending gradually in the evolution of the idea of a destructive and dangerous power outside of man, which man must propitiate as best he could.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv3–5 And in process of time. Literally, at the end…
And in process of time. Literally, at the end of the days, i.e.
1. Of the year (Aben Ezra, Dathe, De Wette, Rosenm Bohlen), at which season the feast of the ingathering was afterwards kept. (Exo_23:16) (Bush) Aristotle, "Ethics," 8:2, notes that anciently sacrifices were offered after the gathering of the fruits of the earth (Ainsworth).
Read full note →
2. Of the week (Candlish).
3. Of an indefinite time, years or days (Luther, Kalisch).
4. Of some set time, as the beginning of their occupations (Knobel). It came to pass (literally, it was) that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering. Qusia, LXX; oblatio, Vulgate; speisopfer, Luther. The mincha of Hebrew worship was a bloodless sacrifice, consisting of flour and oil, or flour prepared with frankincense. (Lev_2:1) All tree fruits and garden produce were excluded; it was limited to the productions of agriculture and vine growing (cf..Kurtz,. "Sacrificial Worship," 140). Here it includes both meat offerings and animal sacrifices (cf. ver. 4). Unto the Lord. Probably to the gate of the garden, where the cherubim and flaming sword were established as the visible monuments of the Divine presence.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v4 The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his…
Gen_4:4-5
The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect
Read full note →
The two offerings
I.
THE CAUSE OF CAINS REJECTION. His total want of the true spirit of faith. Too inflated with pride to see and confess himself a grievous sinner. Could not bring himself to believe the plan God had formed for the salvation of mankind. Preferred his own kind of offering to that ordained by God.
II. THE CAUSE OF ABELS ACCEPTANCE. Abel believed the word of his God, and presented not a thank offering alone, but a sin offering. He cast away all idea of self-justification, and acknowledged the truth of his extreme sinfulness by nature. He came before God with deep convictions of the need of a crucified Redeemer, to save him from the wrath to come. Lessons:
1. The great necessity of using only the means appointed in the Word of God.
2. The value of a right faith.
3. The duty of considering well the motives which lead us to come before God. (R. Jones, B. A.)
Cain and Abel at their worship
I. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN CAIN AND ABEL AT THIS TIME IS OUTWARDLY VERY CLOSE.
1. They both worship the same God.
2. They both bring an offering with them.
3. They both desire that themselves and their worship should find acceptance with God.
II. YET THERE WAS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.
1. They differed in their offerings.
2. They differed in the principle which actuated them.
3. They differed in the reception they and their offerings met with from God.
III. THE CONSEQUENCES WHICH FOLLOWED THIS ACT OF WORSHIP.
1. Not sorrow or shame--envy takes possession of Cains mind; anger and hatred soon follow envy; and though God comes and mercifully expostulates with him, this man, but lately so devout and grateful in appearance before Gods altar, ends with defying God, lifting up his arm, and becoming his brothers murderer.
2. But look now at Abel. He has been humbly and faithfully worshipping the Lord his God; and what, we may ask, does he get by it? First hatred, and then a cruel death. Hatred, observe, from a fellow worshipper; death from a brothers hand. (C. Bradley, M. A.)
The rejected offering and the accepted sacrifice
I. In attempting to assign the true reasons why Cain and his offering were rejected, I would observe, once for all, that that rejection seems to have been attributable entirely to his UNBELIEF, in presenting the fruits of the ground, instead of an animal sacrifice.
II. PRACTICAL INFERENCES. From the rejection of Cain and his offering, it is clear that God will not be served by just what we choose to give Him. There are some, for example, who place their trust in what they call the goodness of their heart, and their unimpeachable integrity in all the transactions of life; there are many also who content themselves with rendering to God the tribute of a sincere, but imperfect, obedience; there are not a few who rely entirely upon the infinitude of the Divine mercy, forgetting, at the same time, the infinitude of the Divine justice; and while several look forward to repentance, as furnishing thereby an adequate price for their absolution, others there are who make it their boast and their hope that, following the light of revelation, only in subordination to the light of reason, they perform only those actions which their moral principles can approve of, and they believe only those doctrines which their understanding can comprehend.
1. Now, while all these are just so many fallacious grounds, upon which men build their hopes of acceptance with God, they are every one of them in direct opposition to the only divinely appointed way. They are the fruits of the ground, if I may so speak, and not the institution of heaven; which institution most plainly is, that by faith alone in the finished work of the Redeemer can the sinner expect to be saved. (J. R. Brown, D. D.)
Cain and Abel
I. THE POINTS OF AGREEMENT TRACEABLE BETWEEN THE TWO BROTHERS.
1. They agree in the fact that they are the descendants of a fallen and guilty ancestry.
2. Cain and Abel agree, as they are alike placed under a dispensation of mercy and salvation.
3. They agree also in acknowledging that God had a claim upon them, that He ought to be worshipped, and that stated times ought to be employed for that purpose.
II. WE NOTICE THE POINTS OF DIFFERENCE THAT EXISTED BETWEEN THEM.
1. They differed in the method of their approach unto God. Cains offering was eucharistic, Abels piacular. The one was a thank offering, the other sacrificial. It is of importance that we are thankful for providential blessings; but it is of infinitely greater importance that we form correct views of Gods method of justifying the ungodly, and cordially acquiesce in His appointment.
2. They differed in the treatment they met with at the hands of God.
And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect.
3. They differed also in the influence by which they were actuated. Cain was of that wicked one. He was led captive by the devil at his will. (R. Jackson.)
Abel; or, the language of sacrifice
I. THE COMPREHENSIVENESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE SCHEME OF OUR SALVATION. Abel, the leader of the noble army of martyrs, and the first human being that reached that glory that is to be revealed, was saved through that same atonement, and through the very same faith in the same atonement, as Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, John--as the saint of God who this day winged his triumphant flight to the mercy seat--as the latest human being that shall wash his robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb.
II. HOW POWERFUL AND HOW PRECIOUS IS THE GRACE AND GIFT OF FAITH! Like the philosophers stone, like the fabled touch of Midas, it turns into gold all it touches. It is the instrument of our justification, adoption, sanctification; it transforms the inner man, and fits him for communing with God on the heavenly Zion!
III. HOW INDISPENSABLE WAS THE SACRIFICE, THE SHEDDING OF THE BLOOD, THE TAKING OF THE LIFE! His example is an eminent exhortation. He was dutiful to his parents, and in all the relationships of life, he was diligent in business--the keeper of sheep--he was fervent in spirit, serving the Lord, not with mere vain and empty words, but with his substance. Let us go and do likewise. (J. R. Brown, M. A.)
Abels sacrifice
1. First, consider the offerings of Cain and Abel, and the way in which they were received by the Almighty. But very different were the feelings with which they brought them. Cain came with feelings not unlike those of the Pharisee, spoken of by our blessed Lord, when he went up into the temple to pray, thinking neither of his hereditary defilement nor of his personal transgressions; whereas Abel gave evident signs of his deep sense of both, by bringing not only the meat offering as an acknowledgment to God of his obligations to Him for temporal benefits, but also the firstlings of his flock, as an atoning sacrifice for his sins.
2. I will now, in the second place, make a few observations upon this Scripture narrative; and, first, I would observe that it is sufficiently clear, from this passage of Scripture, that not all who worship God are acceptable worshippers, Natural conscience, which cannot be pacified without the observance of the outward forms of religion, leads not a few to join in the public worship of Almighty God, and custom induces still more. They come unto God as His people come, and they sit before Him as His people, and they hear His words; but, as the prophet goes on to say, they will not do them; for with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness (Eze_33:31). Now, hence arises an important duty to all the professing people of God, namely, that of examining themselves as to the motives which influence them in all their approaches to the Most High, and in all the services of religion. You are accustomed to pray to God in public and in private. Is this mere habit? Is it the pacification of conscience that causes you thus to bow the knee before Him, and to utter words in which your heart has no part? Or does a sense of your manifold daily wants bring you to His footstool, and does the tongue give utterance to the feelings of the heart? The next observation which I would make upon these offerings of Cain and Abel is, that do we desire to serve God acceptably, we must serve Him with our best. It is the especial commendation of good Josiah, King of Judah, that he turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might; and for that he is preferred before all the kings who were before or came after him. I would observe, lastly, that our persons must be rendered pleasing unto God, or our offerings will not be accepted by Him. God had respect to Abel and to his offering; first to Abel, and then to his offering. The reasoning of Manoahs wife was sound, when she said, in answer to the fears of her husband, If the Lord were pleased to kill us, He would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands Jdg_13:23). She infers the acceptance of the person from the acceptance of the service. It is said, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (11:4), that Abel obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts. Thus we read in the Book of Leviticus (Lev_9:24), And there came a fire out from before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat; in Ch 7:1, When Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the Lord filled the house. And the same we know occurred in the case of the prophet Elijah, when he met the prophets of Baal on Mount Carmel. This, indeed, was the great prerogative of Abel and the Old Testament saint; but, though we have not this, we have what all will allow to be far better, that of which this was but the figure; for the believer now has assuredly the fire of God, that is, the Spirit comes down into his heart day by day--not visibly, but spiritually--and burns up in his heart his sins and corruptions, and lights up the light of true faith, never to be extinguished.
3. I must now proceed to point out some of the lessons of instruction derivable from this subject. And, first, we may learn from this narrative that none can stand before God with acceptance except through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It is no uncommon thing to hear people say that if they diligently follow an honest calling, do no one any harm, and pay everyone his due, it is sure to be well with them; that is to say, that they will certainly find acceptance with God at the last, and be received into His kingdom. Learn, secondly, from this subject, that the visible Church of God hath ever been a mixed company, consisting of the evil as well as the good. Learn, lastly, from this subject, that a sacrifice has been appointed of God for the sins of the whole world, and that, through it, all who believe shall assuredly be saved. (T. Grantham, B. D.)
Cain and Abel
I. CAIN AND ABEL WORSHIPPING.
1. The time of worship. In the process of time; literally, from the end of days.
(1) This may denote the end of the week, of the year, or of some longer period.
(2) Probably the end of the week--i.e., on the Sabbath day.
(a) This suggests habits of worship taught by their parents.
(b) Regular periods of worship.
2. Cains offering.
3. Abels offering.
4. Gods dealings with the worshippers.
(1) Both were observed of God.
(2) Abels accepted, and Cains rejected. Why? Heb_11:4 explains. Faith, in Scripture, always signifiesto believe and to obey Gods Word.
(b) Abels offering was expressive of both these characteristics of faith.
(c) Cains offering was expressive of his wilful rejection of both.
(d) But without faith it is impossible to please God. Hence the acceptance of the one and the rejection of the other.
