MURDER, MERCY & CALLING UPON YHWH I

(Genesis 4:1-16)

EDEN TO ZION VIDEO SERIES

Transcript

Introduction

Hello, I’m Stephen Buckley, welcome back to our Eden to Zion bible series, through which you will develop a biblical worldview and solid framework of the gospel narrative to live by and tell by.

Today we are tackling Genesis chapter 4, that contains the first murder, and the beginning of prayer. In truth, it is a chapter of firsts. The first family, the first death, the first city, the first polygamous marriage, and more.

Genesis 4 is the latter part of the section that began in Genesis 2 verse 4. We recall that Genesis contains 11 or so titles after the creation account, meaning 12 natural dividers given by the author that begin with “the history of” or “the family of” or “these are the generations of” depending on the translation.

This section was titled “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Gen 2:4) The section the tells us what became of creation – it was corrupted by the first family. It is not a “return to chaos” as some commentators may pen. There was no chaos beforehand, it is a turning from perfection and purity to chaos and iniquity.

Creation displayed the glory and power of God. The crown of creation rebelled against God, commencing with the serpent deceiving the glory of man in the form of his wife. The man chose to rebel against God’s just law, failing to guard the garden, God’s word, and his family from attack. Our just LORD cursed the serpent, the process of childbirth, relations between the sexes, and upon the land and man’s relationship to it. In his mercy, he promised a saviour in the seed to crush the serpent. Faced with death (albeit delayed), the LORD covered the man and woman with animal skins, before escorting them out from the garden. Salvation came through judgment as James Hamilton puts, “setting forth the grandeur of the glory of God.” Life outside the garden, post-fall of man, with curses in play, is the context of Genesis 4, which is a continuation of this section with an overall theme we could title “‘attachment’ to sin.”

The “generations of the heavens and the earth” detailed in the first genealogy in history is interrupted by the story of two brothers.

There are three main sections to Genesis 4:

• 1-16 Cain and Abel

• 17-24 The Family of Cain

• 25-26 The Family of Seth

These sections begin in similar fashion: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife” (v1) “Cain knew his wife” (v17) “And Adam knew his wife again” (v25) all conceiving and naming a male child, with a story to be told about each.

The emphasis here is not so much on the murder itself although significant in history, but on the turning points in the build up to murder, and the moments in the aftermath, that challenge those of faith.

I do not buy that Moses incorporated an edited version into the Torah leaving us with suitable questions that God should have answered. I’d be open to Adam, even Noah having written books of generations, and could it be possible to land in the hands of Moses? But regardless, God determined chapter 4 I believe by dictation that contains all the truth we require.

I was surprised by the extremes of differing opinions about aspects of the narrative. One commentator will hold someone in positive light, the other negative. And back and forth it goes throughout. All commentators differ here and there, but I found Genesis 4 to be strikingly polarizing. I do not like ambiguity. I am not a man of equivocation, nor unnecessary nuance. I like to know where you stand, I’ll tell you where I stand, with no sneaking up on people, no leaving with elephants ignored… I like to nail my colours to the mast with conviction where the bible calls for such dogmatism, and I believe God has given me a gift of understanding the scriptures. I have to say during my study of Genesis 4 I found it slightly trickier in places than expected, and I’ve really had to pray for LORD to open my eyes to see the truth. I will then present various sides throughout AND hopefully bring clarity of position, certainly in the conclusion.

Turn with me please to chapter 4 of Genesis.

From the top.

Offspring, Offerings & Murder

The Family of Adam and Eve

The first human born naturally

“Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” (Gen 4:1)

The birth of Cain briefly breaks into the negative mood of the bondage of sin and the outworking of depravity. It means God’s elemental blessing of Genesis 1:28 to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” is still intact; That his promise of Genesis 3:15 remains true, or at least possible; And his promise in judgment that childbearing going forward would be painful, they now know experientially is true. There was promise in the pain, but you can’t bypass the pain. The pain is real, and promise is real. Tribulation, before glory.

And of course, their child is born outside the paradise of security, abundant life, and covering of the garden. I’d like to think Adam had established some form of housing for his potential family. Experienced mid-wives were not available. Everything from the growth of the Eve’s bump, the maturity of milk ducts, to the moment the head showed, was unknown and scary and bewildering for the couple. This is the first person to be born naturally. I’d like to think a couple of angels were on hand, just in case.

What does “knew” mean?

“Adam knew Eve his wife”

“to know” is to be intimate with. They engaged in sexual intercourse. To know fully through experience, touch, and senses. They “knew” of good and evil experientially, and they “knew” each other experientially. It is possible that they “knew” each other intimately in the garden, but this occasion is notable because she conceived. Manipulation, self-gratification and exploitation is foreign from this kind of knowing intimacy held by Adam and Eve. To “lie with” is the typical use when referring to lust or acting contrary to nature, although “knew” can be used more widely and negatively.

What does the name Cain mean?

There is much scholarly discussion about the calling of his name, indeed the explanatory phrase of Eve.

Eve remarked, that she had “gotten a man” or acquired a man. Acquired in the Hebrew is very similar to the name Cain. Scholars have suggested that Cain is called so because he was “acquired”.

He was gotten, gained, he was acquired, or he was taken possession of.

Pointing to the etymology of the name, some have suggested it means “worker of metal” which could make sense or be seen as contradiction when we turn to his descendant Tubal-cain.

For now, we’ll go with acquired.

They didn’t acquire a penguin. Or a dog. They acquired according to their kind: Man-kind. They had never witnessed nor experienced birth. Never seen a baby before. I picture Adam with his hands clutched, “please be a human” and then when the head popped out “yes!”, completely relieved that God design and providence maintains the order of the cosmos in the preservation of kinds.

Referring to a baby as a man - I have gotten a man – may seem strange, but in context Eve was created from man, and now she experiences that man is born of woman – T-ing up Paul’s words to those in Corinth:

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” (1 Cor. 11:11-12)

Who is Cain acquired from?

As Paul recognised “all things are from God” so too Eve recognised she had “gotten a man with the help of the LORD.” There is recognition of God’s sovereignty, blessing, and co-partner in mission.

The only other man Eve had seen was her husband created by God. She had just given birth to the only other man in the world. God created the first man, before Eve was created, therefore she didn’t witness it, but now she is witness to the creation of the second man. It could be tempting for Eve to realise a hint of arrogance, but instead she acknowledges it was “with the help of the LORD.” (4:1)

Why was he called this?

Naming him “acquired” is acknowledgement he is given from the most-high God. I understand his name is an expression of belief that God has just delivered on the promised offspring that would ultimately deal with the serpent and reverse the curse. It reveals they believed in the promised seed. They had faith God would provide the saviour from their line, but mistakenly thought their first child Cain would be the serpent crusher of Genesis 3.15. His name is an expression of faith.

It reveals true repentance. Though they were disciplined, they returned to the LORD their God in heart and mind. They didn’t decide to raise a family to build an army to re-take the garden of Eden. Equally, they didn’t plan to establish the kingdom of God in Eden in their own strength. They set about in their commission, amid frustrating curse implications, to be fruitful and multiply and guard remaining responsibly, setting their hope fully in the revelation of the Son of God. They were longing for the coming of Messiah.

It means Adam and Eve will be in the coming kingdom and we will meet with them and ask them what it was like to dwell in the original garden, only to be thrown out and witness society develop for best part of a millennium.

It means we have the same faith they did. Were they naïve to the timing and detail of the first coming? Sure! Are we naïve to the day and the hour of the second coming and details of the blessings and the magnificence of the Kingdom? Yes. But it’s the same elementary faith. Subsequent scripture of course would detail time, place, identity and works of the promised seed and his first coming. But it’s the same faith. Faith in the one true God, YHWH to come and crush the serpent, defeat the power of death, raise us from the dead, reverse the curses on mankind and the earth unto eternal life in pre-fall Edenic-garden conditions, in the presence of God. The kingdom was lost in the hands of Adam, the kingdom will be restored in the hands of the last Adam. Adam knew, we know it. Same hope. Same faith in God to deliver.

Alternative yet complementary view: Gotten a man-God

Let me offer an alternative yet complementary view of Eve’s explanation.

The Hebrew literally reads “I have gotten a man, the LORD” or “I have gotten a man: YHWH”.

Translators add “with the help of” assuming that is what she means. Which is certainly possible and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate and the targums use similar phrases. Although Michael Rydelnik points out that “the more straightforward, messianic reading… is precisely attested in the oldest translation of the entire Bible (i.e., OT and NT), the Peshitta, or Eastern Aramaic (Syriac) version.”

If so, Eve was declaring she had gotten the man-God. She believes this is YHWH in the flesh, the promised seed. Interestingly, in the Midrash (the ancient rabbinic interpretation of scripture) there is a footnote that says “It might imply that she had begotten the Lord.” It would mean that they correctly understood the God-man prophecy, although of course with no reference of timing, four millennia too soon.

I lean towards this view, that she was saying “I have acquired a man: YHWH” and if true Eve’s posture would be that of recognition, that she gave birth to this God-man “with the help of the LORD.” You couldn’t acquire the God-man without the help of the LORD. Therefore, I have no problem with either because the thrust of the message remains intact. If perhaps the insertion “with the help of” means the fully-man fully-God aspect is partially hidden from the English language.

For me what is evident, is that they believed they had acquired with God’s help the God-man, promised seed.

You may say they were desperate to end the consequences of their sin, and therefore of course they desired the serpent crusher. But the reality is that the curse on mankind and on the earth can provoke someone to look towards him for salvation or turn away from the Lord in anger and bitterness. They chose the former.

Alternative contrary view: Boast in creating man equally with the Lord

I also want to offer alternative view contrary in tone and character portrayal. One that I was surprised by.

John Sailhammer argues that it can be read “I have created a man equally with the Lord.” He suggests this is a boast that she too can create a man like God. He argues this is most likely because of the emphasis throughout Torah on human effort to achieve blessing only God can afford. He parallels the story with Sarah’s attempt to produce the promised Son through Hagar. Following his logic, there is more than hint of self-confidence and immaturity of character that would develop through the chapter.

