Genesis 4 commentary

GENESIS 4 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Cain and Abel
1 Adam[a] made love to his wife Eve, and she
became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.[b] She
said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought
forth[c] a man.”
BARNES, " - Section IV - The Family of Adam
- Cain and Abel
1. ‫קין‬ qayı̂n, Qain (Cain), “spear-shaft,” and ‫קנה‬ qānah, “set up, establish, gain, buy,”
contain the biliteral root ‫קן‬ qan, “set up, erect, gain.” The relations of root words are not
confined to the narrow rules of our common etymology, but really extend to such
instinctive usages as the unlettered speaker will invent or employ. A full examination of
the Hebrew tongue leads to the conclusion that a biliteral root lies at the base of many of
those triliterals that consist of two firm consonants and a third weaker one varying in
itself and its position. Thus, ‫יטב‬ yāṭab and ‫טיב‬ ṭôb. So ‫קין‬ qayı̂n and ‫קנה‬ qānah grow
from one root.
2. ‫הבל‬ hebel, Habel (Abel), “breath, vapor.”
3. ‫מנחה‬ mı̂nchâh, “gift, offering, tribute.” In contrast with ‫זבח‬ zebach, it means a
“bloodless offering”.
7. ‫חטאת‬ chaṭā't, “sin, sin-penalty, sin-offering.” ‫רבץ‬ rābats, “lie, couch as an animal.”
16. ‫נוד‬ nôd, Nod, “flight, exile; related: flee.”
This chapter is a continuation of the second document. Yet it is distinguished from the
previous part of it by the use of the name Yahweh alone, and, in one instance, ‫אלהים‬
'ĕlohı̂ym alone, to designate the Supreme Being. This is sufficient to show that distinct
pieces of composition are included within these documents. In the creation week and in
1

the judgment, God has proved himself an originator of being and a keeper of his word,
and, therefore, the significant personal name Yahweh is ready on the lips of Eve and
from the pen of the writer. The history of fallen man now proceeds. The first family
comes under our notice.
Gen_4:1
In this verse the first husband and wife become father and mother. This new relation
must be deeply interesting to both, but at first especially so to the mother. Now was
begun the fulfillment of all the intimations she had received concerning her seed. She
was to have conception and sorrow multiplied. But she was to be the mother of all living.
And her seed was to bruise the serpent’s head. All these recollections added much to the
intrinsic interest of becoming a mother. Her feelings are manifested in the name given to
her son and the reason assigned for it. She “bare Cain and said, I have gained a man
from Yahweh.” Cain occurs only once as a common noun, and is rendered by the
Septuagint δόρυ doru, “spear-shaft.” The primitive meaning of the root is to set up, or to
erect, as a cane, a word which comes from the root; then it means to create, make one’s
own, and is applied to the Creator Gen_14:19 or the parent Deu_32:6. Hence, the word
here seems to denote a thing gained or achieved, a figurative expression for a child born.
The gaining or bearing of the child is therefore evidently the prominent thought in Eve’s
mind, as she takes the child’s name from this. This serves to explain the sentence
assigning the reason for the name. If the meaning had been, “I have gained a man,
namely, Yahweh,” then the child would have been called Yahweh. If Jehovah had even
been the emphatic word, the name would have been a compound of Yahweh, and either
‫אישׁ‬ 'ı̂ysh, “man,” or ‫קנה‬ qı̂nâh, “qain,” such as Ishiah or Coniah. But the name Cain
proves ‫קניתי‬ qānı̂ytı̂y, “I have gained” to be the emphatic word, and therefore the
sentence is to be rendered “I have gained (borne) a man (with the assistance) of
Yahweh.”
The word “man” probably intimates that Eve fully expected her son to grow to the
stature and maturity of her husband. If she had daughters before, and saw them growing
up to maturity, this would explain her expectation, and at the same time give a new
significance and emphasis to her exclamation, “I have gained a man (heretofore only
women) from Yahweh.” It would heighten her ecstasy still more if she expected this to be
the very seed that should bruise the serpent’s head.
Eve is under the influence of pious feelings. She has faith in God, and acknowledges
him to be the author of the precious gift she has received. Prompted by her grateful
emotion, she confesses her faith, She also employs a new and near name to designate her
maker. In the dialogue with the tempter she had used the word God ‫אלהים‬ 'ĕlohı̂ym. But
now she adopts Yahweh. In this one word she hides a treasure of comfort. “He is true to
his promise. He has not forgotten me. He is with me now again. He will never leave me
nor forsake me. He will give me the victory.” And who can blame her if she verily
expected that this would be the promised deliverer who should bruise the serpent’s
head?
CLARKE, "I have gotten a man from the Lord - Cain, ‫,קין‬ signifies acquisition;
hence Eve says ‫קנתי‬ kanithi, I have gotten or acquired a man, ‫יהוה‬ ‫את‬ eth Yehovah, the
Lord. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the sense in which Eve used these words,
2

which have been as variously translated as understood. Most expositors think that Eve
imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. This
exposition really seems too refined for that period. It is very likely that she meant no
more than to acknowledge that it was through God’s peculiar blessing that she was
enabled to conceive and bring forth a son, and that she had now a well-grounded hope
that the race of man should be continued on the earth. Unless she had been under Divine
inspiration she could not have called her son (even supposing him to be the promised
seed) Jehovah; and that she was not under such an influence her mistake sufficiently
proves, for Cain, so far from being the Messiah, was of the wicked one; 1Jo_3:12. We
may therefore suppose that ‫היוה‬ ‫את‬ eth Yehovah, The Lord, is an elliptical form of
expression for ‫יהוה‬ ‫מאת‬ meeth Yehovah, From The Lord, or through the Divine blessing.
GILL, "And Adam knew Eve his wife,.... An euphemism, or modest expression of
the act of coition. Jarchi interprets it, "had known", even before he sinned, and was
drove out of the garden; and so other Jewish writers, who think he otherwise would not
have observed the command, "be fruitful and multiply": but if Adam had begotten
children in a state of innocence, they would have been free from sin, and not tainted with
the corruption of nature after contracted; but others more probably think it was some
considerable time after; according to Mer Thudiusi, or Theodosius (t), it was thirty years
after he was driven out of paradise:
and she conceived and bare Cain; in the ordinary way and manner, as women ever
since have usually done, going the same time with her burden. Whether this name was
given to her first born by her, or by her husband, or both, is not said: it seems to have
been given by her, from the reason of it after assigned. His name, in Philo Byblius (u), is
Genos, which no doubt was Cain, in Sanchoniatho, whom he translated; and his wife, or
the twin born with him, is said to be Genea, that is, ‫,קינה‬ "Cainah": the Arabs call her
Climiah (v) and the Jewish writers Kalmenah (w); who are generally of opinion, that
with Cain and Abel were born twin sisters, which became their wives.
And said, that is, Eve said upon the birth of her firstborn:
I have gotten a man from the Lord; as a gift and blessing from him, as children are;
or by him, by his favour and good will; and through his blessing upon her, causing her to
conceive and bear and bring forth a son: some render it, "I have gotten a man, the Lord"
(x); that promised seed that should break the serpents head; by which it would appear,
that she took that seed to be a divine person, the true God, even Jehovah, that should
become man; though she must have been ignorant of the mystery of his incarnation, or
of his taking flesh of a virgin, since she conceived and bare Cain through her husband's
knowledge of her: however, having imbibed this notion, it is no wonder she should call
him Cain, a possession or inheritance; since had this been the case, she had got a goodly
one indeed: but in this she was sadly mistaken, he proved not only to be a mere man, but
to be a very bad man: the Targum of Jonathan favours this sense, rendering the words,"I
have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.''
3

HENRY, "Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, Gen_5:4. But Cain and Abel
seem to have been the two eldest. Some think they were twins, and, as Esau and Jacob,
the elder hated and the younger loved. Though God had cast our first parents out of
paradise, he did not write them childless; but, to show that he had other blessings in
store for them, he preserved to them the benefit of that first blessing of increase. Though
they were sinners, nay, though they felt the humiliation and sorrow of penitents, they
did not write themselves comfortless, having the promise of a Saviour to support
themselves with. We have here,
I. The names of their two sons. 1. Cain signifies possession; for Eve, when she bore
him, said with joy, and thankfulness, and great expectation, I have gotten a man from
the Lord. Observe, Children are God's gifts, and he must be acknowledged in the
building up of our families. It doubles and sanctifies our comfort in them when we see
them coming to us from the hand of God, who will not forsake the works and gifts of his
own hand. Though Eve bore him with the sorrows that were the consequence of sin, yet
she did not lose the sense of the mercy in her pains. Comforts, though alloyed, are more
than we deserve; and therefore our complaints must not drown our thanksgivings. Many
suppose that Eve had a conceit that this son was the promised seed, and that therefore
she thus triumphed in him, as her words may be read, I have gotten a man, the Lord,
God-man. If so, she was wretchedly mistaken, as Samuel, when he said, Surely the
Lord's anointed is before me, 1Sa_16:6. When children are born, who can foresee what
they will prove? He that was thought to be a man, the Lord, or at least a man from the
Lord, and for his service as priest of the family, became an enemy to the Lord. The less
we expect from creatures, the more tolerable will disappointments be. 2. Abel signifies
vanity. When she thought she had obtained the promised seed in Cain, she was so taken
up with that possession that another son was as vanity to her. To those who have an
interest in Christ, and make him their all, other things are as nothing at all. It intimates
likewise that the longer we live in this world the more we may see of the vanity of it.
What, at first, we are fond of, as a possession, afterwards we see cause to be dead to, as a
trifle. The name given to this son is put upon the whole race, Psa_39:5. Every man is at
his best estate Abel - vanity. Let us labour to see both ourselves and others so.
Childhood and youth are vanity.
II. The employments of Cain and Abel. Observe, 1. They both had a calling. Though
they were heirs apparent to the world, their birth noble and their possessions large, yet
they were not brought up in idleness. God gave their father a calling, even in innocency,
and he gave them one. Note, It is the will of God that we should every one of us have
something to do in this world. Parents ought to bring up their children to business.
“Give them a Bible and a calling (said good Mr. Dod), and God be with them.” 2. Their
employments were different, that they might trade and exchange with one another, as
there was occasion. The members of the body politic have need one of another, and
mutual love is helped by mutual commerce. 3. Their employments belonged to the
husbandman's calling, their father's profession - a needful calling, for the king himself is
served of the field, but a laborious calling, which required constant care and attendance.
It is now looked upon as a mean calling; the poor of the land serve for vine-dressers and
husbandmen, Jer_52:16. But the calling was far from being a dishonour to them; rather,
they were an honour to it. 4. It should seem, by the order of the story, that Abel, though
the younger brother, yet entered first into his calling, and probably his example drew in
Cain. 5. Abel chose that employment which most befriended contemplation and
4