(e) A Divine revelation of the necessity of blood in an acceptable sacrifice for sin is implied in the Divine acceptance of Abels offering, and that this acceptance was conditioned on his faith.
II. CAINS ANGER AND JEHOVAHS EXPOSTULATION.
1. Cains anger suggests two things:
(1) That the Divine acceptance and rejection were manifested in some outward form which humiliated him--probably by fire from heaven, as on Carmel in Elijahs time.
(2) That his self-will led him, even in his worship, to insult Him whom he professed to worship.
2. Jehovahs expostulation.
(1) It was full of mercy; graciously designed to lead him to reflect, to repent, to accept Gods plan.
(2) Full of encouragement to the well-doer.
(3) ABEL MURDERED BY CAIN HIS BROTHER Full of warning to the evil-doer.
III. 1. The dreadful crime and its preliminaries.
2. The retribution.
3. Gods reply to the despairing man.
Lessons:
1. All forms of worship, however sincere, are not equally acceptable.
2. No form of worship is acceptable which does not recognize the guilt of sin and the need of blood for its expiation.
3. The spiritual effect of the religion of faith and the religion of reason upon the moral character is exemplified in Cain and Abel.
4. How vain is the sinners hope to escape either the eye or the hand of a just and holy God. (D. C. Hughes, M. A.)
Cain and Abel
I. THE FIRST RECORDED SACRIFICE. The need of sacrifice felt, and the nature of it revealed. Without doubt Adam had offered sacrifices in the presence of his children. From him they learned what to select, and how to offer it, and the sign of acceptance. Plain from Heb_11:4 that both a right feeling and a right thing are needed to constitute an acceptable sacrifice. The right sacrifice without faith, or faith without the right sacrifice, would have failed. The presence of both made the sacrifice of Abel more acceptable than Cains. Cain a daring innovator. He chose what God had not appointed, and offered it in a wrong spirit.
II. THE FIRST RECORDED DEATH.
1. A violent death. Death in any form the occasion of deep sorrow. Such a death most appalling. The more so that it was now unprecedented. A serious subtraction from the worlds population at that time.
2. Probably unintentional. Cain evidently meditated violence, but not death. Hence a lesson to us on the consequences of ungoverned rage. What has passion done since this event!
III. THE FIRST MURDERER.
1. Could not undo the deed.
2. His dreadful remorse and despair.
3. The criminality of the act may be judged by the curse pronounced.
4. Cain himself felt that, though his life was spared, he must leave the society of men.
5. At last has a son, Enoch (= dedication). May we not indulge the hope that this was indicative of his true repentance?
6. Ceased to be a wanderer; built a city, also called Enoch. (J. C. Gray.)
Cain and Abel
Cain was not without a kind of religiousness, remember. He did go to the unroofed church sometimes; but he went so unwillingly, so slouchingly, so coldly, that it was no church to him. He begrudged the few roots and fruits that he took, just as we begrudge the weekly offering, and therefore God let him take them home, just as we would do if we could get secretly at the box. God takes nothing from our unwilling hand. He loves a cheerful giver! He will take two mites, He will take a cup of cold water, He will take a box of ointment if given gladly; but none of your grudging, none of your dropping a penny as if it were a half-crown, none of your grunting, none of your porcupinishness: all must be free, glad, honest, open, and joyous; then the fire will come down and take back to heaven the gift of your love. Abel was religious in the right way. He gave the best he had with an open heart, and the Lord said, Of such is the kingdom of heaven. Now, observe, if you please, for it will help you through your whole life, that brothers are not necessarily akin. The greatest contrasts I have perhaps ever known have been between brothers. Yes, and they have been utter strangers to one another, have been these very brothers. And if you think of it, the thing is reasonable enough: the human family in all its bearings is one; human nature is not incoherent, but consolidated. We live in flats, and think that one flat has no connection with another; that is our foolish and ruinous mistake. Your brother may be on the next continent; your mate heart may be a stranger you have never seen. Cain and Abel were not akin. Cain did things with his hand; Abel did them with his heart. Cain flung his gifts at you, and if you did not catch them so much the more pleased was he; Abel gave them with a hearty love, and was sorry he had not more to give. So Cain killed Abel, and will kill him to the end of the world, spite of all preachers and moralists, but now in a cunning enough way to escape the gaoler and the gibbet. But he will kill him! The man who lost the prize for which his essay was written will kill the man whose essay was accepted; he will sneer at him, and a sneer may be murder. The man who lost the election, being defeated, not disgraced, will kill the man who got in; he will shrug a shoulder when his name is up, and a shrug may be homicide! You and I may have killed a good many people, and a good many people may have tried to kill us; they will take away our trade, they will say unkind things of us, they will close an eye or pucker a lip villainously, and then dry their mouths as those who have been drinking in secret. It is very horrible; it smells sulphurously; hell cannot be far away, and we are not to windward. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The superiority of Abels sacrifice
1. Some have said that the superiority of Abels sacrifice consisted in this: that he brought the best to God. He brought the firstlings of his flock, while, it is said, Cain did not bring the best products of the soil, it being simply stated that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, making no selection of the best. Abel was careful out of his flock to select the firstlings, while Cain was careless, and in the spirit of anything will do, brought of the fruit of the ground. Now, this looks very much like the invention of an explanation, and is far from satisfactory, for there is no statement to indicate that Cain did not bring as superior a production as the ground afforded, and there is nothing either in the narrative or elsewhere, which shows that the virtue of Abels offering consisted in the fact that he brought the firstlings of his flock. But while we must reject this as the true explanation, the view here brought before us is deeply suggestive of important practical lessons. We, doubtless, whether Cain did or not, frequently fail to offer God our best. The man of business immerses himself for six whole days out of every seven in exclusively worldly cares, and then on the Sabbath boasts that he gives to God its sacred hours, whereas prudential considerations render it advisable, and physical laws determine it necessary, that he should take one days rest in seven. So in reality he gives to God the time that he cannot spare for the world. In the disposal of wealth, too, we sadly fail to think first of God. Men are prodigal of their wealth in providing splendid mansions for themselves, and fruitful fortunes for their families, and only think of giving God what is to spare after these selfish distributions are made.
2. Others affirm that the difficulty is to be solved by referring it to the difference of material used in the sacrifices offered. Abels was flesh, and Cains was fruit. In this view, Cains was merely a eucharistic, while Abels was an expiatory sacrifice: the former only a thank offering, the latter an offering for sin. We have failed to find scriptural support for this opinion. It seems to us that the advocates of this theory must, to make it tenable, prove at least three things. First, that there was that in a thank offering which was necessarily offensive to God. Secondly, it must be shown that Cains employment was a dishonourable one, for if the fruit of the ground could not be acceptably offered, it must be because to till the ground was an illegitimate occupation. But this cannot be shown, for it was an employment to which God had Himself committed man only in the previous chapter, In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. Thirdly, in order to make it believable that the bloodshedding of Abels sacrifice was the ground of his acceptance, it must be shown that Abel had been made acquainted with the Divine regulation, Without shedding of blood is no remission, whereas there is nothing either stated or implied to show that he had this knowledge, and it is not likely that God would accept Abels sacrifice on the grounds of which Abel himself could know nothing.
3. The reason of Cains defective and unacceptable sacrifice was to be found in Cains defective and unacceptable character, and the cause of Abels acceptable and pleasing offering was to be found in Abels acceptable and pleasing person. It was his goodness that made his sacrifice more excellent than Cains. This view seems adequate to account for the difference in Divine estimation, and it only remains to derive arguments in its support from the sources which are available for the purpose, and which, in their cumulative character, will be considered sufficiently conclusive. These are three in number.
(1) The general tendency of Scripture teaching shows that sacrifice is only acceptable to God when the person of the sacrificer is acceptable; that the offering is valueless unless the offerer be in true religious accord.
(2) Let us turn to the narrative itself, and we shall find its testimony to be to the same effect. And the record preserved in Genesis
4. supplies us with two sorts of evidence.
(a) The terms of the statement which sets forth Abels acceptance and Cains rejection, are proof. From these it appears that their persons as well as their offerings are regarded, nay, that their persons are first regarded. Unto Abel and to his offering He had respect. Unto Cain and to his offering He had not respect. Obviously Abels sacrifice pleased because Abel pleased; Cains offering was unacceptable, because Cains person was unacceptable.
(b) The explanation offered to Cain is further proof. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. Here Cains rejection is fully accounted for by God. Had he, like his brother, been a good man, his offering, like his brothers, would have been accepted. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? What is this but a declaration that well-doing is the condition of acceptance? If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
(3) It remains to adduce confirmatory evidence from New Testament writers
(a) The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews abundantly testifies in support of the view now presented. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and by it he being dead yet speaketh Gen_11:4). The conclusion can be no other than that Abels sacrifice was more excellent, because Abel was himself more excellent. He was righteous, and in sacrificing obtained witness of his righteousness. Cain was unrighteous, and therefore by his sacrifice could obtain no such witness as, on account of the rectitude of his character, was awarded to his brother.
(b) The testimony of St. John may finally be quoted in confirmation of the view that the different moral character of the parties was the reason of the different estimation in which their sacrifices were respectively held. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother, and wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brothers righteous. On the plan adopted in this particular instance, God ever proceeds. He is pleased to accept the offerings of righteousness: He refuses to recognize the sacrifices of sin. Let us first realize that rectitude of heart and life, without which all outward efforts at pleasing will be of no avail. And realizing this, we shall be prepared to offer our bodies a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is our reasonable service. And this reasonable service of sacrifice is the old institution Christianized. (W. Brooks.)
One sin leads to another
Sins are like circles formed in the water when a stone is thrown into it; one produces another. When anger was in Cains breast, murder was not far off. (Eliza Cook.)
The origin of sacrifice
Respecting the origin of sacrifice, it has been made a point by some to contend strenuously for its being of human device. The argument on which reliance is chiefly placed by those who advocate this view is that no mention is made in Scripture of the Divine institution of sacrifice--an omission which, it is contended, would not have occurred had such been the case. To this it may be replied, That the whole of this argument rests on an unsound assumption, viz., that nothing can be held to be of Divine institution which is not expressly announced as being so in Scripture. Now to this assumed premise we can by no means assent. God has in various ways conveyed to us the intimation of His will in His Word; and whilst in some cases he has explicitly enacted what He would have us believe and practise, He has in other cases left us to gather His will by induction and inference from various statements of His Word. But shall we say that in eases of the latter sort we have less His will than in cases of the former sort? May not the very fact that an institution is of such a kind that, if God had not appointed it, it never would have existed at all, be reason sufficient for omitting all formal announcement of its Divine origin? It may be remarked, further, that if Scripture nowhere expressly asserts the Divine origin of sacrifice, it as little asserts the human origin of it. The question, then, fairly rises before us, Have we any good grounds for the inference that animal sacrifice is of Divine origin? In reply to this the following things deserve to be carefully pondered
1. Reason constrains us to exclude all other possible sources of such a practice. It will occur to you as a safe and guiding principle that no such universally prevalent usage can be accounted for except on one of two suppositions: either that it has been dictated by some conviction or necessity common to all mankind, or that it has been presented by some authority to which all mankind in common have felt themselves bound to defer.