But I just can’t bring myself to view it in that way.

Did Eve or Adam name her?

Eve is documented to explain the name, but it doesn’t say she named him. She will likely have been affirming Adam’s authoritative stamp of the name and believed it was true. Like a mother who is given their most precious baby and sees it for the first time, dotting on it and vocally saying and explaining its name they as team had chosen.

Or maybe she did and was already attempting once again to usurp his authority. I don’t think so, although a mother does have authority over her children and it’s natural to say we or I named him, even if the final decision lay with the husband.

The narrative swiftly moves on in verse 2:

“And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.” (Gen 4:2)

Why does Abel not have an etymology, and what does it mean?

It is remarkable that Abel does not have an etymology applied to his name. What does his name mean?

It could be connected with the Hebrew word for “son” but for the second person only to be born and the second son, it seems pointless. This same Hebrew word is translated elsewhere as “breath” such as Job 7: “I loathe my life; I would not live forever. Leave me alone, for my days are a breath.” (Job 7:16). Or “vapour” or “vanity” as in the famous “vanity of vanities” (Eccl 1:2) of Ecclesiastes. Again, it’s not exactly hopeful or inspiring: “What’ve you called him then?” “nothingness.” “Nothingness? Sorry, say again?” Perhaps we are not told because it was a prophetic name, explained in the story itself. Abel would only play a short role. Live a short life. And not a word of Abel’s is recorded. Here and gone, like a vapour. His name highlights the brevity of human life in general, now that sin brought about death. Palm 144 uses this word within that theme: “Man is like a breath; his days are like a passing shadow.” (Ps 144:4) Conceivably by now the hope that Cain was the promised God-man was dashed. Life seemed vanity, a vapour.

Cain’s Vocation

We recall of Adam that, “the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.” (Gen 3:23)

Like his father, Cain is “a worker of the ground.”(Gen 4:2) For Cain though would never experience the tender soil of the paradise garden. He works the ground that his Father was sent out to work. Father and son work the cursed ground “in pain” among the “thorns and thistles” “by the sweat of [their] your face” before they “return to the ground” (Gen 3:17-19)

Sin has consequences for both you and your family.

Abel’s Vocation

Abel continues a different aspect of their father’s original vocation.

Abel was a sheepherder. Jacob, Joseph, Moses, David would follow in his vocation. Sheep-herding includes goats from which milk was a valuable commodity. Sheep and goats would make for clothing, bedding, and for sacrifice.

It is possible Adam shepherded livestock in the garden. Abel prepped lamb sacrifices to offer. Adam too would have presented offering in the garden sanctuary, although not animals.

Implications

An implication of these first two verses mean these are real individuals, with real vocations, not tales that represent someone or something else, like tribes or national entities.

Scene 1 (v3-5) One accepted, one rejected

Introduction to 5 Scenes

There are 5 scenes in the first section from verses 3-16, with construction parallels with Genesis 2-3.

As with Genesis 3, the scenes correspond in a chiastic pattern. Scene 1 corresponds to scene 5 (both being narrative form), 2 corresponds to 4 (both are dialogue), and scene 3 (narrative) being the focus scene. The chiastic pattern is also evident in the mode of the characters: whether present, active or passive.

Verses 3-5 houses the first scene.

“In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.” (Gen 4:3-5)

When were the offerings?

“In the course of time” is literally translated “at a specific appointed time”. The NET translation for example reads, “at the designated time.”

There were designated, appointed, fixed times in which sacrifices, and offerings were expected.

Were these the same designated times Adam offered in the garden? Likely. And did he teach his sons the laws of offerings? Or did the LORD reiterate the times? Were these daily sacrifices? Festive sacrifices? We are to wonder.

Although, we recall Adam and Eve, who “heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen 3:8) which we recognised was language for the time of day when the sun was going down, the time of evening sacrifices… which is when they would typically come into the “presence of the LORD” (Gen 3:8)

I would guess these were evening offerings, possibly a daily ritual, but it could have been a set festive time.

This foreshadows the law of Moses, which instituted fixed appointed times.

What is apparent, is that there were regular offerings at appointed times. This is not a one off. The brothers will have sacrificed many times before, and witnessed their father do the same. Undoubtedly Adam would bring offerings here also, but the story is of two brothers that begins with the comparison of the LORD’s response to the offerings. And in turn Cain’s response to the LORD.

Where were the offerings?

They knew what to bring and when to bring, but they also knew where to bring their offerings.

The word altar is not used. Then again, the word Temple is not used for the garden, but we witnessed how the design corresponds to the tabernacle and temple designs. They “brought to the LORD an offering” which is the same language used in Leviticus of priests to bring offerings to the LORD upon an altar. They didn’t leave it on the ground, it will have been some form of altar they or Adam were instructed to build, or willingly took the initiative to build.

After being kicked out, Adam no longer had access to the tree of life and the garden. Their regular face-to-face contact with the LORD God came to an end. Cherubim guarded the entrance. Remember the garden was situated in Eden upon the mountain of the LORD. They were kicked out of the garden within Eden not beyond Eden.

Where was this altar now that they were excluded from the garden? Let’s refresh our memory of the layout.

[see video images]

Outside of Eden (such as the land of Nod) corresponds to outside of the Temple complex; The court of the temple corresponds to the country of Eden; The garden then corresponds to the holy place; And we suspected previously there was some form of structure among the “stones of fire” that corresponded to the Holy of Holies. Both the garden and temple designs faced East with the entrance thereof. Future temples would reflect the garden imagery with engravings of “cherubim” “palm trees” and “flowers” (1 Kings 6:29) The temple furniture too represents what stood in the Edenic version, all reflecting to some degree the heavenly temple.

Adam and Eve’s sin meant they were removed from the holy place – the garden.

The altar then, was most likely outside the entrance to the garden in the East. This would correspond with the altar in the temple court.

Who are they brought to?

To complete the picture, the sons are offering upon an altar before the bodily presence of the LORD. A bodily form of YHWH, the Son of God. In this way, the LORD vocally evaluated each offering.

Willing sacrifice

We are not told God instructed them to make offerings, though probable. But the fact that we are not told, tells us that these were willing offerings. The sons of Adam and Eve instinctively, and naturally worship the LORD God in presenting offerings before him. In an effort to emphasise the relational aspect of the Christian faith, there is a popular quip that says, “Christianity is about relationship not religion,” and I follow the sentiment, but religious activity is innate in man. We are religious by nature. Adam was placed in a garden temple as priest in charge; his wife was made there. The first family brought religious offerings as religious people on an altar before YHWH.

The brothers followed in their father’s footsteps and instep with humanity’s priestly purpose.

Here we have individual devotion to God. In years to come Israel would form a formal corporate devotion to God. Both matter. The individual religious units make up the corporate, yet the individual remains distinct within the community. It is not one or the other. One could preach an individual religion without community, and the world will preach a babel-Marxists-collective where the individual is no longer distinct within, neither being what God intended. It is not one or the another, but Abel-like religious distinction within the religious community.

Offering Comparison

The brothers brought offerings according to their respective vocations.

There is disagreement over why Abel’s offering was accepted, and Cain’s rejected. So let’s break it down and hopefully bring clarity.

There are potential hints, but it doesn’t explicitly compare the two. As in, one has one thing, but other does not, and therefore one is accepted and the other not. No reason is given as to why Cain’s offering was unacceptable.

It simply says, Cain brought “the fruit of the ground” and Abel brought “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.” Abel’s description is slightly longer, but longer does not necessarily mean better.

Why is one accepted and the other not?

Occupation

Firstly, the Lord does not disparage Cain’s offering because he is a tiller of the soil. This is not about a preference of occupation. They both continue the work of their father that began in Eden. The offerings not occupation is compared.

Firstborn / Firstfruits

Secondly, we could point to the “firstborn” aspect of Abel’s offering.

There is a biblical principle that the firstborn of human and animals belong to God. First fruits are the equivalent of the firstborn. Some will say then that Abel brought the choicest, implying more sincerity and devout diligence.

It does not say Cain brought the firstfruits. However, it does not indict Cain for not bringing first fruits. God doesn’t ask Cain why he hasn’t brought the first to ripen of the grain of the season.

In fact, Sailhammer says verse 4 hints they were both first offerings because it says “and Abel also brought of the firstborn” as in Cain had brought the first fruits and Abel had also brought the first of the born.

So there isn’t a definite difference we could pin it on.

The Fat

Thirdly, Abel “brought… of their fat portions.” We see later that within the sacrificial system given for Levites to minister, the fat portions covering the animal’s innards were burned on an altar, and the smoke would rise as a sweet aroma to God. Like the smell of great BBQ. The fat and the blood were forbidden to be eaten for human consumption. The fat and the blood belonged to God (lev 3:16; Deu 32:38; Ps 147:14). The burning fat offering suggests a classic burning altar in Eden just outside the garden gates. And again, this picture is a religious one. This is natural worship.

The fruit was not necessarily inferior to the animal offering. Yes, animal sacrifices were deemed of more value, yet grain offerings were a significant requirement according to the law. The mention of fat could point to a better offering, but again difficult to put your finger on it.

The blood

Our fourth consideration is that it has become common to highlight the lack of blood of Cain’s offering in comparison to Abel’s. Without blood it was unacceptable, it’s argued.

Fruchtenbaum points out that in the Mosaic system even grain offerings came in contact with blood. He says “the thrust of the scripture is that the problem was a lack of blood.”

Hebrews 12 is usually then called upon because it compares the blood of Jesus to blood of Abel. But it’s the blood of Abel’s own body in death not the blood of his offering that is being compared.

Some of us will be familiar with Hebrews 9: “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” (Heb 9:22) But is this a sin-offering? Was Abel forgiven or sin atoned for and Cain’s not?

