I. SETTING OF THE GEN
4:1—7
A. Geographical and
temporal setting
1.
The
geographical setting is “east of
the garden of Eden” (Gen 3:24),
wherever Eden might have been.
The first couple is in exile, resulting from
their fall into rebellion and sin.
Cain’s sin and fratricide drive him further eastward, indicating
judgment and the increased pervasiveness of sin with its consequent—a greater
chasm between fallen man and the face-Presence of YHWH (4:14). Because of the historical context, the
antediluvian period, fixing a precise geographic location of Eden and the
garden is inscrutable.
2.
The
temporal setting is obviously in
the early dawn in humanity’s history
. After man’s creation, fall into rebellion,
and expulsion from Eden, the next temporal marker is the birth of the brothers,
Cain and Abel (4:1). Within the context
of 4:1—7 we find a typical, organic progression of life: the brothers are
conceived and born (4:1—2a); they grow into their respective vocations, both of
which were likely Adam’s too (v 2b), and they come-of-age, being responsible
for the nurture of their own relationship to YHWH, “in the course of time” (vv
3—7).
B. Canonical-theological setting
Although the birth of the
brothers indicates a significant movement in the Genesis narrative, it cannot
be divorced from either that which came before it or that which follows it, the
whole of the pentateuchal plotline. The
narrative of Cain reveals fundamental parallels to the fall narrative of
Genesis 3: (1) sin is geographically described (Gen 3:5—7; 4:6—7); (2) the
sinner undergoes divine interrogation (Gen 3:3—13; 4:9—12); (3) the ultimate
divine question is one of personal location (“Where are you?”) and social
location (“Where is your brother?”; Gen 3:9; 4:9); (4) the sinner is cursed
(Gen 3:14, 17; 4:11—12); and (5) the clothing of Adam and Eve and the marking
of Cain are similar, as is their banishment to the east (Gen 3:21, 24; 4:15—16). Cain, therefore, is a geographic instance of
Adam’s sin as well as a demonstration of the impact of the fall.
So, we must read Gen 4 retrospectively, with
an eye on the past.
We must also read
Gen 4 proleptically, with an eye on the future. “The larger narrative pattern
of Israel is also forecast (in Gen 4).”
As a result of Cain choosing to harden his
heart, he becomes the archetypal exile for the immediate audience of Genesis,
the post-exodus Israelites. Just as
Cain, having sealed his sinful disposition toward YHWH and his brother, the
righteous, was exiled from the land and the Presence of YHWH, so too Israel,
when she will have sealed her stiff-necked, hard-heartedness toward God and
fellow, will be cast from the good land and the Tabernacle Presence of YHWH,
and sent into exile, constantly fearing the threat of death at the hands of
others (4:14 // Deut 28:15ff).
Therefore, theologically, the Cain-Abel story looks back to Gen 3 and
also the yet-future, warning its readers to not walk “in the way of Cain” (Jude
11) and suffer banishment from land and God.
II.
OCCASION OF THE NARRATIVE
Like
the book that bears it, Genesis 4 is a chapter of firsts: the first sexual union, the first birth(s), the first
(recorded) acts of worship, the first shedding of human blood, et cetera. As Genesis 3 leaves the reader hanging in
great suspense, wondering about the hoped-for, head-stomping seed of the woman,
who would ultimately defeat humanity’s subtle foe, the serpent (v 15), chapter
4 opens with great anticipation that that seed has arrived. Eve exuberantly announces this much in v 1b,
lest the reader missed it in v 1a. As
important as this event is, it is quickly eclipsed by the occasion of the first
worship in the Genesis narrative (vv 3f).
III.
KEY TERMS OF GEN 4:1—7
A. “Offering” (
minha), is an occasion of repetition, occurring
three times in the considered narrative (vv 3, 4, 5), and boasts a total of 211
uses in the Old Testament (OT). Twice
YHWH insists in Exodus, “None shall appear before Me empty-handed” (23:15 // 34:20). Interestingly, the first reference, 23:15,
concerns the prescriptions for the feasts of Unleavened Bread, Harvest, and
Ingathering, and includes “the first fruits of your labors from what you
sow
in the field…the fruit of your labors
from the field…You shall bring
the choice
first fruits of your soil” (italics added). These are the produce of the “tiller of the
ground” (Gen 4:2b). The latter
reference, Ex 34:20, is likewise in the context of the festivals, but focuses
on the “firstborn” (
bekôr)
theme, which is of great consequence for “a keeper of the flocks” (Gen 4:2c). Both contexts also share the command that
“Three times a year all your males are to appear before the Lord GOD, the God
of Israel” (Ex 23:17 // 34:23).
