Genesis

FROM the origin of sin (Gen 3) we pass to the consideration of its progress. Sin in the individual is now seen to develop and express itself in the family. This chapter, like the three preceding it, is full of "geneses" for we have brought before us the first motherhood, the first birth, the first family, the first murder, the first martyrdom, the first indications of human development. Not least of all we have in it the record of the first conflict between the two seeds (Gen 3:15), and this in connection with religions worship.

It is a necessary and useful reminder that only a few things are touched upon in this chapter, and that many things are left unexplained. The writer calls attention to the mountain peaks only of human history and experience as he passes from one fact to another. Thus there is no statement of the time that elapsed between Gen 3:24 and Gen 4:1; no explanation of the origin of sacrifice, of blood revenge (Gen 4:14), of the method of Divine acceptance of sacrifice, of the sign appointed for Cain, and of the growth of the population implied (Gen 4:15-19). Whatever views we may hold upon these subjects must necessarily be problematical in the absence of clear teaching. Turning now to the record of the two brothers and all that the story implies, we notice:

We have here brought before us those home relationships, conjugal, parental, brotherly, that constitute the foundation of all social life. The parents, although expelled from Eden, are evidently still influenced by the consciousness of their relation to God, and by the thought of a Divine promise of a seed (Gen 3:15). The words of Eve at the birth of her first-born son are to be noted. She called the child Cain i.e. possession evidently thinking that in him would be fulfilled the promise to her seed. It is possible that the literal rendering of her words, I have gotten a man, even Jehovah, suggests a more definite belief and knowledge than are warranted. At the same time, to render the words, "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord" seems unduly to weaken the Hebrew phrase. Probably we are to understand some such rendering as I have gotten a man in relation to Jehovah, pointing definitely to a conviction that somehow or other this new-born son was related to the Divine promise and purpose. Eve must have been quickly undeceived in this respect, for when her second child was born there was no reference whatever to any relation to the Lord, and the fact of his name meaning vanity seems to show clearly that the mother had already become disappointed in her hopes of her first-born son.

Their work is first of all brought before us the one being a shepherd, the other an agriculturist. Thus early in the history of the world are we reminded of the necessity and dignity of work as one of the essentials of human life and progress.

They not only worked, however, but they also worshipped. "To labour" is not "to pray" in the literal meaning of the phrase. Man must pray as well as labour. Their worship took the form of offerings, and this must always be the case. Worship is giving, not getting; ascribing, not appropriating. It is evident from the phrase, in process of time, that this worship was regularly rendered as some thing habitual in their life. Man is never more truly man than when he is worshipping God; for it is only then that lie finds, realises, and expresses his true relationship of dependence.

One offering was accepted, the other was not. It is noteworthy that the Divine respect is stated in both cases, not merely with reference to the offerings, but primarily with reference to the offerer. Unto Abel and to his offering; unto Cain and to his offering. The value of the offering is seen to depend upon the character of the offerer. Not costliness, but character, constitutes true worship.

We naturally ask why it was that God had respect to Abel and to his offering, and not to Cain and his? According to Heb 11:4, the explanation is to be found in the words, "By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." Faith always presupposes a Divine revelation to which it is the response, and in the light of the New Testament it would seem clear that one was an offering of faith, and the other an offering without faith. Why should faith be emphasized by the Epistle to the Hebrews more than gratitude or prayer? May it not be because of a prior revelation from God as to how He was to be approached? We must never forget that while death is very familiar to us now, it was not so in those early days, and it might well have been asked why it was necessary to destroy the life of a lamb when it was not needed for food. In what respects are we to think of death as making a sacrifice acceptable to the Creator? Is it not possible, and even probable, that Abel’s sacrifice, involving death, was his response to an already existing revelation of God as to this method of sacrifice? May we not see in the coats of skins (Gen 3:21) a hint of the revelation of sacrifice through death as the way of approach to God? This view at any rate makes it intelligible why Abel can be said to have offered by faith, while Cain offered a sacrifice which did not involve death, and which was therefore, on this interpretation, not in accordance with the Divine revelation. At any rate we may fairly say that these two aspects represent two attitudes today the attitude of the man who responds to God’s revelation and submits to His will, and the attitude of the man who will only come to God on his own terms, refusing to do what does not suit him or commend itself to his judgment. It does not seem unjust to Cain to say that his was a sacrifice which, however good in itself, was not prompted by a faith that rested in and responded to God’s revelation of His will. In this connection the works of Professor Curtiss (Primitive Semitic Sacrifices, and Expositor, 1904, 1905) on the primitive Semitic ideas of sacrifice should be carefully studied, since they indicate very clearly that the root idea of sacrifice among the Bedouin tribes is propitiation rather than communion.

