Cain & Abel
The story of Cain and Abel is well known for its moral teachings though less often considered typically and rarely considered eschatologically. Abel is often lauded for as God’s choice. For Cain, much has been said about his failures, less of his posterity, Lamech. Both prove important.
Perhaps most important is consideration of what both represent. Abel is often compared to Christ, but Cain seems to have largely escaped notice. There are reasons to take a closer look both at the symbolism of Cain and the unusual and unexpected relationship between he and Abel.
Introductory Comments
The story begins with the birth of Cain followed by Abel and chronicles their attempts to worship God. The narrative concludes with the birth of Seth followed by Enosh, contrasting the depravity of Cain’s posterity with the righteous line of Seth, evidenced in the closing statement “at that time men began to call upon the name of the Lord.”
Where Genesis 3 documents the individual sins of Adam and Eve, Genesis 4 recounts the sins of the next generation – no longer individual sins but family sins. [1] Where the sins of Adam and Eve brought death to themselves individually, the sin of their son Cain brought death to his brother Abel.
It is possible the sentence of death pronounced upon Adam and Eve in the garden was not fully appreciated until the murder of Abel by Cain. Abel’s death must have been a traumatic event for Adam and Eve.
They had been promised one from Eve’s seed would vindicate them through defeat of the serpent. Yet their first seed, in unexpected irony, takes the life of their second seed, ending the possibility that the second-born or one of his descendants would be that seed. The children they had conceived for life, had introduced further death. It would seem that the sins of the parents have played out in their posterity in talion.
Structure & Numerology
The narrative is well structured, revealing chiasm, with the usual inversions between scenes 1 and 5 and scenes 2 and 4, with scene 3 the climax of the story, the death of Abel (Table 1):
Table 1: Structure of the Narrative of Cain and Abel
1) 2b-5 Narrative Cain, Abel main actors; Yahweh passive
2) 6-7 Dialogue Yahweh questioning Cain.
3) 8 Dialogue/narrative Cain and Abel alone
4) 9-14 Dialogue Yahweh and Cain.
5) 15-16 Narrative Yahweh active, Cain passive. [2]
The passage interweaves narrative and dialogue sections chiastically. Its structure is well thought-through and its use of numerology suggests importance:
Unusually full details about Lamek, the seventh generation from Adam (18-24), may illustrate another convention associated with biblical genealogies, a tendency to draw attention to the seventh generation (Sasson, ZAW 90 [1978] 171-85). Indeed, various keywords in the narrative appear a multiple of seven times. Within 4:1-17, “Abel” and “brother” occur seven times, and “Cain” fourteen times. Within the whole of 2:4-4:26 אךץ “earth,” not “land of,” is mentioned seven times, אדמה “land” fourteen times, and “God” “the Lord” or “The Lord God” some thirty-five times, exactly matching the thirty-five occurrences of “God” in 1:1-2:3. The last vs of chapter 4, “at that time people began to call on the name of the Lord,” thus contains the seventieth mention of the deity in Genesis and the fourteenth use of the key word “call”. [3]
Fratricide and its Parallels with the Adamic Fall Narrative
The narrative of Cain and Abel shows recapitulative features that appears to be deliberate. It heightens the story’s significance while hinting that the sins of the parents are heightened in their offspring, later affirmed in Lameck’s sin.
The deliberate parallels with the narrative of the Fall of Adam and Eve link these episodes. The narrative introduces three sons: Cain, then Abel and closing with Seth. Cain means to possess or acquire. Abel means breath or vapor implying something weak or vain.
These names may foreshadow the personalities of these two characters and their coming rivalry. Cain was like his father, a tiller of the soil. Abel was a shepherd. With the passing of time, each brought a sacrifice to the Lord.
Each likely brought their sacrifice to the east entrance to Eden, where the cherubim dwelt. Pink has suggested it was a Sabbath, a natural choice for worship. Wenham has suggested after a year or at the end of the harvest, when Cain’s offering could be brought. The time is unspecified and can only be conjectured as the harvest in the near east spanned from March through September depending upon the grain or fruit harvested.
Cain’s offering was from his harvest, but not specified if the first-fruits or even the best of his harvest. The first-fruits would become an important offering in Hebrew cultic celebrations. The omission of such an important detail may indicate that the offering was neither the first-fruits nor best of his harvest.
Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and also the fat, emblematic of the best of his flocks and his recognition of the pre-eminence of God’s provision. The reference to “firstborn” of his flock hints at the contrast between the hearts of each of the offerers. [4] Cain seems interested to fulfill his religious obligations outwardly, to “acquire” the blessing. Abel seems more focused upon doing what is right by thankfully offering his best in recognition of God’s providing hand.
Cain’s Rejection, Abel’s Murder and its Consequences
The firstborn typically served as priest-king in antiquity. In passing over Cain’s offering, the scepter of tribal leadership would move to Abel, an affront to Cain. Cain would naturally see himself as priest-king of the family.
Cain’s anger prompted a warning from the Lord. The warning was ignored and Cain later murdered Abel. The murder was followed by another dialogue between God and Cain, followed by God’s judgment on him. Cain’s anger is not left unchecked by God. Cain is encouraged with the words “if you do what is right, will you not be accepted” while being warned that sin was crouching at the door, ready to seize and overcome him if he failed to repent. [5]
Sin is portrayed as a predator, ready to pounce upon and destroy Cain. He must master his anger or he will experience consequences expressed in strikingly similar terms to his parents:
. . . in Hebrew, God’s warning to Cain “Its urge is for you, but you must rule over it” is even closer to the curse on Eve than is suggested by the English “Your urge will be to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (4:7; 3:16). [6]
Cain fails to master his anger, deliberately murdering Abel in his field, in contrast to his mother who was deceived. Like his parents, Cain is driven from his garden, further from the presence of God, going east to Nod, much as his parents had been driven from their garden, east from Eden.
In Cain’s case however, his final destination leaves him further from the presence of God than his parents. Nod translates “wanderer”, symbolizing Cain’s exile from the ground/his garden. Cain’s complaint that he is driven from the land tracks with the judgment on his parents being driven from the Garden of Eden, though his judgment is harsher. His unrepentant heart leaves him further from God’s presence with the implication that he has surrendered the privilege to offer sacrifices at the entrance to the garden due to his hard-heartedness.
Cain’s sin leads to a confrontation with God that follows the pattern of Genesis 3 with the Lord asking Cain “where is Abel”, followed by “what have you done” much as God asked Adam and Eve “where are you” followed by “what is this you have done” after their sin.
Cain however, does not admit his sin when presented opportunity as his parents did. He callously responds, “Am I the shepherd’s shepherd?” His response justifies the increased severity of curse-judgment. God protests Cain’s callousness with the accusation “your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground”. There is no hiding what Cain had done. The blood of his brother bears witness against him from the very ground Cain had tilled. Man was formed from the ground and bloodshed upon the ground is an offence against the ground and the ground witnesses against him.
The Consequences of Cain’s Sin and Unrepentance
Though every man is to return to the ground in God’s time, Cain has returned his brother to the ground prematurely. The ground is forced to take Abel back. Such reckless behavior has consequences. As with his parents, God pronounces a curse. However, this curse is directly on Cain, in contrast to the curse uttered in Eden. In the garden, Adam and Eve were not cursed. Only the serpent and the ground were cursed.
Now it is Cain that is cursed, drawing a direct parallel between Cain and Satan. [7] The parallel between the episodes shows the magnitude of Cain’s sin. It is like that of Satan, deliberate, justifying a direct curse upon him. Like Satan, he is unrepentant. No wonder Cain is driven “from the ground”, like his parents were driven from the garden.
Talion is seen in the curse. The one “from the ground” is cursed “from the ground”. Cain’s sin has disrupted his cooperative relationship with the ground. It will no longer bear its fruit for him. Von Rad succinctly states:
Cain had plowed the soil, offered the fruit of the soil, caused the soil to drink a brother’s blood; but the blood complained against him from the soil, and therefore the soil denies him its fruit, and he is banned from the soil. [8]
Cain is now relegated to a restless wanderer upon the earth. Rest is typically associated with Eden or the land, the place of God’s presence. Without repentance, there can be no rest. In polluting the ground from which man was fashioned, his relationship with the ground/land is severed, leaving himself a wanderer with no land to call his own. No land willingly will accept him. In the face of this judgment, Cain complains the severity is unfair, evidencing self-pity rather than showing sorrow for his brother’s death.
Oddly, Cain seems to blame God for his punishment saying “today you are driving me from the land” adding “I will be hidden from your presence”. Neither of these claims was enunciated by God. Rather, these statements seem to be Cain’s view of his punishment.