Leviticus 2 provides the most exhaustive
qualifications for minha. These
worship statutes will help present Moses’ readers with a theology of
“offering,” which will go a long way in developing an understanding of the
offerings of the brothers in the laconic narrative of Gen 4:1—7.
“The Torah,
especially the priestly legislation...has a rich and precise vocabulary to
represent the sacraments offered to the LORD on an altar; each term denotes a
physical object representing a spiritual truth upon which the worshipper could
feed spiritually in his approach to and communion with God.”
Examples of this rich vocabulary of offering
include the following. The most
inclusive term for presentations to God on the altar is
qorban,
"offering," from a root signifying "to bring near." This
term is not used in the Cain and Abel story.
Others
include "burnt offering" (‘
ola), "fellowship
offering" (
selem), "acknowledgement offering" (
toda),
"votive offering" (
neder), "free-will offering" (
nedaba),
"sin offering" (
hatta't), and "guilt offering" (
'asam
). Waltke makes the crucial
observation, regarding the last two examples—“sin offering” and “guilt
offering”—that
“These
sacrifices make ‘atonement’ (
kpr)
and involved shedding blood
for removal of sin. Were Cain presenting an involuntary offering, he would have
been rejected for failure to offer blood. In fact, however, in the Cain and
Abel story, a part of the Books of Moses, neither ‘sin offering’ nor ‘guilt offering’
is used.”
We must conclude, therefore, that Cain was
not rejected for failing to offer a
blood sacrifice.
B. “Firstlings” (bekôrâh) and “fat portions” (chêleb) are other key terms.
1. Bekôrâh (“firstlings”) is used only 15
times in the Hebrew OT. It is sometimes
used for “birthright” (e.g., Gen 25:31-34; 27:36; 43:33). It can also mean “firstborn” (Deut
21:17). In Deut 12:6 it is mentioned in
the cultic context of various other offerings, sacrifices, and tithes, which
are to be brought to the place of worship chosen and prescribed by YHWH, being
called “the firstborn of your herd
and of your flock” (ESV). This is
relevant, as Abel brought “the firstborn
of his flock” (Gen 4:4a; also see Deut 12:6, 14; 14:23; Neh 10:37), thus
conforming his offering to the prescribed quality of regulative Torah worship.
2. Chêleb (“fat portions”) enjoys a more
generous usage than bekôrâh,
occurring 92 times throughout the OT.
The KJV translates the term simply “fat” 79 of those 92 times; it also
translates it “best” (5x), “fatness” (4x), “finest” (2x), “grease” once, and
“marrow” once.
Two prepositional
phrases are used to qualify the kind of sacrifice that Abel brought. These also could be interpreted as a
hendiadys: “from the fattest of the firstborn of the flock.” Another option is
to understand the second prepositional phrase as referring to the fat portions
of the sacrificial sheep. In this case one may translate, “some of the
firstborn of his flock, even some of their fat portions” (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV).
C. “Sin” (chaṭṭâ'âh) is a term scattered like
seed through the OT and is nearly always translated simply “sin.” This term’s meaning is clear; there is little
explanation needed to understand how the author defines it. One observation does provide some insight
into Moses’ rhetorical purpose with this use of the term, however. This is the first occurrence of 294 in the OT
of the word chaṭṭâ'âh, and Moses
cloaks it in a daunting zoomorphism, wherein sin is portrayed as being a wild
beast ready to pounce its prey. Sin is
the subject of the verb “desire.” Sin,
in principle, is not literally a thing that can be postured, much less is it a
person or animal with volition and desires; sin is a function of relationship,
whether with God or man.
The figure of the
crouching sin, however, must press us further.
Walton picks up on the peculiar shift in gender between the feminine
noun “sin” and subsequent parts of speech in 4:7. “The word translated ‘sin’ is a feminine
form, yet the participle
robes (‘is
crouching’) is clearly masculine singular as are the pronominal suffixes
connected to ‘desire’ and ‘rule.’”