Perhaps in support of this, where is says the “LORD had regard” (sometimes translated “accepted” or “looked with favor”), the Hebrew word contains the same root for salvation. Therefore, a commentator could say it implies forgiveness. Then again you could say he “saved” Abel’s offering. It is a different root for the Hebrew when it says “he had no regard” for Cain’s offering: Perhaps not forgiven or received. Rabbis did recognise Abel was reconciled, while Cain was not.

I would say that both are described as “offerings” not the Hebrew for “sacrifices” (Gen 31:54; Lev 3:1) that involved an animal that was killed. The Hebrew term for both offerings in this context is a general term for an offering, gift, present, tribute. A worker of the ground did not require a gift dripping with blood.

Why is one accepted and the other not

We have all kinds of suggestions as to why Abel’s was accepted, and Cain’s was not:

• That God prefers shepherds over gardeners;

• Speculation that Cain didn’t bring the first fruits of the grain, whereas Abel brought the firstborn.

• Animal offering with fat over cereal offering.

• Blood offering vs non-blood offering.

• Some say it’s about who God choses, and there is no way of knowing why with others extending that stream of thought to man’s posture having no bearing on the election.

• Some say Abel’s offering was unblemished and perfect as required, whereas Cains was not.

The list could go on.

Here’s the thing. I feel the urge to go with the comparison of blood and lack thereof. But, the text itself offers no explanation for God’s choice. It simply says, “And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.” That’s it. No reasoning. It is silent. And I think that is the point. We cannot tell the difference in appearance between two good offerings. The author doesn’t draw attention to the differences and therefore we shouldn’t. They were appropriate for their respective occupations. The focus is Cain’s response more than his offering. Only God can see the heart posture in which they are offered.

Hebrews 11 contains the hall of faith, honouring OT believers in a quick succession of short stories. There are 19 occasions of phrase “by faith” in this chapter and Abel headlines the list:

“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts…” (Hebrews 11:4)

The word translated sacrifice here is the same Greek word the Septuagint used to translate the offerings in Genesis 4(:3,5) from the Hebrew. So although the English tends to be rendered sacrifice, which is a faithful translation from that Greek word, it should be considered the same word as Genesis 4 retaining the same meaning, not a new spin from offering to sacrifice proper.

In Hebrews 11, nothing is added to Abel’s offering to explain why it was of faith. Again, that’s the point. Faith is of the heart, not what we can offer and bring to the table. Attitude over offering. The posture of the giver over the gift.

Both men lived in the same area; Had the same parents; same childhood; same knowledge; both born outside the garden post-fall; both sinners. The difference is that “Abel’s offering was an act of faith in response to revelation and knowledge.” His example speaks. It is as Hamilton puts it: “the first embodiment of how to approach God.”

The prophet Samuel said: “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.” (1 Samuel 15:22)

Obedience being of the heart not just the hands.

A comment Jesus called wise was: “to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.”” (Mark 12:33)

“OT sacrifices served a typological role, but not a salvific role.”

Only the sacrificial lamb of Christ Jesus would save. But those who offered in faith, who trusted in the LORD God was counted righteous. Offerings were an expression of right relationship by faith, but not the means. Without getting ahead of ourselves into the sacrificial system given to the Israelites, a humble and repentant spirit was a pre-requite to presenting an offering or sacrifice. Only with the correct heart would God cleanse the believer.

Cain is the only other person mentioned in Hebrews 11, not exalted for faith.

The book of proverbs says: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD, but the prayer of the upright is acceptable to him.” (Proverbs 15:8)

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; how much more when he brings it with evil intent.” (Proverbs 21:27)

Sacrifices are an abomination to God from a wicked heart.

Cain and Abel are models. One to follow, one not to follow.

Cain was at the least going through the motions.

What is this faith Abel was commended for? Verse 1 of Hebrews 11 gives, not quite a definition, but a description of what faith does: “Now faith is [or gives] the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation.” (Heb 11:1) Abel will have been discipled by his father. He had faith in the promised seed. He put his faith in the LORD to set all things right, unto resurrection and restoration, and was commended for it. All those in the hall of faith with Abel headlining it, have the same faith.

It’s the same faith and the same means of salvation. “For by grace you have been saved through faith.” (Eph 2:8), not works.

This was the case with the likes of Abel before the Mosaic law, contrary to common thought it was the case with the Mosaic law, and those of faith today.

We read in 1st Samuel of king Saul: “But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.”” (1 Samuel 16:7)

Western culture is about appearances. God’s culture is about heart posture.

Genesis 4 teaches us about what kind of worship is pleasing and acceptable to God. That of a pure heart in worship.

faith demonstrated in offering

To add a touch of nuance to this scene: While the emphasis is that of faith, could the hints of difference between offerings be a demonstration of Abel’s heart that Cain lacked? Abel’s faith expressed in the firstborn, the fat and blood, and Cain not of faith, expressed in unnoteworthy remarks about his grain offering. “Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.” (Matt 7:20) Sometimes we cannot tell the difference in appearance, activity of individuals, worship. Some can hide their heart behind virtuous activity. But sooner or later each is exposed by the fruit they bear.

how was the approval shown

We are not told how God approved Abel’s offering, though no doubt it was primarily audibly. The LORD saw both the visible and invisible aspects of the offerings and the offer and will have made known his appraisal which turned Cain’s emotions to anger. But as Wenham puts it, “Genesis is more interested in the fact of divine approval than in how it was shown.”

man-made Competition

One thing to note is that competition is man-made. Our presuppositions cause us to gaze at the text as to why he chose Abel instead of Cain. But God doesn’t. He doesn’t have to pick one. They are not in competition as to who can bring the best offering. That’s prideful musings. He could have had regard for both. But on this occasion at least, it happened to be just one and not the other. Abel did not win a competition for the best offering.

A competitive spirit in sport can spring from good nature and provide an enjoyable and entertaining atmosphere. It can also turn ugly. A competitive spirit can cause family division; Church division; Political division; accompanied by scheming and the rest of it. 

Sibling Rivalry

Abel becomes the scapegoat. In envy and bitterness, Cain targets the one God chose. The choosing of one and not another tests our hearts. It tests the one who is chosen – do they become arrogant thinking they are good and great within themselves, or do they recognise God in continuance of trust and repentance. Does the one not chosen become bitter and envious, or do they worship God in his choices.

Sibling rivalry is real thing. God will on occasion raise up a person, which tests that very person and their siblings. It is more of a test when the one raised up lacks character. How will you react when you follow the ways of God but your sibling who makes his own way in life, buys a big house and fancy cars? Or in Cain and Abel’s case, your younger brother receives favour from the LORD for no apparent outward reason?

Wenham translates it: “But to Cain and his offering he paid no attention.” Envy of the attention Abel’s offering received. Attention your Christian brother receives.

How do you respond?

Younger Son Favour

Throughout the bible we see a pattern of the youngest son receiving favour with God over the eldest who we might expect to receive the favour. Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over his 10 elder brothers, Ephraim over Manasseh, David was the youngest and so forth. It’s not always the case but the pattern is there, and it begins with the first family. This pattern stresses the truth that you must be born of God to inherit (the kingdom) not just natural birth rights.

Your spiritual father not biological father determines eternal inheritance. Father in heaven over father on earth.

Favoured and blessed, unfavoured and cursed

When dished out by God, favour is the comparable to blessing, and disfavour comparable to cursing. Those who love and obey the LORD are favour and blessed. Those who hate and disobey the LORD are disfavoured and cursed. Temporal favour or disfavour, blessing and cursing, should be understood within the apocalyptic context. Favour and blessing in the present points to both the pre-fall state, and the blessing received at the second coming. Disfavour and curse points to both the initial fall of man, and the lake of fire to come. All with a forward-looking motion toward the definite and final division of men.

Cain’s response

Cain’s response to disfavour is two-fold: anger against God; anger against brother.

“Cain was very angry, and his face fell.”

He grew envious and plotted harm.

Scene 2 (v6-7) YHWH questioning Cain

The LORD intervenes in scene two:

The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” (Gen 4:6-7)

Two Rhetorical Questions

The LORD opens dialogue with two rhetorical questions and closes with two statements. The serpent asked a question to provoke sin. God asks questions to provoke repentance. God doesn’t “cancel” Cain. He engages in conversation to give Cain a chance to respond well.

Question 1

Cain’s face was fallen in rejection. Physical expression of depression mixed with seething anger.

To rephrase: “Why are you expressing a negative response to my just judgment?” The LORD asks. “Think about turning from your response” is the provocation.

Question 2

Without waiting for a verbal answer, he quickly moves to his second rhetorical question.

Cain just witnessed his brother be accepted, meaning to be lifted up, exalted, dignified, approved of by the LORD almighty. He is the elder but his brother has been ranked above him spiritually. And the LORD is saying, “I show not partiality. If you do well, you too will be accepted and exalted to the rightful heir as firstborn, and your face will be lifted.”

These words delivered to Cain before he sets out to shed innocent blood reminds me of the words of the prophet Jeremiah:

““For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly execute justice one with another, 6 if you do not oppress the sojourner, the fatherless, or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers forever.” (Jer 7:5-7)

There is nothing new under the sun. Israel would shed blood and therefore faced the consequences including exile from the land. Cain will foreshadow the neglection of warning.

Statement 1

Without rebuttal or pause, the LORD then states if he does “not do well, sin…” pictured as an animal, is ready to pounce.

We learned in video 4 of this series titled ‘Seven Days’, that the Hebrew word for crouch can be set in the context of blessing. Jacob blessing Joseph spoke of: “the bounty of the deep that crouches below” (Genesis 49:25; Hamilton translation) Judah is described as crouching (Gen 49:9), and of course Jesus is “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev 5:5). It can be positive.

Here it is plainly negative within the context of sin.

Crouching can be identified with demons, particularly those “that guard entrances to buildings”. Sin is personified as a beast demon waiting at the door of sin, crouching ready to pounce when opened. If you don’t want the devil’s power over your life, do not open the door of sin.

