THE OFFERINGS OF CAIN AND ABEL
Written by: Dennis Bailey, Jr.
Introduction
The book of Genesis is an interesting work because much has been written in regards not only to the authorship of the book, but also to the events contained therein. The style of writing is historical narrative, but, like many other stories in the Bible, the author did not feel inspired to include every detail.[1] Therefore, Biblical scholars are left to surmise possible details from the text and to use other Biblical passages and means to fill in the blanks. So is the case with the story of Cain and Abel found in Genesis four.
Before discussing the first brothers that are mentioned in Scripture, it is beneficial to begin by providing an historical perspective. The accounts of Creation are told in the first two chapters of Genesis, culminating with the creation of the first man, Adam, and the first woman, whom Adam would name, Eve. Chapter two concludes with a sentence that sounds ominous and foreboding, “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.”[2] In the following chapter we read of the serpent that tempts Eve. She eats of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as does her husband Adam, and this is known as the Fall. God displays both His[3] judgment by banishing the couple from the Garden of Eden, but, on the flip side, He also displays His mercy by providing animal skins for them to wear so that they can cover their nakedness.
The author begins chapter four by recording the birth of Eve’s first child, Cain, followed by the birth of her second child, Abel. Verse three records that Cain gave an offering to the Lord, and in verse four Abel did likewise. Next we read, “But on Cain and his offering [God] did not look with favor.”[4]
The question that has plagued theologians for millennia is, “Why didn't God accept Cain's offering?” The author did not record in the narrative the reason that God did not look upon the offering of Cain with favor. The purpose of this research is to explore that question in detail and arrive at a better and fuller understanding of why Cain’s offering was not accepted, and to consider what Christians can learn from the narrative.
First, the author of Genesis will identify the relevant facts of the story as found in Scripture. A summary of the context of the offerings will follow second. A comparison of the offerings will come next, followed by the conclusion.
Background Facts
In order to properly understand Scripture, it is important to understand the words of scholar Alfred Edersheim. He wrote, “The Bible does not profess to give a detailed history of the world, nor even a complete biography of those persons whom it introduces.”[5] Therefore, the interpreter has limited facts found in Scripture. The good news for the interpreter is that the information in regards to Cain and Abel is not limited to the account in Genesis four. There is clarification in the New Testament, and the context of the story is derived from the first three chapters of Genesis.
Let's go back to chapter three first. The earliest utterance of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found in the words of God’s curse on the serpent, “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.”[6] Although it is not clear from the text, Eve understood that this was a promise of the Messiah. Her understanding is evidenced in her words when she gave birth to Cain.
Since Eve’s words differ significantly among translations, it is helpful to compare a few translations. Common translations such as the New International Version (NIV) render the words, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man.”[7] However, other translations such as the Names of God (NOG) read, “I have gotten the man that Yahweh promised.”[8] The International Standard Version (ISV) is even more straightforward in its interpretation of Eve’s thoughts in regards to her first-born son, “I have given birth to a male child – the Lord.” Biblical scholar John Phillips concluded based on this that Eve was expecting Cain to be the Messiah, Christ.[9] This is also evident in the naming of Cain by Eve. The name Cain means ‘gotten’ or ‘acquired.’[10] Therefore, it was Eve’s understanding that she received the promise of God in the person of her first-born son.
To take this dynamic even further, the naming of Cain’s younger brother, Abel, is also significant to this point. The name Abel means ‘breath’ or ‘fading away.’[11] One can infer from this that something in the early years of the life of Cain, before the birth of Abel, proved to Eve that she was mistaken in her expectations for Cain, and she was therefore disappointed that Cain was not the Messiah that God promised in Genesis 3:15.[12] Therefore, Eve's hope was fading, so she gave her son the name Abel, which means 'fading away.'
The author of Genesis also recorded the events in such a way that began with the introduction of sin into the world, followed it up with discouragement, and the progression culminated in the first murder in the history of mankind. The reader will see how the birth of sin in chapter three naturally gave way to the fruits of sin in chapter four.[13] Additionally, the reader can see how chapter three describes the consequences of violating man's vertical fellowship with God, and chapter four describes the consequences of man violating his horizontal relationship with his fellow man.[14] Not only does the murder of Abel follow the discouragement of Eve in regards to the nature of her son, but the murder is also a direct result of the discouragement of Cain when his offering is not accepted by God.