Typically, Walton wishes to interpret these
grammatical nuances in terms of ancient Near Eastern background materials.
It is probably best, however, to understand
these grammatically incompatibles as alluding to the serpent of Gen 3.
IV. OUTLINE OF GEN 4:1—7
I. THE BIRTH OF THE BROTHERS (4:1—2a)
A. The first sexual union, the ‘twain
became one flesh.’ Now the man had
relations with his wife Eve, (4:1a)
B. The brothers are born. And she conceived (4:1a)
1. The birth of
Cain. and gave birth to Cain, (4:1b)
2. Eve’s evaluation of the first
birth. and she said, “I have gotten a
manchild with the help of the LORD” (4:1c)
3. The birth of Abel. Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. (4:2a)
II. THE VOCATION OF THE BROTHERS (4:2b, c)
A. The
vocation of Abel. Abel was a keeper of
the flocks, (4:2b)
B. The
vocation of Cain. But Cain was a tiller
of the ground. (4:2c)
III. THE WORSHIP OF THE BROTHERS (4:3—5a)
A. The
occasion of the worship. And it came
about in the course of time (4:3a)
B. The
worship of Cain. that Cain brought an
offering (4:3b)
1.
The object of Cain’s worship. to the LORD
(4:3b)
2.
The content of Cain’s offering. of the
fruit of the ground (4:3b)
C. The
worship of Abel. Abel, on his part
brought (4:4a)
1.
The object of Abel’s worship. [to the
LORD (assumed by ellipsis)]
2. The content of
Abel’s offering. (4:4a)
a.
The best parts of his substance. of the
firstlings of his flock (4:4a)
b.
The best portions of the best parts. and
of their fat portions. (4:4a)
IV. YHWH’S EVALUATION OF THE BROTHERS’ WORSHIP (4:4b—5a)
A. The
acceptable offering of Abel (4:4b)
1. The LORD’s acceptance of Abel’s
person. And the LORD had regard for Abel (4:4b)
2. The LORD’s acceptance of Abel’s
portions. and for his offering; (4:4b)
B. The
rejected offering of Cain (4:5a)
1.
The LORD’s rejection of Cain’s person. but
for Cain (4:5a)
2. The LORD’s rejection of Cain’s
portions. and for his offering He had no
regard (4:5a)
V. CAIN’S DILEMMA (4:5b—7)
A. Cain’s
reaction to his rejection. (4:5b)
1.
The root of Cain’s reaction. So Cain
became very angry (4:5b)
2.
The fruit of Cain’s reaction. and his
countenance fell. (4:5b)
B. The
divine response, regarding Cain’s reaction. (4:6)
1.
The divine interrogation. Then the LORD
said to Cain, (4:6a)
2.
The LORD inquires about Cain’s heart. “Why
are you angry? (4:6b)
3. The LORD inquires about Cain’s
actions. And why has your countenance
fallen?” (4:6c)
C. The
divine response, regarding Cain’s solutions. (4:7)
1. The LORD’s solution for Cain’s
actions. “If you do well, will not your
countenance be lifted up? (4:7a)
2. The LORD’s warning for Cain’s
heart. And if you do not do well, sin is
crouching at the door; (4:7b)
a.
Sin’s relation to Cain. and its desire is
for you, (4:7c)
b. Cain’s
prescribed relation to sin. but you must
master it.” (4:7c)
V. PURPOSE OF THE
PASSAGE
The
notion that this passage has a singular purpose is somewhat myopic. There are many levels of purpose. First, the narrative gives the reader a brief
but straightforward report of many firsts.
Therefore, one basic purpose for the passage
is to inform humanity of its beginnings, and thus providing necessary
presuppositions for a comprehensively biblical worldview. Second, the passage plays an important role
in revealing to Israel—and the rest of the redeemed—their historical and
redemptive heritage. Not only does the
passage look back, providing a geographic and personal instance of the Adamic
nature, resulting from the fall, it also looks forward to Israel’s election
(per Abel), sin, and exile (per Cain).
Third, it provides the archetypes for the two-families, the family of
God and the family of the serpent, the two seeds (cf. 1 Jn 3, esp. vv
12f).