Cain failure to take responsibility is conspicuously seen in these words. His actions were not harsh. It is God’s actions that are harsh. Cain exaggerates God’s punishment by arguing that he will be hidden from God’s presence rather than one step further removed from Him. His concluding statement reflects his heart – “whoever finds me will kill me.” He is only concerned with his own death, not the death of Abel.
God’s Grace in Preserving Cain & His Distrust in God’s Protection
Yahweh’s response is unexpected. Talion would demand that Cain’s life be taken. God however, has other plans. He places a mark upon Cain to prevent his death and announces “if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over”.
Despite Cain’s hard-heartedness, God’s dealings with Cain are not over. He graciously refuses to allow vengeance to be taken, providing opportunity for him to repent. God’s love is evident even amidst Cain’s reprehensibly unrepentant character.
Cain however, ends the dialogue, turning from God and leaving His presence. [9] Suffering vengeance seven times over shows God’s grace to Cain, preserving him though unmerited. Despite God’s assurance and mark, Cain apparently doubts God’s grace, choosing to build a city named after his son Enoch, honoring him rather than God to whom he owes his life.
Cities in antiquity were strongholds, places of safety and refuge. The Hebrew for city is עיר `iyr which implies a fortification.[10] In building the city, Cain seeks a place of safety, a city of refuge, dishonoring God. Cain’s actions continue to reveal his perverse motives. Despite God’s assurance, Cain is determined to assure his safety himself. He will secure his safety by building a fortification, foolishly believing he can secure his safety better than God. Cain continues to demonstrate sinful behavior, failing to trust God, denying His promise of personal safety.
The Intensification of Cain’s Unrepentant Sin Infects His Progeny
Cain’s genealogical line shows the rapid decline of morality that follows his murderous defiance and refusal to repent. God’s warning to Cain plays out in his progeny. The sin that was crouching at Cain’s door has completely overcome his line, demonstrated in Lamech.
Cain’s refusal to repent and honor God plays out with magnified sins in his family. After seven generations from Adam, the unaddressed sin of Cain has completely infiltrated his family. Lamech lives a life of sexual infidelity, the first man to have two wives (Genesis 4:19).
He is also a man of violence, showing no mercy to others, a braggart who celebrates his violence in song (4:23-24). The passage provides a moral warning for those who fail to follow the way of the Lord. Family sins can impact families for generations, particularly when unrepentant. Unrepentant sins play out in one’s progeny in intensified fashion.
Noteworthy, despite their repentance, Adam and Eve’s sins are seen to impact their children. Their own failures are brought to light in their children. Eve’s failure to maintain a close relationship with God is intensified in Cain, who offers only token interest in the things of God.
Adam’s willful disobedience and foolish attempt to blame Eve and God for his failure are intensified in Cain, who willfully refuses to admit his failure and accuses God of unfairness in blessing Abel’s offering and in the punishment meted out against him.
Hope in God’s Gracious Gift of Another Son
The promise of a deliverer from Eve’s seed must appear increasingly distant and unlikely, their hope for a deliverer crushed by the murder of Abel by Cain. But the story is not without hope, seen in the story’s conclusion:
25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, “God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him.” 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord. (Emphasis mine)
The first toledoth, despite being marked by failure throughout, ends with a great statement of hope – God raised up Seth to carry out His plan. With Abel’s death, the promise of Seed is extended to Seth. He is now the appointed one through whom the Messiah will come.
He had a son Enosh, and at that time men began to call on the name of the Lord. [11] Seth, whose name means “appointed”, is the seed through whom the promised Seed would come. [12] Contrasting Seth’s name with Cain suggests a change in Eve’s attitude. Seth is appointed where Cain was an acquirer. Appointment is superior to self-acquisition.
There is also subtle change seen in Eve’s birth declarations. In Cain, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth” suggests Eve credits herself for Cain more than God. In Seth, “God has granted” properly credits Him with keeping His promise. Though Adam and Eve have seen their family shattered, God is at work behind the scenes, assuring His promise. Hope is not lost.
Narrative Importance Revealed in Later Recapitulations
The episode of Cain and Abel contains important themes that are recapitulated in later scriptures. One has already been discussed: sin and its consequences. Sin is seen as a corrupting process introduced into a garden-like environment. It is first seen in Eden and recapitulated in this pericope of fratricide.