Context of the Offerings
In popular translations such as the NIV, we read in Genesis 4:3, “In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord.” Some interpreters point to other translations which suggest that the time of the offering quite possibly may have occurred on the Sabbath.[15] For instance, the New Living Version (NLV) begins, “The day came (italics added)," and the use of the definite article implies that this occasion was a specific day, not just any day. Other translations such as the NET Bible read, “At the designated time,”[16] which implies the same. Knowing that the Sabbath was observed on the seventh day of the week, the Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) also seems to speak of this in its rendering of the words, “And it cometh to pass at the end of days (italics added)," since the Sabbath was observed on the last day of the week.[17]
Whether or not the day in question was the Sabbath, it is evident that Adam and Eve must have instructed their children that there was not only a specific time for worship, but there was also a specific, pre-determined place for worship.[18] Author Arthur Pink suggested that since God placed cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden on the east side,[19] this implied the existence of a "mercy seat," which was the place where God was to be worshipped.[20] Pink admitted that his conclusion is speculation, based on an extrapolation from Scripture, and the reader should prayerfully consider this before making it a part of one’s theology.[21] It is an interesting detail, however. Regardless of the details, it seems clear that organized worship was practiced by Adam's family.
Regardless of the logistics of where the offerings took place, Pink suggested that since Abel offered the fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock,[22] this offering that was no doubt bloody and it implies the presence of an altar.[23]
Since is it assumed that the offerings of both Cain and Abel were presented at a certain time and at a certain place, this information must have been communicated to them beforehand. It follows that the most likely source of communication would be their parents, Adam and Eve.[24] Consider the Apostle Paul, who, in his letter to the Romans, spoke of this when he wrote, “Faith comes from hearing the message.”[25] It was the responsibility of Adam and Eve to instruct their children in regards to religion, and the evidence of their faith in God is the obedience of their sons.
Comparison of Offerings
Conservative scholars such as Dr. Gary Staats suggest that the book of Genesis was written somewhere around 1,400 B.C., most likely during the Exodus.[26] A lot has been written of the offerings themselves in the 3,400+ years since then. It has been noted that offerings to God were not required before the Fall since man enjoyed absolute communion with God in his sinless state.[27] After the Fall, in Genesis four, we read of the first offerings made to God by man.[28] The purpose of making offerings to God is therefore to renew fellowship with the Lord.[29] Some debate whether the offerings of fat portions from the flock and the fruits of the soil qualify as actual sacrifices or simply gifts. One school of thought suggests that due to the nature of Cain’s offering, which consists of fruits, they cannot be sacrifices which imply a death.
It is helpful to explore the meanings of the words in the original Scriptural language to shed some light on this issue. According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew word that the author of Genesis used in reference to sacrifice was מִנְחָה, which is transliterated ‘minchah.’[30] The possible translations are "gift, tribute, offering, or sacrifice."[31] This does not clear up the debate between the fat portions and the fruits being either an offering or a sacrifice because the Hebrew word can mean either offering or sacrifice.
If one expands the search to the New Testament, the author of the book of Hebrews refers to Abel’s offering with the Greek word θυσία, which is transliterated ‘thysia.’[32] Here, the only possible translations of this word are "sacrifice" or "victim." Therefore, some conclude that both of the offerings of Cain and Abel were, in fact, sacrifices based on this information, since 'thysia' cannot mean "offering." This conclusion would be premature, however, because one must consider the context in which the author of Hebrews was writing. The author of Hebrews was only making reference to the offering of Abel, and not of Cain. Therefore, it is entirely possible that Abel’s offering was a sacrifice, but Cain’s offering was just that – an offering and not a sacrifice. Regardless, for the purposes of this research, the author will semantically refer to both the fat portions and the fruits simply as 'offerings.'
The Importance of Blood
The contrast between the nature of the offerings has been posited as a popular theory among scholars in regards to why God accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s. It should be understood that both Abel and Cain offered something that was indicative of his occupation, something with which he was familiar. The elder Cain was a tiller of the soil, like his father, Adam.[33] Therefore, Cain’s offering came from the soil. Abel, on the other hand, was a shepherd, which is indicative of a pilgrim on the land.[34] His pilgrimage on the land was representative of his spirituality. Abel considered himself a pilgrim on his way to heaven, the way that a true believer in God would see himself.
A popular insight is that Cain offered fruits of the soil that did not contain blood, whereas Abel offered fat portions of some of the firstborn of the flock, which did contain blood.[35] This is based, in part, on Scriptures such as Hebrews 9:22, which read, “In fact, the law requires that everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”[36] Therefore, some maintain that Abel's offering was accepted because it contained blood, and Cain's offering was rejected because it did not contain blood.