Above all,
however, is a fourth purpose, an illustration of faith-filled and faith-driven
obedience. As we have seen, the original
readers were prescribed a theology of sacrifice and worship in later
Torah. Abel’s faith and works, his
offering, was in perfect conformity to this theology, whereas Cain’s was not. Whether it was the offering from the flocks
and herds (Abel) or an offering from the fruit of the ground (Cain), it had to
be the “firstlings” of the flock (Ex 13:2, 12; 34:19) and the “firstfruits” of
the ground (Deut 26:1—11). Abel’s was;
Cain’s was not. The former received
YHWH’s approving gaze and regard; the latter received judgment and exile.
The storyteller
wants Israel then and Israel now (i.e., the Church) to read this passage as the
choice that is always before both the individual and the corporate community;
it is one of blessing and cursing, life and death. To them then and us today, Moses cries out,
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before
you life and death, blessing and curse.
Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving the
LORD your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he is your life
and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that the LORD swore to your
fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them" (Deut 30:19—20). The passage of Gen 4:1—7 is part of Moses’
presentation of what life and death look like.
VI. INTERPRETIVE
CHALLENGES IN GEN 4:1—7
A. Why was Abel’s sacrifice accepted by God while Cain’s was not?
As Waltke wisely begins,
“We commence our study with the observation that the text syntaxically
distinguishes between the offerer and his offering: ‘The LORD looked with favor
on [‘el] Abel and on [‘el] his offering, but on [‘el] Cain and on [‘el] his
offering he did not look with favor’ (Gen 4:4b—5a).”
This, then, should lead us to recognize that
YHWH’s evaluation was not merely binary, only appraising the two offerings;
rather it was four-fold. Although the
worshipper and his offering cannot be completely separated, the text makes
clear that YHWH’s assessment did not depend on the offering alone, but also on
the person of the worshipper and his heart’s condition.
As
the foregoing has suggested, the popular but misguided notion that Cain’s
offering was rejected on the grounds of being bloodless cannot be
maintained. A “lexical study of the
terms designating Cain’s offering gives no basis for thinking it was rejected
because it was bloodless.”
The term “offering” is equally applicable to
meat and grain offerings prescribed throughout Torah. The descriptive qualifiers of Abel’s offering
as “firstlings” and “fat portions” and the lack of such qualifications for
Cain’s cannot be overlooked, however.
As far as praxis
goes, in terms of the Torah’s prescriptions respecting offerings, Abel appeared
to be offering according to regulative worship, whereas Cain did not. So, the offerings must not be skirted
lightly, but neither should we miss the delineation between the worshippers and
their respective offerings. The contrast
between both brothers and their offerings is highlighted by way of a chiastic form.
A.
“So it came about in the course of time that…” (v 3a)
B. Cain and his grain offering come before
YHWH (v 3b)
X. Abel and his ‘fattest firstlings’
offering come before YHWH (v 4a)
X. YHWH
had regard for Abel and his offering (v 4b)
B. “But” YHWH had no regard for Cain and his
offering (v 5a)
A. “So Cain became very angry and his
countenance fell” (v 5b)
The episode is framed by the occasion’s setting (A), the “course of
time” (likely harvest, an important festal time according to Israel’s cultic
calendar) and the occasion’s conclusion (A).
B an B present Cain and his offering and YHWH’s rejection of both, emphasized
by the conjunction “but” in v 5a. The chis,
X and X, underscore the quality
and conformity to Torah regulative worship by Abel and his offering. Therefore, the author to the Hebrews
conclusion that “Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain” (11:4a) was
not merely a level-headed theological conclusion but reflects a right reading
of Moses’ careful literary genius.
If
we allow the New Testament (NT) authors to influence our interpretation of this
point, and we must, then we may make some reliable inferences. The apostle John tells us that “Cain was of
the evil one” (1 Jn 3:12a). Cain was
“of” (ek / ex) the evil one, the
devil. In Johannine literature, being
“of” either God (Jn 1:13) or the devil (8:44) is to indicate one’s spiritual
father or Father. Therefore, if “the
sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD” (Prov 15:8; 21:27), and
Cain was wicked, being of his father the evil one, then the rejection of his
offering swings primarily on his personal relation to YHWH, which is one of
tyranny and separation. Moreover,
granting the theme of election in the narrative of Genesis, especially
regarding Jacob and Esau, which has many parallels to the considered narrative
of Cain and Abel, the reason Cain was of the evil one and Abel was righteous
(Heb 11:4) is rooted in the eternal decree of God.