Cain’s anger Divine clearly shows that his worship was only a form of godliness without the power. If his offering had been made in the right spirit, there would have been no anger and no lowering of the countenance.

The Lord meets this wrath with a very definite inquiry and an equally definite reminder. Gen 4:7 has long been a crux interpretum. The following rendering seems worthy of attention: If thou doest well, will there not be acceptance for thee? And if thou doest not well, sin is lying at the door like a crouching beast, ready to spring upon thee, and unto thee is sin s desire, but thou shouldest rule over it. (See R.V. margin) It is very evident from these words that Cain had not been doing well previously to this, and hence the necessity of this solemn warning of the bitter consequences of continued sin. Sin is personified as a lurking beast of prey ready to spring upon its victim, and against this enemy Cain is warned, and commanded to rule over it. (See Murphy, Conant, and Lange in loc.) For another view see Note, p. 04.

The warning went unheeded, and the jealousy and hatred found expression in anger and murder. Thus, in connection with religious worship, the first murder was committed. Could anything be more tragic?

If you want to find out Cain’s 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 man’s religious worship is worth, see him out of church. Cain killed his brother when church was over, and that is the exact measure of Cain’s 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 (Parker’s People’s Bible, Genesis, p. 147).

Very soon comes God’s inquiry, "Where is Abel thy brother?" for sin cannot possibly be hid. There is a solemn significance in the repetition of his brother and thy brother in these verses. The Divine rebuke immediately follows (Gen 4:10), which in turn is succeeded by the Divine sentence of unrequited toil and wandering. Thus once again we are taught in most unmistakable terms of the Divine holiness and righteousness, which will not for an instant tolerate human sin.

Cain now realises something of what he has done, though it would seem that his thought is more of his punishment than of the sin that led to it. In mitigation of the results of his sin the Lord gives him a pledge of protection from vengeance. The phrase "set a mark upon Cain" should be rendered "appointed a sign for Cain" the same word being used as in Gen 1:14; Gen 9:12, and elsewhere. There seems no reason to think of a mark or brand upon his body, but some pledge or sign in regard to the question of vengeance. Then the judgment was executed, and Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, realising now to the full the separating character of sin, and the fact that when a man does despite to the Spirit of grace in rejecting God’s will there can be only spiritual solitariness and misery.

The two men, Cain and Abel, are brought before us in several passages in the New Testament. They were both worshippers, for Cain was not a profane man; and yet how different was their worship, by reason of the difference of their lives! Two New Testament phrases sum up the practical lessons:

1. Righteous Abel.

Abel teaches us very clearly that

2. The way of Cain.

In the life of Cain we see

NOTE ON Gen 4:7.

Another interpretation which has much to recommend it is: But if thou doest (or offerest) not well, even then there is a sin-offering ready at hand for use as a propitiation. And not only so, but Abel, thy brother, will submit himself to thee as the first-born, and thou shalt exercise thy right of authority over him (rf. Gen 3:16). The word rendered sin is translated sin-offering a large number of times in the Old Testament. This view regards the verse as at once a divine expostulation and an offer of grace. It is further argued that as the word for sin in the Hebrew is feminine, and the verb and pronouns in the last clause are masculine, the desire must refer to Abel and not to sin.