It often follows the theme of new creation, as is seen in the story of Noah following the flood. Noah represents a new Adam in a new creation that follows the flood. Noah’s blessing on his sons “be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” recapitulates the theme of creation in Genesis 1:28.
His son is seen to fall into sin through Noah’s drunkenness in his garden, a vineyard he planted. A curse-judgment follows for Ham’s exposing his father’s indiscretion. Ham’s son Canaan is cursed, relegated to be a slave of Shem and Japheth. In contrast, Shem and Japheth are blessed. Ham becomes an outsider, placed in a position of inferiority before his brothers and God – a form of exile. These details parallel the story of Cain and Abel with striking detail, demonstrating the importance of this theme.
The motif of sin is again recapitulated in Israel, the corporate Adam. Israel was enjoined in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 to obey the Lord. A number of blessings are declared for obedience followed by a series of curse-judgments for disobedience. The curses include crop failure in their Palestinian garden (Deuteronomy 11:26-18:28; 28:38-42), exile from their garden into the surrounding nations (Deuteronomy 28:36, 64) and having no rest (Deuteronomy 28:65).
Like Adam, Israel failed to honor the covenant, bringing the Levitical/Deuteronomistic curses, (Jeremiah 11:1-8; Daniel 9:11; cf. Galatians 3:10) and ultimately exile to Babylon. Seventy years later, Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return to Palestine but Ezra 2 records that only a remnant chose to return.
Recapitulations in the Theme of the Second Born
Another recapitulated theme is the preeminence of the second-born. Abel is granted preeminence over Cain as priest-king of his family. A similar pattern is seen with Abraham’s descendants with the second-born Isaac given preeminence over the firstborn Ishmael (Genesis 21:12).
The same pattern followed with the children of Isaac, with Jacob gaining preeminence over Esau (Genesis 25:23). The promised Messiah would come from the seed of the second-born, the one born not in the natural way but of a promise (Galatians 4:29).
Thematic emphasis upon the preeminence of the second born points to the superiority of Christ as second born after the spirit (in contrast to Adam as the firstborn after the flesh).
Recapitulations in the Theme of Persecution of the Righteous
Recapitulation is also seen in the theme of persecution of the righteous. Persecution of the second-born by the firstborn is evident in these stories. Abel was put to death unjustly by Cain. Isaac was mocked by Ishmael. Jacob had to flee to Haran to avoid the threat of death at the hand of Esau. Christ and His family had to flee Herod.
In these stories, there is a sense that the second-born embraced true worship and true religion where the firstborn showed no interest beyond itsritual. The heart of the firstborn is one of entitlement and thus a heart for Godly things is unnecessary.
The firstborn is born after the flesh; the second born after the spirit. These important themes are recapitulated in Christ, the second man, born after the Spirit, who was persecuted and then murdered by his brothers, Israel, often called God’s firstborn. The recapitulation of these themes reveals the importance later authors placed upon this narrative and its ethical truths.
Judaic Traditions Concerning Cain
Cain and Abel take on a symbolic meaning in later Judaic tradition which transformed Cain into a teacher and leader in the practice of sin and immorality. The targums portray Cain as the first heretic. All the targums except Onqelos relate an argument between Cain and Abel where Cain complains that God is unjust in accepting Abel’s offering over Cain’s and that God does not govern the world justly.