B. What significance is there to ‘firstlings?’ Can this reference be used to promote the
principle of first fruits for Christians?
The concept of “firstlings” was fleshed out
above.
Using Gen 4 to promote the principle of first
fruits for Christians is not impossible, but it is unnecessary and is a poor
application of Gen 4:1—7. It would be
mere proof-texting, which is always dangerous.
In
light of what God has wrought in redemptive history in the Person of his Son,
Jesus (Rom 1 – 11), we are “therefore” to be living sacrifices (12:1—3). The NT refers to Christians as douloi, “slaves.” Slaves do not own personal property. All that they might enjoy belongs to their
proprietors, their masters. Christians,
therefore, once they have learned the arrangement of God’s economy in Christ,
have nothing to offer their Master but the increases of what is already his
that he has brought about through his own grace and providence. In this light, “first fruits” as a principle
would be a bit of a moot point. “You
were bought (from the slave market of bondage to sin, the flesh, and the devil)
with a price; you are not your own…” (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23). Entire consecration of all we are and all we
have is the Christian principle of first fruits. If that is so, then what might be gained to
support the idea from Abel’s offering?
C. What is your decision concerning the conundrum of ‘sin lieth at the
door’?
Granting the
observations above,
the clause “sin lieth at the door” is a zoomorphism, which alludes back to the
serpent (
nâchâsh) of Gen 3, which
is a masculine noun. Literalistic and
spatial interpretations can be precluded out of hand.
D. Is this passage connected with Levitical tithing?
No;
this passage is not directly
connected with Levitical tithing. The
various Hebrew terms for “tithe” (ma‛ăśêr
/ ma‛ăśar / ma‛aśrâh) in Torah are not used in this passage. Furthermore, tithes and the offering of
firstlings are carefully delineated elsewhere in Torah (see e.g., Deut 12:6;
comp. Lev 27:30—32).
E. How did Cain and Abel know to bring an offering before God?
Any
answer on this point will be purely conjectural. Nevertheless, the Westminster Standards offer a reasonable framework for
speculation.
The light of nature sheweth there is a
God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all; is good, and doeth good unto
all; and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in,
and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might. But the acceptable way of worshipping the
true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will,
that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men,
or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other was
not prescribed in the holy Scripture.
One thing is clear from our passage:
YHWH had not ceased communicating with people after exile from Eden. Had YHWH prescribed the worship we read of in
Gen 4? It is speculative, but not
unlikely. Were Cain and Abel merely
responding to the “light of nature” and spontaneously offering from their
substance? That too is possible. That Moses did not spell out how the brothers
knew or how they were to conduct their worship is perhaps the most telling feature.
Is it a fluke that
Abel’s worship conforms to the regulative worship of Torah and Cain’s does
not? Unlikely. It is as if Moses says something loud and
clear by not saying anything in Gen 4.
“Israel, Abel offered according to all these commands, statutes, and
ordinances I am delivering to you this day…go do likewise, and live!” Moses, in other words, intends the details
regarding the offerings and worship of Gen 4 to be taken from later Torah and
read back into the passage. Why try to
plumb the source of Cain’s and Abel’s knowledge about how to worship? We have it prescribe throughout the rest of
Scripture. Will we do what is right, according to what we know? (Gen 4:7). That seems to be the question before us in
the passage of Gen 4:1—7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, T.
Desmond, David W. Baker editors, Dictionary
of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press (2003)
Barker, Kenneth
L., John R. Kohlenberger III editors, The
Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Abridged Version, Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan (1994)
Lewis, Jack P.,
“The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A history of Interpretation,” pp. 481—96 in Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 37/4
(December 1994)
Ryken, Leland,
James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III editors, Dictionary of Biblical Imagery.
IVP Academic: Downers Grove, Illinois (1998)
Waltke, Bruce K.,
“Cain and his Offering,” pp. 363—72 in Westminster
Theological Journal 48 (1986)
Walton, John H., Genesis in NIVAC. Terry Muck editor. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
(2001)