Peter would remind us to: “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.” (1 Peter 5:8) His demons are crouching in anticipation of entry.

If you do well, you will stand. If you do not do well, you will crouch under the weight of sin. You become what you let in.

If he repents, forgiveness will be made available. If he continues in his sin, judgment day awaits with the ultimate disfavour and curse.

Alternative explanation

I’ve come across an alternative explanation in the popular arena that I think is worth addressing.

The interpretation goes like this: Cain should have brought a blood-offering. And if he repents and brings a proper offering like his brother – in doing “well” he would then be accepted. But if he does not do so, then a “sin-offering” lies at the door. Sin has become sin-offering, and the door, some say, means the entrance to the garden of Eden. Or I’ve heard others say, the offering will be laid outside Cain’s tent door, for him to take to the altar. So, the LORD is instructing him to bring a blood-offering, and if not, the LORD will provide a sin-offering for him.

The only aspect that rings true for me would be a typological one foreshadowing God providing his son as the sacrificial lamb… but the case isn’t logical and can’t be seen coming from the scriptures. Sin not a sin-offering is the discussion. The LORD is emphasizing his response – his face fallen, anger and potential to boil over into physical violence. Would the LORD say, “you can bring a blood-offering but if you don’t repent, I’ll provide forgiveness expressed in a sacrifice anyway?” That’s a step past universalism, not the gospel. That would encourage sin, surely. God is merciful and goes after the lost sheep, but he is not desperate. He won’t have angels throw you in a lake and tell you, “all you have to do is duck under the water and we’ll call it baptism.” No. You must come willingly, not reluctantly.

I couldn’t find a reputable scholar paying attention to this interpretation.

Statement 2

His second statement is a warning not to convert his depression into an anger which overflows into violence. The phraseology is uncannily like that of the LORD’s statement to Eve. He said in Genesis 3:16:

“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16)

And now to Cain in verse 7:

“Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” (Gen 4:7)

The ESV, though accurate, can sound a little awkward. It is typically translated more like:

“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”” (Gen 3:16 NIV)

“it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”” (Gen 4:7 NIV)

The fall meant that Eve would have a sinful desire to usurp her husband’s authority, but Adam will rule over her. Adam will and should rule over Eve his wife.

Sin desires Cain, but Cain must rule over it. “must” could be translated as shall or may. It can viewed as a command or invitation. He is both ordered to and invited to choose repentance and wage war on his sinful desires. Yes, he has inherited sin, but it does not mean he is overwhelmed. He has a choice. Pauls reminds us, “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13) Cain must tame his sin before he cultivates a swamp of habitual sin near impossible to climb out. Drowning in sin is avoidable. Choice to overcome his sin is the emphasis here. Succumb, or overcome is his choice.

Sinful nature desires to rule you. But you have free choice. Moral free will. Self-control is an option to practice. You can do something about it. You must master it. It is an order. An instruction. An invitation. Your long-term future is not determined by your past. You can choose to rule over sin and live for the LORD God.

Cain’s words are not recorded in this dialogue.

Scene 3 (v8) The Murder of Cain

Intro to central scene

The third and central scene is verse 8. Like the central scene, and pivotal moment of Genesis 3, it is the scene of sin with only two human characters. In chapter 3, Adam and Eve, and chapter 4, their sons.

“Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.” (Gen 4:8)

What did Cain say?

The text doesn’t record what Cain said. The Septuagint (the Greek translation of Old) adds: “And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the plain;” There is discussion over whether this reflects the original or if it is an ancient addition. In an attempt to make sense of the text without the possible addition, some translate “spoke” as “to see” and hence Hamilton translates “Cain was looking for Abel his brother.” He then suggests this is an echo from the Lord walking through the garden looking for Adam. Either way, it doesn’t change the narrative.

Perhaps Cain baited Abel into the field away from the witness of his parents.

Unlike the temptation scene of Genesis 3, Cain is not deceived into murdering his brother. Like his father, he chooses not to obey the direct command of the LORD, in this case to master his sin.

How did he kill him?

The language of killing his brother can be rightly portrayed as a butchering. Ruthless violence.

We are not told how, what tool if any was used, although the Book of Jubilees says he used a stone.

Was the killing intentional and premeditated?

How do we define what kind of murder this act is?

Firstly, we should differentiate between the intention and premediated facets of murder and how the two are combined.

• You can intentionally murder someone by premeditating murderous thought. – What are American friends call First degree murder (“Any intentional killing that is wilful and premeditated with malice aforethought.”).

• You could intentionally murder someone without premeditating thought. – Second degree murder (“Any intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned.”). Or Voluntary manslaughter if the person was provoked to, and I quote, "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed".

• You could unintentionally kill someone without premeditation. – Involuntary manslaughter. Death through dangerous driving. Neglect in the workplace. “A killing that stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional or negligent act leading to death.”

• I think it would possible that a person could unintentionally kill someone through premeditated harm – they planned to hurt but not kill, yet it resulted in death. I’m not sure what modern bracket that falls into, and I guess it’s hard to prove you planned harm but not death, when the harm resulted in death. And as we’ll see biblical law doesn’t seem to distinguish this scenario.

For Cain then, which is it? Was his intention to kill? Did he premediate the killing? And does it matter?

From the scriptures it explicitly says he “rose up against his brother” or other translations say “Cain attacked his brother” (NIV). It is certain that at the very least he intended to harm Abel.

“and killed him.” The Hebrew for “killed” means intentional murder. It is different from the word used in the ten commandments that: “You shall not murder.” (Ex 20:13) that can include manslaughter.

You could argue that Cain hasn’t witnessed the death of a man. That he wouldn’t have known if he hit him so hard, he would die. But growing up, the brothers would wrestle each other as boys do, and graze their knee on a rock, and therefore I believe he would develop a knowledge base through experience of how robust man was. You know when you hit your head against a rock, it’s going to hurt and bleed. You know then if a rock hit a man, it’s going to caused damage, possibly irrevocable damage. They had experienced death in the sacrifice of animal offerings. And I believe he would have applied all of this knowledge to his own power and the vulnerability of his brother in the act of a strike or three? Plus, Adam was warned by the LORD that he would “surely die” if he ate from the tree of knowledge. Adam hadn’t experienced death at the time he was given the law, but he had an understanding of what that meant having been created from the dust. They are highly intelligent individuals capable of discerning the outcome of actions, right from wrong.

This was an intentional killing, therefore what we would class as first or second degree murder.

The remaining question then is, was this planned prior to the attack?

Someone may also add, how could you pre-meditate a murder if you didn’t know precisely how that would work with a man? Again, you premediate the killing of an animal offering and you know it doesn’t get up again – that’s the end of its life. What’s more, you can break the law regardless of knowledge of experience, or even regardless of knowledge. Perhaps there are hints of mitigating circumstances. But not a lot.

Nahum Sarna, stands apart from most commentators when he says, “there is no evidence that Cain’s attack upon his brother was premeditated.”

Yet the story flows from Cain being angry because of his brother’s acceptance and his rejection. Jealousy is his motive. It moves quickly from one scene to the next, to show the connection of: comparison of favour/disfavour; anger with face fallen; warning from the LORD not to let his anger boil over; to killing his brother.

It is possible that it was impulsive, from a build-up of jealousy overflowing in a moment of hypothetical provocation from Abel. But it is natural to assume from a fluid reading of the chapter that he failed to heed the warning of the LORD and went out into the field with intention and premeditation.

Now we have defined the crime, we’ll see how see how it fits with the judgment in scene 4.

Cain doesn’t master his sin

Unlike Eve, he is not persuaded to sin. He failed to overcome his sin. He wilfully allowed sin to overpower him. After inquiry, his parents turned to the blame game and self-vindication, but their son Cain turns to violence. Abel is the scapegoat and the target of his anger which he converted from rejection and depression. He didn’t master his envy of his younger brother, his bitterness, and resentment. He didn’t check these things and lost self-control, spilling over his emotions.

When people can’t hit back at God, they go for his people.

Tragedy of scene

This is a most tragic, tragic scene.

A picture of a pair of brothers at the altar engaged in worship turned into the first murder in history.  Seven times, it states they are brothers. Family attacking family. The first homicide and the first fratricide.

Then picture the scenes that would have followed. Adam running over to Abel in panic and horror, clutching his son’s bloody body. Eating the fruit seemed harmless and now he peered into the death of his own image bearer. Utter heartbreak for Adam and Eve. Did they ever think that eating from the forbidden tree would lead to holding the lifeless body of their beloved son?

Animal blood was shed in the garden by God, and by man in outer Eden. Now man’s blood is shed in outer Eden.

This is the first death of man. The first separation of spirit from body. Abel’s spirit would descend to sheol in the heart of the earth; the holding place of the dead, until the resurrection of Jesus. The first person to occupy the chambers of the abyss.

NT Commentary

The New Testament expounds upon and pulls application from this pivotal family tragedy.

1 John 3

In his first epistle, John compares the nature of the two brothers, urging his recipients to love one another. From verse 9 he establishes the qualities of the children of God over the children of the devil:

“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him; and he cannot keep on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12 We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother.”

The Greek for “murdered” is a violent murder.

“And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother's righteous.”

Because he was evil. He was evil, and so he did evil. John does not excuse his actions based on feelings or mitigating circumstance. He killed his brother because he was evil. He practiced evil deeds which culminated in a deathly evil deed. His brother, in contrast, was righteous, and therefore his deeds were righteous. He died having practiced righteousness. John is underscoring that Cain killed not any man, but his brother. Not any brother, a righteous brother.

John continues:

“13 Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.” (1 John 3:9-16)

Murder is anti-gospel. To take a life, rather than lay down your life. Cain took his brothers life, rather than daily laying down his life for his brother.

Dynamics within the physical family is applied to the spiritual family. Though of course we are all of one stock, one biological family from Adam. Christians should be Abels not Cains. Loving our brothers in faith, which is evidence of the faith.

To those who reject him, Jesus says: “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) Jesus is referring to the story of Cain and Abel.