Pseudo-Jonathan and Neofiti include an additional exchange in the argument where Cain denies a future judgment or future world to gain – something Abel strongly disputes. [13] Cain thus becomes a model for the unrepentant sinner who teaches others to sin:
In postbiblical Jewish tradition, Cain became not simply the first murderer, but the archetypal sinner and instructor of others in sin. Some writers saw him as the prototype of hatred and envy toward one’s brothers (T. Benj. 7:5; 1 John 3:11; 1 Clem. 4:7). Josephus (Ant. 1.52-66) portrayed him as guilty of greed, violence and lust, and as the great corrupter of mankind (“he incited to luxury and pillage all whom he met, and became their instructor in wicked practices”: 1.61, Loeb tr.). For Philo Cain was the archetypal egoist (Det. 32, 78), and the leader of others in the ways of sin (Post. 38-39). [14]
These traditions likely influenced New Testament authors on their views of Cain and Abel. The testimony of Josephus is noteworthy. Abel is described as having “respect for justice and, believing that God was with him in all his actions, paid heed to virtue”. Cain on the other hand was “thoroughly depraved”, “had an eye only to gain”, “his punishment, however, far from being taken as a warning, only served to increase his vice”, “he indulged in every bodily pleasure”, “he increased his substance with wealth amassed in rapine and violence”, “he incited to luxury and pillage all whom he met, and became their instructor in wicked practices”, “he was the first to fix boundaries of land and to build a city, fortifying it with walls and constraining his clan to congregate in one place”. [15]
The description parallels much of what is said of Babel and Nimrod, suggesting that Jewish tradition chose to view Cain and his posterity in the same light as the wicked builders of Babel. [16] Of Cain’s posterity Jubel, it is said he “distinguished himself in the art of war, procuring also thereby the means for satisfying the pleasures of the body, and first invented the forging of metal”, “within Adam’s lifetime, the descendants of Cain went to depths of depravity, and, inheriting and imitating one another’s vices, each ended worse than the last”, “they rushed incontinently into battle and plunged into brigandage; or if anyone was too timid for slaughter, he would display other forms of mad recklessness by insolence and greed”. [17] Implicated in Cain and his posterity is the industrialization of bloodshed through organized warfare, pointing to the increased depravity that resulted from Cain’s unrepented heart.
If the testimony of Josephus is typical, then Cain and his posterity debased into deeper and deeper sin that they learned from one another and by implication, from Cain. That Cain was considered a leader in teaching sin and immorality points to Him as a rebel, if not, arch-rebel of God. His unrepentant heart, together with parallels to the serpent in the garden, point to him as a human representation of the seed of Satan.
Abel’s innocence in martyrdom and the acceptability of his sacrifice to God, provide a sharp contrast that points toward a recapitulation of the garden-narrative. [18] Abel would seem to be the representative of the righteous in later Jewish tradition. The contrast between the two again points to the frequently recapitulated theme of the righteous in conflict with unrighteous while also pointing toward a coming global judgment to destroy the unrighteous after their separation from the righteous.
Concluding Reflections
The story of Cain and Abel shows the hallmarks of a well-structured, carefully thought-out passage, densely packed with ethical lessons. Its parallels with the Adamic Fall narrative are designed to point to the consequences of Adam and Eve’s failure in the garden, revealing increasing depravity of sin in their family that follows the failures of the parents. It emphasizes the importance of godly parental superintendence of children while also hinting at the importance of godly influence that appears absent in Cain’s family.
Important is the theme of unrepentant sin that leaves one open to increasing sin and depravity that is predatorily crouches at the door of the unrepentant. Cain’s progeny reveal that the predator lurks not just with the heart of the unrepentant, but can overflow into the lives of family, bringing an unwanted harvest of worsening sins.
Yet despite the gloomy outcome seen in Cain and his progeny, God’s redemptive plan is unthwarted. He raises up Seth and He can rain down righteousness from heaven, bringing men to call upon the name of the Lord, an cipher for repentance.
Though Cain’s life brings a harvest of unrepentance and increasingly sinful depravity, Seth’s life brings a harvest of repentance and righteousness. The contrast affirms that one man’s righteous choices can make a difference within his family. Repentance may also result from Abel’s martyrdom, perhaps hinting of the power of righteous martyrdom.
In contrast, Cain’s unrepentant heart places him in a spiritually precarious “place” far from the presence of the Lord. His absence from God’s presence provides explanation in part for his increased sinfulness as he does not have interactions with God that would point him toward righteous living. In the absence of God’s revelation, Cain is left to his own failed judgments.
His blood-violence has severed his relationship with the land, leaving him a restless wanderer. His violence leaves him without a land, and by inference, without spiritual rest, as rest is linked with land.
Cain’s blood-violence reveals man’s special relationship with the earth, one that is not to be violated with blood-violence as man is from the earth. That the earth cries out over Abel’s spilt blood shows Cain’s sin is not just against his brother, but against the earth and thus sin against creation. The seriousness is portended in the curse-judgment that Cain will be a restless wanderer on the earth. He has no place on earth he can call his own.
It should caution Christians. To support bloodshed through wars or turn a blind eye to political or religious violence risks a similar judgment in which we experience no spiritual rest, spiritual wanderers in a world that testifies against us. In these situations, if there is a failure to repent, should not our expectation be that we also will wander further from our Lord?