devotion, for to these a pastoral life has been looked upon as being peculiarly favourable.
Moses and David kept sheep, and in their solitudes conversed with God. Note, That
calling or condition of life is best for us, and to be chosen by us, which is best for our
souls, that which least exposes us to sin and gives us most opportunity of serving and
enjoying God.
JAMISON, "Gen_4:1-26. Birth of Cain and Abel.
Eve said, I have gotten a man from the Lord — that is, “by the help of the
Lord” - an expression of pious gratitude - and she called him Cain, that is, “a
possession,” as if valued above everything else; while the arrival of another son
reminding Eve of the misery she had entailed on her offspring, led to the name Abel, that
is, either weakness, vanity (Psa_39:5), or grief, lamentation. Cain and Abel were
probably twins; and it is thought that, at this early period, children were born in pairs
(Gen_5:4) [Calvin].
k&d, "The propagation of the human race did not commence till after the expulsion
from paradise. Generation in man is an act of personal free-will, not a blind impulse of
nature, and rests upon a moral self-determination. It flows from the divine institution of
marriage, and is therefore knowing (‫ע‬ ַ‫ָד‬‫י‬) the wife. - At the birth of the first son Eve
exclaimed with joy, “I have gotten (‫)קניתי‬ a man with Jehovah;” wherefore the child
received the name Cain (‫ן‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫ק‬ from ‫קוּן‬ = ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ָ‫,ק‬ κτᾶσθαι). So far as the grammar is
concerned, the expression ‫ָה‬ ‫ה‬ְ‫ת־י‬ ֶ‫א‬ might be rendered, as in apposition to ‫ֹשׁ‬‫י‬ ִ‫,א‬ “a man,
the Lord” (Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the
faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for
this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the
promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to
believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now. ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ is a preposition in the sense of
helpful association, as in Gen_21:20; Gen_39:2, Gen_39:21, etc. That she sees in the
birth of this son the commencement of the fulfilment of the promise, and thankfully
acknowledges the divine help in this display of mercy, is evident from the name
Jehovah, the God of salvation. The use of this name is significant. Although it cannot be
supposed that Eve herself knew and uttered this name, since it was not till a later period
that it was made known to man, and it really belongs to the Hebrew, which was not
formed till after the division of tongues, yet it expresses the feeling of Eve on receiving
this proof of the gracious help of God.
PULPIT, "Gen_4:1
Exiled from Eden, o’er, canopied by grace, animated by hope, assured of the Divine
forgiveness, and filled with a sweet peace, the first pair enter on their life experience of
labor and sorrow, and the human race begins its onward course of development in sight
of the mystic cherubim and flaming sword. And Adam knew Eve, his wife. I.e.
"recognized her nature and uses" (Alford; cf. Num_31:17). The act here mentioned is
recorded not to indicate that paradise was "non nuptiis, sed virginitate destinatum"
(Jerome), but to show that while Adam was formed from the soil, and Eve from a rib
5

taken from his side, the other members of the race were to be produced "neque ex terra
neque quovis alio mode, sed ex conjunctione maris et foeminse" (Rungius). And she
conceived. The Divine blessing (Gen_1:28), which in its operation had been suspended
during the period of innocence, while yet it was undetermined whether the race should
develop as a holy or a fallen seed, now begins to take effect (cf. Gen_18:14; Rth_4:13;
Heb_11:11). And bare Cain. Acquisition or Possession, from kanah, to acquire
(Gesenius). Cf. Eve’s exclamation. Kalisch, connecting it with kun or kin, to strike, sees
an allusion to his character and subsequent history as a murderer, and supposes it was
not given to him at birth, but at a later period. Tayler Lewis falls back upon the primitive
idea of the root, to create, to procreate, generate, of which he cites as examples Gen_
14:19, Gen_14:22; Deu_32:6, and takes the derivative to signify the seed, explaining
Eve’s exclamation kanithi kain as equivalent to τετοκα τοκον, genui genitum or
generationem. And said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. The popular
interpretation, regarding kani-thi as the emphatic word in the sentence, understands
Eve to say that her child was a thing achieved, an acquisition gained, either from the
Lord (Onkelos, Calvin) or by means of, with the help of, the Lord (LXX; Vulgate,
Jerome, Dathe, Keil), or for the Lord (Syriac). If, however, the emphatic term is
Jehovah, then eth with Makkeph following will be the sign of the accusative, and the
sense will be, "I have gotten a man—Jehovah" (Jonathon, Luther, Baumgarten, Lewis);
to which, perhaps, the chief objections are
(1) that it appears to anticipate the development of the Messianic idea, and credits Eve
with too mature Christological conceptions (Lange), though if Enoch in the seventh
generation recognized Jehovah as the coming One, why might not Eve have done so in
the first? (Bonar),
(2) that if the thoughts of Eve had been running so closely on the identity of the coming
Deliverer with Jehovah, the child would have been called Jehovah, or at least some
compound of Jehovah, such as Ishiah—‫אישׁ‬ and ‫—יהוה‬or Coniah—‫קין‬ and ‫יהוה‬ (Murphy);
(3) si scivit Messiam esse debet Jovam, quomodo existimare potuit Cainam ease
Messiam, quem sciebat esse ab Adamo genitum? (Dathe); and
(4) that, while it might not be difficult to account for the mistake of a joyful mother in
supposing that the fruit of her womb was the promised seed, though, "if she did believe
so, it is a caution to interpreters of prophecy" (Inglis), it is not so easy to explain her
belief that the promised seed was to be Jehovah, since no such announcement was made
in the Prot-evangel. But whichever view be adopted of the construction of the language,
it is obvious that Eve’s utterance was the dictate of faith. In Cain’s birth she recognized
the earnest and guarantee of the promised seed, and in token of her faith gave her child a
name (cf. Gen_3:20), which may also explain her use of the Divine name Jehovah
instead of Elohim, which she employed when conversing with the serpent. That Eve
denominates her infant a man has been thought to indicate that she had previously
borne daughters who had grown to womanhood, and that she expected her young and
tender babe to reach maturity. Murphy thinks this opinion probable; but the impression
conveyed, by the narrative is that Cain was the first-born of the human family.
SBC, "I.
From the story of Cain we gather the following thoughts:—
I. Eve’s disappointment at the birth of Cain should be a warning to all mothers. Over-
6

estimate of children may be traced sometimes to extreme love for them; it may also arise
on the part of parents from an overweening estimate of themselves.
II. We see next in the history of Cain what a fearful sin that of murder is. The real evil of
murder (apart from its theftuous character) lies in the principles and feelings from
which it springs, and in its recklessness as to the consequences, especially the future and
everlasting consequences, of the act. The red flower of murder is comparatively rare, but
its seeds are around us on all sides.
III. No argument can be deduced from the history of Cain in favour of capital
punishments. We object to such punishments: (1) because they, like murder, are
opposed to the spirit of forgiveness manifested in the Gospel of Christ, (2) because, like
murder, they ruthlessly disregard consequences.
II.
I. It is singular how mental effort and invention seem chiefly confined to the race of
Cain, Feeling themselves estranged from God, they are stung to derive whatever solace
they can from natural research, artistic skill, and poetic illusion. It is melancholy to think
that so many of the arts appeared in conjunction with some shape or other of evil. The
music of Jubal in all probability first sounded in the praise of some idol god, or perhaps
mingled with some infernal sacrifice. The art of metallurgy and its cognate branches
became instantly the instruments of human ferocity and the desire of shedding blood.
Even poetry first appeared on the stage linked with the immoral and degrading practice
of polygamy. Gifts without graces are but lamps enabling individuals and nations to see
their way down more clearly to the chambers of death.
II. There are certain striking analogies between our own age and the age before the flood.
Both are ages of (1) ingenuity; (2) violence; (3) great corruption and sensuality; (4) both
ages are distinguished by the striving of the Spirit of God.
G. Gilfillan, Alpha and Omega, vol. i., p. 151.
GUZIK, "A. Cain’s murder of Abel.
1. (Gen_4:1) The birth of Cain.
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have
acquired a man from the LORD.”
a. Now Adam knew Eve his wife: This is the first specific mention of sex in
the Bible. The term “knew” or “to know” is a polite way of saying they had sexual
relations and the term is used often in the Bible in this sense (Gen_4:17; Gen_
4:25; Gen_38:26, Jdg_11:39, 1Sa_1:19).
i. There is power in this way of referring to sex. It shows the high,
interpersonal terms in which the Bible sees the sexual relationship. Most
terms and phrases people use for sex today are either coarse or violent, but
the Bible sees sex as a means of knowing one another in a committed
relationship. “Knew” indicates an act that contributes to the bond of unity
and the building up of a one-flesh relationship.
ii. We have no reason to believe Adam and Eve did not have sex before this.
Adam and Eve were certainly capable of sexual relations before the fall,
because there is nothing inherently impure or unclean in sex.
7

b. And bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD”:
The name Cain basically means, “I’ve got him” or “here he is.” It is likely Eve
thought that Cain was the seed that God promised, the deliverer who would come
from Eve (Gen_3:15). There is a sense in which Eve said, “I have the man from
the LORD.”
i. Under normal circumstances, parents want good things for their children.
They wonder if their children are destined for greatness. Adam, and
especially Eve, had these expectations for Cain, but it went farther than
normal parental hopes and expectations. Adam and Eve expected Cain to be
the Messiah God promised.
ii. Eve thought she held in her arms the Messiah, the Savior of the whole
world, but she really held in her arms a killer.
c. A man from the LORD: Eve had faith to believe that the little baby she held
would be a man. No baby had ever been born before. It is possible Adam and Eve
wondered if their descendants would come forth fully mature, as they did.
COKE, "Introduction
God hath respect to the offering of Abel, and rejects that of Cain: Cain kills his
brother; God denounces sentence upon him for his fratricide. The posterity of Cain.
Lamech's address to his wives. The birth of Seth from Adam; of Enos from Seth.
GENERAL REFLECTIONS. on Chap. IV. and V.
CHAP. IV. One of the most fatal effects of the fall of Adam was to derive a
depravity upon his whole posterity, whereof the tragical end of Abel was the first
unfortunate example. The birth of her first son had filled Eve with pleasure: but
this was not the last time that children, whose coming into the world has caused
transports of joy to those from whom they received their birth, have brought sorrow
and bitterness to them all their life after.
The two first brothers ought to have been united by the strictest bonds of
friendship: all the fields, all the products thereof, yea, the whole earth was theirs. No
handle was there for those public divisions, which in the following ages have been so
fatal to society; nor for those private quarrels which have passed from parents to
children, and been transmitted as an inheritance throughout their families.
8