The book of Deuteronomy is not silent on the nature of offerings that are acceptable to the Lord. Chapter 15 of Deuteronomy refers to animal offerings in the words, “Set apart for the Lord your God every firstborn male of your herds and flocks. Do not put the firstborn of your oxen to work, and do not shear the firstborn of your sheep.”[37] Therefore, Abel’s offering was clearly done in concert with the requirements of God in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, we read in Deuteronomy, “[T]ake some of the firstfruits of all that you produce from the soil of the land the Lord your God is giving you and put them in a basket.”[38] Then, “Place the basket before the Lord your God and bow down before him.”[39] It is clear from this passage in Deuteronomy 26 that firstfruits are acceptable offerings, despite their lack of blood.[40]
If one looks further in the Pentateuch for guidelines to govern offerings, chapters two and five of Leviticus contain more guidance. The purpose of the offering is also a determining factor of what is acceptable and what is not. It turns out that not all offerings that are acceptable to God are done for the purpose of atoning for sins. In these chapters of Leviticus, it is clear that blood offerings are not necessary if the purpose is not to atone.[41] An example of this is a prescribed offering of fine flour and olive oil that is described in Leviticus two.[42]
Therefore, it is quite possible that the intentions of Cain and Abel were different, so if this was the case, then they should not be judged against the same standards. The blood offering of Abel seems to be an expiatory offering to God, implying that Abel sought remission of his sins, in which case he did present an appropriate offering to God. In the case of Cain, if his intention was not to atone for sins, then the basis for God’s judgment would have been different from that of Abel. From the text it is clear that there was good reason why God did not accept his offering. That dynamic will be explored in the next section.
The Best or the Rest?
Just when it seems that the argument in favor of a blood requirement has been defeated, it is important to note that in the instructions for firstfruit offerings in Deuteronomy, the Hebrew word רֵאשִׁית (transliterated ‘re’shiyth’) is used, which is translated as, “first, beginning, best, or chief.”[43] Not this word, nor any similar Hebrew word, was used by the author of Genesis four in regards to Cain’s offering. Therefore, there seems to be nothing in the text to imply that Cain offered the first or the best of anything to the Lord. Furthermore, an early Jewish midrash, or interpretation, has posited that not only did Cain not offer the best of the fruits that he had available to him, but he may even have offered to the Lord what was left over.[44]
This negative interpretation of Cain is not universally accepted, however. Some interpreters believe that there is a common misconception about Cain. First of all, it should be presupposed that Cain was a believer in God, or else he would not have arrived at the appointed time and place to make an offering to God.[45] Secondly, it is possible that Cain offered not the leftovers, but rather, he very well may have offered the finest-looking of the fruits that he had available.[46] It is even possible that his offering may have taken a lot of time and energy to prepare as he was selecting the best to offer.[47] His intentions, however, could have been the reason why the Lord did not accept his fruits. It is quite possible that he offered the finest fruits that came from his garden in order to show God how self-sufficient he was.[48] Therefore, his offering was an expression of salvation by works, and not by faith, which the Apostle Paul warned against.[49] Paul also wrote of the type of personality that seems to fit Cain, of individuals, “Having a form of godliness but denying its power.”[50]
What is known for sure is that Abel did offer the "firstborn of his flock."[51] Offering to God the firstborn is an expression of Abel's recognition that everything on the earth belongs to God.[52] The author also describes the offering as the "fat portions."[53] This language can be confusing for a person reading this in the twenty-first century, as fatty tissue is not considered to be the desirable portion of the animal. In this sense, however, the word 'fat' means the best portions, like when someone speaks of living off the 'fat of the land.'[54] Some interpreters have also pointed out that while Abel clearly offered the first of that which was available, Cain offered that which "came first to hand."[55]
An Expression of Thankfulness
There is yet another possible reason for why God may have accepted Abel's offering and not Cain's. It has been suggested that Abel used his offering as a means to give thanks to God for his forgiveness.[56] Abel knew that his sinfulness was deserving of death, so he humbled himself before God and offered the first of his flock.[57] An offering or a sacrifice is predicated on the idea that humans owe their entire existence to God.[58] Therefore, through his understanding of this concept, Abel offered an expression of heartfelt thanks.[59]
There is a theme running through Scripture that teaches that fallen man is an object of divine wrath.[60] Due to our fallen state, our own offerings and sacrifices cannot please God until our sin is atoned for.[61] Even though Abel could not do anything of himself to atone for his sinfulness, his offering was an expression of his righteous desire.