Also evident is God’s grace in evidence with Cain. While Cain’s sin deserves death in talion, God is slow to anger, always crafting a plan that provides more than adequate opportunity for repentance and restoration. This is done despite knowing the unsuitability of Cain’s heart. God did not write him off.
Preferring a lifestyle of earthly pleasures and deluding himself into believing he could secure his future against God’s judgment; God places a mark of protection on him to keep him from being killed. Yet he even refuses to trust God’s protective mark.
No wonder he comes to represent an arch-rebel and enemy of righteousness in later Judaic tradition. No surprise that the story of Cain becomes recapitulated in later scriptures. His unrighteous testimony justifies judgment upon he and his family. He represents the quintessential example of the heart of the firstborn after the flesh, and his judgment anticipates the ultimate judgment upon all who willfully choose to live carnally after the flesh. The just must live after the Spirit.
Cain & Abel – Eschatological Implications
Much commentary has been devoted to true and false religion foreshadowed in the story of Cain and Abel. Less attention has been dedicated to the parallels evident in Christ and his brethren, Israel. The New Testament elevates the testimony of Abel to a high standing while Cainite references portray him as an enemy of Christ and the church.
It points to parallels between Abel’s conflict with Cain and Christ’s conflict with His brethren, the Jewish religious leadership. The bitterness in Christ’s conflict is palpable, replete with accusations and indictments of evil, sinful behavior by the religious leaders.
Cain’s Conflict Prefigures Christ’s Conflict with His Brethren
Judaism anticipated a new world order that would replace their old-world order, bringing an end to the old creation. They expected it would bring the end to the kingdoms of this world, [19] displaced by God’s new eternal kingdom (Daniel 2:31-35; Matthew 3:2, 9-10; Matthew 8:16-17; Luke 17:20; Acts 1:6). Judaism’s expectation was that the Messiah would destroy the kingdoms of the world while establishing God’s eternal kingdom.
John the Baptist testified that Jesus was the Son of God, calling him “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29-34). That Jesus would take away the sin of the world confirms the coming new world order as the old world order was powerless to take away sin. The new kingdom however, was a threat to existing power structures of traditional Judaism, much as Abel was a threat to Cain’s “acquisition” of the position of priest-king.
A rivalry ensued that the Gospel writers emphasize. It began at the opening of Jesus’ ministry with railings against the teachers of the law, introduction of a higher Torah and corrections throughout His ministry for the traditions of the Pharisees (Matthew 3:7, 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-35, 38, 43-44; 6:1-3, 5-8, 16-18; 17:24-27; 21:12-13; Mark 1:22; 2:16, 18; 12:38-40; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 3:7-9; 18:9-14; 19:45-46; 20:46-47; John 2:14-16).
The conflict intensified throughout Jesus’ ministry as He angered the teachers of the law with claims to forgive sins (Matthew 9:1-7; Mark 2:6-7; Luke 5:20-26) and claims He was Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14; Mark 2:23-24; Luke 6:1-5; 13:10-16; 14:1-4; John 9:13-16).
His miracles brought opposition (Matthew 9:34; 12:22-24; 21:15; Mark 3:1-6, 22; Luke 11:14-15) as did His failure to give preeminence to Pharisaical tradition (Matthew 15:1-6; 19:3-9; Mark 7:1-5; Mark 8:31; 10:2-12; Luke 5:30-35; Luke 6:6-11; 15:1-2). In fact, His ministry was marked by opposition (Luke 7:30; 11:53-54; John 6:41, 61; 7:45-52; John 8; 9; 12:42) including predictions of opposition (Matthew 10:17-18, 22; Mark 10:33; John 16:2), demand for a sign (Matthew 12:38; 16:1-4; Mark 8:11-12, Luke 11:16; John 2:18; John 6:30), questioning of His authority (Matthew 21:23; Mark 11:27-28; 12:13-17, 18-25, 28-31; Luke 20:1-2; John 8:13) and failure to repent in the face of His miracles (Matthew 11:20).
The opposition led to warnings against their teachings (Matthew 16:5-12; Mark 8:15), condemnations of that generation (Matthew 12:41-42; Luke 11:50-51) and eventually woes pronounced upon the Pharisees and teachers of the law (Matthew 23; cf. Luke 11). The conflict escalated into attempts made to trap Jesus (Matthew 22:15, 23-30, 34-40; Luke 20:20-36), eventually leading to attempts to arrest and kill Him (Matthew 21:45-46; Matthew 26:3-4, 47, 57-68; Mark 11:18; 14:1, 43, 53-65; Mark 15:1, 18, 31; Luke 4:28-30; 19:47; 20:19; 22:2, 52, 66-71; 23:10; John 7:19, 30-32, 44; 8:39-40; 10:31, 39; 11:45-57; 18:12).