Nevertheless, fatal force of envy! Cain was the murderer of his brother Abel!
How deceitful are the judgments formed upon the external appearances of men!
Who would not have believed in seeing these inhabitants of the first world; both of
them sons of the same family; both of them acknowledging the true object of
religious worship; both of them, in appearance, animated with the same desire of
paying their homage to him; who, I say, would not have thought that they were
equally acceptable in his sight? Nevertheless, one of them makes an offering
pleasing to the Great Searcher of hearts, while the other is rejected by him! It is God
alone who can judge of the heart: and since he discerns its inmost secrets, how vain
to approach him with dissimulation and hypocrisy! O God, in all our addresses to
thee, give us true faith, pure hearts, and right intentions! for thou wilt accept, we
are assured, no services, but such as are brought by persons who more or less
possess these pious dispositions; whom sometimes thou sufferest to be oppressed by
the wicked: a proof, from the very first, that piety must look for its reward in
another and better state than this.
The innocence of a good man is often a sufficient reason to draw upon him the
hatred of a bad one; the virtues of the good are the reproaches of the wicked. Cain
could not bear with patience the distinction made between him and his brother! his
anger was kindled against him, because God justified him; and the apology,
proceeding from so powerful a Being, redoubled the jealousy which it ought to have
extinguished, and hastened the enormity which it ought to have prevented! But
God's justice was not to be eluded: indeed men's contempt of the goodness of God
will always formidably arm his justice against them.
The same principle, which leads wicked men to commit crimes in hopes of impunity,
throws them into despair upon the denunciation of punishment. Cain was in the
utmost dread of sinking under the weight of the threatened and intolerable
chastisements. But God, who remembers to have compassion even in the midst of his
anger, vouchsafed to remove that apprehension, though he removed not the horror
and remorse which always attend a guilty conscience; the dread and certainty of
which ought to be sufficient to deter men from atrocious villainy.
Verse 1
9

Genesis 4:1. And Adam knew his wife, &c.— All the speculations respecting this
passage might have been spared, if the words had been rendered, Adam HAD
known his wife Eve, a translation which the original perfectly well bears. Moses, it is
evident, gives only the most concise account of things, regardless of smaller matters.
He was to give a general history of the creation of the world, and of man; of the fall,
and expulsion from Paradise; of the effects of that fall, and of the promised seed
more especially, to which alone he seems peculiarly heedful, neglecting all the line of
Adam, save that by which this seed was deduced from Seth, to Noah, Abraham, &c.
Bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord— The reason of the names
in the Old Testament is generally given at the same time with the names themselves;
as here Cain ‫קין‬ cain, is so called by his mother, because she had gotten, or acquired,
‫קניתי‬ caniti, a man; for Cain signifies gain or acquisition. There is something
peculiar in the Hebrew here, I have gotten a man, ‫אתאּיהוה‬ eth-Jehovah, THE
LORD. "Eve imagined," says Calmet, "that she had gotten the Saviour, son
liberateur, her deliverer, the bruiser of the serpent's head, in her son Cain."
Jonathan, the son of Uzziel, renders it, I have brought forth this man who is the
angel of the Lord, that is, the Messiah, whom the Jews called by the name of the
Angel, or Messenger, of the Lord. Malachi 3:1; Malachi 3:18. The reader must
observe, upon this interpretation, how consistent the whole scheme of scripture is,
and especially how the events properly connect in these chapters; as the promise of
the seed; the name of Eve; the reason of the coats of skins; the placing of the
Shechinah at the gate of Paradise; the triumph of Eve upon the birth of Cain; and,
may we not add, the sacrifices and religious services of Cain and Abel, mentioned in
the subsequent verses?—But for those who do not acquiesce in this interpretation,
they must suppose eth ‫את‬ to be used for meeth ‫,מאת‬ and must consider it as a mere
female exultation in Eve on the birth of her firstborn son.
CALVIN, "1.And Adam knew his wife Eve. Moses now begins to describe the
propagation of mankind; in which history it is important to notice that this
benediction of God, “Increase and multiply,” was not abolished by sin; and not only
so, but that the heart of Adam was divinely confirmed so that he did not shrink with
horror from the production of offspring. And as Adam recognised, in the very
commencement of having offspring, the truly paternal moderation of God’s anger,
so was he afterwards compelled to taste the bitter fruits of his own sin, when Cain
slew Abel. But let us follow the narration of Moses. (222) Although Moses does not
state that Cain and Abel were twins it yet seems to me probable that they were so;
10

for, after he has said that Eve, by her first conception, brought forth her firstborn,
he soon after subjoins that she also bore another; and thus, while commemorating a
double birth, he speaks only of one conception. (223) Let those who think differently
enjoy their own opinion; to me, however it appears accordant with reason, when the
world had to be replenished with inhabitants, that not only Cain and Abel should
have been brought forth at one births but many also afterwards, both males and
females.
I have gotten a man. The word which Moses uses signifies both to acquire and to
possess; and it is of little consequence to the present context which of the two you
adopt. It is more important to inquire why she says that she has received, ‫יהוה‬ ‫את‬
(eth Yehovah.) Some expound it, ‘with the Lord;’ that is, ‘by the kindness, or by the
favor, of the Lord;’ as if Eve would refer the accepted blessing of offspring to the
Lord, as it is said in Psalms 127:3, “The fruit of the womb is the gift of the Lord.” A
second interpretation comes to the same point, ‘I have possessed a man from the
Lord;’ and the version of Jerome is of equal force, ‘Through the Lord.’ (224) These
three readings, I say, tend to this point, that Eve gives thanks to God for having
begun to raise up a posterity through her, though she was deserving of perpetual
barrenness, as well as of utter destruction. Others, with greater subtlety, expound
the words, ‘I have gotten the man of the Lord;’ as if Eve understood that she
already possessed that conqueror of the serpent, who had been divinely promised to
her. Hence they celebrate the faith of Eve, because she embraced, by faith, the
promise concerning the bruising of the head of the devil through her seed; only they
think that she was mistaken in the person or the individual, seeing that she would
restrict to Cain what had been promised concerning Christ. To me, however, this
seems to be the genuine sense, that while Eve congratulates herself on the birth of a
son, she offers him to God, as the first-fruits of his race. Therefore, I think it ought
to be translated, ‘I have obtained a man from the Lord’, which approaches more
nearly the Hebrew phrase. Moreover, she calls a newborn infant a man, because she
saw the human race renewed, which both she and her husband had ruined by their
own fault. (225)
BENSON, "Verse 1-2
Genesis 4:1-2. Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters, Genesis 5:4 : but Cain
and Abel seem to have been the two eldest. Cain signifies possession; for Eve, when
she bare him, said, with joy, and thankfulness, and expectation, “I have gotten a
11

man from the Lord.” Abel signifies vanity. The name given to this son is put upon
the whole race, Psalms 39:5, “Every man is, at his best estate, Abel, vanity.” Abel
was a keeper of sheep — He chose that employment which did most befriend
contemplation and devotion, for that hath been looked upon as the advantage of a
pastoral life. Moses and David kept sheep, and in their solitudes conversed with
God.
PETT, "Verse 1
‘And the man knew Eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain (qayin from the
stem qon), saying, “I have obtained (qanithi from the stem qanah) a man with
Yahweh.” ’
“Knew” is a regular euphemism for sexual intercourse. Eve’s words are interesting.
Notice that she does not say ‘I have borne a child’ but ‘I have obtained a man’.
There may possibly be the thought here that here is someone to help them with their
hard labour (the birth of a boy in agricultural areas in many Eastern countries is
still looked on as a special joy because he will be able to share the work burden),
compare Genesis 5:29 where Lamech rejoices in Noah’s birth because he will help
with the work. It may even emphasise that she felt she had already had too many
daughters and had wanted another son.
“Cain” - ‘qayin’ - later meaning spear. It may be that his mother was hoping he
would be a hunter to bring meat to the family and that the original word translated
qayin meant a throwing instrument of some kind. Instead he becomes a hunter of
men. But in Arabic ‘qyn’ equals ‘to fashion, give form’. Thus it could mean ‘one
formed’.
“With Yahweh” - this is an unusual use of ‘with’ (‘eth’). We must probably
translate ‘with the help or agreement of Yahweh’, the point being that she feels that
this is one more step in her reinstatement, which is with Yahweh’s approval.
Akkadian ‘itti’ is used with this meaning as is sometimes the Hebrew ‘im (‘with’ - 1
Samuel 14:45). It could thus mean ‘in participation with’, acknowledging that
Yahweh gave life in conception. For this idea see Psalms 139:13, ‘for you formed
(qanah) my inward parts’.
There is an indirect play on words between qayin and qanah but it is not drawn out,
12

and there is no similar word association with Abel. (The original account would be
passed down in a primitive language. The translator is seeking to express the pun in
his translation as best he can).
Verses 1-16
The Story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4:1 to Genesis 5:1 a).
Genesis 4:1-16. The Sin of Cain TABLET III
It is quite clear that this section once existed separately from Genesis 2-3. The
immediate and lasting change from ‘Yahweh Elohim’ (Lord God) to ‘Yahweh’
(Lord), after the almost pedantic use of the former in the previous narrative,
suggests this, as does the rather abrupt way in which the connection is made
between the two accounts. The account is in covenant form being built around two
covenants, so that there were originally two ‘covenant’ histories, that with Cain and
that with Lamech, but as the former at least was in the days before writing it would
have been remembered and passed down among the Cainites in oral form, not just
as a story but as sacred evidence of a covenant with God. Later the covenant with
Lamech would receive similar treatment. Thus the record in Genesis 4:1-16
originally stood on its own. Remembering this can be basic to its interpretation. It is
too easy to read it as though it was simply a direct continuation of Genesis 3.
On the latter assumption it is regularly assumed that Cain and Abel (Hebel) were
Adam’s first two sons, but that assumption is made merely because of the position of
the present narrative. There is no suggestion anywhere in the text that this is so, and
had Cain been the firstborn this would surely have been emphasised. It
demonstrates the reliability of the compiler that he does not say so.
Thus in another record we are told ‘when Adam had lived 130 years, he became the
father of a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of
Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had
13

other sons and daughters’. This is in ‘the histories of Noah’ (see article,
"Colophons") (Genesis 5:1 to Genesis 6:9). We note that in this section there is no
mention of Cain and Abel, even though Cain is still alive (for Seth was born after
Abel - Genesis 4:25), and if we did not have Genesis 4 we would have assumed that
Seth was the firstborn. The reason for this is that chapter 5 wishes to put the
emphasis on Seth because he is the ‘father’ of the line that leads up to Noah. All
Adam’s children other than Cain, Abel and Seth are always totally ignored,
probably because no reliable information about them had been passed down.
Two points emerge. One is that Adam and Eve had ‘other sons and daughters’.
Notice that that is a refrain that follows the birth of each son mentioned in the line.
It is of course possible that each son mentioned in the line was a firstborn son, but
there appears to be nothing apart from the phrase that suggests so. Probably, in the
list in Genesis 11, Arpachshad is not the eldest son, for in Genesis 10:21-22 he is
listed third out of five, yet the list in Genesis 11 gives no hint of this. Thus the phrase
‘had other sons and daughters’ is stressing the patriarchs’ fruitfulness, not saying
that the patriarch in question had had no previous children before the one
mentioned. In Genesis 5 it is the line leading up to Abraham that is being
emphasised.
If Adam was 130 years old when he ‘bore’ Seth (if we are to take the age literally,
and even if not it certainly means ‘of good age’), it is extremely unlikely then that
before that date he would only have had two sons (compare the fruitfulness of Cain
in Genesis 4:17). It would therefore be reasonable to assume that before that date
Adam and Eve also had other sons and daughters, and one of them may have been
the firstborn.
The story of Cain and Abel specifically acts as the background to God’s covenant
with Cain, and speaks of the first shedding of man’s blood. This is why it was
recorded and remembered. But, as has been often noted, it does in fact assume the
existence of daughters of Adam (Genesis 4:17) and of other relatives, for Cain says
‘whoever finds me will kill me’ (Genesis 4:14). So Cain and Abel should be seen as
two among many sons, mentioned simply because of the incident that occurred, not
because of their priority. They were not the only ones on the earth at the time.
14

