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.”
Show the surrounding paragraph
Genesis 4:4-7 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
-
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.”
-
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.
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. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Show all 3 translations
-
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.
And the LORD said unto Cain: 'Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
If thou doest well, shall it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door; and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it.'
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 (61)
- James 1:15 (v7) Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin. The sin, when it is full grown, produces death.
- Romans 2:6-10 (v7) who “will pay back to everyone according to their works:” to those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and…
- Isaiah 3:10-11 (vv5, 7) 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…
- Romans 6:16 (v7) Don’t you know that when you present yourselves as servants and obey someone, you are the servants of whomever you obey; whether of sin to…
- Hebrews 11:4 (vv4, 5, 7) 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…
Show all 55 cross-references
- Numbers 32:23 (v7) “But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against Yahweh; and be sure your sin will find you out.
- Romans 7:8-9 (v7) But sin, finding occasion through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of coveting. For apart from the law, sin is dead. I was alive…
- Romans 12:1 (v7) Therefore I urge you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your…
- Proverbs 21:27 (v7) The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination— how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!
- Malachi 1:13 (v7) You say also, ‘Behold, what a weariness it is!’ and you have sniffed at it”, says Yahweh of Armies; “and you have brought that which was…
- Proverbs 3:9 (v4) Honor Yahweh with your substance, with the first fruits of all your increase:
- Ecclesiastes 8:12-13 (v7) Though a sinner commits crimes a hundred times, and lives long, yet surely I know that it will be better with those who fear God, who are…
- Malachi 1:10 (v7) “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire on my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you,”…
- Acts 10:35 (v7) but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.
- Malachi 1:8 (v7) When you offer the blind for sacrifice, isn’t that evil? And when you offer the lame and sick, isn’t that evil? Present it now to your…
- Romans 14:18 (v7) For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men.
- 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…
- Jeremiah 6:20 (v7) To what purpose does frankincense from Sheba come to me, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable,…
- Job 5:2 (vv5–6) For resentment kills the foolish man, and jealousy kills the simple.
- Proverbs 18:5 (v7) To be partial to the faces of the wicked is not good, nor to deprive the innocent of justice.
- 1 Peter 2:5 (v7) You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God…
- Job 42:8 (v7) Now therefore, take to yourselves seven bulls and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering; and…
- Genesis 3:16 (v7) To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. You will bear children in pain. Your desire will be for your…
- 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…
- Isaiah 1:18 (v6) “Come now, and let’s reason together,” says Yahweh: “Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Though they are red…
- Romans 15:16 (v7) that I should be a servant of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, serving as a priest of the Good News of God, that the offering up of the…
- 2 Samuel 24:23 (v7) All this, O king, does Araunah give to the king.” Araunah said to the king, “May Yahweh your God accept you.”
- 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…
- Psalms 20:3 (vv4–5) remember all your offerings, and accept your burned sacrifice.
- Genesis 4:8-13 (v7) 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…
- 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…
- 1 Timothy 5:4 (v7) But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety toward their own family and to repay their parents, for…
- 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.
- Genesis 19:21 (v7) He said to him, “Behold, I have granted your request concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have…
- 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…
- Numbers 18:12 (v4) “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…
- 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…
- Job 29:4 (v7) as I was in my prime, when the friendship of God was in my tent,
- Luke 15:31-32 (v6) “He said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. But it was appropriate to celebrate and be glad, for this,…
- 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.
- Ephesians 1:6 (v7) to the praise of the glory of his grace, by which he freely gave us favor in the Beloved,
- 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…
- 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…
- Matthew 20:15 (vv5–6) 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?’
- 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,…
- Jeremiah 2:31 (v6) Generation, consider Yahweh’s word. Have I been a wilderness to Israel? Or a land of thick darkness? Why do my people say, ‘We have broken…
- Micah 6:3-5 (v6) My people, what have I done to you? How have I burdened you? Answer me! For I brought you up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out…
55 distinct cross-references across this passage (61 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 vv4–7 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 vv5, 7 Because he was an hypocrite, and offered only for…
Because he was an hypocrite, and offered only for an outward show without sincerity of heart.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv4–7 Gen 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the…
Gen 4:4 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:
Ver. 4. Of the firstlings of his flock.] He brought the best of the best; {a} not anything that came next to hand, as Cain seems to have done, holding anything good enough, as did those rich wretches that cast brass-money {b} into the treasury. "But cursed be that cheat who has a male in his flock, and offers to God a corrupt thing." "Offer it now to thy Prince," will he be content with thy refuse stuff? Behold, "I am a great King," saith God. {Mal 1:8; Mal 1:14} He stands upon his seniority, and looks to be honoured with the best of our substance. Mary that loved much, thought nothing too much for her sweet Saviour. She brought an alabaster box of ointment of great price, and poured it upon him, and he defends her in it against those that held it waste. {Joh 12:7} Among the Papists, their Lady of Loretto hath her churches so stuffed with vowed presents of the best, as they are fain to hang their cloisters and churchyards with them. {c} Shall not their superstition rise up and condemn our irreligion, our slubbering service, and doughbaked duties? The Turks build their private houses low and homely, but their mosques or temples stately and magnificent. {d}
Read full note →
Had respect to Abel and his offering.] "The eyes of the Lord are still upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers": {1Pe 3:11} he "looks" {Isa 66:2} upon such with singular delight, with special intimation of his love; he is "ravished with one of their eyes," lifted up in prayer, "with one chain of their graces"; {Son 4:9} whenas he was no whit affected with the offer of all the world’s glory. {Mat 4:8-10} He saith of such to the wicked, as the prophet said of Jehoshaphat to the king of Israel, "Surely, were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, I would not look toward thee, nor see thee," - Cain {2Ki 3:14} here, for instance.