Hebrews 11:6 says, “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”[62] It is clear that faith was present in Abel and was absent in Cain.[63] When one considers the offerings of the brothers, the outward difference between the two manifested the inward differences of the men.[64] The author of the book of Hebrews describes the difference between the offerings. A comparison of various translations tells us that, when compared to Cain’s offering, Abel’s offering was, “a more acceptable sacrifice,”[65] “a more excellent sacrifice,”[66] or more modern translations render it, “a better offering.”[67]
Could it also be that in Genesis three God had cursed the ground,[68] and Cain proceeded to make an offering to God of that very cursed ground?[69] In a way, Cain may have indicated through his offering that in his perception, he was not a fallen being, thus denying the need of a redeemer.[70] Jude wrote in his epistle, “Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion.”[71] Those who have taken the “way of Cain” are those, according to Pink, who, “Deny that the whole human race sinned and fell in Adam and who are therefore by nature children of wrath.”[72]
In a similar vein, the offering may very well have been representative of that which Cain held dear to himself. Contrary to Abel being thankful for the forgiveness of his sins, Cain may have chosen to make an offering of the fruit of the ground because he was thankful for this temporal, earthly life.[73] Additionally, Cain’s offering also may have been a representation of the things that he felt supported his life, such as fruits and vegetables that sprout from the ground, thus denying the role that God plays in his daily life. He did not direct his thanks to the giver of that life.[74]
A Matter of the Heart
All of this is a reflection of that which was in Cain's heart. There is also a connection to 2 Samuel 24:24, in which King David spoke the words, “I will not sacrifice to the Lord my God burnt offerings that cost me nothing.”[75] It is entirely possible that Cain’s offering may have cost him nothing, yet he still offered it to the Lord.[76] Does it not mean more to the recipient if he receives a gift that took some time and effort to obtain by the giver? There is reason to believe that God feels the same way about our offerings to Him, as offerings are a manifestation of one’s heart. A popular Old Testament commentary explains, "Worship pleasing to God is a worship that springs from a pure heart."[77]
The Apostle John wrote, “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.”[78] The context of John’s statement about Cain is that Cain’s offering was not matched with an inner righteousness of his own.[79] One may then ask why an unrighteous Cain would make an offering to God. There are no doubt individuals today who attend churches all over the world who do not understand what true worship is. Many of these people may participate in rituals in order to practice religion, but they do not realize that their worship is rejected by God because it is done in vain. The Bible clearly teaches that God rejects rituals that are a substitute for obedience and holy living.[80] Therefore, Cain's worship may have been done in this same manner.
Furthermore, the Apostle Paul wrote to his protégé Timothy about persons such as Cain. He described them as, “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”[81] Cain went through the motions of worship. He followed the prescribed dictates as he showed up where he was supposed to be and he did so at the prescribed time, but his heart was far from God. Pink wrote that Cain’s actions after God’s rejection of his offering showed that he, “[W]as angry at the thought that he could not approach and worship God according to the dictates of his own mind.”[82]
A reader of Genesis four can only speculate in regards to what was going through Cain’s mind when he brought the offering to God. Reading further into Scripture one finds more detail in regards to the manifestation of the heart of Cain after God judged the offerings and delivered the verdict.
The Verdict
The author of Genesis recorded the subsequent events in this way, “The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.”[83] The NIV translation does not adequately express the emotional response of Cain.
Other translations describe the emotion with words such as, “Cain became very angry and looked resentful,”[84] “So Cain was exceedingly angry and indignant, and he looked sad and depressed,”[85] “Cain was furious, and he looked despondent,”[86] and, “This made Cain both dejected and very angry, and his face grew dark with fury.”[87] The Hebrew word that translators struggle with here is נָפַל, which is transliterated 'naphal'.[88] This word has several definitions, and among those are "to cause to fall, throw down, lay prostrate, to throw or prostrate oneself."[89] In light of this definition, one can understand how furious Cain must have been since he was so enraged at the rejection of his offering that he threw himself on the ground. Another way that it could be put was that Cain was “inflamed” with anger.[90]
Edersheim summed it up when he wrote, “Instead of inquiring into the reason of his rejection, and trying to have it removed, Cain now gave way to feelings of anger and jealousy.”[91] Cain's response to his rejection is a manifestation of his heart.[92] The Apostle Paul warned the Ephesians, “In your anger do not sin. Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry.”[93] It is clear from these passages that God was well aware of Cain’s anger, so God tried to reason with Cain.
The Voice of Reason
The author of Genesis recounts the communication between God and Cain, “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.’”[94] It is not really a dialog because no words of Cain are recorded; it is a monolog of God. Cain's lack of speech is indicative of his anger, so much so that he would not even answer God.
God tells Cain that there is no reason for him to be angry; Cain should have known that his offering was not acceptable, so he should not be angry at God for rejecting it. In the passage, God is telling Cain by His words, "If you do right," that, ultimately, good behavior is the right offering to God.[95] God is merciful by offering guidance to Cain, but Cain is silent and he refuses to accept the guidance.