Furthermore it must also be considered that they (and Seth) may not actually have
been direct sons of Adam and Eve. The Bible (and other ancient literature) often
refers to someone as being ‘born of’ someone when the former is a descendant
rather than the actual son (this can be seen by comparing genealogies in the Bible,
including the genealogies of Jesus). It could well be that the depiction is simply made
in order to stress the connection of Cain and Abel with Adam by descent.
The ancients were not as particular in their definitions of relationship as we are.
They would find no difficulty in saying ‘so and so bore so and so’ when they mean
‘the ancestor of so and so’. Indeed, this narrative must have been originally put into
Hebrew when Hebrew was a very primitive language, and words would have had an
even greater width of meaning than they had later, and would not at that stage have
been so closely defined. As T. C. Mitchell in the New Bible Dictionary (1st edition)
entry on Genealogy comments - ‘the word ‘ben’ could mean not only ‘son’, but also
‘grandson’ and ‘descendant’, and in like manner it is probable that the verb ‘yalad’
could mean not only ‘bear’ in the immediate physical sense, but also ‘become the
ancestor of ’ (the noun ‘yeled’ from this verb has the meaning of descendant in
Isaiah 29:23)’. The main thing that militates against this interpretation here is
Genesis 4:25 where Seth is regarded by Eve as replacing Abel, but even this may
have been put on her lips as having been ‘said’ by her through her descendant who
bore Abel and Seth.
The account of Cain and Abel was very suitable for the purpose of following Genesis
3, for Cain’s occupation caused him to wrestle with ‘the thorns and the thistles’, the
wrestling with which was the consequence of the curse (Genesis 3:18), whilst Abel as
the cattle drover was able to provide the coats of skins with which man now covered
himself (Genesis 3:21).
As the compiler of Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 11:27 (which probably once existed as an
independent unit) had no other suitable information with which to link the
expulsion from the Plain of Eden with the genealogy of Seth, and as he wished to
depict the growth of sin, he used this narrative about Cain and Abel, which would
have been especially preserved by the Cainite line because of the covenant. It was
possibly the only one available to him which would enable him to emphasise the
15

beginning of the new era, as well as to demonstrate how one sin leads to a worse one,
until at last it results in murder. He has two strands in mind. The line of Adam’s
descendants up to Noah, and the growth of human wickedness from rebellion to
murder, to further murder, to engaging in the occult, which result in the Flood.
We shall now look at the record in more detail (see the e-Sword verse comments)
WHEDON, " 1. Adam knew Eve — A euphemism, based upon a profound
conception of the marital relation. “Generation in man is an act of personal free-
will, not a blind impulse of nature. It flows from the divine institution of marriage,
and is, therefore, knowing the wife.” — Keil.
Bare Cain — In the Hebrew the word Cain has the emphatic particle ‫את‬ before it,
the Cain. In these most ancient narratives names have special significance, and the
name Cain is most naturally derived from the Hebrew ‫,קון‬ kun, or ‫,קנה‬ kana, the
word immediately used by Eve, and translated in our text, I have gotten . A better
translation would be, I have begotten. The name Cain, then, would signify offspring,
or one begotten, rather than possession, as held by many writers. See Furst’s
Hebrews Lex. and T. Lewis’s note in Lange in loc.
A man from the Lord — Literally, a man, the Jehovah. This exact rendering
appears to us better than our common version, which follows the Targum of
Onkelos; better than the Sept. and Vulg. by the Lord; better than any attempt to
paraphrase the passage, or construe the ‫את‬ as a preposition. With MacWhorter (see
Bib. Sacra for January, 1857, and the volume entitled “Yahveh Christ, or, the
Memorial Name”) and Jacobus, we understand Eve’s exclamation as a kind of
joyful eureka over the firstborn of the race, as if in this seed of the woman was to be
realized the promise of the protevangelium recorded in chap. 3:15. Keil’s objection
to this view, on the ground that Eve knew nothing of the divine nature of the
promised seed, and could not have uttered the name Jehovah, because it was not
revealed until a later period, is unwarrantable assumption. The statement of Exodus
6:3, (where see note,) that the name Jehovah was not known to the patriarchs, does
not mean that the name was never used before the days of Moses; and if these are
not the very words of Eve, or their exact equivalent, why should we believe that she
said any thing of the kind? If the name JEHOVAH was used at all by Eve, it is likely
that something of its profound significance had been revealed in connexion with the
first promise of the coming One. And it would have been very natural for the first
mother, in her enthusiasm over the birth of her first child, to imagine him the
16

promised Conqueror. But, as T. Lewis observes, “The greatness of Eve’s mistake in
applying the expression to one who was the type of Antichrist rather than of the
Redeemer, should not so shock us as to affect the interpretation of the passage, now
that the covenant God is revealed to us as a being so transcendently different. The
limitation of Eve’s knowledge, and perhaps her want of due distinction between the
divine and the human, only sets in a stronger light the intensity of her hope, and the
subjective truthfulness of her language. Had her reported words, at such a time,
contained no reference to the promised seed of the woman, the Rationalist would
doubtless have used it as a proof that she could have known nothing of any such
prediction, and that therefore Genesis 3:15, and Genesis 4:1, must have been written
by different authors, ignoring or contradicting each other.” Eve’s hasty and
mistaken expectation of the coming Deliverer is a fitting type of the periodic but
mistaken pre-millennialism of New Testament times, which has, with almost every
generation, disturbed the Church with excitement over the expected immediate
coming of Christ.
Verses 15-1
CAIN AND ABEL, Genesis 15-4:1 .
“The consequences of the fall now appear in the history of the first family. By
careful attention to the record, we may learn the true nature of the primitive
religion, its rites, its hopes, and faith. We may also see here most instructive traces
of the primeval civilization. While fearful sin stains the firstborn of man, sadly
crushing the joyful hopes of the first mother, a pious son also appears, setting forth
thus early the contrast and conflict between good and evil, which is to run through
human history. The good at first is overcome by the evil; Abel is slain by Cain; but
another son (Seth, set or placed) is set in his place at the head of the godly line.” —
Newhall.
In the following chapter the careful reader will note, 1) in the two types of men the
first outward development of the two seeds — that of the serpent and that of the
woman, (Genesis 3:15;) 2) agriculture and the keeping of flocks as the earliest
employments of men; 3) the doctrine of sacrifices established at the very gate of
Paradise: 4) God’s earliest manifestations of favour to the righteous and of
displeasure towards the sinner; 5) the beginnings of polygamy; 6) art, culture, and
17

human depravity and sinfulness keeping pace with one another; so that an advanced
civilization, in spite of all the refining and ennobling tendencies of art and culture,
may, without the divine favour, only serve to intensify the corruption and violence
of men; 7) the Cainites, in founding the first city, and by worldly inventions and
arts, lead the way in building up the godless kingdom of the beast, the world-power
of Antichrist; the godly seed, by faith and piety begin to build the kingdom of
heaven.
COFFMAN, "Verse 1
This chapter details the tragic story of two Adamic brothers, Cain and Abel, in
whose lives there appeared a dramatic acceleration of the disastrous consequences
of the Fall, just related in the preceding chapter. Not even the source-splitting critics
dared tamper with the placement of this chapter, despite the use of a different name
for God. Not only is it a logical development and consequence of events in Genesis 3,
but it lays down the basis for the destruction of the world in the Great Deluge,
showing how Cain started a wicked generation that ultimately corrupted mankind
and "precipitated the Flood,"[1] the narration of that event apparently being
already in the mind of the narrator. This, of course, is a marvelous demonstration of
the unity of Genesis and another confirmation of the fact that the multiple sources
theory postulated upon the use of different names for God "has no substantial basis
in the Biblical text."[2] Nor can we accept the assertion that this story is merely a
myth. Jesus Christ himself referred to Abel as a "righteous man" (Matthew 23:35;
Luke 11:50); and both Cain and Abel are repeatedly referred to in the N.T. as real
characters, as in Hebrews 11:4,12:24; 1 John 3:12; and Jude 1:1:11.
The great message of the chapter is that sin is a cancer that grows progressively
worse and worse. Eating of the forbidden tree might have appeared to Adam and
Eve as a minor event, but when they stood by the grave of Abel, the true nature of
what they had done began to be visible. But even that heart-breaking sorrow was
only the first little pebble of that tremendous avalanche that would soon engulf all
mankind in the floods of the Great Deluge.
And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have
gotten a man with the help of Jehovah.
18