{a} See Num 18:12; Num 18:29. "Fat" taken for the best of all things.
{b} χαλκον. {Mar 12:41}
{c} Sir Edward Sandy’s Relation of West. Relig.
{d} Turk. Hist., fol. 342.
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 vv4–7 The firstlings; either,
The firstlings; either,
1. The first-born, which God reserved to himself, both at this time, and afterwards by an express law, Exo 13:2; Num 3:13. Or,
Read full note →
2. The choicest and most eminent of the flock; for the best of any kind are oft called first-born, as Job 18:13; Jer 31:19; Heb 12:23.
The fat thereof was either,
1. Properly, the fat being properly now required by God, as afterwards was expressed, Exo 29:13,22; Lev 3:3. Or,
2. The best of them, as the word fat is often used, as Gen 45:18; 49:20; Num 18:12; Neh 8:10; Psa 147:14.
The Lord had respect, or, looked to him with a gracious eye, kindly accepted and owned him and his sacrifice, and testified this Heb 11:4 to Cain and all there present, either by express word, or by some visible sign; probably by consuming his sacrifice by fire from heaven, as the fathers generally think; whereby also God did afterwards frequently signify, his acceptance of sacrifices, as Lev 9:24; Jdg 6:21; 1Ki 18:38; 1Ch 21:26; 2Ch 7:1. Unto Abel’s person, who was a truly good man; and then to his sacrifice, which was offered with faith in God’s mercy and in the promised Mediator, Heb 11:4.
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 v6 God is here reasoning with Cain, to convince him…
God is here reasoning with Cain, to convince him of the sin and folly of his anger and discontent, and to bring him into a good temper again, that further mischief might be prevented. It is an instance of God's patience and condescending goodness that he would deal thus tenderly with so bad a man, in so bad an affair. He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Thus the father of the prodigal argued the case with the elder son (Luk 15:28, etc.), and God with those Israelites who said, The way of the Lord is not equal, Eze 18:25.
I. God puts Cain himself upon enquiring into the cause of his discontent, and considering whether it were indeed a just cause: Why is thy countenance fallen? Observe, 1. That God takes notice of all our sinful passions and discontents. There is not an angry look, an envious look, nor a fretful look, that escapes his observing eye. 2. That most of our sinful heats and disquietudes would soon vanish before a strict and impartial enquiry into the cause of them. "Why am I wroth? Is there a real cause, a just cause, a proportionable cause for it? Why am I so soon angry? Why so very angry, and so implacable?"
Read full note →
II. To reduce Cain to his right mind again, it is here made evident to him,
1. That he had no reason to be angry at God, for that he had proceeded according to the settled and invariable rules of government suited to a state of probation. He sets before men life and death, the blessing and the curse, and then renders to them according to their works, and differences them according as they difference themselves - so shall their doom be. The rules are just, and therefore his ways, according to those rules, must needs be equal, and he will be justified when he speaks.
(1.) God sets before Cain life and a blessing: "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? No doubt thou shalt, nay, thou knowest thou shalt;" either, [1.] "If thou hadst done well, as thy brother did, thou shouldst have been accepted, as he was." God is no respecter of persons, hates nothing that he had made, denies his favour to none but those who have forfeited it, and is an enemy to none but those who by sin have made him their enemy: so that if we come short of acceptance with him we must thank ourselves, the fault is wholly our own; if we had done our duty, we should not have missed of his mercy. This will justify God in the destruction of sinners, and will aggravate their ruin; there is not a damned sinner in hell, but, if he had done well, as he might have done, had been a glorious saint in heaven. Every mouth will shortly be stopped with this. Or, [2.] "If now thou do well, if thou repent of thy sin, reform thy heart and life, and bring thy sacrifice in a better manner, if thou not only do that which is good but do it well, thou shalt yet be accepted, thy sin shall be pardoned, thy comfort and honour restored, and all shall be well." See here the effect of a Mediator's interposal between God and man; we do not stand upon the footing of the first covenant, which left no room for repentance, but God had come upon new terms with us. Though we have offended, if we repent and return, we shall find mercy. See how early the gospel was preached, and the benefit of it here offered even to one of the chief of sinners.