John says Cain was “of” or “belonged to the evil one and [therefore] murdered his brother.” (1 John 3:12 NIV). The devil who slithered in the garden, slithered into his life with a tight squeeze. The butchering of his brother pleased his spiritual father the Devil (John 8:44).

Because he did not master the desire to sin, the Devil was allowed to work through him. The murder was not out of the blue. It was an expression as the son of the Serpent having agreed for “crouching sin” to master him.

This is the first manifestation of the conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of woman. Cain shows himself to be seeded of the serpent.

Abel behaved as a son of Yahweh. Cain as the son of the serpent.

The world hates believers, as Cain hated Abel.

Jude 11

Jude would say that Cain’s character could be found in false teachers who infiltrate the church.

In explaining these “serpent teachers” are nothing new, he lists Cain among three Old Testament examples.

“But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. 11 Woe to them! For they walked in the way of Cain and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error and perished in Korah's rebellion.” (Jude 1:10-11)

Cain, Balaam and Korah: murder, greed, and rebellion, respectively.

How is murder related to false teaching? Other than the vicious act itself contrary to the character of Christ, he did so because of jealousy, developing hatred of his brother. False teachers become jealous of their brothers; develop a hatred for his own; become greedy; and rebel from the posture of submission to God’s authority over their lives.

They behaviour like their spiritual father is like that of unreasonable animals.

As we are about to find out, the way of Cain will also involve, lying (v912), pitying himself (v13), withdrawing from God (14-16), and pursuing worldly security (v17). The way of Cain is a path to God, apart from God. It promises cloud riding but proves sheol abiding.

Chiastic pattern of first 8 verses

In true Mosaic style, these first 8 verses form a chiastic pattern:

Cain’s birth – Abel’s birth

Abel’s occupation – Cain’s occupation

Cain’s offering – Abel’s offering

Abel’s acceptance – Cain’s rejection

Cain’s response – Abel’s death

Truth in unmatched form of beauty.

Mercy in Judgement

Scene 4 (v9-14) Criminal before Judge

Corresponding to scene 2, scene 4 sees the LORD dialogue with Cain.

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” 10 And the LORD said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” (Gen 4:9-12)

Similar to scene two the LORD asks two questions and closes with two statements about his fate.

Question one: Where is Abel your brother?

The LORD’s question is where?

After the pivotal moment of sin in Genesis 3, the LORD asked Adam, “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9)

After the pivotal moment of sin in Genesis 4, the LORD asks Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?”

Adam was nowhere to be found. Abel is nowhere to be found. Of course, the LORD knew where each was, but the Shepherd asks of the flock to stir confession leading to repentance. The LORD not only uses his name, but he underscores his relationship with the missing man. “Abel your brother”

There is a forcefulness undergirding the question. “Where is Abel? Nowhere is your BROTHER Abel. He’s nowhere, is he?”

Cain’s response to question one

Cain starts his answer with a lie, “I do not know”

Under inquisition his father Adam, at least told part of the truth, even if to disguise and downplay his role, whereas Cain blatantly lies. The first explicit lie recorded in history.

As far as we can tell from the scriptures God did not tell the sons not to murder. So why does he feel the need to lie. There is an implication of his conscience kicking in. The law of God, written on his heart as an image bearer, is quietly speaking to him, convicting him of his sin. Therefore, man can choose to harden his conscience, compartmentalizing the areas of his life to allow him to sin. There is an underlying assumption of God’s moral law. The chapter doesn’t mention the law but assumes murder is wrong. We all know it’s wrong. Whether God has warned or not. Every society knows murder is wrong.

Why doesn’t God step in? – He is, and he does, and he will do. We’ve just read that: “he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability… [providing] the way of escape,” (1 Cor 10:13). He is continually stepping in providing the way of escape, for you, me, and Cain. He is great in patience when balancing the gift of freedom of choice given to man. Additional divine revelation would be required to steer mankind back to be reconciled to him.

Lies are usually followed by unnecessary evasive explanation, reasoning, detail, or defensive posturing. Cain is no different. Like Adam, Cain shifts the responsibility onto God for Abel’s whereabouts, quickly followed with a stab back at the LORD with an indignant, rhetorical: “am I my brother's keeper?”

He is incensed as to why he should be questioned about his brother’s whereabouts.

God is described as the keeper of Israel. To keep is to guard, preserve order, and sustain control over. “My dad was the guardian of the garden, but I’m not the guardian of my brother – so you have nothing on me,” he’s saying. Cain’s response is “Am I the keepers keeper, the shepherd’s shepherd?” He is intentionally overplaying and exaggerating his role as firstborn to dismiss himself of legal responsibility. “Am I a zoo keeper, and my brother an animal?” Well of course not, in that sense. He is using legal language in an attempt to slither out of his hole. His father failed to guard the garden, and while he is not Abel’s guardian - although as the firstborn son there would be certain responsibilities with that - he strikes his brother. As a family they should be guarding from the world – the serpent, the devil, as well as wild animals and future generations of estranged people groups who turn bad. The first family begins with infighting. Striking their own rather than guarding from strikers. The law would go on to state that a man is to redeem his brother if he falls into debt and enslavement (see Lev 25:47-48). A man would be the avenger of his brother if murdered by someone else (Numbers 36). But it is brother Cain who murders.

“…am I my brother's keeper?” – YES you are! We all are. Man is his brother’s keeper. In the words of Jesus: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 7:12 NIV) We are to keep others as we’d have ourselves kept. To kill another man is to kill your brother – for we are all from the same family in Adam. All murder is fratricide. We are all our brothers keeper. How much more when it’s your spiritual brother.

Question two: What have you done?

Seeing Cain unrepentant, the LORD moves from investigator to prosecutor, or enquirer to judge. The weight of the chapter hangs on the phrase, “What have you done?” Although the ESV employs a question mark, it is an accusation. The LORD rejected his offering and now he rejects his question as inappropriate.

The voice of your brother's blood

Verse 10 contains the first mention of blood in the bible. And it cries out.

“The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me” is made up of just four Hebrew words packed with a theological base from which principles of the law given to Israel would be canonised. From the criminal aspects of the law to the sacrificial rituals. For example, Leviticus 17:11 asserts:

“For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.” (Lev 17:11; c.f. Lev 7:26-26; Lev 17:14)

The life of God’s creatures is in its blood, both biologically (the living stream carrying oxygen and nutrients around the body) and symbolically in the unmissable deep red substance. You cannot shed blood and hide it easily. It soaks, and stains, and cries out to God. As the giver of life to all flesh “only God has the right to the life of all flesh.” He has appointed blood for the function of ransoming lives, ultimately pointing to the blood of Messiah.

Gordon Wenham commenting on Genesis 4 says: “Shed blood is the most polluting of all substances. Consequently, unatoned-for murders pollute the holy land, making it unfit for the divine presence.”

Innocent blood shed on the ground cries out for blood atonement and the day of vengeance.

Hebrews 11:4

Speaking of Abel, Hebrews 11:4:

“And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.” (Hebrews 11:4)

Through his example, though he does not speak, his blood speaks. And YHWH heard, and hears. And the authors of the NT heard his blood speak. Today, it tends to be the ones who shout the loudest or self-promote the hardest, that get heard the most. We like to hear the sound of our own voice, but the example the bible offers is of a righteous man who willingly comes in worship and sacrifice, and yet says nothing.

We can follow the use in scripture of those who cry out to the LORD to paint a picture that develops from this first brush stroke in Genesis 4.

In Genesis 18 we read: “Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.”” (Gen 18:20-21)

It is a slightly different Hebrew word but it is a cry of distress of those who hide from the wickedness of these cities (Gen 18:13).

The Israelite brick makers (Ex 22:21-24) “groaned because of their slavery and cried out for help. Their cry for rescue from slavery came up to God.”

Thinking they would die when the Egyptian armies came after them “the people of Israel cried out to the LORD.” (Ex 14:10),

Exodus 22 warns of the cries of the “sojourner… widow or fatherless child” (Ex 22:21-22) and victims of injustice (Ex 22:22-27).

Deuteronomy speaks of cries of help of a woman when attacked by a rapist (Deu 22:24,27).

In Judges 4, “the people of Israel cried out to the LORD for help” as Jabin king of Canaan “had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.” (Judges 4:2-3)

The story of the bible tells us these cries are heard by God.

It is the cry of those who are surrounded by wickedness, the cry of the hungry, the cry of those fearful of imminent death, the cry of injustice, the cry of the enslaved, the attacked, abused, oppressed.

God saw and heard the cries of blood from Abel and God sees and hears our cry, Maranatha, come, save us, may you have your way in all the earth. And more on that in part 2.

Cain shed blood, and therefore blood guilty. You may commit sin in secret with no one watching. But the oppressed cry out. The blood cries out, calling upon him to act, and the LORD hears and sees and will one day come to avenge spilt blood.

The law states that if a lender takes the only coat of a man and does not return it and, “if he cries to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate.” (Ex 22:27)

When it talks about the “sojourner… widow or fatherless child” (Ex 22:21-22) it goes on to say, “You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. 23 If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, 24 and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword, and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.” (Ex 22:22-24)

Isaiah 26 depicts His vengeance at the Day of the LORD:

“For behold, the LORD is coming out from his place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity, and the earth will disclose the blood shed on it, and will no more cover its slain.” (Isa 26:21)

Justice will be established sooner or later.

Matt 23 (Luke 11)

In Matthew 23 Jesus responds to the scribes and Pharisees in a rebuke:

“33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.” (Matt 23:33-36)

Abel is the first victim of murder. Zechariah mentioned in Chronicles (2 Chr. 24:20-22) is the last in the OT according to the order of the Tanakh, the Hebrew bible. Distinct from Zechariah, Abel is described as righteous or innocent. Abel is the first martyr for holiness’ sake( Matt 23:35; Matt 5:10-12). He is a foreshadow of the murder of the innocent Christ Jesus, and of the suffering and persecution of the righteous in Christ.