(1) Now, with regard to the former hypothesis, it is to be observed that a universal conviction must be founded in the reason of things, and a universal necessity must arise from some of the original appetites or desires of the human mind. We inquire then, first, whether there is anything in the reason of the thing to induce a universal conviction among mankind that sacrifice is a proper method of approaching and worshipping the Deity. Suppose the earliest tribes of men believed God to be altogether such an one as themselves, does this furnish any grounds for supposing that they would naturally think of seeking His favour by the offering of sacrifice? Would men naturally think of acting so to their fellow men? Would a son seek the favour of his father, a subject the protection of his sovereign, by taking an innocent creature, and killing it and burning it before the party he sought to make propitious to him? Would not men rather naturally recoil from the suggestion of such a thing as more likely to prove offensive to the object of their homage than agreeable? And if so, does not the very supposition that mankind, in the early ages of the world, were under the influence of anthropomorphic notions render improbable the position that they were led by the reason and propriety of the thing to offer sacrifices to the Deity? If they thought God altogether such an one as themselves, how comes it to pass that they were led to seek His favour by methods which they would have recoiled from using in regard to one of themselves? In reply to this question various suggestions have been offered as hypotheses by way of rationally accounting for the human origin of sacrifices.
(a) It has been suggested that sacrifice might have originally been presented as a gift or present to the Deity, and it has been asked whether it might not very naturally occur to man to present of his flocks and herds to God, as a token of acknowledgment of His bounty? To this it may be replied, in the first place, that this is altogether irrelevant, inasmuch as the question relates, not to the offering of gifts, but to the slaying of sacrifices, between which there is no sort of analogy, nor any affinity that might lead to the one growing out of the other; and then, secondly, this is an attempt to remove one difficulty by suggesting another equally great; for it is just as far Item probability that a man should, from the reason of the thing, conclude that the great Being to whom he acknowledged he owed everything would be pleased by his destroying part of what he had received, by laying it on the altar as a present, as it is that He would be pleased by its being destroyed as a sacrifice. It may also be observed that there is reason to doubt whether the idea of sacrifice is not historically anterior to that of a gift. Gifts can come into existence, and the idea of them into mens minds, only when property is possessed. In the Adamic family there might be differences of occupation, and each might contribute his share to the common fund; but there is no probability that anything of the nature of property was claimed by any of them in what he produced. We cannot conceive of Abel appropriating his sheep, and Cain his fruits, and the one bartering with the other, or bestowing a portion on the other as a gift. At this early period, then, men could have no experience of gifts or of their effects on men, and hence could not have the idea suggested to them from such experience of procuring the Divine favour by a gift. But as sacrifice already was known and practised, the idea of it must have preceded the idea of a gift.
(b) Not less valueless is a second suggestion, viz., that sacrifice arose out of the idea of a friendly meal shared by the Deity and His worshippers. For not only is there nothing in the reason of things to suggest such an idea to the mind, but it seems excluded by the very form in which sacrifice, in its most ancient as well as most solemn and highest form, was presented, viz., in that of a holocaust or whole burnt offering. Where the whole animal was consumed on the altar, it is obvious that the idea of a partition of it between the offerer and his God is excluded. Apart from this, however, this idea seems so little natural that it would be absurd to trace to it the spontaneous origin of this universal usage. The idea is undoubtedly a true one, and we find it to a certain extent recognized in the Mosaic offerings, where the priest, in certain cases, as the mediator between God and the offerer, and who had appeared for the latter, partook of the sacrifice in token of the reconciliation having been effected between God and the worshipper; but the idea, though true, is wholly artificial; it is learned by education and from the sacrificial institute, and can never be regarded as a natural conviction of reason giving spontaneously birth to that act. It may be added, that it leaves wholly unexplained the practice of human sacrifices--a practice which prevailed most in the earliest periods, and extendedthrough nations the most widely separated from each other; as well as the fact that among some nations the highest of all sacrifices were of animals which either are or were never used as food, such as the horse, which among the Brahmanical worshippers is called the King of Sacrifice, and that some of the most important sacrifices were of the same kind, as that of the wolf to Mars, the ass to Priapus, and the dog to Hecate. The considerations are conclusive against the hypothesis that sacrifice arose out of the idea of a friendly feast between God and the worshipper. When the oldest, the most sacred, and the most solemn sacrifices were such as were either wholly consumed or were of animals which never were eaten, it is absurd to say that the practice could have originated in the idea of a feast.
(c) The only other suggestion worth noticing, which has been offered an accounting on grounds of natural reason for the practice of sacrifice, is that of Abraham Sykes, who in an essay on Sacrifice explains sacrifices as
federal rites, implying the entering into friendship with God, or the renewal of that friendship when broken by the violation of former stipulations (p. 59). In accordance with this he suggests that sacrifices had their origin in the fact that eating and drinking together were common and accredited modes of contracting covenants or cementing alliances among the ancients (p. 73). This theory of the origin of sacrifice rests on the assumption of the theory last considered, viz., that the sacrifice was of the nature of a friendly meal shared between God and the worshippers, and is consequently liable to all the objections which may be urged against that. Sykess theory is thus inconsistent with itself. It makes sacrifice at once the procuring cause of the feast of reconciliation; and it makes the feast of reconciliation the source and origin of the sacrifice. If there bad been no reconciliation there would have been no feast; and there would have been no reconciliation had there been no sacrifice. How was it possible in such circumstances for the feast to originate the sacrifice--the effect to give birth to the cause? The futility of these hypotheses shows how untenable is the attempt to find the origin of sacrifice in the reason of the thing itself. As little can it be sought for in any natural and universal conviction or felt necessity of the human mind; for there is nothing in the common natural workings or passions of the mind which would of itself suggest such a mode of serving and worshipping God. On the contrary, to the natural reason and heart of man it is rather repugnant than otherwise.
(2) Having thus disposed of the one side of the alternative formerly proposed, we now come to the other. If sacrifices have not their origin in their inherent reasonableness or in any common affection of the human mind, they must have had their origin in some other authoritative appointment to which all men in common felt constrained to yield.
(a) We cannot assume such an authority to have resided in any priestly body so as to resolve sacrifices into an invention of priestcraft, because
(b) sacrifices were known and practised long before the priesthood became a separate profession; they were practised when each individual acted as his own priest, or when at the utmost each father acted as the priest of his own household; so that there was no room for the operation of any priestcraft in the case.
(3) Any benefit accruing to the priest from the sacrifices brought by the worshippers is so small that we cannot suppose a sufficient inducement to have been found in that to lead to their inventing and inculcating such a usage. And
(a) supposing some one priest or body of priests had fallen on this invention, that will not account for the universality of the practice; it is as difficult to account for all the priests in the world adopting it as it is to account for all the people in the world following it.
(b) But if we exclude the supposition of priestcraft, we are shut up to the supposition of some common father of the race, such as Adam or Noah, by whom the rite was practised, and from whom it was handed down to all mankind. But as the rite was practised in the family of Adam, and as Noah himself derived it from him, we must go back to the very cradle of the human race for the commencement of this practice. From whom, then, did Adam derive it? Only from Him from whom Adam derived everything--from God Himself.
2. In support of the conclusion at which we have arrived we may appeal to the authority of Scripture. It is true that nowhere there is the origin of sacrifice ascribed to God, but there are certain principles laid down and certain facts recorded which lead to the conclusion that this rite was not of human invention, but was one enjoined on man by God. Of these the following may be mentioned:--
(1) There can be no doubt that God approved of this mode of worshipping Gen_4:4-5; Gen_8:21). Is it not a principle of true religion distinctly recognized in the Bible that it is God who alone has the right to prescribe how He is to be worshipped, and that, consequently, spontaneous contrivances on the part of man to do Him honour are rather presumptuous invasions of His prerogative than grateful acts of homage to Him? The inference from this is, that had sacrifice been a mere human contrivance it would not have been acceptable to God. The Divine acceptance, therefore, is a demonstration of a Divine institution.
(2) It has been suggested, and there is great probability in the suggestion, that sacrifice was instituted by God on the occasion when, after His first interview with man after he had sinned, He took off the skins of animals and converted them into clothing for Adam and his wife. Assuming the propitiatory and typical character of sacrifice, it cannot be denied that the occasion was a fit one for inculcating the practice of it on man, inasmuch as God had just given to him the promise of that great Deliverer of whose work on behalf of man animal sacrifices were designed to be the memorial, symbol, and foreshadow.
(3) It is worthy of notice that in the Mosaic institute, whilst there are many injunctions concerning sacrifices, all these relate to the mode and occasion of the sacrifice, not one to the ordinance itself as something then newly appointed. In every case the law proceeds on the assumption that sacrifice was already known and practised among the Hebrews; and that all that was needed was discretion as to the proper occasions for the offering of sacrifices, the sacrifices proper for each occasion, and the fitting manner in which the rite was to be observed.