(2.) He sets before him death and a curse: But if not well, that is, "Seeing thou didst not do well, didst not offer in faith and in a right manner, sin lies at the door," that is, "sin was imputed to thee, and thou wast frowned upon and rejected as a sinner. So high a charge had not been laid at thy door, if thou hadst not brought it upon thyself, by not doing well." Or, as it is commonly taken, "If now thou wilt not do well, if thou persist in this wrath, and, instead of humbling thyself before God, harden thyself against him, sin lies at the door," that is, [1.] Further sin. "Now that anger is in thy heart, murder is at the door." The way of sin is down-hill, and men go from bad to worse. Those who do not sacrifice well, but are careless and remiss in their devotion to God, expose themselves to the worst temptations; and perhaps the most scandalous sin lies at the door. Those who do not keep God's ordinances are in danger of committing all abominations, Lev 18:30. Or, [2.] The punishment of sin. So near akin are sin and punishment that the same word in Hebrew signifies both. If sin be harboured in the house, the curse waits at the door, like a bailiff, ready to arrest the sinner whenever he looks out. It lies as if it slept, but it lies at the door where it will be soon awaked, and then it will appear that the damnation slumbered not. Sin will find thee out, Num 32:23. Yet some choose to understand this also as an intimation of mercy. "If thou doest not well, sin (that is, the sin-offering), lies at the door, and thou mayest take the benefit of it." The same word signifies sin and a sacrifice for sin. "Though thou hast not done well, yet do not despair; the remedy is at hand; the propitiation is not far to seek; lay hold on it, and the iniquity of thy holy things shall be forgiven thee." Christ, the great sin-offering, is said to stand at the door, Rev 3:20. And those well deserve to perish in their sins that will not go to the door for an interest in the sin-offering. All this considered, Cain had no reason to be angry at God, but at himself only.
2. That he had no reason to be angry at his brother: "Unto thee shall be his desire, he shall continue his respect to thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the first-born, shalt rule over him as much as ever." God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not transfer the birth-right to him (which Cain was jealous of), nor put upon him that excellency of dignity and of power which is said to belong to it, Gen 49:3. God did not so intend it; Abel did not so interpret it; there was no danger of its being improved to Cain's prejudice; why then should he be so much exasperated? Observe here, (1.) That the difference which God's grace makes does not alter the distinctions which God's providence makes, but preserves them, and obliges us to do the duty which results from them: believing servants must be obedient to unbelieving masters. Dominion is not founded in grace, nor will religion warrant disloyalty or disrespect in any relation. (2.) That the jealousies which civil powers have sometimes conceived of the true worshippers of God as dangerous to their government, enemies to Caesar, and hurtful to kings and provinces (on which suspicion persecutors have grounded their rage against them) are very unjust and unreasonable. Whatever may be the case with some who call themselves Christians, it is certain that Christians indeed are the best subjects, and the quiet in the land; their desire is towards their governors, and these shall rule over them.
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 vv4–7 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of…
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock,.... As he was a shepherd, his flock consisted of sheep; and of the firstlings of these, the lambs that were first brought forth, he presented as an offering to the Lord; and which were afterwards frequently used in sacrifice, and were a proper type of Christ, Jehovah's firstborn, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world, a Lamb without spot and blemish; fitly signified by one for his innocence, harmlessness, and meekness:
and of the fat thereof; which is to be understood either of the fat properly, which in later time was claimed by the Lord as his own, Lev 3:16 or of the fattest of his flock, the best lambs he had; the fattest and plumpest, and which were most free from defects and blemishes; not the torn, nor lame, nor sick, but that which was perfect and without spot; for God is to be served with the best we have. Josephus (f) says it was milk, and the firstlings of his flock; and a word of the same letters, differently pointed, signifies milk; and some learned men, as Grotius and others, have given into this sense, observing it to be a custom with the Egyptians to sacrifice milk to their gods: but the word, as here pointed, is never used for milk; nor were such sacrifices ever used by the people of God; and Abel's sacrifice is called by the apostle a "slain" sacrifice, as Heidegger (g) observes:
Read full note →
and the Lord had respect to Abel, and to his offering; as being what he had designed and appointed to be used for sacrifice in future time, and as being a suitable type and emblem of the Messiah, and his sacrifice; and especially as being offered up by faith, in a view to the sacrifice of Christ, which is of a sweet smelling savour to God, and by which sin only is atoned and satisfied for, see Heb 11:4. God looked at his sacrifice with a smiling countenance, took, and expressed delight, well pleasedness, and satisfaction in it; and he first accepted of his person, as considered in Christ his well beloved Son, and then his offering in virtue of his sacrifice: and this respect and acceptance might be signified by some visible sign or token, and particularly by the descent of fire from heaven upon it, as was the token of acceptance in later times, Lev 9:24 and Theodotion here renders it, he "fired" it, or "set" it on "fire"; and Jarchi paraphrases it,"fire descended and licked up his offering;''and Aben Ezra,"and fire descended and reduced the offering of Abel to ashes;''so Abraham Seba (h).