"And the man knew Eve ..." is an expression used in the Bible for sexual
intercourse, but it does not mean that this was the first such action on their part, for
it is used repeatedly in the same sense, as in Genesis 4:25.
"I have gotten a man with (the help of) Jehovah ..." The italic words are not in the
text, making possible an alternate rendition: "I have gotten a man, even the
Lord,"[3] or, "I have gotten a man from the Lord."[4] Most scholars today deny
that Eve's remark here has any reference to God's promise in Genesis 3:15, but
their only reason for this lies embedded in one of their own petty rules, blinding
them to the fact that a Great Deliverer is surely promised there. But Eve's mention
here of her tragically mistaken view that Cain would be that Deliverer not only
confirms the fact of the Deliverer's having been promised, but also the fact of Eve's
having believed it. Kline and Ellison both discerned this: Eve's words were "a
believing response,"[5] to Genesis 3:15, and, although Ellison designated this
rendition as "improbable,"[6] he nevertheless admitted that it is possible. Our own
conviction receives this unequivocally as Eve's believing response to the great
Protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15. That she was tragically mistaken does not
diminish the weight of this.
ELLICOTT, "(1) She . . . bare Cain, and said . . . —In this chapter we have the
history of the founding of the family of Cain, a race godless and wanton, but who,
nevertheless, far outstripped the descendants of Seth in the arts of civilisation. To
tillage and a pastoral life they added metallurgy and music; and the knowledge not
only of copper and its uses, but even of iron (Genesis 4:22), must have given them a
command over the resources of nature so great as to have vastly diminished the
curse of labour, and made their lives easy and luxurious.
I have gotten a man from the Lord.—Rather, who is Jehovah. It is inconceivable
that eth should have here a different meaning from that which it has in Genesis 1:1.
It there gives emphasis to the object of the verb: “God created eth the heaven and
eth the earth,” that is, even the heaven and even the earth. So also here, “I have
gotten a man eth Jehovah.” even Jehovah. The objection that this implies too
advanced a knowledge of Messianic ideas is unfounded. It is we who read backward,
and put our ideas into the words of the narrative. These words were intended to
lead on to those ideas, but they were at present only as the germ, or as the filament
in the acorn which contains the oak-tree. If there is one thing certain, it is that
19

religious knowledge was given gradually, and that the significance of the name
Jehovah was revealed by slow degrees. (See on Genesis 4:26.) Eve attached no
notion of divinity to the name; still less did she foresee that by the superstition of the
Jews the title Lord would be substituted for it. We distinctly know that Jehovah was
not even the patriarchal name of the Deity (Exodus 6:3), and still less could it have
been God’s title in Paradise. But Eve had received the promise that her seed should
crush the head of her enemy, and to this promise her words referred, and the title in
her mouth meant probably no more than “the coming One.” Apparently, too, it was
out of Eve’s words that this most significant title of the covenant God arose. (See
Excursus on names Elohim and Jehovah-Elohim, at end of this book.)
Further, Eve calls Cain “a man,” Heb., ish, a being. (See on Genesis 2:23.) As Cain
was the first infant, no word as yet existed for child. But in calling him “a being,
even the future one,” a lower sense, often attached to these words, is not to be
altogether excluded. It has been said that Eve, in the birth of this child, saw the
remedy for death. Death might slay the individual, but the existence of the race was
secured. Her words therefore might be paraphrased: “I have gained a man, who is
the pledge of future existence.” Mankind is thus that which shall exist. Now, it is one
of the properties of Holy Scripture that words spoken in a lower and ordinary sense
are often prophetic: so that even supposing that Eve meant no more than this, it
would not exclude the higher interpretation. It is evident, however, from the fact of
these words having been so treasured up, that they were regarded by Adam and his
posterity as having no commonplace meaning; and this interpretation has a
suspiciously modern look about it. Finally, in Christ alone man does exist and
endure. He is the perfect man—man’s highest level; so that even thus there would be
a presage of immortality for man in the saying, “I have gained a man, even he that
shall become.” Grant that it was then but an indefinite yearning: it was one,
nevertheless, which all future inspiration was to make distinct and clear; and now,
under the guidance of the Spirit, it has become the especial title of the Second
Person in the Holy Trinity.
LANGE, "1. The propagation of the human race through the formation of the
family, Isaiah, in its beginning, laid outside of Paradise, not because it was in
contradiction with the paradisaical destiny, but because it had, from the beginning,
an unparadisaical character (that Isaiah, not in harmony with the first life as led in
Paradise.—T. L.). Immediately, however, even in the first Adamic generation, the
human race presents itself in the contrast of a godless and a pious line, in proof that
the sinful tendency propagates itself along with the sin, whilst it shows at the same
time that not as an absolute corruption, or fatalistic necessity, does it lay its burden
20

upon the race. This contrast, which seems broken up by the fratricide of Cain, is
restored again at the close of our chapter, by the birth and destination of Seth. In
regard to its chief content, however, the section before us is a characterizing of the
line of Cain. It is marked by a very rapid unfolding of primitive culture, but
throughout in a direction worldly and ungodly, just as we find it afterwards among
the Hamites. The ideality of art, to which the Cainites in their formative tendency
have already advanced, appears as a substitute for the reality of a religious-ideal
course of life, and becomes ministerial to sin and to a malignant pride. Not without
ground are the decorative dress (the name Adah), the musical skill (the name Zillah)
and beauty of the daughters of Cain brought into view. For after the contrast
presented in chapter5 between the Sethites, who advance in the pure direction of a
godly life, and the Cainites, who are ever sinking lower and lower in an ungodly
existence, there is shown, chapter6, how an intercourse arises between them, and
how the Sethites, infatuated by the charms of the Cainitish women, introduce a
mingling of both lines, and, thereby, a universal corruption. According to Knobel
the chapter must be regarded as the genealogical register of Adam, though this does
not agree, he says, with the genealogical register of the Elohist ( Genesis 5), which
names Seth as the first-born (!) of Adam. The ethnological table ( Genesis 10), he
tells us, can only embrace the Caucasian race, whilst the Cainites can only be a
legendary representation of the East Asian tribes (p53), the author of which thereby
places himself in opposition to the later account, that represents all the descendants
of Cain as perishing in the flood. The traits of the Cainitic race, as presented by
Knobel, belong not alone to the East Asiatic people. They are ground-forms of
primitive worldliness in the human race. In respect to the genealogical table of
Genesis 4, 5, Knobel remarks “that the Cainitic table agrees tolerably well with the
Sethic” (p54). For the similarities and differences of both tables, comp. Keil, p71.
These relations will be more distinctly shown in the interpretation of the names.
Concerning the Jehovistic peculiarities of language in this section, see Knobel, p56.
2. Genesis 4:1-2. “Men are yet in Eden, but no longer in the garden of Eden.”
Delitzsch. Procreation a knowing. The moral character of sexual intercourse. Love a
personal knowing. The love of marriage, in its consummation, a spiritual corporeal
knowing. The expression is euphemistic. In the Pentateuch only, in the
supplementary corrections of the original writing. The like in other ancient
languages. The name Cain is explained directly from ‫י‬ ִ‫ית‬ִ‫נ‬ָ‫,ק‬ the gotten.[FN9] The
word ‫קנה‬ may mean, to create, to bring out, also to gain, to attain, which we
prefer.—I have gotten a man from the Lord.—The interpretation of Luther and
others, including Philippi, namely, “the Prayer of Manasseh, the Lord,” not only
21

anticipates the unfolding of the Messianic idea, but goes beyond it; for the Messiah
is not Jehovah absolutely. And yet the explanation: with the help of Jehovah (with
his helpful presence, Knobel), is too weak. So too the Vulgate is incorrect: per
Deum, or the interpretation of Clericus: ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ֵ‫,מ‬ from Jehovah, that Isaiah, in
association, in connection with Jehovah, I have gotten a man. In this it remains
remarkable, that in the name itself, the more particular denotation is wanting. We
may be allowed, therefore, to read: a man with Jehovah, that Isaiah, one who stands
in connection with Jehovah; yet it may be that the mode of gaining: gotten with
Jehovah, characterizes the name itself. The choice of the name Jehovah denotes here
the God of the covenant. In the blessed confidence of female hope, she would seem,
with evident eagerness, to greet, in the new-born, the promised woman’s seed
( Genesis 3:15), according to her understanding of the word. Lamech, too, although
on better grounds, expected something immensely great from his son Noah. We
must observe here that the mother is indicated as the name-giver. In the case of the
second name, Abel (Habel), which denotes a swiftly-disappearing breath of life, or
vanity, or nothingness, nothing of the kind is said. Yet in place of the great and
hasty joy of hope, there seems to have come a fearful motherly presentiment
(Delitzsch, p199). That they were twins, as Kimchi holds, is a sense the text does not
favor. Abel as shepherd, especially of the smaller cattle (‫,)צאן‬ is the type of the
Israelitish patriarchs. Cain, as the first-born, takes the agricultural occupation to
which his father was first appointed. The oldest ground-forms, therefore, of the
human calling, which Adam united in himself, are divided between his two sons in a
normal way (Cain was, in a certain sense, the heir by birth, and the ground-
proprietor). It must be remarked, too, that agriculture, as the older form, does not
appear as the younger in its relation to cattle-breeding. “Both modes of living belong
to the earliest times of humanity, and, according to Varro and Dicæarchus in
Porphyry, follow directly after the times when men lived upon the self-growing
fruits of the earth.” Knobel. “In the choice of different callings by the two brothers,
we seek in vain for any indication of a difference in moral disposition.” So Keil
maintains, against Hofmann, that agriculture was a consequence of the cursing of
the ground. Delitzsch, however, together with Hofmann, is inclined to the opinion
that in the brothers’ choice of different callings there was already expressed the
different directions of their minds,—that Abel’s calling was directed to the covering
of the sinful nakedness by the skins of beasts (Hofmann), and therefore Abel was a
shepherd (!). Delitzsch, too, would have it that Abel took the small domestic cattle,
only for the sake of their skins, and, to some extent, for their milk, though this was a
kind of food which had not been used in Paradise. It would follow, then, that if Abel
slew the beasts for the sake of their skins, and, moreover, offered to God in sacrifice
only the fat parts of the firstlings, it must have been that he suffered the flesh in
general of the slaughtered animals to become offensive and go to corruption. It
22

would follow, too, that the human sacerdotal partaking of the sacrificial offering,
which later became the custom in most cases, had not yet taken place; not to say that
the supposition of the enjoyment of animal food having been first granted, Genesis
9:3, is wholly incorrect.
BI 1-16, "Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground
The story of Cain and Abel
I. RELIGION ACTUATED MEN IN THE VERY EARLIEST TIMES.
II. THE MERE NATURAL RELIGION IS ESSENTIALLY DEFECTIVE.
1. In its offerings.
2. In the power which it exercises over the passions.
3. In its sympathy (Gen_4:9).
III. SPIRITUAL RELIGION ALONE COMMENDS A MAN TO GOD. This is illustrated
in the life of Abel.
1. He possessed faith.
2. He offered an acceptable sacrifice to God.
3. Spiritual religion has a favourable influence on character.
The quality of Abel’s piety, its depth and spirituality, cost him his life, and made him at
the same time the first martyr for true religion. (D. Rhys Jenkins.)
The two sacrifices
I. The first question to be asked is this: WHAT DID CAIN AND ABEL KNOW ABOUT
SACRIFICE? Although we should certainly have expected Moses to inform us plainly if
there had been a direct ordinance to Adam or his sons concerning the offering of fruits
or animals, we have no right to expect that he should say more than he has said to make
us understand that they received a much more deep and awful kind of communication. If
he has laid it down that man is made in the image of God, if he has illustrated that
principle after the Fall by showing how God met Adam in the garden in the cool of the
day and awakened him to a sense of his disobedience, we do not want any further
assurance that the children he begat would be born and grow up under the same law.
II. It has been asked again, WAS NOT ABEL RIGHT IN PRESENTING THE ANIMAL
AND CAIN WRONG IN PRESENTING THE FRUITS OF THE EARTH? I must apply the
same rule as before. We are not told this; we may not put a notion of ours into the text.
Our Lord revealed Divine analogies in the sower and the seed, as well as in the shepherd
and the sheep. It cannot be that he who in dependence and submission offers Him of the
fruits of the ground, which it is his calling to rear, is therefore rejected, or will not be
taught a deeper love by other means if at present he lacks it.
III. THE SIN OF CAIN—a sin of which we have all been guilty—WAS THAT HE
SUPPOSED GOD TO BE AN ARBITRARY BEING, WHOM HE BY HIS SACRIFICE WAS
TO CONCILIATE. The worth of Abel’s offering arose from this: that he was weak, and
23