He is listed as a prophet, because even though not one word is registered, his blood speaks.

Hebrews 12

The authors of Hebrews in chapter 12 turns to the blood of Abel once more:

“But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (Heb 12:22-24)

Abel’s blood is a type of Messiah’s blood. Abel’s blood cries out for justice and salvation. Jesus’ blood cries out for justice and speaks of atonement and calls for blood vengeance in the wrath of God and shouts of the victory to come. The blood of messiah speaks a better word.

Judgement: And now you are cursed from the ground…

In gen three only the ground is said to be cursed, (although we acknowledged there must have been some curse on their bodies meaning the breakdown of DNA unto death). The serpent was said to be cursed, but not Adam. Now, as he did not master his sin and the serpent and allowed the squeeze to take hold, he is “cursed from the ground”. Follow the serpent, follow the curse.

In the second scene we have sin depicted as a crouching animal, and here the land is pictured as opening its mouth to swallow Abel’s blood.

The ground is personified in various passages as God’s creation enacting judgement.

For the rebellious Korah and clan we read in Numbers 16: “the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up” (Num 16:32; c.f. Deu 11:6; Psalm 106:17).

Following suit against the wicked, Isaiah 5 reads: “Therefore Sheol has enlarged its appetite and opened its mouth beyond measure, and the nobility of Jerusalem and her multitude will go down, her revelers and he who exults in her.” (Isa. 5:14)

God warns in Leviticus 18 that the Canaanites made “the land became unclean” and therefore under judgement from God the “the land vomited out its inhabitants” and so Israel should “keep” his “statutes” and “rules” “lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.”

If you spill another man’s blood on the ground, it will open its mouth to receive the blood from your hand, crying out as it soaks down to sheol, and you will be cursed from the ground with the land vomiting you out.

Closing statement one: When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength

This man of agriculture is not banned from his cultivation. But he fed it blood, so it will not bear him fruit.

In business or rental income, we talk about annual yield. The higher the yield the more attractive the investment. The second to last statement of Judgment here, means for Cain the land would now return minimum yields from his investment of working the land. For Cain, low yields may be the reason he continues to sojourn looking for a better spot but never finding the ground that lends its strength.

Closing statement two: You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth

His crime is not just against an individual but an offence against the community. Therefore, the LORD’s final statement of judgment means he is banned from the community as a fugitive and wanderer. His parents were banned from the Garden. He is banned from the community. A social pariah.

Cain is not representative of his occupation, people group, or otherwise, therefore his judgment is a personal one on him. It means he will lose his sense of identity and belonging. In the words of Hamilton: “Rootlessness is the punishment and the wilderness is the refuge of the sinner.”

Murder meant the first family was literally broken and harmed. Banishment means the family is broken further physically and therefore spiritually. A separation from the family. Set apart in a negative sense.

Cain killed not just Abel but his line of descendants - the Hebrew for blood is written in the plural construct. In killing Abel’s line of descendants, apart from his decreed punishment, Cain and his descendants will miss the fellowship and blessings of Abel and his descendants.

His crime against man is a sin against God. Attacking the image of God, his sacred creation. In doing so he has severed his relationship with his creator God.

The Garden was the most fertile land. Out of the garden in wider Eden was at this point a cultivated area. He is now banished, I understand entirely from Eden, east into the wilderness. He spilt another man’s blood on the land, and now his polluting of it means he must leave. He is vomited out.

As a wonderer you do not have time to harvest the land and enjoy it’s fruit.

His judgement then is threefold – little return from soil; Banished from presence of God; Fugitive. With wide-reaching implications.

Why did Cain not get a death sentence?

The Question arises, why did Cain not receive a death sentence?

His sin will cause him to die anyway, but why not an immediate death sentence to curtail his life?

Why do we ask this question? Because at the back of our minds we are trying to marry the judgment with the principles of the Mosaic law. Genesis, including chapter 4, is historical narrative that makes up the Pentateuch, the five books of the law, the Torah. It’s not that we’re fact-checking God, it’s from a position of faith we know there is consistency throughout the scriptures, and we are marvelling at how God deals with man throughout redemptive history, from a non-dispensational perspective, so we’re trying to wed all the pieces together.

What does the Mosaic law say about such a crime?

Let’s briefly look at the law given to Moses:

Deuteronomy 21(:1-9) instructs on atonement for unsolved murders. If “someone is found slain, lying in the open country, and it is not known who killed him” elders of the nearest city bring a heifer and “break the heifer's neck there in the valley.” And then they “wash their hands over the heifer” and “testify, ‘Our hands did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes see it shed.” And in the presence of the Levitical priests they were to ask the LORD to “Accept atonement”. In this way they “purge the guilt of innocent blood from your midst”.

Abel is depicted slain lying in the open country with apparently no witnesses to the murder, but here God confronts Cain with his sin and deals with it directly. There are no elders, there are no cities.

Exodus 21 details laws concerning personal injury:

““Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. 13 But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. 14 But if a man wilfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die.” (Exodus 21:12-14)

If the strike is premeditated, according to the Mosaic law the penalty is death.

If the strike was not premediated but rather an impulsive act that led to death, there was an option to flee, to which would later be revealed in the book of numbers as six Levitical cites of refuge (Nm 35:6–24; Dt 19:1–13) “until he stands before the congregation for judgment.” (Num. 35:12) In accordance with the law the cities of refuge were established to prevent further bloodshed and pollution of the land (Num 35:9-34; Deu 19:1-13). A death void of premeditation was viewed in a way that God had allowed the death to occur under his sovereignty. Kevin Zuber says, “Providence was seen as a mitigating circumstance.”

Verse 14 of Exodus 21, which ties to verse 12 includes both intention to kill (“willfully attacks another to kill”) and premeditation (“cunning”), underscoring the death penalty for that case. It presumes if you premeditate malice, you intend to kill.

Why death for death? The creator of all is the life-giver. Man is not appointed as life-taker. More like life-preserver and multiplier. To take what belongs to God is to seize and occupy his position of power and privilege. To murder a man is an attack upon the creator. It is also an attack on society and on the family of that individual. A murderer takes the personal right to live, the family right of communion, the divine right for God to receive worship from that individual, and the right the society would benefit from his contribution.

Therefore, when God installs the death penalty in Noah’s day long before Moses, he reasons from the fine-tuned reality of the reflective image:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”  (Gen 9:6)

In Cain’s case

We’ve determined the murder of Abel was likely premediated, therefore a city of refuge would not have been an option even if they existed, which they did not.

Cain’s offence of murder would normally be punished with a death sentence.

God has every right and justification to kill Cain. So why doesn’t he?

First of all, we must remember that God deals with the current reality at any moment in history. When he gives a law for example that includes refuge to cities, it is within the context of an established nation with Levitical priests. It’s not that he’s dealing differently so much as he is dealing with the reality at the time applying principles of his law to the circumstance that meet the requirements of his long-term ticking plan of salvation.

Two Reasons argued

Arguments for why God didn’t put him to death include:

That God didn’t establish the death penalty until Genesis 9 in Noah’s day. But the establishment of a law is not the conception of the principle, but the formal expression of the principle given to men. The principle existed from the beginning.

Another argument is that it wasn’t premeditated, but again we’ve already suggested that it most likely was pre-meditated. That is our base for the question.

Consideration #1

Let’s take into consideration the complexities of this situation.

When you think about God’s judgement. If he decreed the death sentence, who would kill him?

God himself? Order an angel to kill him? Order Adam to kill him? If your argument is “why doesn’t God follow the stipulations of the Mosaic law in judgement” or even “the law given to Noah” then you would also argue that it would be a man who would carry out the death penalty.

The problem is, it wasn’t as though there were others in a well-formed society to carry out the judgments. Adam was the only man remaining other than Cain. It would be traumatic on top of the grief for Adam to now execute his only remaining son, and possible heir at this point. It would leave Eve, a mother of two, without children. That would be punishment for Adam and Eve also.

According to the Mosaic law it was the nearest male relative that would avenge the murder. Although when it’s a family matter, it becomes more complicated. We read in 2 Samuel that when King David’s son Absalom had his servants kill his brother Amnon (for raping their sister), David eventually allowed Absalom to return after an expulsion period. But was David acting within the law? It certainly didn’t reform Absalom. He went on to plot against his father. Having usurped God’s authority over life, Absalom then usurped his Fathers authority, setting himself up as King.

Consideration #2

A second consideration is there were no witnesses or hard evidence. You might say, well “God saw, what more evidence do with need?” But God doesn’t enact perfect justice immediately. He doesn’t step in every second otherwise he would have stepped in to stop the rock or fist hitting Abel in the head. It will come eventually, meanwhile angelic ministers detail everything in the books of heaven.

Consideration #3

Also that his parents are the only other humans alive, it creates a unique scenario for many years to come.

Does God have him killed for his spirit to descend to sheol where Abel’s spirit resides, albeit separated by hollows of good and evil? Would Abel want such company even if across the canyon between them. Does he want to hear his brother’s shouts of insults and blame. Or does God send him away into the desert wilderness.

The options are either the chambers of sheol under the earth or the wilderness - he is going to be alone and uncomfortable either way. In the wilderness both his spirit and body suffer. Either sheol or wilderness both are separated from his parents and God.

Consideration #4

What’s more, consider what Cain loses. God’s blessing cannot remain on him. The promised seed will not carry through his line, and Cain would be aware of this. God would have to raise up another son.

Why This Judgement?

Why then this judgment?

Like Israel, Eden was sacred land, most likely the same land, pre and post flood. Expulsion over death prevented further bloodshed that pollutes the land of Eden.

He may still deserve the death penalty, but it remains true if his blood is not spilt on the land, it remains unpolluted with his blood. We could argue that God’s purposes for the land are greater than God’s purposes to punish Cain.

This three-fold judgment could be viewed as worse than death. People commit suicide, often to end the torment of their life. It is not unheard of for families of victims to argue for the perpetrator to remain incarcerated than be put to death, because they believe that will prolong their judgment.