(f) Antiqu. l. 1. c. 2. sect. 1. (g) Hist. Patriarch. Exercit. 5. sect. 20. (h) In 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 vv4, 5, 7 And the Lord God had respect to Abel and…
And the Lord God had respect to Abel and to his offering, and shewed his acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven but to Cain and to his offering he had not respect. We are sure there was a good reason for this difference: that Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, doth not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns.
1. There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering: Cain was a wicked man, but Abel was a righteous man, Matt. xxiii, 35.
Read full note →
2. There was a difference in the offerings they brought. Abel's was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's; Cain's was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat- offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: 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. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv4–7 Verse 4. Abel, he also brought of the firstlings…
Verse 4. Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock] Dr. Kennicott contends that the words he also brought, הביא גם הוא hebi gam hu, should be translated, Abel brought IT also, i.e. a minchah or gratitude offering; and beside this he brought of the first-born (מבכרות mibbechoroth) of his flock, and it was by this alone that he acknowledged himself a sinner, and professed faith in the promised Messiah. To this circumstance the apostle seems evidently to allude, Heb 11:4: By FAITH Abel offered πλειοςα θυσιαν, a MORE or GREATER sacrifice; not a more excellent, (for this is no meaning of the word πλειων,) which leads us to infer, according to Dr. Kennicott, that Abel, besides his minchah or gratitude offering, brought also θυσια, a victim, to be slain for his sins; and this he chose out of the first-born of his flock, which, in the order of God, was a representation of the Lamb of God that was to take away the sin of the world; and what confirms this exposition more is the observation of the apostle: God testifying ροις δωποις, of his GIFTS, which certainly shows he brought more than one. According to this interpretation, Cain, the father of Deism, not acknowledging the necessity of a vicarious sacrifice, nor feeling his need of an atonement, according to the dictates of his natural religion, brought a minchah or eucharistic offering to the God of the universe. Abel, not less grateful for the produce of his fields and the increase of his flocks, brought a similar offering, and by adding a sacrifice to it paid a proper regard to the will of God as far as it had then been revealed, acknowledged himself a sinner, and thus, deprecating the Divine displeasure, showed forth the death of Christ till he came. Thus his offerings were accepted, while those of Cain were rejected; for this, as the apostle says, was done by FAITH, and therefore he obtained witness that he was righteous, or a justified person, God testifying with his gifts, the thank-offering and the sin-offering, by accepting them, that faith in the promised seed was the only way in which he could accept the services and offerings of mankind. Dr. Magee, in his Discourses on the Atonement, criticises the opinion of Dr. Kennicott, and contends that there is no ground for the distinction made by the latter on the words he also brought; and shows that though the minchah in general signifies an unbloody offering, yet it is also used to express both kinds, and that the minchah in question is to be understood of the sacrifice then offered by Abel. I do not see that we gain much by this counter-criticism. See Ge 4:7.
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 vv4–5 Gen 4:4. And the Lord God had respect to…
Gen 4:4. And the Lord 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: that the Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, doth not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns. 1st, There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering: Cain was a wicked man, but Abel was a righteous man, Mat 23:35. 2d, There was a difference in the offerings they brought: Abel’s was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s; Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: 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: but the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God’s will as his rule, and in dependance upon the promise of a Redeemer: but Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him.
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 vv4, 7 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 vv4, 7 the Lord had respect unto Abel, not unto Cain,…
the Lord had respect unto Abel, not unto Cain, &c.--The words, "had respect to," signify in Hebrew,--"to look at any thing with a keen earnest glance," which has been translated, "kindle into a fire," so that the divine approval of Abel's offering was shown in its being consumed by fire (see Gen 15:17; Jdg 13:20).
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 vv4–7 4. Abel… brought of the firstlings of his flock…
4. Abel… brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof — The best and most complete offering which he could make, not the most convenient, or the ones that came first to hand. He seems to have apprehended something of the profound doctrine, afterward made so prominent, that without shedding of blood there is no remission, and hence especially the reason why the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. In what way this respect, or favourable look, was shown is not recorded, but the ancient and prevailing opinion is, that God sent down fire from heaven to consume the sacrifice. Comp. Lev_9:24; Jdg_6:21; 1Ki_18:38. Jehovah’s look was thus a fire-glance from heaven that set the offering aflame. The word translated offering (מנחה) is always used in the Mosaic laws of a “meat offering,” or bloodless sacrifice; but here it is applied to Abel’s gift as well as to Cain’s.
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 vv4–7 4. the firstlings] i.e. “the firstborn,” regarded as the…
4. the firstlings] i.e. “the firstborn,” regarded as the best and choicest, cf. Exo_34:19; Num_18:17; Pro_3:9.
the fat] i.e. the fatty portions, which were regarded as choicest for the purpose of a banquet (cf. 1Sa_2:16), or for burning in sacrifice, Isa_1:11, “the fat of fed beasts.”
Read full note →
had respect unto] i.e. looked with favour upon. In the two passages which it is natural to quote in illustration of this expression, Num_16:15, “Respect not thou their offering,” and Amo_5:22, “Neither will I regard the peace-offerings,” the Hebrew has a different verb, but the Latin renders, as here, by respicere.