(4) If we assume the Divine origin of the sacrificial rite, and suppose that it was made known to Adam by God as soon as that great event which it was designed to commemorate and prefigure was announced, we can at once see how it would become a rite the observance of which should be co-extensive with the race. Adam would enjoin it upon his posterity, and all who did not assume the position of actual apostasy and infidelity, of which Cain set the example, would religiously observe it. The rite would thus be handed down to Noah, from whom again, as the second father of the race, it would be propagated through the world. In the first place, it is not correct to state that the prohibition to shed human blood formed part, still less an important part, of the covenant made by God with Noah; it was simply a moral injunction rendered peculiarly necessary in consequence of the permission now granted to man to slay animals for food, and formed no condition or part of the covenant at all. What makes this certain is, that it is not until after the injunction had been given that we find mention made of Gods entering into a covenant with Noah; this forms a distinct part of the narrative, and the language employed in it is such as to show that it was with reference to totally different matters that that transaction took place. Now, it is quite conceivable that the nations might remember the covenant and the rites connected with it, whilst they forgot or did not choose to observe the moral prohibitions given by God to their ancestor. Secondly, it is fallacious to argue that because God forbade the shedding of mans blood, it is impossible to conceive that the nations should come to think they might please and satisfy Him by offering human victims, because the prohibition was not a special prohibition in the case of sacrifices, but a prohibition in general of the taking of human life--a prohibition therefore which, as it admitted of exceptions in the case of war and judicial executions, might be reasonably held to admit of exception in the case of sacrifice. Certain it is that we find the two beliefs harmoniously coexisting in the minds of men; for among those nations which practised human sacrifices there were none who did not at the same time believe that the gods had forbidden the shedding of mans blood; a fact which could not have occurred had the position assumed been sound. Nay, we may go farther, and say that this very prohibition, instead of deterring men from human sacrifices, was probably the reason which mainly suggested it to them, inasmuch as it was the fence thus placed around human life which made it so precious, and hereby rendered it so valuable as an offering to the gods. Thirdly, it may be admitted that human sacrifices were of high antiquity, and yet it may also be maintained that this was a late abuse of the primitive tradition; for high and late are relative terms, and as it is quite possible for the same object to be in space high relatively to one standard and low relatively to another, so in time the same event may be both early and late according as we measure it from one point or another. In fine, it is competent to ask, if human sacrifices were not an abuse of the rite of sacrifice as practised by Noah, to what is their early existence to be attributed? There can be no doubt that Noah would hand down to his posterity the tradition of what he himself religiously practised. Now, of this traditional usage human sacrifice is either an abuse or it is a rite totally distinct in its nature from ordinary animal sacrifice, and having another meaning. But it is not a rite differing in nature and insignification from ordinary animal sacrifice; all history and testimony assure us that it was intended to express in the highest degree the ideas embodied in and adumbrated by that usage. It follows that it must be regarded as a corruption of this usage; for we cannot believe that it is both in nature and signification identical with the usage of animal sacrifice handed down to the descendants of Noah by tradition, and an original independent invention of the nation by whom it was practised. If we suppose the tradition to have existed we render unnecessary the hypothesis of an independent and a simultaneous invention of the rite; if we suppose such an invention, we have to account for the non-preservation by the family of Noah of the most solemn rite of their ancestral worship. It seems impossible to doubt which of these two hypotheses should be adopted as the most probable. (W. L. Alexander, D. D.)
Of the deep hatred some have conceived against their own brethren
Sir Henry Blunt, in his voyage to the Levant, tells us that at Belgrade, in Hungary, where Danubius and Sava meet, their waters mingle no more than water and oil; and though they run sixty miles together, yet they no way incorporate, but the Danube is clear and pure as a well, while the Sava, that runs along with it, is as troubled as a street channel. After the manner of these rivers it is with some brethren; though bred up together, and near enough each other in respect of their bodies, yet their minds have been as distant from each other as the poles are; which, when opportunity hath served, they have shewn in the effects of an implacable hatred. On the death of the Emperor Severus, his two sons, Bassianus and Geta, could not agree about the parting of the empire, nor did they omit any means whereby they might supplant each other; they endeavoured to bribe each others cooks and butlers to poison their masters; but when both were too watchful to be thus circumvented, at last Bassianus grew impatient, and burning with ambition to enjoy the rule alone, he set upon his brother, gave him a deadly wound, and shed his blood in the lap of Julia, their mother; and having executed this villainy, threw himself amongst the soldiers, and told them that he had with difficulty saved his life from the malice of his brother. Having parted amongst them all that Severus, his father, had been eighteen years heaping up, he was by them confirmed in the empire. (N. Wanley.)
The man makes the sacrifice
The heathens had a notion that the gods would not accept the sacrifice of any but those who were like themselves; and therefore none could be admitted to the sacrifices of Hercules who were dwarfs, and none to those of merry Bacchus who were sad and pensive. An excellent truth may be drawn from this folly. He that would please God must be like God. (W. Gurnall.)
The true temper of an accepted offering
The offering of Cain was like a beautiful present, but there was no sorrow for sin in it--no asking for pardon--and so God would not receive it. Mother wont take my book, once sobbed out a little boy--holding in his hand a very beautiful little volume prettily bound, with gilt edges to the leaves. It was a pretty present, purchased with the pocket money which he had been for weeks saving for his mothers birthday; and now she would not have it. But she did take the needle book and purse which her little daughter presented to her. Why did she refuse the beautiful gift of her boy? He had been naughty--selfish, passionate, false--and had not at all repented; and so when hebrought his offering, she put it gently on one side, saying, No, Charlie. He turned away sullenly, muttering that he did not care, and beginning to cherish feelings of a bad kind towards his sister. But after a while he came to himself--stole into the room, flung himself on her shoulder, confessed his fault with tears, and found favour with his mother. By-and-by, she tenderly whispered, You may bring your present. So God acted with Cain, but he would persist in obduracy of heart. (W. Adamson.)
Unacceptable offerings
Some people are very curious to know what these sacrifices were, and grey-headed commentators, who ought to have known better, have spent no end of time in trying to gratify their idle curiosity. Some have thought that the virtue was in the thing taken, as if that could be! No; you must find out what the heart is, what the motive is, what the will is. A broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. It is forever true that God abhors the sacrifice where not the heart is found. If you want to find out Cains condition of heart you will find it after the service which he pretended to render; you know a man best out of church; the minister sees the best side of a man, the lawyer the worst, and the physician the real. If you want to know what a mans religious worship is worth, see him out of church. Cain killed his brother when church was over, and that is the exact measure of Cains piety. And so, when you went home the other day you charged five shillings for a three-shilling article, and told the buyer it was too cheap: and that is exactly the value of your psalm singing and sermon hearing. You said you enjoyed the discourse exceedingly last Thursday; then you filled up the income tax paper falsely: and you will be judged by the schedule, not by the sentiment. (J. Parker, D. D.)
If thou doest well, shalt thou not he accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door
Sin lying at the door
The key to the interpretation of these words is to remember that they describe what happens after and because of wrong-doing. They are all suspended on, If thou doest not well. The word translated here lieth is employed only to express the crouching of an animal, and frequently of a wild animal: Unto thee shall be its desire, and thou shalt rule over it. Words like these were spoken to Eve: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. In horrible parody of the wedded union and love, we have the picture of the sin that was thought of as crouching at the sinners door like a wild beast, now, as it were, wedded to him.
I. THINK OF THE WILD BEAST WHICH WE TETHER TO OUR DOORS BY OUR WRONG-DOING. Every human deed is immortal; the transitory evil thought, or word, or act, which seems to fleet by like a cloud, has a permanent being, and hereafter haunts the life of the doer as a real presence. This memory has in it everything you ever did. A landscape may be hidden by mists, but a puff of wind will clear them away, and it will all be there, visible to the farthest horizon.
II. The next thought is put into a strong and, to our modern notions, somewhat violent metaphor--THE HORRIBLE LONGING, AS IT WERE, OF SIN TOWARD THE SINNER: Unto thee shall be its desire. Our sins act towards us as if they desired to draw our love to themselves. When once a man has done a wrong thing it has an awful power of attracting him and making him hunger to do it again. All sin is linked together in a slimy tangle, like a field of seaweed, so that the man once caught in its oozy fingers is almost sure to be drowned.
III. THE COMMAND HERE IS ALSO A PROMISE. Sin lies at thy door--rule thou over it. The text proclaims only duty, but it has hidden in its very hardness a sweet kernel of promise. For what God commands God enables us to do. The words do really point onwards through all the ages to the great fact that Jesus Christ, Gods own Son, came down from heaven, like an athlete descending into the arena, to fight with and overcome the grim wild beasts, our passions, and our sins, and to lead them transformed in the silken leash of His love. (A. Maclaren, D. D.)
Sin, guilt, and retribution
Sin finds in the very constitution of the human mind the enginery of its own retribution.
I. The very consciousness of sin is destructive of a sinners peace.
II. Sin tends to develop sin.
III. The consciousness of guilt is always more or less painfully attended with the apprehension of its discovery.
IV. A foreboding of judicial and eternal retribution is incident to sin.
V. From all this we see the preciousness of the work of Christ. He becomes a reality to us, only because He is a necessity; He gives Himself to blot out the past. (A. Phelps.)
Gods expostulation with Cain
I. THAT THOSE WHO DO WELL CANNOT FAIL TO SECURE DIVINE ACCEPTANCE. What is it to do well? We must not suffer our judgments to be biased by the opinions of men. To do well, with some, is to succeed in business. He is doing very well, is a common phrase applied to a successful tradesman. Jonah thought he did well to be angry even unto death. To do well, in the sense in which the expression must be understood here, is--to bring an acceptable sacrifice to the Lord, and to offer it in an acceptable manner.
II. THAT THOSE WHO NEGLECT TO DO WELL WILL HAVE TO BLAME THEMSELVES ALONE FOR IT.
1. Those neglect to do well who offer to God no acceptable sacrifice. Sinners offer to God nothing but insults. Their tongue and their doings are against the Lord, to provoke the eves of His glory; their souls and bodies, time and talents, are all desecrated from their original purpose.
2. Those neglect to do well who offer their sacrifices in an unacceptable manner.
Cain did this in conclusion we observe;
1. Gods expostulation with Cain reminds us of His willingness to save sinners. Expostulations, containing similar sentiments, may be found, Eze_18:29; Eze_18:31; Hos_11:8; Mat_23:37.
2. It also serves as a ground of encouragement for those who have been doing ill, but wish to do better; If thou doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? Let not the evil actions of the former part of thy life discourage thee.
3. It leaves sinners without reasonable excuse. (Sketches of Sermons.)
The croucher at the door
Cain is here warned that, while he is nursing his angry, jealous thoughts, sin, like a ravening beast, as crafty as it is cruel, is crouching outside the door of his heart, only waiting for the door to be opened by any touch of passion to spring in; and he is admonished to keep the door shut lest he be overcome of evil. He is warned that the desire of the sin, which looks so fair and tempting to the eye stained and discoloured by passion, is against him, that his only safety consists in subduing and ruling over it.
I. THE COMPARISON.
1. Craft. Sin is subtle, full of wiles and all deceivableness.
(1) Like a wild beast, beautiful in outward seeming, lithe and graceful in its motions; its feet shod with velvet, its strength robed in a coat of many colours.
(2) Like a stealthy crouching beast, lurking in ambush, stealing unheard and unseen from thicket to thicket, or gliding softly through the long tangled grass, availing itself of every inequality of the ground, hiding behind every trunk or bush, approaching its victim like a fate--silent, invisible, unerring.
2. Cruelty, no less than craft, characterizes the croucher at the door. The most crafty beasts are the most cruel. They crouch that they may spring, and rend, and tear. And sin is cruel, and fatal in its cruelty. If it crouch, it is that it may spring; if it spring, it is that it may destroy.
II. THE WARNING. If thou doest not well, sin is a croucher at the door; and his desire is against thee, but thou shouldest rule over him.
1. The warning points out our danger.
(1) He who does not well, is very near to doing ill. A merely negative virtue is in peril of becoming positive vice. He who neglects opportunities of doing good, by his very neglect of them does evil. The holy war admits no neutrals; we must be for God, or against Him.