When you think about the conditions of death row – bad food, lonely, poor conditions – the wilderness in this situation sounds similar as a fugitive with low yields, waiting to die apart from family. Though, in the course of time he would have the opportunity to have his own family.

He took Abel from his family, and his family from Abel. So now he is sent away from his family. Losing his family identity and belonging, his job. For many years, possibly decades he would be alone.

The wilderness would grant him years to repent.

The pollution of the land, plus God’s mercy in judgment to stir repentance, are I believe, the primary reasons God choses this course of action.

Adam and Eve did confess, through a tongue twister of blame, yet Cain did not. But in his great patience the LORD is gracious to give Cain more than one or two chances. He gave him a chance in warning to control his anger; He gave him a chance to confess; And as we see in a moment, he gave him a chance to protest. God does not write him off as an unchangeable, worthless vessel.

Each step is to deter him from further sin, with this judgement being the most drastic step in the series

Plus, a dead man can breed whispers. But a living man under both judgement and protection is a living warning, and reminder, a lesson for others, that cannot be twisted in tales of men.

Sin and our response as the focus

Perhaps the premeditated aspect is purposely a tad ambiguous so that we don’t build a judicial principle around it, especially when there was only one family in existence, and to underscore that only the LORD knows the heart (particularly without hard evidence). The focus of the five scenes is the failure to master sin, and his response to inquiry and judgment, not the act itself. I found myself trying to figure out precisely what happened, mapping it against biblical and modern law, but then I have to remind myself to focus on what the passage does, not what is doesn’t.

That he didn’t receive an immediate death as a penalty, is not mercy without justice. Justice has been served, and will be served, and mercy has been granted temporarily (for Cain, and understandably for his parents), for God’s purposes.

v13-14 Cain’s repentance? Self-pity?

Faced with the consequences of his actions Cain responds from verse 13:

“Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden. I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”” (Gen 4:13-14)

My punishment is greater than I can bear

The serpent, Adam nor Eve respond to their judgement. Adam offers no response to God’s banishment from the garden.

Cain however protests. Reading through chapter 4, there is part of me that is surprised God didn’t kill him on the spot, but Cain appears to think it’s too harsh. He believes it’s too severe.

His response can be viewed as a four-fold protest: driven away from ground (possibly better soil); hidden from presence of God; wanderer; target of others (worried others will do unto him as he did to his brother).

Verse 13 is pivotal in terms of framing the chapter. There are polarizing views of his response. On one side, the judgment has finally brought him to his knees in repentance; and on the other, it is an expression of self-pity. Each position not only determines the interpretation of Cain’s posture, but it may paint Cain’s family tree under different light.

Where it’s translated “My punishment” – the Hebrew for punishment can mean “punishment for iniquity” or simply “iniquity.”

It is possible then that Cain is saying, his iniquity is greater than he can bear. Yes, it’s his own iniquity that has made him crouch and shewed away like a beast. He could also be recognising that his sin is so great that he cannot be forgiven.

Which is why a couple of translations have it:

“And Qayn said to LORD JEHOVAH, My crime is greater than what may be forgiven.” (Gen 4:13 Aramaic Bible in Plain English)

“And Cain said to the Lord God, My crime is too great for me to be forgiven.” (Gen 4:13 Brenton Septuagint Translation)

Either his punishment too great to bear. Or his iniquity to great to forgive. If the former, we lean to self-pity; If the latter, we lean to an expression of remorse.

The fact that John said “we should not be like Cain” could be interpreted to apply to his whole life, meaning his response in verse 13 must be viewed negatively, however John and others are referring to verses 3-12, not necessarily what follows, leaving room for a change in heart.

Gods’ response of mercy in the following scene hints he was repentant. Though he is certainly protesting his punishment in some way. A greater sinner than his father who did not protest. So for me, I understand his hardened heart had finally cracked, but he’s quite talkative for full on prostration; he’s still feeling a touch sorry for himself. Perhaps 70% remorseful, 30% self-pity. We’re complicated beings.

Driven away, face hidden

The Hebrew for “He drove out the man” in Genesis 3 (3:24) is the same as Cain’s description “you have driven me” (4:14). Adam was driven out of God’s presence and now Cain is.

Again, when building a visual of what occurred it’s significant to note that the LORD is bodily present with Cain. Hamilton says, “The clear assumption made throughout Gen. 4 is that God and Cain are bodily present in their setting, which is somewhere east of the garden of Eden.” God did speak as a man speaks to friend for a limited time – just not as intimate as in the garden. He is not driven away merely from the schekianh glory of the LORD – the LORD in a cloud or brilliant light.

Wandering with no permanent residence is exhausting. Causing anxiety. The further removed from the LORD, the more heightened the fear of man becomes. The professing UK church through sin is alienating herself from God; the fear of man then rises over the fear of God; the fear of man means man’s culture determines doctrine, and down the spiral to the depths of sheol.

For Cain a sentence of wandering has now struck him as daunting and he’s realising the psychological impact over the death penalty. Merciful yet arguably more overwhelming to which provokes repentance.

Fugitive/wanderer, whoever finds me will kill me

Who else is Cain afraid of? Who would kill him? He’s worried that future siblings and grandchildren of Adam and Eve may come after him. Could Adam and Eve have had other children at this point – I doubt it. Because the form of the narrative sounds like Seth was the third son who was conceived after the murder incident. I think Cain is looking ahead. He is looking way into the future, since then he didn’t have a 80 year lifespan mindset like us. He is playing out in his head his potential life, concerned what he did to another might be done to him. He knows his parents will have more sons that will include the promise seed and was afraid they may come after him to avenge their brothers blood. “Would the promised child, crush me along with the serpent”, he could have pondered. Perhaps he is being overdramatic. Perhaps having killed someone he now knows experientially how easy it is to kill and how easily he could be killed.

By saying “whoever finds me will kill me”, is an acknowledgement that the death penalty would have been justice. He is indirectly, unknowingly confessing to premeditated murder.

If his parents weren’t kicked out of the garden, he may have inappropriately sort refuge within its secure boundaries (Ex 21:14). With the garden gates guarded and no other cities to foolishly hide in, and the Lord catching up with him, he has no choice but to be a fugitive and wanderer.

Wenham makes an interesting comment regarding the polemical nature of Cain’s judgement. He says, “Nomadism according to the Sumerian flood story is a plight from which the gods rescued; according to the Bible a nomadic existence was a judgment imposed on the first murderer.” From ancient text to modern text books, the world tells stories of man’s advancement egged on by the god of their choice. The bible is consistently polemic: man’s retreat into the pit of depravity. Today’s evolutionists propose an eternity of progression for humankind, whereas the bible speaks of the culmination of sinful nature that will be suddenly and apocalyptically brought to and end before the reign of the righteous unto eternity under the righteous one. Any achievements by Cain’s sinful line are God’s grace and clearly as Wenham puts, “under the shadow of Cain’s sin.”

Conclusion of scene

This scene, scene 4 (9-14) of dialogue corresponds to the dialogue of scene 2. It is also reminiscent of the scene following the sinning scene in genesis 3 where God inquires of Adam.

In both, he asks of their whereabouts. In both, he asked what they have done.

To Adam, cursed is the land; Cain is cursed from land.

Both sent away from their land, banished from the presence of God.

The use of “know”, “guard”, “cursed”, “land”, “drive”, are repeated from Genesis 3.

Adam is clothed. Cain is about to be marked.

Reflections and echoes of Genesis 3 are intentional and portray the ripple effect of sin from the nucleus of the fall at the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Scene 5 (v15-16) The Mark of Protection

Scene five flows from scene four as a continuation of the dialogue. Perhaps it’s a different camera angle than an entirely different scene, unless Cain spoke and then walked off disgruntled or ashamed and then the LORD caught up to him, or between scenes is when Cain is driven out and the LORD is about to have the final word, but nonetheless verse 15 and 16 tends to be classed as scene five, corresponding to scene one.

“Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him. Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.” (Gen 4:15-16)

In both scenes 1 and 5 Cain is presented before the LORD, first in worship, and now after petition in silent prayer and pleas of mercy. Like the first scene the LORD rebuts Cain. In the first he willingly brings his offering to the LORD, and now he is ordered away from the LORD, I’m assuming with any possessions he has acquired. “Grab your coat, camel taxi for one!”

Having said that, God takes his concerns seriously.

Promise of protection

Cain’s protest divides the judgement from the promise of scene 5. Yet again we are witness to the law and grace of God. He pronounces punishment but promised protection. Justice and mercy.

Does Cain change God’s way of dealing with him?

Some may ask, does Cain change God’s way of dealing with him? Has Cain swayed God into changing his mind?

It’s possible that Cain’s protest interrupted the LORD’s judgment which was always going to have the promise tacked too it, but I think more likely he is responding to his protest in a way he wouldn’t if he hadn’t protested – such as Moses in Exodus 32 being the classic example, but it’s all under the banner of God’s sovereignty who foresaw Cain’s protest anyway.

Here’s how to think of it. God responds to any situation in real time. It’s not that God changes his mind, it’s that he responds to actions good and bad as they happen. Cain did something wrong, God responds to that. Cain comes in remorse; God responds to that new situation.

Why sevenfold and what does that mean?

Why “sevenfold” vengeance and what does that mean?

Firstly, the number seven is significant. Within the first 17 verses Abel is mentioned 7 times. “Brother” 7 times. Cain double that – 14 – a multiple of seven. We’re about to see Lamech use the number 77 who is the seventh generation from Adam. There are 14 names listed in Cain’s family, including parents and sisters. The Hebrew for “Name” appears 7 times. Within this block of text, 2.4-4.26 earth/ground is mentioned 7 times, land 14 times, field 7 times and a reference to God, “God” “the LORD” or “The LORD God” is mentioned 35 times (5x7) to reflect the 35 times in the first block of text 1.1-2.3. The first 5 chapters of genesis has a combined use of YHWH or Elohim a total of seventy times.