How the favourable regard was expressed we are not told. See note on the next verse.
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 vv5, 7 (5) Cain was very wroth.—Heb., it burned to Cain…
(5) Cain was very wroth.—Heb., it burned to Cain exceedingly: that is, his heart was full of hot indignant feelings, because of the preference shown to his younger brother.
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 vv4–6 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of…
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock. Either the firstborn, which God afterwards demanded, (Exo_13:12) or the choicest and best (Job_18:13; Jer_31:19; Heb_12:23) And the fat thereof. Literally, the fatness of them, i.e. the fattest of the firstlings, "the best he had, and the best of those best" (Inglis; cf. Gen_45:18; Num_18:2) a proof that flesh was eaten before the Flood, since "it had been no praise to Abel to offer the fatlings if he used not to eat of them" (Willet), and "si anteposuit Abel utilitate" suae Deum, non dubium quid solitus sit ex labore suo utilitatem percipere" (Justin). And the Lord had respect. Literally, looked upon; ejpeiden, LXX; (cf. Num_16:15) probably consuming it by fire from heaven, or from the flaming sword (cf. Lev_9:24; 1Ch_21:26; 2Ch_7:1; 1Ki_18:38; Jerome, Chrysostom, Cyril) Theodotion renders ejnepurisen, inflammant; and Heb_11:4, marturountov ejpiroiv, is supposed to lend considerable weight to the opinion. Unto Abel and his offering. Accepting first his person and then his gift (cf. Pro_12:2 Pro_15:8; 2Co_8:12) "The sacrifice was accepted for the man, and not the man for the sacrifice" (Ainsworth); but still "without a doubt the words of Moses imply that the matter of Abel"s offering was more excellent and suitable than that of Cain"s," and one can hardly entertain a doubt that this was the idea of the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews" (Prof. Lindsay, "Lectures on Hebrews," Edin. 1867). Abel"s sacrifice was pleiona, fuller than Cain"s; it had more in it; it had faith, which was wanting in the other. It was also offered in obedience to Divine prescription. The universal prevalence of sacrifice rather points to Divine prescription than to man"s invention as its proper source. Had Divine worship been of purely human origin, it is almost certain that greater diversity would have prevailed in its forms. Besides, the fact that the mode of worship was not left to human ingenuity under the law, and that will-worship is specifically condemned under the Christian dispensation, (Col_2:23) favors the presumption that it was Divinely appointed from the first.
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.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v7
Genesis
THE GROWTH AND POWER OF SIN
Read full note →
WHAT CROUCHES AT THE DOOR
Gen 4:7.
These early narratives clothe great moral and spiritual truths in picturesque forms, through which it is difficult for us to pierce. In the world’s childhood God spoke to men as to children, because there were no words then framed which would express what we call abstract conceptions. They had to be shown by pictures. But these early men, simple and childlike as they were, had consciences; and one abstraction they did understand, and that was sin. They knew the difference between good and evil.
So we have here God speaking to Cain, who was wroth because of the rejection of his sacrifice; and in dim, enigmatical words setting forth the reason of that rejection. ‘If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?’ Then clearly his sacrifice was rejected because it was the sacrifice of an evil-doer. His description as such is given in the words of my text, which are hard for us to translate into our modern, less vivid and picturesque language. ‘If thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door; and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.’ Strange as the words sound, if I mistake not, they convey some very solemn lessons, and if well considered, become pregnant with meaning.
The key to the whole interpretation of them is to remember that they describe what happens after, and because of, wrong-doing. They are all suspended on ‘If thou doest not well.’ Then, in that case, for the first thing-’sin lieth at the door.’ Now the word translated here ‘lieth’ is employed only to express the crouching of an animal, and frequently of a wild animal. The picture, then, is of the wrong-doer’s sin lying at his door there like a crouching tiger ready to spring, and if it springs, fatal. ‘If thou doest not well, a wild beast crouches at thy door.’
Then there follow, with a singular swift transition of the metaphor, other words still harder to interpret, and which have been, as a matter of fact, interpreted in very diverse fashions. ‘And unto thee shall be its’’ {I make that slight alteration upon our version} ‘desire, and thou shalt rule over it.’ Where did we hear these words before? They were spoken to Eve, in the declaration of her punishment. They contain the blessing that was embedded in the curse. ‘Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.’ The longing of the pure womanly heart to the husband of her love, and the authority of the husband over the loving wife-the source of the deepest joy and purity of earth, is transferred, by a singularly bold metaphor, to this other relationship, and, in horrible parody of the wedded union and love, we have the picture of the sin, that was thought of as crouching at the sinner’s door like a wild beast, now, as it were, wedded to him. He is mated to it now, and it has a kind of tigerish, murderous desire after him, while he on his part is to subdue and control it.