(2) The warning suggests another thought of a much more hopeful cast. For it implies that sin is external to man, not an essential part of his nature, but a foreign, adverse power which has only an usurped authority; it represents evil as a croucher without the door, and capable of being kept out. We need to remember and to emphasize the fact that sin is not of the essence of our nature; for much depends upon it. It makes redemption possible; for how should they be redeemed from evil of whose nature evil is an essential and inseparable quality?
2. The warning indicates our safety. His desire is against thee, but thou shouldest rule over him. The croucher cannot be tamed. It must be caged, starved, slain. But how is this wily foe to be caught? how are the strength and fierceness of this cruel foe to be subdued? Truly, if we were called to the task alone, we might well despair. Sin has too firm a hold on us to be readily dislodged. But our comfort is that we are not called to the task alone. He who warned Cain that the croucher was at his door, would have helped Cain to repel him. And He who warns us that sin is our subtle and implacable antagonist, will help us to detect its wiles and to withstand its assaults. It only needs that Christ show Himself on our side, and evil will not court another overthrow. (S. Cox, D. D.)
To those who are angry with their godly friends
Sinners are not all of the laughing sort: Cains mind was angry, and his heart was heavy. The short life of the vicious is not always a merry one. The present does not content them, and they have no future from which to borrow the light of hope. They have a religion of their own, even as Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground; but it yields them no comfort, for God has no respect to their offering, and therefore they are displeased about it. They would like to have the enjoyments of religion very much, they would like to have peace of conscience, they would like to be uplifted beyond all fear of death, they would like to be as happy as Christian people are; but they do not want to pay the price, namely, obedience to God by faith in Jesus Christ. They are in a bitter state of heart, and it is fair to ask each one of them, Why art thou wroth? Alas! they are not angry with themselves, as they ought to be, but angry with God; and often they are angry with Gods chosen, and envious of them, even as Cain was malicious and vindictive towards Abel. Why should my neighbour be saved, and not I? Why should my brother rejoice because he has peace with God, while I cannot get it? Now, I want to call attention to a very gracious fact connected with this text; and that is, that, although Cain was in such a bad temper that he was very wroth, and his countenance fell, yet God, the infinitely gracious One, came and spoke with him, and reasoned with him patiently. God gives none up until they fatally resolve to give themselves up, and even then His good Spirit strives with them as long as it is possible to do so, consistently with His holiness.
I. I shall take the last sentence of the text first: Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. In these words God argues with Cain, and answers the charge of favouritism which was lurking in his mind. He tells him, in effect, that NO DIFFERENCE IS MADE IN THE ARRANGEMENT OF SOCIAL LIFE BECAUSE OF THE ARRANGEMENTS OF GRACE. Notice that He says to him, Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him--which I understand to mean just this: Why are you so angry against Abel? It is true that I have accepted his offering; it is true that he is a righteous man, and you are not; but, for all that, you are his elder brother, and he looks up to you, his desire is toward you, and you shall rule over him. He has not acted otherwise than as a younger brother should act towards an elder brother, but he has admitted your seniority and priority. Observe this, then--that if a man shall be angry with his wife because she is a Christian, we may well argue with him, Why are you thus provoked? Is she not a loving and obedient wife to you in all things, except in this matter touching her God? Is she not all the better for her religion?
1. Now, this is an important thing to note, because first of all it takes away from governments their excuse for persecution. Christianity does not come into a nation to break up its arrangements, or to break down its fabric. All that is good in human society it preserves and establishes. It snaps no ties of the family; it dislocates no bonds of the body politic. Let all who are in authority, whether as kings or petty magistrates, beware of wantonly molesting a people who cause them no trouble, lest they be found in this matter to be fighting against God.
2. That being so in the broad field of national life, it is just the same if you bring it down to the little sphere of home. There is no reason why Cain should be so angry with Abel because God loves him; for the love of God to Abel does not take away from Cain his right as an elder brother. It does not teach Abel to refuse to Cain the rights of his position, nor lead him to act rudely and wrongfully to him. No: Abels desire is unto Cain, and Cain rules over him as his elder brother. Wily, then, should Cain be wroth, and his countenance fall? I could hope, my angry friend, that God means to give a greater blessing still to you--that He means to entice you to heaven by showing your wife the way; or He means to lead you to Christ by that dear child of yours. I have known parents brought to repentance by the deaths of daughters or of sons who have died in the faith. I hope you will not have to lose those you love that you may be brought to Jesus by their dying words. But it may be so: it may be so. It will be better for you to yield to their gentle example while yet they are spared to you, than for you to be smitten to the heart by their sickness and death.
II. Now let us advance farther into the text. There is no room for being angry, for THOUGH THE DIFFERENCE LIES FIRST WITH THE GRACE OF GOD, YET IT LIES ALSO WITH THE MANS OWN SELF. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.
1. First, then, if you are not accepted, and you are angry because you are not accepted, is there not a just cause for it? If you do not enjoy the comforts of religion, and you grow envious because you do not, you should cool your wrathfulness by considering this question--If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? That is to say, will you not be accepted on the same terms as Abel? You will be accepted in the same way as your brother, your sister, your child. How is it that the one you envy is full of peace? It is because he has come to Jesus and confessed his sin, and trusted his Redeemer. If thou doest this, shalt not thou also be accepted? Has not the Lord said, Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out? Instead of being angry with another, for believing and rejoicing, taste for thyself the joys which faith secures. May infinite grace lead thee to do so now!
2. Gods second word with Cain was, however, If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. That is to say, If religion does not yield thee joy as it does thy brother, what is the reason? Surely sin stops the entrance, as a stone blocking the doorway. If you cannot gain an entrance to mercy, it is because sin like a huge stone, has been rolled against it, and remains there.
(1) Is it unbelief? You will not believe Gods word. You reject the testimony of God concerning His Son Jesus, and thus you put away from you eternal life.
(2) Is it impenitence? Are you hardened about your sin? Do you refuse to quit it? Is there no sorrow in your heart to think that you have broken the Divine law, and have lived forgetful of your God? A hard heart is a great stone to lie in a mans way; for he who will not own his sin and forsake it is wedded to his own destruction.
(3) Or, is it pride? Are you too big a man to become a Christian? Are you too respectable, too wealthy, too polite? Are you too deep a thinker? Do you know too much?
(4) Alas! there are some who have another sin, a hidden sin.
(5) We have known persons practise dishonesty in business, and this has shut them out from acceptance.
(6) Some cannot get peace because they neglect prayer.
(7) Not a few harbour enmity their hearts towards their brother or neighbour.
(8) Then there are some who keep evil company.
3. I think this word of Divine expostulation bears another meaning. If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. That is to say, not only as a stone to block your way, but as a lion to pounce upon you. It is true that sin is hindering you from peace, but it is also true that a greater sin is lurking at the door ready to spring upon you. What a warning this word ought to have been to Cain! Perhaps at that moment he had not seriously thought of killing his brother. He was angry, but he was not yet implacable and malicious. But God said, There is a sin lying at your door that will come upon you to your destruction. May it not be the same with you?
4. But there is yet another meaning which I must bring out here, and that is one which is held by many critics, though it is questioned by others. I am content to go with a considerable fallowing, especially of the old divines, who say that the word here used may be rendered, If thou doest ill, a sin offering lieth at the door. And what a sweet meaning this gives us! God graciously declares to angry Cain, Thou canst bring a sin offering, as Abel has done, and all will be well. Thou canst present a bleeding sacrifice, typical of the great atonement: a sin offering lies at the door. This should be an encouraging assurance to anyone who is anxious, and at the same time greatly afraid that pardon is not possible. Where can I find Christ? says one. He standeth at the door: He waiteth for thee. The offering is not far to seek. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The personal causes of human misery
I do not understand the same thing by the words misery and calamity. Calamities may be occasions for sorrow, and they may become ingredients in misery; but they do not become misery until they have taken a certain hold upon the whole constitution of the man. Perhaps I might illustrate this distinction by comparing the character of Cain, referred to in the text, with that of the Apostle Paul. Paul was the subject of numerous afflictions, as here stated; yet we cannot call him a miserable man. But Cain exclaims in the bitterness of his soul, My punishment is greater than I can bear. His spirit was broken down under the influence of his circumstances; and we call him miserable, whilst we only say that the Apostle Paul was afflicted. It is, then, into the causes of this breaking up of the inward peace of a mans mind in the condition which God has been pleased to assign him, that we have to inquire. But before I name the causes, and describe to you their operation severally, permit me to point out one or two conjectures, by which individuals endeavour to account for their misery, but to which it cannot properly be attributed. There are several mistakes of this kind. And, in the first place, I do not think that human misery can be ascribed to the personal organization of a mans constitution. For the frame of man is most delicately constructed by a wise and benevolent hand, devised by One who was capable of contemplating the end from the beginning of our existence; there is no part in all its original constitution, which seems to have been formed for the purpose of producing misery. In the second place, we cannot ascribe the misery that is found in this world to any order of circumstances connected with an individuals station in life. Some people are almost ever ready to attribute their sorrows and miseries to the position which they occupy. Raise me, they say, to another station in society, and I shall be happy enough. But all experience tells us that men are commonly as happy in the lower situations of life as in the higher. In point of fact, happiness and misery are not at all deducible from an individuals position in society. Let me add one other remark to this explanation: I do not think that you can ever trace the misery of this world to any diseases of the human frame. It is true that disease may become very painful; but yet the man in disease is not always a miserable man. He may be a dying man, but yet not a miserable man. That, then, which breaks down the spirit of a man in the midst of this worlds affairs, must be bred within him. It is not misfortune, but sin, which, operating in diverse kinds, is like a brood of scorpions nursed within the breast, which spend their first life in devouring the very heart that cherished them. Yes, it is to sin cherished within the heart of man, that you must trace the misery of his present condition. In the first place, observe what is accomplished by the teaching and guidance of a father. So soon, therefore, as a man has broken away from the governance and guidance of his Father in heaven, what is the result? What is it that he throws away? The commandment of God brings down the wisdom of infinity for the direction of human affairs; and the man throws away infinite wisdom, to prefer in its stead his own most futile and childish speculations. They are, in fact, vain wishes; and vain wishes must occupy the mind that has let go the Deity, and ceased to find its happiness in God. But there is a second cause of sorrow, more bitter, which operates in conjunction with this; I mean the indulgence of known sins--or rather the seeking our happiness in known sins. Let me take three examples: first, avarice; secondly, lust; and in the third place, pride. All these are sources of misery which are personal, because they exist and operate in the mans own mind. Consider, then, the other mode by which men pursue their happiness; and suffer man to cultivate his pride. And when pride is gratified perfectly, man becomes a devil. Our great poet has shown this in making it the sin of the master devil. Avarice, then, makes a man a stone; lust makes him a beast; and pride makes him a devil; and thus the whole creation of God becomes blasted by the sinful pursuits of His creature, and misery must be the inevitable result. Let me add, further, the effect which these sins have in provoking the Divine anger. Much of the misery which results to men in this world flows from the effect of their personal guiltiness in the sight of heaven. In conclusion; if human misery thus flow from ourselves, you can see that human happiness must be obtained by the cultivation of our own hearts. It is not in a change of circumstances; it is not in modifying the organization of your bodies; it is not in passing from earth to heaven, for if you were to take with you into heaven the vices which you pursue on earth, they would make even heaven itself a hell. And further, if these views of the personal causes of human misery be just, you may perceive the extreme kindness of Divine chastisement, and even of Divine judgment. (C. Stovel.)