that he cast himself upon One whom he knew to be strong; that he had the sense of
death, and that he turned to One whence life must come; that he had the sense of wrong,
and that he fled to One who must be right. His sacrifice was the mute expression of this
helplessness, dependence, confidence. From this we see—
1. That sacrifice has its ground in something deeper than legal enactments.
2. That sacrifice infers more than the giving up of a thing.
3. That sacrifice has something to do with sin, something to do with thanksgiving.
4. That sacrifice becomes evil and immoral when the offerer attaches any value to his
own act and does not attribute the whole worth of it to God. (F. D. Maurice, M. A.)
Lessons from the history of Cain
From the story of Cain we gather the following thoughts—
I. EVE’S DISAPPOINTMENT AT THE BIRTH OF CAIN SHOULD BE A WARNING TO
ALL MOTHERS. Overestimate of children may be traced sometimes to extreme love for
them; it may also arise on the part of parents from an overweening estimate of
themselves.
II. We see next in the history of Cain WHAT A FEARFUL SIN THAT OF MURDER IS.
The real evil of murder (apart from its theftuous character) lies in the principles and
feelings from which it springs, and in its recklessness as to the consequences, especially
the future and everlasting consequences, of the act. The red flower of murder is
comparatively rare, but its seeds are around us on all sides.
III. NO ARGUMENT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THE HISTORY OF CAIN IN FAVOUR
OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS. We object to such punishments—
1. Because they, like murder, are opposed to the spirit of forgiveness manifested in
the gospel of Christ.
2. Because, like murder, they ruthlessly disregard consequences. (G. Gilfillan.)
Cain and Abel
I. CAIN AND ABEL AT THE ALTAR.
II. CAIN AND THE LORD AT THE ALTAR.
III. CAIN AND ABEL IN THE FIELD.
IV. CAIN WITH GOD IN THE FIELD. Conclusion:
1. The secret of right living is faith in God. The acceptable sacrifice is the life of faith.
2. That which makes sacrifice acceptable is faith. A formal sacrifice is a vain thing. It
is Cain’s offering.
3. Faith prepares men to die well. Be ready to die in faith, for the faith. How much
may hinge upon it. Have you religious convictions for which you are ready to lay
down your life? When Martin Luther went to his historic trial in the Hall of the Diet
24

at Worms, the people crowded the windows and housetops of the city to see him
pass. They knew his danger. But they knew of a higher danger, theirs and his, of the
cause of pure religion on the earth. Their concern for him was: “Will he stand firm
for us? Will he stand for the faith to the death?” “In solemn words,” says Carlyle,
“they cried out to him not to recant. ‘Whosoever denieth Me before men,’ thus they
cried to him as in a kind of solemn petition and adjuration.” Luther stood for the
human race. Would his faith fail? Then the faith of the people would fail. Would his
stand? Then theirs would stand, the Reformation would triumph. It was not so
important that he should live, as that he should stand in unconquerable faith. How
much depended upon one man! How much depended on the faith of Abel! Where
should Eve find hope again, with Cain a murderer and Abel dead? Where Seth an
example, and Enoch and Noah, and the antediluvian saints? Where Abraham and the
patriarchs an inspiration? Abel’s faith shone out as a beacon light through all those
early centuries. The heroes of faith all lived in loyalty. But how did they die? These all
died in the faith. Thank God for that sentence! Covet a faith to live by. But be sure of
the faith of Abel to die by. (G. R. Leavitt.)
Naming of children
She called her eldest Cain, which signifieth a possession, and her second son when she
had also borne him, Abel, which signifieth vain or unprofitable. By which diversity of
names evidently appeareth a diversity of affection in the namers, and so teacheth us two
things. First, the preposterous love that is in many parents, esteeming most oftentimes
of those children that are worst, and least of them that deserve better. Their Cains be
accounted jewels and wealth, but their Abels unprofitable, needless, and naught.
Secondly, it teacheth the lot of the godly in this world many times, even from their very
cradle, to be had in less regard than the wicked are. So was here Abel, so was Jacob of his
father, so was David and many more. Such and so crooked are men’s judgments often,
but the Lord’s is ever straight, and let that be our comfort: He preferreth Abel before
Cain, whatsoever his parents think, He loveth Jacob better than Esau, and He chooseth
little David before his tall brethren: He seeth my heart, and goeth thereafter when men
regard shows and are deceived. Care away then, if the heart be sound, God esteemeth
me, and let man choose. (Bishop Babington.)
Antiquity of husbandry
Their trade of life and bringing up we see, the one a keeper of sheep, the other a tiller of
the ground, both holy callings allowed of God. Idleness hated then from the beginning,
both of the godly and such as had but civil honesty, or the use of human reason. The
antiquity of husbandry herein also appeareth, to the great praise of it, and due
encouragement unto it. But alas our days! many things hath time invented since, or
rather the devil in time hatched, of far less credit, and yet more use with wicked men, a
nimble hand with a pair of cards, or false dice, is a way now to live by, and Jack must be
a gentleman, say nay who shall. Tilling of the ground is too base for farmers’ sons, and
we must be finer. But take heed we be not so fine in this world, that God knows us not in
the world to come, but say unto us, “I made thee a husbandman, who made thee a
gentleman? I made thee a tiller of the ground, a trade of life most ancient and honest,
who hath caused thee to forsake thy calling wherein I placed thee? Surely thou art not he
25

that I made thee, and therefore I know thee not, depart from Me, thou wicked one, into
everlasting fire.” (Bishop Babington.)
Two kinds of offerings
They both offer, but the one thinketh anything good enough, and the other in the zeal of
his soul and fulness of his Lord thinketh nothing good enough. He bringeth his gilt, and
of the fattest, that is, of the best he hath, and wisheth it were ten thousand times better.
This heat of affection towards God let us all mark and ever think of: it uncaseth such as
in these days think any service enough for God, half, a quarter of an hour in a week, etc.
(Bishop Babington.)
The first age of the conflict
In the Eden prophecy (Gen_3:15) there was shadowed forth a great conflict between
good and evil that should last through coming ages. Of that long conflict this is the first
age. It covers the whole time of antediluvian history. It is important for us to keep in our
minds the length of the time, sixteen hundred years and more—over sixteen centuries at
the very lowest computation. So, of course, we cannot expect anything in the shape of a
continuous history. A few chapters cover the whole ground; and while each chapter is
undoubtedly historical, the whole is not, properly speaking, history. It is not continuous,
but fragmentary. First we have the story of Cain and Abel. We find here a picture, I may
say, exhibiting the nature of the conflict that there is to be between good and evil. We see
there the early development of evil in its antagonism with good. First, what is the great
lesson of Cain’s history? Is it not the fearful nature of sin? On the other hand, what is the
great lesson of Abel’s history? He comes before us, apparently, as an innocent man.
There is nothing said against him at all events. Yet he is required to bring an offering. He
is accepted, apparently, not on the simple ground of his goodness, but in connection
with the offering that he brings. It is the offering of “the firstlings of his flock.” Here we
have the first record of sacrifice. Next, what is the difference between Cain and Abel?
Some are inclined to think it lay entirely in the offering: not in the men at all; but if you
look at the narrative you will find there was a difference in the men. “Unto Cain and his
offering” the Lord had not respect; but “the Lord had respect unto Abel and his
offering.” Abel and his offering, Cain and his offering. But what was the difference in the
men? The great difference in the men, as we are taught in the Epistle of the Hebrews,
was faith. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain.” So
whatever difference there may have been in the men in other respects (and there no
doubt was very much), the fundamental contrast between them was, that Abel had faith,
while Cain had not. (J. M. Gibson.)
Domestic life
I. THAT IT IS DESIGNED FOR THE NUMERICAL INCREASE OF HUMANITY.
1. The position of Adam and Eve prior to the birth of their two sons was unique.
Alone in the great world.
2. Their position was interesting. A great crisis in their lives. Fallen, yet encircled by
26

Divine mercy.
II. THAT IT SHOULD BE CAREFUL AS TO THE NOMENCLATURE OF ITS
CHILDREN.
1. Child nomenclature should be appropriate. “Cain” signifies “possession.” A moral
possession. The gift of God.
2. Child nomenclature should be instructive. “Abel” signifies “vanity.” Our first
parents’ verdict on life, gathering up the history of their past and the sorrows of their
present condition.
3. Child nomenclature should be considerate. In harmony with good taste and
refined judgment. Pictures of goodness and patterns of truth.
III. THAT IT SHOULD JUDICIOUSLY BRING UP CHILDREN TO SOME HONEST
AND HELPFUL EMPLOYMENTS.
1. These two brothers had a daily calling.
2. A distinctive calling.
3. A healthful calling.
4. A calling favourable to the development of intellectual thought.
IV. THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE UNMINDFUL OF ITS RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS
(Gen_4:3-4).
1. These offerings are rendered obligatory by the mercies of the past.
2. These offerings should be the natural and unselfish outcome of our commercial
prosperity.
3. These offerings ought to embody the true worship of the soul.
LESSONS:
1. That domestic life is sacred as the ordination of God.
2. That children are the gift of God, and are often prophets of the future.
3. That working and giving are the devotion of family life. (J. S.Exell, M. A.)
The true and false worshipper of God
I. THAT BOTH THE TRUE AND THE FALSE AMONGST MEN ARE APPARENTLY
WORSHIPPERS OF GOD. The false come to worship God—
1. Because it is the custom of the land so to do.
2. Because men feel that they must pay some regard to social propriety and
conscience.
3. Because men feel that their souls are drawn out to God in ardent longings and
grateful praises. These are the true worshippers of God. Followers of Abel.
II. THAT BOTH THE TRUE AND THE FALSE AMONGST MEN PRESENT THEIR
MATERIAL OFFERINGS TO GOD.
27