The reference of these clauses to the sin which has just been spoken of involves, no doubt, a very bold figure, which has seemed to many readers too bold to be admissible, and the words have therefore been supposed to refer to Abel, who, as the younger brother, would be subordinate to Cain. But such a reference breaks the connection of the sentence, introduces a thought which is not a consequence of Cain’s not doing well, has no moral bearing to warrant its appearance here, and compels us to travel an inconveniently long distance back in the context to find an antecedent to the ‘his’ and ‘him’ of our text. It seems to be more in consonance, therefore, with the archaic style of the whole narrative, and to yield a profounder and worthier meaning, if we recognise the boldness of the metaphor, and take ‘sin’ as the subject of the whole. Now all this puts in concrete, metaphorical shape, suited to the stature of the bearers, great and solemn truths. Let us try to translate them into more modern speech.
1. First think, then, of that wild beast which we tether to our doors by our wrong-doing.
We talk about ‘responsibility’ and ‘guilt,’ and ‘consequences that never can be effaced,’ and the like. And all these abstract and quasi-philosophical terms are implied in the grim, tremendous metaphor of my text ‘If thou doest not well, a tiger, a wild beast, is crouching at thy door.’ We are all apt to be deceived by the imagination that when an evil deed is done, it passes away and leaves no permanent results. The lesson taught the childlike primitive man here, at the beginning, before experience had accumulated instances which might demonstrate the solemn truth, was that every human deed is immortal, and that 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. If thou doest not well, thou dost create a horrible something which nestles beside thee henceforward. The momentary act is incarnated, as it were, and sits there at the doer’s doorpost waiting for him; which being turned into less forcible but more modern language, is just this: every sin that a man does has perennial consequences, which abide with the doer for evermore.
I need not dwell upon illustrations of that to any length. Let me just run over two or three ways in which it is true. First of all, there is that solemn fact which we put into a long word that comes glibly off people’s lips, and impresses them very little-the solemn fact of responsibility. We speak in common talk of such and such a thing lying at some one’s door. Whether the phrase has come from this text I do not know. But it helps to illustrate the force of these words, and to suggest that they mean this, among other things, that we have to answer for every deed, however evanescent, however long forgotten. Its guilt is on our heads. Its consequences have to be experienced by us. We drink as we have brewed. As we make our beds, so we lie on them. There is no escape from the law of consequences. ‘If ‘twere done, when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well it were done quickly.’ But seeing that it is not done when ‘tis done, then perhaps it would be better that it were not done at all. Your deed of a moment, forgotten almost as soon as done, lies there at your door; or to take a more modern and commercial figure, it is debited to your account, and stands inscribed against you for ever.
Think how you would like it, if all your deeds from your childhood, all your follies, your vices, your evil thoughts, your evil impulses, and your evil actions, were all made visible and embodied there before you. They are there, though you do not see them yet. All round your door they sit, ready to meet you and to bay out condemnation as you go forth. They are there, and one day you will find out that they are. For this is the law, certain as the revolution of the stars and fixed as the pillars of the firmament: ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap’ There is no seed which does not sprout in the harvest of the moral life. Every deed germinates according to its kind. For all that a man does he has to carry the consequences, and every one shall bear his own burden. ‘If thou doest not well,’ it is not, as we fondly conceive it sometimes to be, a mere passing deflection from the rule of right, which is done and done with, but we have created, as out of our very own substance, a witness against ourselves whose voice can never be stifled. ‘If thou doest not well’ thy sin takes permanent form and is fastened to thy door.
And then let me remind you, too, how the metaphor of our text is confirmed by other obvious facts, on which I need but briefly dwell. Putting aside all the remoter bearings of that thought of responsibility, I suppose we all admit that we have consciences; I suppose that we all know that we have memories; I suppose we all of us have seen, in the cases of others, and have experienced for ourselves, how deeds long done and long forgotten have an awful power of rising again after many long years.
Be sure that your memory has in it everything that you ever did. A landscape may be hidden by mists, but a puff of wind will clear them away, and it will all lie there, visible to the furthest horizon. There is no fact more certain than the extraordinary swiftness and completeness with which, in certain circumstances of life, and often very near the close of it, the whole panorama of the past may rise again before a man, as if one lightning flash showed all the dreary desolation that lay behind him. There have been men recovered from drowning and the like, who have told us that, as in an instant, there seemed unrolled before their startled eyes the whole scroll of their earthly career.
The records of memory are like those pages on which you write with sympathetic ink, which disappears when dry, and seems to leave the page blank. You have only to hold it before the fire, or subject it to the proper chemical process, and at once it stands out legible. You are writing your biography upon the fleshly tables of your heart, my brother; and one day it will all be spread out before you, and you will be bid to read it, and to say what you think of it. The stings of a nettle will burn for days, if they are touched with water. The sting and inflammation of your evil deeds, though it has died down, is capable of being resuscitated, and it will be.
What an awful menagerie of unclean beasts some of us have at our doors! What sort of creatures have you tethered at yours? Crawling serpents, ugly and venomous; wild creatures, fierce and bloody, obscene and foul; tigers and bears; lustful and mischievous apes and monkeys? or such as are lovely and of good report,-doves and lambs, creatures pure and peaceable, patient to serve and gentle of spirit? Remember, remember, that what a man soweth-be it hemlock or be it wheat-that, and nothing else, ‘shall he reap.’