It is divinely inspired. God is precise and mathematical. As intelligent as Moses was, these observations cause me to believe it was dictated, or at least his hand was shaking from the power of the Holy Spirit.

It is common then to read that sevenfold vengeance is simply poetic, meaning complete divine retribution. (Ps 12:6-7; 79:12; Prov 6:31) Justice served in “perfect measure.” But does poetic justice deter would be attackers?

Rabbis have interpreted this as Cain being protected for seven generations. But after that he is open to be avenged. They also believe he was killed after this period. But I read it as sevenfold vengeance not sevenfold protection.

More then suggest it is referring to a multiplier of punishment. Whoever avenges Abel’s death by killing Cain, vengeance will be taken on them seven times greater than usual, sevenfold. Meaning that seven lives shall be required for the one taken. Any killer then would be putting his own family under God’s punishment with 6 more bodies (apart from his own) required. Life for life is upped to seven lives for Cain’s life. The killer and six relatives. If so, that would massively heighten the deterrent of would-be attackers, offering assurance of protection for Cain.

The infrequent use of sevenfold judgment can be found in the prayer of Psalm 79:

“Return sevenfold into the lap of our neighbors the taunts with which they have taunted you, O Lord!” (Psalm 79:12)

But more notably in the context of the LORD warning Israel of punishment for disobedience in Leviticus 26.

And if in spite of this you will not listen to me, then I will discipline you again sevenfold for your sins, 19 and I will break the pride of your power, and I will make your heavens like iron and your earth like bronze. 20 And your strength shall be spent in vain, for your land shall not yield its increase, and the trees of the land shall not yield their fruit.21 “Then if you walk contrary to me and will not listen to me, I will continue striking you, sevenfold for your sins. 22 And I will let loose the wild beasts against you, which shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock and make you few in number, so that your roads shall be deserted.23 “And if by this discipline you are not turned to me but walk contrary to me, 24 then I also will walk contrary to you, and I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins. 25 And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute vengeance for the covenant. And if you gather within your cities, I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy. 26 When I break your supply of bread, ten women shall bake your bread in a single oven and shall dole out your bread again by weight, and you shall eat and not be satisfied. 27 “But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, 28 then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. (Lev 26:18-28)

If Psalm 79 rings like a multiplier of punishment, Leviticus 26 calculates the multiple not in weight regardless of when, but according to the calendar. In context, the four mentions of sevenfold return of judgement are a multiplier of time (of judgement), in this case a multiplier on the initial judgment of 70 years. So, the LORD warned if you do not obey, the 70 year judgment will be multiplied by 7. If you still do not obey, another multiplier of 7, and again another multiple, and a fourth one. It can be interpreted as 70x7 + 70x7 + 70x7 + 70x7 = 1960 years of punishment. In this case then, sevenfold means a multiplier of a period of time in which judgment continues.

Applied to Cain’s scenario, if a death sentence, or life-sentence is the norm, for killing him, then sevenfold vengeance would mean, seven lives or seven generations of judgment. Perhaps the murderer would be punished for seven periods of time? Seven jubilees even, which would be 343 years or 350 years, depending on how you calculate the jubilee year. I cannot be certain of the stipulation, but a threat of sevenfold judgment (that carries the aspects of both weight and longevity) is a scary warning for those seeking vengeance.

Israel, when exiled from the land like Cain, was afraid they would come to nothing from judgment. The Lord has promised he will protect Israel – not every individual, but as a whole, Israel shall live. God will protect, even after killing Jesus, the innocent shepherd. Even after the judgement of AD 70. Even after the exile to come. Historians are amazed how they have survived. He continues to protect Israel, like Cain, even though Cain didn’t see it, even though Israel doesn’t see it. Corporately they still fail to see they killed the shepherd of the land. There is mercy in blindness.

Hamilton notes verse 15 is an “infrequent way in which the Bible formulates apodictic law.” Which are absolute commands from above. Therefore, God speaks in terms of absolute law and absolute grace. There is a certainty to both.

What is the Mark?

God speaks and acts

God speaks and acts. Like Genesis three He does something as well as says something. He puts a mark on Cain.

I like that we not told what or where he was marked, because man would build erroneous doctrines on it, and before you know every priest has a tattoo of a cherub on his forehead. It doesn’t stop us pondering what the mark was, but the LORD is careful not to give us too much detail.

a sign of protection

The mark is a symbol and sign as evidence of God’s presence and power in action.

We recall in exodus at Sinai, God declaring that “Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death.” (Ex 19:12) That sentiment began with whoever touches Cain.

Signs given to men, such as the rainbow, circumcision, miracles, or fulfilment of prophecy, are assurance of God’s intention to keep his promises… and that he is who he says he is, the true God, provider, protector, sovereign LORD.

Cain has been given special protection from God. Not close-protection such as the cherubim who guard the garden. But as a marked man, yes, he will leave the LORD’s presence, but not his protection. “He leaves God’s presence but not his protection.”

Example of marks/signs of protection

Examples of marks as signs throughout the scriptures include: The blood around the door in Egypt was a mark or sign of God’s protection as the angel passed over (Ex 12:13; 12:23). In Joshua 2(:12) Rahab asked for a “sure sign” (v12) of protection on her house and so she was told to tie a “scarlet cord in the window” (v18). In Ezekiel 9 we read of men who will be saved that are identified by “a mark on the foreheads” (v4) (Ezekiel 9:4-6). The ancient Hebrew script for this word was an X. That doesn’t mean the mark on Cain was a cross (in fact it’s a slightly different Hebrew word used in Ezekiel) or Ezekiel anticipated the cross of Christ. We should not be tempted to forge the text to the shape of a product we want to sell. Although Ezekiel does t-up Revelation and its references to man marking.

Suggestions

What are the possibilities of this mark?

It has been suggested that the sign is a new name, or re-interpretation of Cain’s name meaning “shall be punished”, but like the Passover blood, like the scarlet thread, the mark is visible. I'm not convinced a new name would carry the weight of divine protection.

Rabbis have suggested it could have been the first letter of YHWH. Or all of YHWH. Which personally I could picture on his forehead or arm perhaps, as physical branding or an item given to him to wear. Some have proposed the mark made Cain Leprous. Another idea was that it was a horn on his head to fight a would-be attacker. A sinister suggestion was that Cain was given a mark of black skin. This led to justify slavery of black people and even in the 1950’s this demonic doctrine was used to support banning the ordination of back people in Europe. On a lighter note the one that got me was the idea that the sign could be a special guard dog to accompany him to fight off attackers. I couldn’t help but laugh at that one. Maybe because it seems like everyone in the UK now has a dog… it just seems like Cain would be another dog owner, ha.

Whatever the mark or sign was it must have been something that when Cain came before those he’s never previously met, others would know this is a sign from their creator God. A divine tattoo or scar from burning coal or iron branding. Perhaps a mark that matched symbols on the entrance to the garden. A mark paired with the flaming sword, or the stones of entrance, or cherubim. Did God brand Cain with a symbol all men knew was from God and that God own’s Cain? A mark that was unable to be counterfeited. I imagine an obvious divine mark that Adam and Eve would be familiar with on his forehead and for all to see the moment they set their eyes on him.

We are not told precisely but whatever it was it functioned to do the job.

sign like Adam and Eve

Adam and Eve received divine clothes for covering, spiritually and physically. To them it would be a sign also. Cain received a mark from God as a covering of protection. Both, after sin, in mercy. They are a reminder to the sinner also. One Cain cannot take off, but why would he want to.

Here God is active, Cain passive.

He doesn’t flinch from his sentencing. It is it already merciful that the LORD didn’t kill him. But he adds reassurance of protection. Again, if someone did kill him, it would curtail his sentence of wandering. God’s sentence reconciles both mercy and justice at the same time.

Why protect Cain?

He is a God who ensures justice is done, but he will not allow others to victimise him. Cain is not a punchbag of and anger and abuse for the community. Cain still reflects the image of God, if soiled, and now a marked man.

The mark of protection helps answer the question of why not a death sentence: To prevent further bloodshed, and thereby prevent pollution of the land even the wider earth. His mark ensures that his creation is that little bit less polluted. It’s all about God.

Away from presence of LORD, settled in Nod

His parents who were judged arguably more severely did not build up anger and resentment toward God or to each other to the point of violence. Still Caine has a choice. Cain must now overcome his sin, in starting a new life.

The more sin, the further east of the garden you are sent, until Jesus returns from the east. He has no choice, but to the leave the presence of God.

Cain is not sent to but settles in Nod, which means wandering. He is punished to be a wanderer, the Hebrew nad. The nad settled in nod. Nad in nod. The wanderer ends up in the land of wandering, further East of Eden. His sentence is inescapable even in name.

This first section which tells the story of Cain and Abel, reveals that sin separates us from God, and that God though merciful will enact judgement.

Further Parallels of Scenes with Genesis 3

Now we have come to the end of the five scenes it can be helpful to view the fuller parallels of inquiry and judgment in Genesis 4 with Genesis 3.

[see video slide]

A closer study of the biblical language will uncover further connections. It is precise and intentional. It tells us something about the pattern of human sin and what follows. It teaches us that generations brought up in the consequences of sin must master their sin, and if not they propel the sin of their fathers into the trenches of depravity leaving further consequences for future generations. The further we move from the presence of the LORD the more entrenched we become in sin and estranged from our maker, and man asks questions like, “does he really exist?”. “I’ve never seen the entrance to the garden”, later generations ask, “are these stories really true?”

Time and distance apart from God turns reality to myth, and myth a coping fantasy.

In Closing

We’re going to stop here and conclude Genesis 4 in part 2.

We will encounter the family of Cain, the beginning of culture, technology, and city life. But most intriguing of all, the beginning of prayer and the trajectory it sets for the rest of scripture… All while forming a biblical worldview.

You don’t want to miss it.

See you then, blessings to those in Christ Jesus.

* * *

For a specific reference please contact us here.