1. The trade of each brother suggested his offering.
(1) Some take their offerings for parade.
(2) They take their offerings to enhance their trade.
(3) They take their offerings to increase their social influence.
(4) They take their offerings with a humble desire to glorify God.
III. THAT BOTH THE TRUE AND THE FALSE AMONGST MEN ABE OBSERVED
AND ESTIMATED BY GOD IN THEIR WORSHIP AND OFFERINGS.
1. The worship and offerings of the one are accepted. “And the Lord had respect unto
Abel and his offering.” And why?
(1) Because it was well and carefully selected. Men should select carefully the
offerings they give to God.
(2) Because it was the best he could command. He brought the firstlings of his
flock and of the fat thereof.
(3) Because it was appropriate. His sacrifice preached the gospel, foreshadowed
the Cross.
(4) Because it was offered in a right spirit. This makes the great point of
difference between the two offerings. The grandest offering given in a wrong
spirit will not be accepted by God, whereas the meanest offering given in lowly
spirit will be welcome to Him. Thus the younger brother was the best. He was
better than his name.
2. The worship and offering of the other was rejected. “But unto Cain and to his
offering He had not respect.” The men who make their religious offerings a parade,
who regard this worship as a form, are not welcomed by God.
IV. THAT THE TRUE, IN THE DIVINE RECEPTION OF THEIR WORSHIP AND
OFFERINGS, ARE OFTEN ENVIED BY THE FALSE.
1. This envy is wrathful. “Why art thou wroth?”
2. This envy is apparent. “Why is thy countenance fallen?”
3. This envy is unreasonable. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?”
4. This envy is murderous. “Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” (J.
S. Exell, M. A.)
Cain and Abel
I. THE PARITY OR EQUALITY OF CAIN AND ABEL IS FOUR FOLD.
1. In their original, as both born of the same parents.
2. In their relation, they were brothers.
3. In their secular condition: both had honest employs, and not only lawful, but
laudable particular callings.
4. In their religious concerns: both were worshippers of God, both brought sacrifices
28

to God.
(1) Their particular callings (Gen_4:2).
(a) That parents ought not to bring up their children in idleness, but in some
honest calling wherein they may both serve themselves and their generation,
according to the will of God (Act_13:36).
(b) That every man must have his trade and calling in the world, as those two
sons of Adam had. Though their father was lord of the world, yet he brought
up both his sons in laborious callings.
(c) It is a sin for any man to live without a calling. One that lives in idleness
(without an honest calling) is but an unprofitable burden of the earth, and
seems to be born for no other end save to spend the fruits of the world as a
useless spendthrift. Why Moses recordeth this service done to God (by way of
sacrifice) in all its circumstances by those two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel?
1. To demonstrate the antiquity of religion. That it is no new devised fable, but is as
ancient as the world. Hence may be inferred—
(1) The grossness of atheism.
(2) The absurdity of irreligion.
2. The account why Moses records this history, is to show the mixture of religion,
that among men who profess and practise religion there ever hath been a mixture
thereof.
3. Moses records this history to declare the disagreements and contentions that do
arise about religion in the world.
(1) That quarrels about religion are the greatest quarrels in the world. The
dissentions about religion are the most irreconcilable dissentions.
(2) This affordeth us the clear and true character of the true religion from the
false. Outrage and cruelty is the black brand wherewith God’s Word stigmatizeth
the false and formal religion, and here it begins, showing how Cain did most
maliciously oppose Abel, but Abel offered no affront at all to Cain, for the badge
and cognizance of true religion is meekness and love. The second inquiry is,
concerning the service of those two sons of Adam, what Moses doth record of it.
This their service and success thereof, are the two principal parts of this sacred
record touching Cain and Abel. Now, concerning the SERVICE two particulars
are very remarkable.
1. Of the circumstances of it, which are four.
(1) The persons who they were.
(2) The second circumstance is, the time when they did so. The Scripture telleth
us it came to pass in process of time (Gen_4:2).
2. What motive they had at this time to sacrifice to God; ‘tis probable they did so
either—
(1) By an express command of God spoken, but not written; otherwise their
service had been will worship; so Abel’s sacrifice had been rejected of God as well
29

as Cain’s; but more of this after. Or—
(2) They did it by their father’s example, whom God taught so to do, and who
might teach his sons to do the like; otherwise, how could they all have coats of
skins to clothe them, if they had not the skins of sacrificed beasts for that end?
Or—
(3) They might do so by the dictates of their own natural reason. Hence the very
instinct of nature might suggest to them, that it was but a rational service to offer
up to their Creator something of those creatures that God had graciously given
them, as a due acknowledgment of their homage to Him who is Lord of all (Act_
10:36).
Hence may be inferred—
1. The mischief on mankind by the Fall, to wit, man’s dulness to learn anything that
is good.
2. The misery of those persons who want instruction in families and assemblies!
How blind and brutish must all such be, and how unskilful at this celestial trade!
3. Oh, what a blessing is the ministry to men, which teacheth them this trading and
trafficking with heaven, that cannot be learnt all at once, but by degrees!
The (3) circumstance is the place where, which the Scripture of truth mentions
not.
The (4) circumstance is the manner how, which leads me to the second
particular, to wit, the substance of their service, wherein this circumstance is
spoke to, the SUCCESS OF THEIR SERVICE.
The (5) circumstance is the matter what, to be spoke unto, in the substance.
Now, as to the substance of it, look upon it in common, and both brothers
concerned together therein. So there is still a parity and congruity as to the
substance of it.
For—
1. Their service was equally personal, they both made their personal address to God,
and to His altar of oblation; they did not serve God by a proxy. They did not transmit
this their duty to their father Adam. Hence, observe, no man stands exempted from
his personal attendance on God’s service, but everyone owes a homage which he
must pay in his own person. This is proved both by Scripture and reason.
(1) By Scripture, every man under the law (whether Israelite or proselyte) was to
appear personally and offer to the Lord for himself at the door of the tabernacle,
and whoever did not so, was to be cut off from his people Lev_17:3-4). And in
their more public feasts, God expressly enjoined them, that three times in a year
all their males shall appear before the Lord in a place which He shall choose, and
none shall appear before the Lord empty, every man shall give according to the
gift of his hand Deu_16:16-17).
The (1) reason is, everyone is personally God’s creature, so the bond of creation
obligeth all to pay their personal respects to their Creator. No man is his own, but
God’s; therefore every man must glorify God with their own bodies and spirits
(1Co_6:19-20).
30

The (2) reason is, everyone is a sinner, and sins against God in their own
persons; therefore everyone must serve God in their own persons, and sue to
Him for pardon and reconciliation. No man can redeem his brother Psa_49:7).
The (3) reason, everyone hath personal dependency on God for a supply both of
their temporal and spiritual wants. Now, ‘tis but reasonable service Rom_12:1),
that all persons should carry their own pitchers to this fountain of life, and
should turn the cock both of grace and mercy for their own supply.
The (4) reason is, every man is already a great debtor to God (his Benefactor);
God is behindhand with none, but much beforehand with all, and therefore as we
all have received mercy from God in our own proper persons, so we should
return duty to God in our own proper persons also.
2. As the service of those two brothers was equally personal, so it was equally
warrantable and lawful service. The second inference is, to look for Divine warrant
for every part of Divine worship. That primitive simplicity which is in Christ and in
His gospel worship, ought not to be corrupted 2Co_11:3). All modes and rites of
worship which have not Christ’s stamp upon them, are no better than will worship.
How exact was God in tabernacle worship (Exo_39:43), and will He not be so in
gospel worship? The third propriety, in the substance of this service is, it was also
costly worship; there was cost in both their sacrifices, they put not God off with
empty compliments, and verbal acknowledgments of superficial and perfunctory
shows. All men can willingly give God the cap and the knee, yea and the lip too, but
when it comes to cost, then they shuffle off His service: men naturally love a cheap
religion. The fourth property of their service is, there was unity in their worship.
Cain did not build one altar, and Abel another, but one served both; they both
offered in one place, and at one time. Hence, observe, it makes much for the honour
of religious worship, when it is performed in the spirit of unity. The first inference
is—oh, let it not be told in Gath, nor published in Askelon—that there is altar against
altar, and prayer against prayer, amongst professors in our day. The apostle presseth
to unity with many arguments Eph_4:3-4, etc.). The second inference is, Yet unity
without verity is not unity, but conspiracy. There is no true concord but in truth. The
third inference is, that narrow principles undo unity. Tile fifth property, ‘twas equally
a solemn service by way of sacrifice; both these sons paid their homage to their
Maker, the one in a sheaf, and the other in a sheep.
Hence observe, holy sacrifices and services have been tendered and rendered up to the
great God in all ages of the world by the Church of God.
1. As the sacrifice was a real acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty over the sacrificer
(Isa_16:1).
2. As it was a sad remembrancer of the sacrificer’s sin, to wit, that he deserved to be
burnt (as his burnt offering was) even in everlasting burnings.
3. As it was a solemn protestation of their faith in Christ, whom all their sacrifices
did prefigure, as He was the Lamb slain from the beginning of the Rev_13:18).
4. As it was also an offering of thankfulness; those sacrifices were eucharistical as
well as propitiatory, thank offerings as well as sin offerings. What shall I render?
saith David (Psa_116:12).
(1) The gospel sacrifice of repentance, wherein the penitent soul offers itself up
31

on God’s altar.
The (2) gospel sacrifice is praying for what we want, and praising for what we
have.
The (3) gospel sacrifice (in a word) is all the good works both of piety and
charity. Now, the success of it shows a foul disparity; the one is accepted, the
other is rejected. God had respect to Abel, and to his offering, but, etc. Gen_
4:4-5). This disparity is demonstrated by three remarkable passages or
particulars.
1. Of the order inverted; until now, it was Cain and Abel, the eldest is named first,
the order of nature is observed. Hence observe—
(1) Though amongst many worshippers of God in public worship man can
discern no difference, but one is as good as another in both attendance and
attention, yet God can, both in intention and retention. All fit as God’s people
(Eze_33:31). And no mortal eye can distinguish which is a Cain and which is an
Abel, yea, a Cain may be the fore-horse in the team, and be most forward as to
personal attendance and attention of body. The fifth inference is, this shows us
whom we ought to please in all our works or worship. It must not be man, but
God, who knoweth the heart (JohnActs 1:24). The second particular is the
ground of that inversion, or the reasons of this disparity; the causes why the one
was accepted, and the other rejected. There is a two-fold difference here very
remarkable.
1. In regard to their persons; and that is also two fold.
(1) God put or set the difference. And—
(2) He saw the difference betwixt those two persons; unto Abel God had respect,
but unto Cain He had not (Gen_4:4-5). It is the free grace of God that is the main
fundamental cause of difference, preferring Abel before Cain.
2. As God putteth the difference, so He beholdeth the difference betwixt good and
bad, and here between Cain and Abel.
3. It is the piety or impiety of men’s persons that do commend or discommend their
actions and services to God. It is not the work that so much commends or
discommends the man, but the man the work. As is the cause so is the effect, and the
better that the cause is, the better must the effect be. These are maxims in
philosophy, which hold true in divinity also. A good man worketh good actions, and
the better the man is, the better are his actions. As the temple is said to sanctify the
gold, and not the gold the temple (Mat_23:17), so the person gives acceptance to,
and sanctifies the action, not the action the person. “The sacrifice of the wicked is an
abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight” Pro_15:8).
Both do offer, the one a sheaf, and the other a sheep; yet the one is accepted, the other
rejected from a threefold difference in the action.
I. In regard of the matter of their sacrifice, Abel made choice of the best he had to
present unto God. Hence observe, it cannot consist with a gracious heart to shuffle off
the great God with slight services. Alas! men do but trifle with God, when they think
anything will be sufficient to satisfy Him.
1. Such as spend many hours in vanity, yet cannot spare one hour for God and the
32