2. Now, let us look for a moment at the next thought that is here; which 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.’
As I explained, these words are drawn from the previous chapter, where they refer to the holy union of heart and affection in husband and wife. Here they are transferred with tremendous force, to set forth that which is a kind of horrible parody of that conjugal relation. A man is married to his wickedness, is mated to his evil, and it has, as it were, a tigerish longing for him, unhallowed and murderous. That is to say-our sins act towards us as if they desired to draw our love to themselves. This is just another form of the statement, that 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. Every evil that I do may, indeed, for a moment create in me a revulsion of conscience; but it also exercises a fascination over me which it is hard to resist. It is a great deal easier to find a man who has never done a wrong thing than to find a man who has only done it once. If the wall of the dyke is sound it will keep the water out, but if there is the tiniest hole in it, the flood will come in. So the evil that you do asserts its power over you, or, in the vigorous metaphor of my text, it has a fierce, longing desire after you, and it gets you into its clutches.
‘The foolish woman sitteth in the high places of the city, and saith, Whoso is simple let him turn in hither.’ And foolish men go after her, and-’know not that her guests are in the depth of hell.’ Ah! my brother! beware of that siren voice that draws you away from all the sweet and simple and pure food which Wisdom spreads upon her table, to tempt the beast that is in you with the words, ‘Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.’ Beware of the first step, for as sure as you are living, the first step taken will make the second seem to become necessary. The first drop will be followed by a bigger second, and the second, at a shorter interval, by a more copious third, until the drops become a shower, and the shower becomes a deluge. The river of evil is ever wider and deeper, and more tumultuous. The little sins get in at the window, and open the front door for the full-grown house-breakers. One smooths the path for the other. All sin has an awful power of perpetuating and increasing itself. As the prophet says in his vision of the doleful creatures that make their sport in the desolate city, ‘None of them shall want her mate. The wild beasts of the desert shall meet with the wild beasts of the island.’ Every sin tells upon character, and makes the repetition of itself more and more easy. ‘None is barren among them.’ And 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.
3. And now, lastly, one word about the command, which is also a promise: ‘To thee shall be its desire, and thou shalt rule over it.’
Man’s primitive charter, according to the earlier chapters of Genesis, was to have dominion over the beasts of the field. Cain knew what it was to war against the wild creatures which contested the possession of the earth with man, and to tame some of them for his uses. And, says the divine voice, just as you war against the beasts of prey, just as you subdue to your purposes and yoke to your implements the tamable animals over which you have dominion, so rule over this wild beast that is threatening you. It is needful for all men, if they do not mean to be torn to pieces, to master the animal that is in them, and the wild thing that has been created out of them. It is bone of your bone and flesh of your flesh. It is your own evil that is thus incarnated there, as it were, before you; and you have to subdue it, if it is not to tyrannise over you. We all admit that in theory, but how terribly hard the practice! The words of our text seem to carry but little hope or comfort in them, to the man who has tried-as, no doubt, many of us have tried-to flee the lusts that war against the soul, and to bridle the animal that is in him. Those who have done so most honestly know best how hard it is, and may fairly ask, Is this useless repetition of the threadbare injunction all that you have to say to us? If so, you may as well hold your tongue. A wild beast sits at my door, you say, and then you bid me, ‘Rule thou over it!’ Tell me to tame the tiger! ‘Canst thou draw out Leviathan with a hook? Wilt thou take him a servant for ever?’
I do not undervalue the earnest and sometimes partially successful efforts at moral reformation which some men of more than usual force of character are able to make, emancipating themselves from the outward practice of gross sin, and achieving for themselves much that is admirable. But if we rightly understand what sin is-namely, the taking self for our law and centre instead of God-and how deep its working and all-pervading its poison, we shall learn the tragic significance of the prophets question, ‘Can the leopard change his spots?’ Then may a man cast out sin from his nature by his own resolve, when the body can eliminate poison from the veins by its own energy. If there is nothing more to be said to the world than this message, ‘Sin lieth at thy door-rule thou over it,’ we have no gospel to preach, and sin’s dominion is secure. For there is nothing in all this world of empty, windy words, more empty and windy than to come to a poor soul that is all bespattered and stained with sin, and say to him: ‘Get up, and make thyself clean, and keep thyself so!’ It cannot be done.
So my text, though it keeps itself within the limits of the law and only proclaims duty, must have hidden, in its very hardness, a sweet kernel of promise. For what God commands God enables us to do.
Therefore these words, ‘Rule thou over it,’ do really point onwards through all the ages to that one fact in which every man’s sin is conquered and neutralised, and every man’s struggles may be made hopeful and successful, the great fact that Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, came down from heaven, like an athlete descending into the arena, to fight with and to overcome the grim wild beasts, our passions and our sins, and to lead them, transformed, in the silken leash of His love.