Natural and revealed religion
I. NATURAL RELIGION. This consists in doing well. Look at the principle on which it is founded. The principle is practical goofiness. This principle is intrinsically excellent. Man was created to do well. It is to be desired that all men should act upon this principle. The world would be different if men were to. No need of police--prison. It is a principle to which none can object. Let us look at the standard by which it is to be tested. The standard is the moral law of creation. In order to do well, man must love God with all his heart, etc. There must be no omission. The act must be perfect. It must be a gem without a flaw. The motive must be good. The rule must be good. It must be done as God directs. Look at the reward, Shalt thou not be accepted? Such a religion will command the approval of the Almighty. It will secure immortality for its votaries. Had Adam continued to do well, he would have continued to live. This, then, is the religion of nature--is glorious. Have you performed its requirements? Think of sin--its nature, its effects, its ultimate consequences. How can we escape them? Ask natural religion. Will she suggest repentance? Will repentance replace things as they were--reformation? This cannot alter the past. An offering--man has none to present--the mercy of the Eternal? God is merciful,but how can He show it to the sinner, in harmony with justice? Nature has no reply.
II. REVEALED RELIGION. A sin offering lieth at thy door.
1. That revealed religion assumes that men are guilty. If there is no sin, there can be no need of a sin offering; and if there is a sin offering, it is presumed that there is sin. Men have not done well. They are sinners. They are liable to punishment.
2. That revealed religion has provided a sin offering. Three kinds of sacrifices were offered by the Jews: eucharistic--peace offerings--atoning. The last the most prominent. Type of Calvary. In the sin offering there was a substitution of person--a substitution of sufferings--the acceptance of the sin offering was accompanied with Divine evidence. This sacrifice is efficient.
3. That this sin offering reposeth at the door. The atonement of Christ is accessible to the sinner--it rests with man to avail himself of it--men neglect it--God exercises great long suffering--sinners cannot go to hell without trampling on the sacrifice of the Cross--they will be deprived of exercise if they neglect it. (Homilist.)
Three experiments and three failures
I. The FAMILY idea wont keep men right. Cain and Abel were brothers.
II. RELIGIOUS CEREMONIAL wont keep men light. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifice.
III. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION wont keep men right. Cain killed his brother, but a voice cried against him. What will keep men right? The love of God through Jesus Christ. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The principles of the Divine government
The text declared a great and lasting truth to the mind of Cain thousands of years back, as it does to each of us this day. It grounds its appeal upon the immutable principles of right and wrong, and projects its Divine authority through every generation from the birth of man to the very end of time. It speaks to the conscience as well as to the judgment of an intelligent being, and it leaves him to act as a free agent in accordance with its dictates.
I. In the first place we notice the EXTREME CONDESCENSION of the Most High in thus expostulating with Cain, who, it appears from the context, was angered at the reception of his brothers offering and the rejection of his own. Then observe the gentleness of manner with which God is pleased to address Cain. It does not appear that Cain was startled or overwhelmed with terror at the voice of God. There were no thunderings, no earthquakes, no supernatural wonders, but all was gentle and kind on the part of Deity. And it is in this way He continues still to appeal to the hearts and consciences of His people. The plague and the pestilence, the famine and the sword, the blight of earthly hopes and the sadness of the death-chamber, are only the agencies through which He speaks. The voice of God itself heard within us is yet calm and inviting.
II. THE TEXT IS A DECLARATION OF THE GREAT PRINCIPLES OF THE DIVINE ADMINISTRATION SIMILAR TO WHAT IS STATED BY ISAIAH (Isa_3:10-11), and in Ecc_8:12-13.
III. CONSIDER THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE FUTURE JUDGMENT WILL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS REFERRED TO.
IV. The great practical lesson we derive from the text is this: that God, through every period of mans existence, down to the very date of our first creation, HAS EVER DEALT WITH MAN AS A FREE AGENT; as a moral and responsible being, endowed with the power of will, and with faculties which place him above the mere animal world. This is a great and very important truth, and we commend it specially to your consideration. According to the unchangeable laws or principles of moral government, you perceive it is impossible for any man to commit sin with impunity. True, judgment does not always immediately follow crime. The seeds of evil are permitted to grow and develop themselves in their different forms of iniquity, but they are uprooted at last, as the destructive weed is torn up from the earth and cast into the fire. (W. D. Horwood.)
Sin ready to enter
A young friend was one day calling upon an old Christian woman, nearly eighty years of age, just waiting for the summons. Said this friend, Oh, granny, I wish I was as sure of heaven, and as near it, as you are! With a look of unspeakable emotion, the old woman answered, And do you really think the devil cannot find his way up an old womans garret stair? Oh, if He hadnt said, None shall pluck them out of My hand. I would have been away wandering long ago! (Old Testament Anecdotes.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v3 Gen_4:7. Sin lieth at the door.] Rather: “A sin-offering…
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Gen_4:7. Sin lieth at the door.] Rather: “A sin-offering is crouching at the door, or (more generally) opening”: e.g. “at the opening, or entrance, of thy brother’s fold.” This exegesis supplies a point of departure for the words which immediately follow, and which otherwise seem exceedingly abrupt. The connecting link may be shown by the following paraphrase:—“Though, in order to do well, thou must needs own thyself a sinner, and be indebted to thy brother for a sin-offering out of his fold; yet this will not destroy thy rights as firstborn: NOTWITHSTANDING, TO THEE shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Let not pride, therefore, deter thee from this better—this only proper—way. Let no obstinacy, no groundless fears, keep thee from thus doing well.” Much has been written on this passage, and many are the views of it that have been propounded; but, without dogmatising, we may express our pretty confident persuasion that no exposition so fully meets the case as the above.—
Read full note →
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gen_4:3-8
THE TRUE AND FALSE WORSHIPPER OF GOD
I. That both the True and the False amongst Men are apparently Worshippers of God. Both Cain and Abel came to worship God. The false come to worship God.
1. Because it is the custom of the land so to do. The sabbath morning dawns, and the world of mankind awakes to the religious service of the day. All classes and conditions of men are seen wending their way to the temple of God. They reverence not the day. They join not heartily in its worship. They are the slaves of custom. They are the creatures of habit. Hence you cannot distinguish the moral character of men by the mere fact of worship. Attendance to the outward ceremonial of religion is not an infallible index to their piety or heavenly aspirations.
2. Because men feel that they must pay some regard to social propriety and conscience. Men would feel if they did not bring the first fruits of their religious service to God that they were little better than heathens. This to them is a social propriety. They would not disgrace their characters by an avowed neglect of the sabbath, or by a rejection of all moral worship. They always attend church once a day. This is their sabbath etiquette. This silences their conscience, preserves their reputation, and constitutes them moral and respectable people. Hence they bring their firstlings to the Lord. These are the false worshippers of God, and with them the sanctuaries of the world are crowded. They are Cainites.
3. Because men feel that their souls are drawn out to God in ardent longings and grateful praises. These are the true worshippers of God. They are in the minority. They are followers of Abel. They gladly welcome all the means of grace. They joyfully present their firstlings to the Lord. They come to God in his appointed way. They are animated by the true spirit of devotion.
II. That both the True and the False amongst men present their material offerings to God. Cain and Abel not merely came together to worship God, but they also brought of their substance to the Lord. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock.
1. The trade of each brother suggested his offering. This was most natural. The trades, the temperaments, and the abilities of men, generally determine their kind of religious service and devotion. The men of great intellect will take to God the firstlings of a splendid literature. The man of great emotion will take to God the offerings of an enthusiastic prayer. The man of great wealth will take silver and gold. The man of leisure will give his time. The man of genius will give his originality. The poor man will give himself. Hence there are few men who neglect to give some offering to the Lord.
(1.) Some take their offerings for parade. They never take small offerings that can be concealed. Their offerings always go in droves, that men may see them, admire them, and inquire about them. They have no true piety to inspire society with respect, hence they substitute ostentation, and a pretence of goodness in its place. They will give ten thousand pounds to build a church, when privately they would not give ten shillings to save a soul.
(2.) They take their offerings to enhance their trade. They want to be known as great church goers, as men of benevolent disposition. Thus they hope to increase their financial returns, and to strengthen their business relationships. Their offerings to God are nothing more than investments for themselves.
(3.) They take their offerings to increase their social influence.
(4.) They take their offerings with a humble desire to glorify God. These are the offerings of a true manhood. They are the outcome of a penitent soul. They only are acceptable to heaven. Thus as you cannot estimate the moral character of a man by his worship, neither can you by the material offerings he presents to the Lord.
III. That both the true and the false amongst men are observed and estimated by God in their worship and offerings.
1. The worship and offerings of the one are accepted. “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering.” And why:—
(1.) Because it was well and carefully selected. Men should select carefully the offerings they give to God.
(2.) Because it was the best he could command. He brought the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. When men are searching their flocks for the Lord’s offering, they generally take the poorest they can find. The threepenny piece is enough.
(3.) Because it was appropriate His sacrifice preached the gospel, foreshadowed the cross.
(4.) Because it was offered in a right spirit. This makes the great point of difference between the two offerings. The grandest offerings given in a wrong spirit will not be accepted by God, whereas the meanest offering given in lowly spirit will be welcome to him. Thus the younger brother was the best. He was better than his name.
(2.) The worship and offering of the other was rejected. “But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” The men who make their religious offerings a parade, who regard this worship as a form, are not welcomed by God.
IV. That the true, in the Divine reception of their worship and offerings, are often envied by the false.
1. This envy is wrathful. “Why art thou wrath.”
2. This envy is apparent. “Why is thy countenance fallen.”
3. This envy is unreasonable. “If thou doest well, shalt thou be accepted.”
4. This envy is murderous. “Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES
Gen_4:3. Sin, however it made man apostate from God, did not extinguish his worship of God.
God and nature teach parents to nurture children in the religion of God.
Set and stated times there have been for God’s worship from the beginning. The Sabbath.
From the fall of man God did teach their recovery by sacrifice.
Wicked ones, even the children of the devil, have made show of religion from the fall.