Arthur Pink offers two interpretations of the phrase, "Sin is crouching at your door." Some have posited the theory of Genesis 4:7 in a completely different context than we read it in the NIV. Some interpret the passage from the perspective of God telling Cain that if he presents an offering that is unacceptable to the Lord, then under that circumstance Cain has an available option to make it right, and that is by following up his fruit offering with a sin offering.[96] Then, if God accepts the sin offering, Cain will retain his status and the benefits of being the first born of Adam and Eve.[97] Based on this dynamic, some interpreters go even further and suggest that because Cain feared losing his status as first-born to Abel, as a result of his rejected offering, he made the decision to kill Abel.[98]
Pink gave a convincing argument against this interpretation of 'sin offering' rather than sin in Genesis 4:7. Some interpret this as God's way of giving Cain a second chance. If Cain, or anyone for that matter, does not present an acceptable offering to the Lord, and thus does not repent of it, then a sin offering is lying at your door.[99]
Hebrews 9:22 makes reference to the law which was given to Moses, the law which requires blood for forgiveness. An appeal can also be made to the Apostle Paul who wrote that, “Through the law we become conscious of sin.”[100] Pink and others maintain that since the events in Genesis four preceded the giving of the law to Moses, then it logically follows that the blood requirement, which was established through Moses, did not apply to the offerings of Cain and Abel, since the brothers chronologically preceded Moses. Therefore, the lack of blood could not have been the deciding factor by which God accepted Abel’s offering and not Cain’s.[101]
Pink refers to the book of Job for further support that a sin offering was a product of the law given by God.[102] It is widely accepted that the events recorded in the book of Job chronologically preceded the giving of the law to Moses. It is recorded that, “Early in the morning [Job] would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, ‘Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.’”[103] If a sin offering that was required for the forgiveness of sins had been required before the era of Moses and the giving of the law, then Job certainly would have offered up the required sin offering rather than his burnt offering.[104]
Pink did, however, accept the possibility that among Cain's motivation to kill Abel was to maintain the benefits of being the first-born son.[105] It is the opinion of the author that there is minimal evidence to support the former interpretation that Pink described, the suggestion of a follow-up offering. The latter, the requirement of repentance, seems to be the most reasonable.
God's mercy is also evident in that He confronted Cain with his sin, the bringing of an unacceptable offering to the Lord.[106] God not only warned Cain, but he pointed out a way that Cain could correct the wrong, something that He was not obligated to do.[107]
The Apostle John provided more insight into the mind of Cain with his words, "Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous."[108] John was saying that Cain belonged to Satan at the time of his offering, which was why he yielded to Satan's power even when offered mercy from God.[109] Furthermore, John put an exclamation point to his argument with the words, "Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."[110] Despite being offered this dose of mercy from God, Cain did not accept it, he remained silent, and he allowed his anger to rule over him.
The Murder
The text briefly describes the murder of Abel by Cain in Genesis 4:8, "Now Cain said to his brother Abel, 'Let’s go out to the field.' While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."[111] It has been determined by scholars that the only words recorded in Scripture by Cain before the slaying of his brother were actually not included in the original Hebrew text.[112] The words, "Let's go out to the field," were added to the Samaritan version of the Torah, but not only are the words absent from the original Hebrew, but they were also absent from both the Syriac Bible and Targums, which were interpretive readings of rabbis, both of which are deemed by scholars to be as acceptable as the Hebrew text.[113] The words of Cain were most likely added to the Samaritan version in order to explain it, so they remain in some English translations such as the Lexham English Bible (LEB) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) as well as the NIV, but they are excluded from certain other translations such as the King James Version (KJV) and the English Standard Version (ESV).[114] These words of Cain, if in the original text, give more detail to the premeditation of Cain's actions.
The significance of the context of the murder should not be lost even on the casual reader. Not only was the first recorded murder in human history done by the hands of a brother, but the sad truth is that the first crime against humanity was done in the context of worshiping God.[115] This makes Abel the first martyr of mankind.[116]
As we will explore in the next section, the words of author Victor Hamilton apply here, "God's response to sin and disobedience is never arbitrary."[117]
Unwarranted Mercy
The remainder of the narrative of this story goes as follows:
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?” “I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.[118]
One who reads Genesis three and four together can see points of similarity and other points of difference between the two accounts. For one, even though God is omniscient and He knows everything, he asked Cain of his whereabouts just as He asked Adam and Eve of their whereabouts.[119] Also, when they were first confronted about their sin by God, Adam and Eve were not repentant, as they immediately placed the blame elsewhere and not on themselves, where it belonged.[120] Likewise, when God confronted Cain, he was equally unrepentant and his first inclination was also to deny any responsibility,[121] just like his parents.[122] On the other hand, in Genesis three, Adam and Eve expressed shame in response to their sin, but Cain expresses no shame when God confronts him with his sin.[123] Cain's lack of shame can be an indicating factor of why God did not accept his offering in the first place.