My brother! your sin is mightier than you. The old word of the Psalm is true about every one of us, ‘Our iniquities are stronger than we.’ And, blessed be His name! the hope of the Psalmist is the experience of the Christian: ‘As for my transgressions, Thou wilt purge them away.’ Christ will strengthen you, to conquer; Christ will take away your guilt; Christ will bear, has borne your burden; Christ will cleanse your memory; Christ will purge your conscience. Trusting to Him, and by His power and life within us, we may conquer our evil. Trusting to Him, and for the sake of His blood shed for us all upon the cross, we are delivered from the burden, guilt, and power of our sins and of our sin. With thy hand in His, and thy will submitted to Him, ‘thou shalt tread on the lion and the adder; the young lion and the dragon thou shalt trample under foot.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv4, 7 Abel ("exhalation," or, "that which ascends") is a type…
Abel
Abel ("exhalation," or, "that which ascends") is a type of the spiritual man. His sacrifice, in which atoning blood was shed Heb 9:22 was therefore at once his confession of sin and the expression of his faith in the interposition of a substitute Heb 11:4.
Read full note →
flock
Type of Christ, the Lamb of God, the most constant type of the suffering Messiah--"the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" Joh 1:29.
A lamb fitly symbolizes the unresisting innocency and harmlessness of the Lord Jesus Isa 53:7; Luk 23:9; Mat 26:53; Mat 26:54. This type is brought into prominence by contrast with Cain’s bloodless offering of the fruit of his own works, and proclaims, in the very infancy of the race, the primal truth that "without shedding of blood is no remission"; Heb 9:22; Heb 11:4.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v6 The First Murder
The First Murder
v. 5. b. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. This paragraph shows the progress of actual sin, from the evil desire of the heart to the sinful act. Cain was jealous of his brother Abel because of the latter’s humble faith and his consequent acceptance by God. He was angry exceedingly, he was filled with bitter wrath, which was reflected in his face, in the expression of his eyes, in his distended nostrils. He fell to dark brooding and evil plotting.
Read full note →
v. 6. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth, and why is thy countenance fallen? The Lord’s warning at this time had reference both to the cause and to the possible consequences of Cain’s wrath. He implies, first of all, that the brooding posture assumed by Cain, was unreasonable, foolish, in the circumstances.
v. 7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. The fault lay altogether with Cain himself; for if he had done well, if he had had faith and shown this faith in truly good works, in acceptable offerings, then he would have experienced the appreciation for which he seemed anxious, and could have lifted his countenance in token of a good conscience. If, on the other hand, his sacrifice was not brought in true faith and he was now angry over his rejection, then sin, like a wild, predatory beast, would crouch at the door of his heart, eager for even the slightest opportunity to enter and to work its will. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. That is as it should be in the heart of the child of God. Although the desire of sin is always directed against man with the intention of gaining control over him, yet the believer will keep the upper hand, will hold the wrath of the heart back with the firmness of the sanctified mind.
v. 8. And Cain talked with Abel, his brother. The warning of the Lord was disregarded, deliberately set aside, as he started a quarrel with his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel, his brother, and slew him. Cain did not try to keep the sinful desire of his heart in subjection, and so the end of the quarrel was murder. Note that the words "his brother" are repeated again and again, in order to emphasize the heinousness of the first murder. In our hearts also evil thoughts are found: murders, with all the jealousy, envy, bitterness, hatred, and anger that this climax of wickedness presupposes, and our constant endeavor must be to conquer the inclination toward all these sins and to keep the example of pious Abel before our eyes.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On v6 Why are you angry and why are you scowling?
Why are you angry and why are you scowling?
God used these rhetorical questions to tell Cain that he was wrong to be angry and scowl. They may also have been intended to give Cain an opportunity to confess that he was wrong. (See: Rhetorical Question)
Read full note →
If you ... will you not be accepted?
God used this rhetorical question to remind Cain of something Cain should have already known. AT: "You know that if you do what is right, I will accept you" (See: Rhetorical Question)
But if you do not ... you must rule over it
God speaks of sin as if it were a person. AT: "But if you do not do what is right, you will desire to sin even more, and then you will do sinful things. You must refuse to obey it" (See: Personification)
sin crouches ... to control you
Here sin is spoken of as a dangerous wild animal that is waiting for the chance to attack Cain. AT: "you will become so angry that you will not be able to stop sin" (See: Metaphor)
sin
Languages that do not have a noun that means "sin" could translate this as "your desire to sin" or "the bad things you want to do."
you must rule over it
Yahweh speaks of Cain's desire to sin as if it were a person over whom Cain should rule. AT: "you must control it so you do not sin" (See: Personification)
translationWords
Yahweh
Cain
sin
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 vv4, 7 4:4-5 the best portions of the firstborn lambs: Or…
4:4-5 the best portions of the firstborn lambs: Or the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. Abel was giving God the best animals and the richest parts. Abel’s offering, in contrast to Cain’s, was the best he had to offer. True worship is a costly privilege.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.