good of their souls.
2. Such as are profuse in villainy upon their lusts, yet can find nothing to bestow in
pious and charitable uses upon the Lord.
3. Such as swatter away all their youth time (while the bones are full of marrow and
veins full of blood, both as ponderous sheaves) in ways of both vanity and villainy,
and think to put off God with the poor pined sheaf of their old age, as if the great God
would be put off with the devil’s leavings. The second difference in their action was
in respect of their devotion and affections; Abel offered in sincerity, but Cain in
hypocrisy. The third and principal difference that distinguished Cain and Abel’s
action was faith, which is indeed the prime cause of all the other differences. Abel
offered in faith, but Cain did not so (Heb_11:4). It was faith that dominated Abel a
righteous man, and Cain was a wicked man, because he wanted faith.
How comes faith to put this difference? There is a two-fold faith.
1. The faith upon God’s precept. Abel offered sacrifice, not so much because Adam,
but because God commanded. This is called the obedience of faith (Rom_16:26).
2. There is the faith upon God’s promise. Thus Abel did not only lay a slain sacrifice
upon the altar, but he put faith under it. He considered Christ to be the Lamb slain
front the foundation of the world (Rev_13:8). The inference hence flowing is, it is
Christ, and Christ alone, that gives to all our services acceptance with God. It is faith
in Christ that pleaseth God Heb_11:16).
Now, the third and last particular is the success (which is the second general, as service
was the first), or acceptance, which, as to Abel, is evident in three things.
1. The Divine allowance or approbation of Abel. He being a righteous man Mat_
23:35). Both his person and oblation (through Divine grace) was—
(1) Approvable; hence the first observation is, it is a special vouchsafement and
condescension in God to look on, and allow of the poor services of man.
(2) As God gave allowance and approbation of Abel’s sacrifice, so He had delight
and complacency in it. This also is signified by the word “respect.” But
2. Unto Cain and his offering God had not respect. To demonstrate the equity of God
in His dealing with wicked men. His ways are always equal with us (Eze_18:25; Eze_
33:17). As Cain respected not God in his sacrifice, so God respected not him nor his
sacrifice.
Inferences hence are—
1. If the sweet success of our services be God’s acceptance, then, oh, what an holy
carefulness should we all have about our services and duties.
2. Oh, what holy cheerfulness should we have to work all our works in Joh_3:21),
that they may be accepted of Him, and respected by Him.
3. Oh, what an holy inquisitiveness should we all have, whether God accept or reject
our duties? Our acceptance may be known by these characters. Hath God inflamed
our sacrifice as He did Abel’s, some warm impressions of God’s Spirit upon our
hearts, some Divine touch of a live coal from God’s altar? (Isa_6:6). The second sign
or character of acceptance isthe joy of duty; injections of joy, as well as inspirations
of heat, are sweet demonstrations of acceptance; blessed are they that hear the joyful
33

sound of God, they shall walk, O Lord, in the light of Thy countenance Psa_89:15). A
third sign is, when God gives in any supply of that grace which is sued for, either
strengthening it, or weakening sin that wars against it.
II. As there is no life in a wicked man’s duty, so there is no warmth in it; he puts off God
with cold dishes, such as God loves not. As there is no heart, so there is no heat in any of
his services; it is not a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord, so no sweet savour to Him
(Lev_1:13; Lev_1:17; Lev_2:2; Lev_2:9-10, etc.).
III. A wicked man (as Cain here) regardeth iniquity in his heart, therefore God
regardeth not his prayer (Psa_66:18). This is the dead fly that spoils never so sweet
ointment (Ecc_9:1). (C. Ness.)
Formal worship an immense curse
I. IT INVOLVES OFFENCE TO GOD. “He abhors the sacrifice where not the heart is
found.”
II. IT INVOLVES CRUELTY TO MAN. From real, spiritual worship it would be
impossible for a man to pass to persecution and murder, for genuine piety is the root of
philanthropy. But the distance between formal worship and murderous passions is not
great. Formal worship—
1. Implies bad passions.
2. Strengthens bad passions. Selfishness. Superstition. Pride.
Bigotry. (Homilist.)
Cain and Abel
I. THEIR DIFFERENT WORSHIP.
1. Cain’s was no more than a mere thank offering, and such, probably, as Adam
himself might have offered in a state of innocence: it implied not any confession of
guilt, or any application to the Redeemer.
2. Abel’s offering was a sacrifice presented in faith, not only with respect to the
appointment of God, who had ordained sacrifices in representation of that method of
redemption by which He would deliver man, but also with dependence on “the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world,” who in the fulness of time “by the sacrifice of
Himself should take away the sins of the world.” Abel’s offering, therefore, is to be
considered as a type of Christ.
II. THEIR DIFFERENT MORAL CHARACTER.
III. THEIR DIFFERENT END. Lessons:
1. Let us examine what is the worship we are offering to God. It is not enough that
we are attentive to religious ordinances; but are we, like Abel, worshipping by faith?
2. Let us inquire, Are none among us discovering the temper of Cain? Are there none
who, like him, are persecutors of God’s people?
34

3. Let us bless God that the blood of Jesus Christ “speaketh better things than that of
Abel” (see Heb_12:24). (Essex Remembrancer.)
The first patriarchal form of the new dispensation—the seat, the time, the
manner of worship—the contest begun between grace and nature, between
faith and unbelief
I. There can be no doubt that THE STATED PLACE OF WORSHIP under the new order
of things was the immediate neighbourhood of the garden, eastward, within sight of the
cherubim and the flaming sword (Gen_3:24). And it would seem that this primitive holy
place was substantially identical with the sanctuary and shrine of the Levitical ritual, and
with the heavenly scene which Ezekiel and John saw. It was within the garden, or at its
very entrance, and it was distinguished by a visible display of the glory of God, in a
bright shining light, or sword of flame—on the one hand, driving away in just
displeasure a guilty and rebellious race; but on the other hand, shining with a benignant
smile upon the typical emblems or representations of a people redeemed.
II. The brothers, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TWO GREAT CLASSES into which, in a
religious view, the family of man is divided, manifest their difference in this respect, not
in the object, nor in the time, but in the spirit of their worship (verses 3, 4). They
worship the same God, and under the same revelation of His power and glory. Their
seasons of worship also are the same; for it is agreed on all bands that the expression “in
process of time,” or “at the end of days,” denotes some stated season—either the weekly
Sabbath or some other festival. Again, their manner of service was to a large extent the
same. They presented offerings to God; and these offerings, being of two kinds,
corresponded very remarkably to the two kinds of offerings ordained under the Levitical
dispensation, the burnt offerings, which were expiatory, and the meat offerings, which
were mainly expressive of duty, gratitude, and devotion (Lev_1:1-17; Lev_2:1-16).
III. The two brothers, then, worshipped God ACCORDING TO THE SAME RITUAL,
BUT NOT WITH THE SAME ACCEPTANCE. How the Lord signified His complacency
in the one and His rejection of the other does not appear. It may have been by sending
fire from heaven to consume Abel’s offering; as in this way He acknowledged acceptable
offerings on different occasions in after times (Lev_9:24; Jdg_6:21; 1Ki_18:38). Why
the Lord put such a distinction between them is a more important point, and more easily
ascertained. It is unequivocally explained by the Apostle Heb_11:4). Abel’s sacrifice was
more excellent than Cain’s, because he offered it by faith. Therefore his person was
accepted as righteous, and his gifts as well pleasing to the Lord. (R. S. Candlish, D. D.)
The religion of nature, and the religion of the gospel
Introduction: Cain’s religion, in common with many false religions, was one—
1. Which had in it some good.
2. Of expediency.
3. Which lacked faith.
4. Abounding in self-righteousness.
35

5. That persecuted others.
Abel’s religion—
1. Embodied all the good that was in the other.
2. Surpassed it, even in its own excellencies—“more plenteous sacrifice.”
3. Recognized the existence of guilt, and its merited doom.
4. Was actuated by faith.
5. Was approved of by God. Consider, then—
I. NATURAL RELIGION. Look at—
1. The principle upon which it is founded—practical goodness. This principle is
intrinsically excellent, is one upon which all men should act; is one to which no one
can object.
2. The standard by which it is to be tested—the moral law of creation, love to God
and man. In order to “do well,” the act itself must be perfect; the motive must be
good; and the rule must be good.
3. Its reward to its faithful adherents—“shalt thou not be accepted?” Such a religion
will command the approval of God; and will secure immortality for all its votaries.
Now measure your conduct by this religion; and are you perfect? Think of sin in its
nature, its effects, and its ultimate consequences, and see if you have not sinned. And
can natural religion justify you? No; something else must be found, and something
else is to be found. Look then at—
II. REVEALED RELIGION. Notice—
1. That revealed religion assumes that men are guilty. It also recognizes their liability
to punishment.
2. That it has provided a sin offering—a substitution of person, of sufferings.
1. The acceptance of this is accompanied with Divine evidence.
2. It is efficient for all purposes for which it is presented.
3. Having accepted it, the sinner is treated as though he himself had suffered.
4. That the sin offering reposeth at the door.
This implies that Christ’s atonement is accessible to the sinner; that it rests with man to
avail himself of it; that men often neglect it; that God exercises great patience towards
the sinner; that the sinner cannot go to hell without first trampling on the Cross; and
that he wilt be forever deprived of every excuse for his destruction. (D. Evans.)
Cain and Abel
I. THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFERING DEPENDS ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
OFFERER. God had respect to Abel and his offering—the man first and then the
offering. God looks through the offering to the state of soul from which it proceeds; or
even, as the words would indicate, sees the soul first and judges and treats the offering
according to the inward disposition. God does not judge of what you are by what you say
36

Genesis 4 commentary

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (19)

Similaire à Genesis 4 commentary

Similaire à Genesis 4 commentary (20)

Plus de GLENN PEASE

Plus de GLENN PEASE (20)

Dernier

Dernier (18)

Genesis 4 commentary