When analyzed, Cain's response to his rejection can provide valuable insights into why his offering was not accepted by God. Cain's response to God, when asked of the whereabouts of his brother, was a combination of a lie and sarcasm, "'I don’t know,' he replied. 'Am I my brother’s keeper?'"[124] When Cain says that God is suggesting that he should be his brother's keeper, he was suggesting that God would expect him to "keep, control, regulate, or rule" over his brother.[125] In William Lasor's Old Testament Survey there is good insight on Cain at this point as he states, "Sin not only moves in ever widening circles, its manifestation grows more blatant and heinous."[126] This is the nature of sin as anyone can clearly see in the fallen world in which we live.
Next is the punishment handed down from God. As is so often the case in Scripture, the punishment that God chooses is in direct relation to the punished individual. Knowing that Cain was a tiller of the soil, God says, "When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."[127] It has been written that the worst part of the curse on Cain is that as a wanderer, Cain would be hidden from the presence of God.[128]
It should be understood that even after being handed such a punishment, Cain still offers no remorse or repentance for his actions. Instead, his selfishness comes through even stronger in his response to God, "My punishment is more than I can bear,"[129] and he expresses his fear that, "[W]hoever finds me will kill me."[130] Arthur Pink wrote in regards to Cain’s response about his punishment that the sad truth is that at the end of time, sinners will no doubt utter the same words, “My punishment is more than I can bear,” but they will have to bear it nonetheless in the Lake of Fire without the mercy of God.[131]
It is interesting that translators differ in regards to Cain’s words. Church giants such as John Calvin and others interpreted Cain’s words to mean that he was accusing the Judge, that is God, of being too harsh on him by making reference to the punishment, “My punishment is more than I can bear.”[132]
However, translations of both the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate render a somewhat different translation of Cain’s words. They understood Cain to be somewhat repentant after what he had done, so the English translation from these texts is, “My sin is too great for me to bear” (italics added).[133] If this translation is preferred, then the implication is that it was Cain’s belief that he had committed a sin too great to warrant forgiveness.[134] The replacement of ‘punishment’ instead of ‘sin’ transfers the guilt from God to Cain, respectively.
The issue cannot be settled easily because, according to a popular lexicon, the Hebrew word עָוָה, which is transliterated avon, can mean both iniquity (sin) or the results of one’s punishment.[135] It is thus left up to the interpreter to discern from the context which word is intended. It is the author’s hermeneutical inclination to side with Calvin, that Cain was charging God with a wrong in His punishment. This is based on the plain reading of the text and taking the context of Cain’s actions into account up to this point, as he proved at every opportunity to be self-centered and unrepentant. Also, Edersheim was accurate when he said, “No punishment, however terrible, can ever have the effect of changing the heart of a man.”[136] In other words, no amount of a punishment can cure the heart with hatred and evil intent.
Regardless of the intent behind Cain’s words, God's response is indicative of His mercy. God said, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” We read further, “Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.”[137] Even after Cain committed a heinous crime which was against his own brother, no less, God extended unwarranted mercy on Cain by decreeing seven-fold vengeance on anyone who takes Cain’s life.[138] God was under no obligation whatsoever to protect Cain, yet He freely chose to act as He did.
As anyone can see, this account in Genesis four is pregnant with meaning, and much of it is open for debate. There is a lot that a reader can learn of the character of God from the reading of the narrative, and there is much that a person can apply to his Christian life.
Conclusion
The theme of sin and man’s Fallen state was discussed much in this research because it is at the heart of the matter. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, and they were punished for their transgressions. Their son Cain sinned against his brother, and he was likewise punished for his sin as well. Sin is an infectious disease, and no one is immune to it. Righteous living and sanctification is an ongoing process for man because we are sinful, but the Apostle John wrote to this end, “If anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”[139] Christians, therefore, should desire to learn about God so that we can emulate Him, and there is a lot that a person can learn about God from the narrative in Genesis four.
God gave no explanation of why He accepted Abel's offering and not that of Cain, but a rational person must conclude that there was a reason for His decision.[140] The question at the onset was, “Why did God accept the offering of Abel, yet reject the offering of Cain?” Based on the research presented herein, there are definite clues that can direct a person to a deeper understanding of God, and an answer to this question. The lack of a textual reason for the rejection is left up to the reader by the author.[141] A popular commentary explains, "The author is apparently less concerned with Cain's offering than with Cain's response to the Lord's rejection of his offering.[142]
First, it is the opinion of the author that Cain had no intention to make a sacrifice to God, but Abel, on the other hand, did display sacrificial intention. Abel’s sacrifice of the firstborn of the flocks contained blood, which is symbolic of a sinner seeking the remission of sins. The author of Hebrews wrote of Abel, “By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.”[143]
It is the opinion of the author that the lack of blood was not a contributing factor in God’s rejection of Cain’s offering. Although the presence of blood may have led to God's acceptance of Abel's sacrifice, it was not the precipitating reason for the rejection of Cain's offering. It is evident from the text and from the corresponding New Testament authors that Cain’s intention was not to be absolved of his transgressions like his brother, so his offering should not be judged with the same standards.