Hypocrites come without blood, even without sense of their own deserts and self-abasement, to serve God.
Sincere worshippers have been in the Church of God from the beginning.
THE SACRIFICES OF THE ANCIENT DISPENSATION
Gen_4:4.
I. That from the earliest times, the only way of acceptable worship has been by sacrifice. It is impossible to account for the origin and prevalence of sacrifice, but upon the principle of divine appointment. We cannot suppose that this offering of Abel, so highly approved, was uncommanded. Analogy against it. In subsequent times God appointed the whole Jewish ritual. Tabernacle was erected after His pattern. It is not likely that God would leave fallen man without direction in this matter. There is no natural connection, to the eye of reason, between the sacrifice of a brute and the forgiveness of a sinner. Without shedding of blood is no remission.
II. The sacrifice which God accepts must be offered upon principles which God will approve. Abel gave of the firstlings. He offered his sacrifice in faith—in obedience to a divine institution—in dependence upon divine promise—in the exercise of devout affections. A better sacrifice than Cain—better as to the substance, better as to the feeling. Cain considered God as Creator, but Abel as Redeemer.
III. The order of divine procedure is to accept, first the person, and then the offering. The Lord had respect to Abel and his offering. Man first regards the gifts, and then the person according to the gifts, but God the contrary. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.
IV. The commencement of sacrifice with man’s sin, and the consummation of sacrifice in a Saviour’s death, plainly show that a system of atonement is incorporated with the whole train of Divine dispensation.
1. How important to ascertain our interest in the great sacrifice.
2. That the church on earth has always presented a mixed company, and has always been in a militant state. Cain worshipped in form, Abel in truth. The sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, will always be mingled till judgment.
3. How singular is the fact that the first man who died, died a martyr.
4. Let us all learn to scrutinize our motives in religious worship, as we know that God strictly observes them. He is not a Christian who is one outwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart.—(The Evangelist.)
Strange to say that the worship of God was the first occasion of difference amongst men.
God does not accept men according to the priority of their earthly birth.
Persons are accepted before duties can be.
No work of man can of itself find favour with God.
HISTORY OF CAIN AS A BEACON
Gen_4:5.
I. That he was the first-born of the family of man. Who can describe the anxiety and wonder which his birth would produce? The birth of any child is both an interesting and momentous event; but the first, how especially so!
II. He was a worshipper of the true God. We know nothing of the history of his childhood. He recognised:
1. Proprietorship of God;
2. Bounty of God in His gifts;
3. His right to our homage. These were right. He was defective in faith.
III. He was distinguished for his industrious labour. Labour is honourable—healthy. It prevents temptations. Satan may tempt the industrious, but the idle tempt him. It is the real wealth of the commonwealth.
IV. He was the subject of the deadly passion of envy. God had respect to Abel, but not to Cain. His pride was wounded. Who can stand before envy. It sees no excellency in another. It corrodes the soul.
V. He was a murderer.
VI. He was an accursed vagabond.
VII. He was the subject of the Divine mercy and long-suffering.—(Dr. Burns.)
It is proper for hypocrites to be angry with God about his non-acceptance, but never with themselves for their ill performance.
The contrast between Cain and his brothers:—
1. Cain lives and Abel dies.
2. Cain’s race perishes; the race of Seth continues.
3. Cain the first natural born; Abel the first spiritual born.
The countenance an index to the moral sentiments of the heart.
Gen_4:6. God takes notice of the wrath of the wicked against His saints, and reproves it.
The anger of Cain was probably in part occasioned by the fear that the acceptance of his younger brother before God, might lead to some infringement of the rights of the firstborn. In the next verse he is assured that this should not be the case.
The relations and duties of social life are not altered by a person being admitted into the family of God.
RELIGION OF NATURE AND THE RELIGION OF THE GOSPEL
Gen_4:7. Cain and Abel, like Sarah and Hagar, may be allegorized: the former was a fair representative of natural religionists, the father of Deism; the latter the representative of those who embrace revealed religion. Cain’s religion, in common with many other false religions, had the following characteristics:—
1. It was a religion that had in it some good. It acknowledged the existence of Divine Providence, and human obligations. There are no religions, however false, which do not contain some elements of good. The evils far preponderate.
2. It was a religion of expediency. It was assumed to keep up appearances. There was no principle underlying it.
3. It was a religion which lacked faith. It concerned itself about the present, but was utterly blind to the future. No faith, no reality.
4. It was a religion abounding in self-righteousness. It ignored the existence of sin. It ignored the existence of a breach between man and his Creator.
5. It was a persecuting religion. It could tolerate no other views but its own. It soon stained its hands with blood; an example followed in subsequent ages. The religion of God is forbearing, that of man vindictive. Abel’s religion had also its characteristics:—
1. The religion of Abel embodied all the good that was in the other. Whatever is of value in Deism is found in Christianity.
2. It surpassed it even in its own excellencies. There is no mention of Cain’s being the best of the kind as of Abel’s. Christianity reveals the truth of Deism with clearer light, and holds them with firmer grasp.
3. It recognised the existence of guilt and its merited doom.
4. It was actuated by faith.
5. It was approved by God.
I. Natural Religion. This consists in “doing well.” Look at the principle on which it is founded. The principle is practical goodness. This principle is intrinsically excellent. Man was created to do well. It is to be desired that all men should act upon this principle. The world would be different if men were to. No need of police—prison. It is a principle to which none can object. Let us look at the standard by which it is to be tested. The standard is the moral law of creation. In order to do well, man must love God with all his heart, &c. There must be no omission. The act must be perfect. It must be a gem without a flaw. The motive must be good. The rule must be good. It must be done as God directs. Look at the reward, “Shalt thou not be accepted?” Such a religion will command the approval of the Almighty. It will secure immortality for its votaries. Had Adam continued to do well, he would have continued to live. This, then, is the religion of nature—is glorious. Have you performed its requirements? Think of sin—its nature—its effects—its ultimate consequences. How can we escape them? Ask natural religion. Will she suggest repentance? Will repentance replace things as they were—Reformation? This cannot alter the past. An offering—man has none to present—the mercy of the Eternal? God is merciful, but how can he show it to the sinner, in harmony with justice? Nature has no reply.
II. Revealed Religion. “A sin offering lieth at thy door.”
1. That revealed religion assumes that men are guilty. If there is no sin, there can be no need of a sin-offering; and if there is a sin-offering, it is presumed that there is sin. Men have not done well. They are sinners. They are liable to punishment.
2. That revealed religion has provided a sin-offering. Three kinds of sacrifices were offered by the Jews—eucharistic—peace-offerings—atoning. The last the most prominent. Type of Calvary. In the sin-offering there was a substitution of person—a substitution of sufferings—the acceptance of the sin-offering was accompanied with Divine evidence. This sacrifice is efficient.
3. That this sin-offering reposeth at the door. The atonement of Christ is accessible to the sinner—it rests with man to avail himself of it—men neglect it—God exercises great long-suffering—sinners cannot go to hell without trampling on the sacrifice of the Cross—they will be deprived of exercise if they neglect it.—(Homilist.)
Doing well unto God is only effected by faith in the Divine Mediator.
Guilt and judgment come speedily upon the head of the evil-doer.
Outward rule God sometimes gives to wicked ones over His saints.
Gen_4:8. God’s convictions and reproofs upon the wicked often occasion greater hardness, and rage in sin.
It is usual for wicked men to disemble their rage toward God and His saints.
The simplicity of the saints often makes them a prey to the hypocrisy of the wicked.
Hypocritical enemies, though they be restrained for a time, opportunity reveals them.
Occasion, advantage, and privacy, make discovery of hypocrisy.
Nearest relatives escape not the violence of hypocrites.
The method of Satan is to draw men from envy to murder.
It is not merely from the influence of bad example, as many think, that vice and misery have so abounded in the world: before that could have effect, this crime presents us with as dreadful an instance of malignant passion as any age can afford; and as convincing a proof that it is from within—“out of the heart proceed evil thoughts and murders.”
THREE EXPERIMENTS AND THREE FAILURES
I. The Family idea won’t keep men right. Cain and Abel were brothers.
II. Religious Ceremonial won’t keep right. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifice.
III. Religious Persecution won’t keep men right. Cain killed his brother, but a voice cried against him. What will keep men right? The love of God through Jesus Christ [City Temple].
THE FIRST MURDER
I. It was the murder of one brother by another. We should have thought that the members of this small family could have lived on amicable terms with each other. We should never have dreamed of murder in their midst. See here:—
1. The power of envy.
2. The ambition of selfishness.
3. The quick development of passion.
II. It was occasioned by envy in the religious department of life. The two brothers had each presented their sacrifice; only Abel’s was accepted. This awakened the envy of Cain. Brothers ought to rejoice in the moral success of each other. Envy in the church is the great cause of strife. Men envy each other’s talents. They murder each other’s reputation. They kill many of tender spirit. You can slay your minister by a look—a word—as well as by a weapon. Such conduct is:—
1. Cruel.
2. Reprehensible.
3. Astonishing.
4. Frequent.
III. That it was avenged by Heaven.
1. By a convicting question.
2. By an alarming curse.
3. By a wandering life.
He, who, according to his mother’s hope was to have been the slayer of the serpent, becomes the murderer of his brother. It is well that parents are ignorant of the future of their children, or they would not entertain such bright hopes concerning them in infancy.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v3 Gen 4:3 - Gen 4:16.
Genesis
THE GROWTH AND POWER OF SIN
Read full note →
Gen 4:3 - Gen 4:16.
Many lessons crowd on us from this section. Its general purport is to show the growth of sin, and its power to part man from man even as it has parted man from God. We may call the whole ‘The beginning of the fatal operations of sin on human society.’
1. The first recorded act of worship occasions the first murder. Is not that only too correct a forecast of the oceans of blood which have been shed in the name of religion, and a striking proof of the subtle power of sin to corrupt even the best, and out of it to make the worst? What a lesson against the bitter hatred which has too often sprung up on so-called religious grounds! No malice is so venomous, no hate so fierce, no cruelty so fiendish, as those which are fed and fanned by religion. Here is the first triumph of sin, that it poisons the very springs of worship, and makes what should be the great uniter of men in sweet and holy bonds their great separator.