Therefore the question is raised, “What were the intentions of Cain for bringing an offering?” It seems evident that Cain wanted to flaunt his handiwork before God, just as some today invest excessive time and money in church facilities that serve no purpose other than exalting the worshippers rather than exalting God. Going to the extreme in being excessively lavish may not be an ideal way to glorify God.
Before the Fall in Genesis three, man's hope for eternity was based on his perfect obedience to God, and, after the Fall, man's hope was based on the promise of a savior.[144] As a result, it is man's choice whether to embrace that hope or not.[145] It is obvious that Abel chose to embrace it, while Cain chose to not embrace it. It has been said that one of the main lessons of this narrative in Genesis four is that, "All who seek their portion in this world will find their hopes disappointed."[146]
Pink summarized Genesis four with the words, "The central theme of the chapter is that God is to be worshipped...by means of a sacrifice...which is appropriated by faith."[147] Faith, ultimately, is the key that separated Abel from Cain. The author of Hebrews picked up on this important theological point in his letter, "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."[148] It is clear that Abel displayed faith, and his brother Cain did not.
The nature of the offerings themselves was not the deciding factor for acceptance or rejection. The decision lies in the condition of the person who offers it to God. Does he who worships display faith, or lack faith? With the help of this research, the words of the author of Hebrews are still appropriate and relevant, "And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead."[149]
Bibliography
Alexander, T. Desmond, ed. and David W. Baker, ed. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Avon (עָוָה). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5771&t
=NIV, [accessed March 19, 2015].
Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. II. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, reprint 1978.
Edersheim, Alfred. Old Testament Bible History. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1982.
English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008.
Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.
Holy Bible, New International Version Large–Print Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Lange, John Peter. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. Translated by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Group, 1868.
Lasor, William Sanford, David Allen Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.
Longman, III, Temper, gen. ed. and David E. Garland. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition: Genesis – Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Minchah (מִנְחָה). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs= H4503&t=NIV, [accessed March 5, 2015].
Naphal (נָפַל). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5307&t =NIV, [accessed March 21, 2015].
Phillips, John. Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing, reprint 2001.
Pink, Arthur W. Gleanings in Genesis. Chicago: Moody Press, 1950.
Re’shiyth (רֵאשִׁית). http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=26&t=NIV#s= t_conc_179010, [accessed March 8, 2015].
Staats, Gary. Expository Survey of the Scriptures- Old Testament. Austin: WordSearch Corp., 2008.
‘Thysia’ (θυσία). Http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Heb&c=11&t=KJV#s=t_
conc _1144004, [accessed March 7, 2015].
FOOTNOTES
[1] Alfred Edersheim. Old Testament Bible History. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1982), 24.
[2] Gen. 2:25 [NIV].
[3] Herein the writer will follow a traditional practice of capitalizing all pronouns that refer to deity; this is done in an effort to give the most honor and respect to the name of God.
[4] Gen. 4:5 [NIV].
[5] Edersheim, 24.
[6] Gen. 3:15 [NIV].
[7] Gen. 4:1 [NIV].
[8] Gen. 4:1 [NOG].
[9] John Phillips. Exploring Genesis: An Expository Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing, reprint 2001), 63.
[10] Edersheim, 24.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Arthur W. Pink. Gleanings in Genesis. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1950), 56..
[14] Victor P. Hamilton. Handbook on the Pentateuch. 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 51..
[15] Pink, 57.
[16] Gen. 4:3 [NET].
[17] Gen. 4:3 [YLT].
[18] Ibid.
[19] Gen. 3:24 [NIV].
[20] Pink, 56.
[21] Pink, 57.
[22] Gen. 4:4 [NIV].
[23] Pink 56.
[24] Pink, 57.
[25] Rom. 10:17 [NIV].
[26] Gary Staats. Expository Survey of the Scriptures - Old Testament. (Austin: WordSearch Corp., 2008), 17.
[27] T. Desmond Alexander, ed. and David W. Baker, ed. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 108.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Minchah (מִנְחָה), http://biblehub.com/hebrew/4503.htm [accessed March 7, 2015].
[31] Ibid.
[32] Thysia (θυσία). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2378&t=KJV [accessed March 7, 2015].
[33] John Peter Lange. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical. Translated by Philip Schaff. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Group, 1868), 255..
[34] Edersheim, 28.
[35] Pink, 67.
[36] Heb. 9:22 [NIV].
[37] Deut. 15:19 [NIV].
[38] Deut. 26:2 [NIV].
[39] Deut. 26:10 [NIV].
[40] English Standard Version (ESV) Study Bible. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008) 57..
[41] Hamilton, 58.
[42] Lev. 2:1 [NIV].
[43] Re’shiyth (רֵאשִׁית). http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=26&t=NIV#s=t_conc_179010 [accessed March 8, 2015].
[44] Alexander, 108.
[45] Pink, 58.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Eph. 2:8 – 9 [NIV].
[50] 2 Tim. 3:5 [NIV].
[51] Gen. 4:4 [NIV].
[52] Edersheim, 25.
[53] Gen. 4:4 [NIV].
[54] Edersheim, 25.
[55] Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Vol. II. Translated by Thomas L. Kingsbury. (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, reprint 1978), 225.
[56] Lange, 256.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Delitzsch, 226.
[59] Ibid, 225.
[60] Ibid, 226.
[61] Ibid.
[62] Heb. 11:6 [NIV].
[63] Edersheim, 26.
[64] Delitzsch, 225.
[65] Heb. 11:4 [ESV].
[66] Heb. 11:4 [NKJV].
[67] Heb. 11:4 [NIV].
[68] Gen. 3:17 [NIV].
[69] Hamilton, 59.
[70] Pink, 65.
[71] Jude 11 [NIV].
[72] Pink, 65.
[73] Lange, 256.
[74] Delitzsch, 225.
[75] 2 Sam. 24:24 [NIV].
[76] Hamilton, 59.
[77] Temper Longman, III, gen. ed. and David E. Garland. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary Revised Edition: Genesis – Leviticus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008) 97.
[78] 1 John 3:12 [NIV].
[79] Hamilton, 58.
[80] Ibid, 58-59.
[81] 2 Tim. 3:5 [NIV].
[82] Pink, 59.
[83] Gen. 4:4b-5 [NIV].
[84] Gen. 4:5 [CEB].
[85] Gen. 4:5 [AMP].
[86] Gen. 4:5 [HCSB].
[87] Gen. 4:5 [TLB].
[88] Naphal (נָפַל). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5307&t =NIV, [accessed March 21, 2015].
[89] Ibid.
[90] Lange, 256.
[91] Edersheim, 24.
[92] Longman, III., 97.
[93] Eph. 4:26 [NIV].
[94] Gen. 4:6-7 [NIV].
[95] Lange, 256.
[96] Pink, 59.
[97] Ibid.
[98] Ibid, 61.
[99] Ibid, 60.
[100] Rom. 3:20 [NIV].
[101] Pink, 60.
[102] Ibid.
[103] Job 1:5 [NIV].
[104] Pink, 60.
[105] Ibid, 61.
[106] Edersheim, 24.
[107] Ibid.
[108] 1 John 3:12 [NIV].
[109] Edersheim, 27.
[110] John 3:15 [NIV].
[111] Gen. 4:8 [NIV].
[112] Lange, 257.
[113] Ibid.
[114] Ibid.
[115] Hamilton, 58.
[116] William Sanford Lasor, David Allen Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 599.
[117] Ibid, 76.
[118] Gen. 4:9 - 16 [NIV].
[119] Lange, 257.
[120] Gen. 3:12 - 13 [NIV].
[121] Gen. 4:9 [NIV].
[122] Pink, 61.
[123] Ibid, 257.
[124] Gen. 4:9 [NIV].
[125] Hamilton, 59.
[126] Lasor, 27.
[127] Gen. 4:12 [NIV].
[128] Pink, 62.
[129] Gen. 4:13 [NIV].
[130] Gen. 4:14 [NIV].
[131] Pink, 62.
[132] Pink, 258.
[133] Lange, 258.
[134] Ibid.
[135] Avon (עָוָה). http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5771&t =NIV, [accessed March 19, 2015].
[136] Edersheim, 26.
[137] Gen. 3:15 [NIV].
[138] Lasor, 30.
[139] 1 John 2:1 [NIV].
[140] Lasor, 26.
[141] Longman, III, 97.
[142] Ibid.
[143] Heb. 11:4 [NIV].
[144] Edersheim, 27.
[145] Ibid.
[146] Edersheim, 26.
[147] Pink, 56.
[148] Heb. 11:6 [NIV].
[149] Heb. 11:4 [NIV].