2. Sin here appears as having power to bar men’s way to God. Much ingenuity has been spent on the question why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected. But the narrative itself shows in the words of Jehovah, ‘If thou doest well, is there not acceptance?’ that the reason lay in Cain’s evil deeds. So, in 1Jn 3:12, the fratricide is put down to the fact that ‘his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous’; and Heb 11:4 differs from this view only in making the ground of righteousness prominent, when it ascribes the acceptableness of Abel’s offering to faith. Both these passages are founded on the narrative, and we need not seek farther for the reason of the different reception of the two offerings. Character, then, or, more truly, faith, which is the foundation of a righteous character, determines the acceptableness of worship. Cain’s offering had no sense of dependence, no outgoing of love and trust, no adoration,-though it may have had fear,-and no moral element. So it had no sweet odour for God. Abel’s was sprinkled with some drops of the incense of lowly trust, and came from a heart which fain would be pure; therefore it was a joy to God. So we are taught at the very beginning, that, as is the man, so is his sacrifice; that the prayer of the wicked is an abomination. Plenty of worship nowadays is Cain worship. Many reputable professing Christians bring just such sacrifices. The prayers of such never reach higher than the church ceiling. Of course, the lesson of the story is not that a man must be pure before his sacrifice is accepted. Of course, the faintest cry of trust is heard, and a contrite heart, however sinful, is always welcome. But we are taught that our acts of worship must have our hearts in them, and that it is vain to pray and to love evil. Sin has the awful power of blocking our way to God.
3. Note in one word that we have here at the beginning of human history the solemn distinction which runs through it all. These two, so near in blood, so separate in spirit, head the two classes into which Scripture decisively parts men, especially men who have heard the gospel. It is unfashionable now to draw that broad line between the righteous and the wicked, believers and unbelievers. Sheep and goats are all one. Modern liberal sentiment-so-called-will not consent to such narrowness as the old-fashioned classification. There are none of us black, and none white; we are all different shades of grey. But facts do not quite bear out such amiable views. Perhaps it is not less charitable, and a great deal truer, to draw the line broad and plain, on one side of which is peace and safety, and on the other trouble and death, if only we make it plain that no man need stop one minute on the dark side.
4. The solemn divine voice reads the lesson of the power of sin, when once done, over the sinner. Like a wild beast, it crouches in ambush at his door, ready to spring and devour. The evil deed once committed takes shape, as it were, and waits to seize the doer. Remorse, inward disturbance, and above all, the fatal inclination to repeat sin till it becomes a habit, are set forth with terrible force in these grim figures. What a menagerie of ravenous beasts some of us have at the doors of our hearts! With what murderous longing they glare at us, seeking to fascinate us, and make us their prey! When we sin, we cannot escape the issues; and every wrong thing we do has a kind of horrible life given it, and sits henceforth there, beside us, ready to rend us. The tempting, seducing power of our own evils was never put in more startling and solemnly true words, on which the bitter experience of many a poor victim of his own past is a commentary. The eternal duty of resistance is farther taught by the words. Hope of victory, encouragement to struggle, the assurance that even these savage beasts may be subdued, and the lion and adder {the hidden and the glaring evils-those which wound unseen, and which spring with a roar} may be overcome, led in a silken leash or charmed into harmlessness, are given in the command, which is also a promise, ‘Rule thou over it.’
5. The deadly fruit of hate is taught us in the brief account of the actual murder. Notice the impressive plainness and fewness of the words. ‘Cain rose up against his brother, and slew him.’ A kind of horror-struck awe of the crime is audible. Observe the emphasis with which ‘his brother’ is repeated in the verse and throughout. Observe, also, the vivid light thrown by the story on the rise and progress of the sin. It begins with envy and jealousy. Cain was not wroth because his offering was rejected. What did he care for that? But what angered him was that his brother had what he had not. So selfishness was at the bottom, and that led on to envy, and that to hatred. Then comes a pause, in which God speaks remonstrances,-as God’s voice-conscience-does now to us all,-between the imagination and the act of evil. A real or a feigned reconciliation is effected. The brothers go in apparent harmony to the field. No new provocation appears, but the old feelings, kept down for a time, come in again with a rush, and Cain is swept away by them. Hatred left to work means murder. The heart is the source of all evil. Selfishness is the mother tincture out of which all sorts of sin can be made. Guard the thoughts, and keep down self, and the deeds will take care of themselves.
6. Mark how close on the heels of sin God’s question treads! How God spoke, we know not. Doubtless in some fashion suited to the needs of Cain. But He speaks to us as really as to him, and no sooner is the rush of passion over, and the bad deed done, than a revulsion comes. What we call conscience asks the question in stern tones, which make a man’s flesh creep. Our sin is like touching the electric bells which people sometimes put on their windows to give notice of thieves. As soon as we step beyond the line of duty we set the alarm going, and it wakens the sleeping conscience. Some of us go so far as to have silenced the voice within; but, for the most part, it speaks immediately after we have gratified our inclinations wrongly.
7. Cain’s defiant answer teaches us how a man hardens himself against God’s voice. It also shows us how intensely selfish all sin is, and how weakly foolish its excuses are. It is sin which has rent men apart from men, and made them deny the very idea that they have duties to all men. The first sin was only against God; the second was against God and man. The first sin did not break, though it saddened, human love; the second kindled the flames of infernal hatred, and caused the first drops to flow of the torrents of blood which have soaked the earth. When men break away from God, they will soon murder one another.
Cain was his brother’s keeper. His question answered itself. If Abel was his brother, then he was bound to look after him. His self-condemning excuse is but a specimen of the shallow pleas by which the forgetfulness of duties we owe to all mankind, and all sins, are defended.
8. The stern sentence is next pronounced. First we have the grand figure of the innocent blood having a voice which pierces the heavens. That teaches in the most forcible way the truth that God knows the crimes done by ‘man’s inhumanity to man,’ even when the meek sufferers are silent. According to the fine old legend of the cranes of Ibycus, a bird of the air will carry the matter. It speaks, too, of God’s tender regard for His saints, whose blood is precious in His sight; and it teaches that He will surely requite. We cannot but think of the innocent blood shed on Calvary, of the Brother of us all, whose sacrifice was accepted of God. His blood, too, crieth from the ground, has a voice which speaks in the ear of God, but not to plead for vengeance, but pardon.
‘Jesus’ blood through earth and skies,
Mercy, free, boundless mercy, cries.’
Then follows the sentence which falls into two parts-the curse of bitter, unrequited toil, and the doom of homeless wandering. The blood which has been poured out on the battlefield fertilises the soil; but Abel’s blasted the earth. It was a supernatural infliction, to teach that bloodshed polluted the earth, and so to shed a nameless horror over the deed. We see an analogous feeling in the common belief that places where some foul sin has been committed are cursed. We see a weak natural correspondence in the devastating effect of war, as expressed in the old saying that no grass would grow where the hoof of the Turk’s horse had stamped.
The doom of wandering, which would be compulsory by reason of the earth’s barrenness, is a parable. The murderer is hunted from place to place, as the Greek fable has it, by the furies, who suffer him not to rest. Conscience drives a man ‘through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none.’ All sin makes us homeless wanderers. There is but one home for the heart, one place of repose for a man, namely, in the heart of God, the secret place of the Most High; and he who, for his sin, durst not enter there, is driven forth into ‘a salt land and not inhabited,’ and has to wander wearily there. The legend of the wandering Jew, and that other of the sailor, condemned for ever to fly before the gale through stormy seas, have in them a deep truth. The earthly punishment of departing from God is that we have not where to lay our heads. Every sinner is a fugitive and a vagabond. But if we love God we are still wanderers indeed, but we are ‘pilgrims and sojourners with Thee.’
9. Cain’s remonstrance completes the tragic picture. We see in it despair without penitence. He has no word of confession. If he had accepted his chastisement, and learned by it his sin, all the bitterness would have passed away. But he only writhes in agony, and adds, to the sentence pronounced, terrors of his own devising. God had not forbidden him to come into His presence. But he feels that he dare not venture thither. And he was right; for, whether we suppose that some sensible manifestation of the divine presence is meant by ‘Thy face’ or no, a man who had unrepented sin on his conscience, and murmurings in his heart, could not hold intercourse with God; nor would he wish to do so. Thus we learn again the lesson that sin separates from our Father, and that chastisements, not accepted as signs of His love, build up a black wall between God and us.
Nor had Cain been told that his life was in danger. But his conscience made a coward of him, as of us all, and told him what he deserved. There were, no doubt, many other children of Adam, who would be ready to avenge Abel’s death. The wild justice of revenge is deep in the heart of men; and the natural impulse would be to hunt down the murderer like a wolf. It is a dreadful picture of the defiant and despairing sinner, tortured by well-founded fears, shut out from the presence of God, but not able to shut out thoughts of Him, and seeing an avenger in every man.
We need not ask how God set a mark on Cain. Enough that His doing so was a merciful alleviation of his lot, and teaches us how God’s long-suffering spares life, and tempers judgment, that there may still be space for repentance. If even Cain has gracious protection and mercy blended with his chastisement, who can be beyond the pale of God’s compassion, and with whom will not His loving providence and patient pity labour? No man is so scorched by the fire of retribution, but many a dewy drop from God’s tenderness falls on him. No doubt, the story of the preservation of Cain was meant to restrain the blood-feuds so common and ruinous in early times; and we need the lesson yet, to keep us from vengeance under the mask of justice. But the deepest lesson and truest pathos of it lies in the picture of the watchful kindness of God lingering round the wretched man, like gracious sunshine playing on some scarred and black rock, to win him back by goodness to penitence, and through penitence to peace.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv3–4 Cain ("acquisition") is a type of the mere man…
Cain
Cain ("acquisition") is a type of the mere man of the earth. His religion was destitute of any adequate sense of sin, or need of atonement. This religious type is described in 2 Peter 2. Seven things are said of him:
Read full note →
(1) he worships in self-will
(2) is angry with God
(3) refuses to bring a sin offering
(4) murders his brother
(5) lies to God
(6) becomes a vagabond
(7) is, nevertheless, the object of the divine solicitude.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v3 It came about that
It came about that
This phrase is used to mark the beginning of a new part of the story. If your language has a way for doing this, you could consider using that method here.
Read full note →
in the course of time
Possible meanings are 1) "after some time had passed" or 2) "at the right time"
fruit of the ground
This refers to the food that came from plants he had tended. AT: "crops" or "harvest" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
some of the fat
This refers to the fatty parts of the lambs that he had killed, it was the best part of the animal. AT: "some of their fat parts" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
accepted ... did not accept
"looked favorably upon ... did not look favorably upon" or "was pleased with ... was not pleased with"
was very angry
Some languages have an idiom for anger such as "He burned" or "His anger burned."
he scowled
This means that the expression on his face showed that he was angry or jealous. Some languages have an idiom that describes what a person's face looks like when he is angry. (See: Idiom)
translationWords
Cain
fruit
sacrifice
Yahweh
Abel
firstborn
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3–4 4:3 There was nothing wrong with offering grain to…
4:3 There was nothing wrong with offering grain to the Lord (Lev 2:14; Deut 26:2-4), but Cain brought only a token gift (some of his crops), whereas God requires the first and best (Exod 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26). Cain’s heart attitude made his offering inferior to Abel’s (cp. Heb 11:4).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.