The opposition echoes the fraternal conflict over accession to Priest-king of the family, foreshadowing the conflict between Jesus and His brethren, the Jewish people (John 1:11; Acts 2:23). [20] As High Priest of a new world order, Jesus’ sacrifice was infinitely better than that offered by His brethren, much as Abel’s sacrifice was found acceptable.
Yet despite its superiority the old order would not pass away without a struggle. At the root of the struggle was the issue of authority. The authority of the old-world order was built upon Moses (John 9:28-29) as the one who delivered the Torah, and upon Abraham as the seed of the Jewish nation (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; John 8:39). In the eyes of the Jewish leadership, there was no higher authority than Moses.
Jesus argued that One greater than Moses was in their midst (Deuteronomy 18:15-19), bringing a new and higher Torah. Jesus also argued that the true seed of Abraham would live righteously and by faith (Matthew 3:7-9; 8:11-12; Luke 3:7-9; 13:24-28; 19:7-9; John 8:39-40, 52-59) in contrast to a widespread belief of Abrahamic entitlement by birth.
For Jesus, true authority was confirmed through righteous living. Jesus’ miracles testified of His righteousness, for an unrighteous man would not be empowered by God to perform miracles. The contrast between Jesus’ righteousness and the unrighteousness of the Jewish leadership is exemplified in the healing of a blind man from birth:
26 Then they asked him, “What did he do to you? How did he open your eyes?” 27 He answered, “I have told you already and you did not listen. Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” 28 Then they hurled insults at him and said, “You are this fellow’s disciple! We are disciples of Moses! 29 We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow, we don’t even know where he comes from.” 30 The man answered, “Now that is remarkable! You don’t know where he comes from, yet he opened my eyes. 31 We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly man who does his will. 32 Nobody has ever heard of opening the eyes of a man born blind. 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” John 9
It is shocking that the religious leaders would insult a man who they knew had been blind from birth, despite acknowledging his healing. Their callous heart toward this man’s healing was rooted in their refusal to acknowledge any authority other than Moses. Yet claims of Mosaic authority were disingenuous as Jesus consistently revealed the hypocrisy of the Pharisees regarding Mosiac law:
19 Has not Moses given you the law? Yet not one of you keeps the law. Why are you trying to kill me?” 20 “You are demon-possessed,” the crowd answered. “Who is trying to kill you?” 21 Jesus said to them, “I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22 Yet, because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. 23 Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? John 7
39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. John 8
Attempts to murder Jesus parallel the Cain and Abel narrative. It was Cain’s unrighteousness that led to Abel’s murder, articulated in 1 John 3:11-16. [21] John tied Cain’s hatred of his righteous brother to the world’s hatred of the followers of Christ, warning his readers they will be hated because of their righteousness in Christ. John’s words tie to Matthew 5, and show that Jesus’ words made deliberate reference to His brethren, the Jewish nation:
21 “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
Christ’s words are significant in light of His allusions to how He would be hated by his brothers. Christ’s words hint at judgments to fall on the Jewish leadership for their opposition and His eventual murder. Christ’s warnings close by claiming the superiority of right relationship with one’s brother (Christ) over that of traditional Jewish sacrifices and offerings, a new, higher Torah. Throughout His ministry, Christ developed this motif, ending His ministry with an emotional appeal tied to the death of Abel:
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. 37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”
The preeminence of loving brotherly relationships at the start of Christ’s ministry is contrasted at the close of His ministry with His prediction He would be “hidden” from Israel much like Cain complained he would be hidden from God’s presence (Genesis 4:13). Yet repentance would reestablish relationship with Him, much like the offer of repentance extended to Cain. Christ’s entire ministry was to the Israelites, offering numerous opportunities to show forth the fruit of righteousness. Yet only a remnant responded to the call, echoing God’s words to Cain:
7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.” Genesis 4
Cain’s refusal to repent foreshadows the refusal of the Jewish leadership to accept Christ and His new kingdom. The Jewish leadership sought to preserve their religious system, insisting their sacrifices were adequate, refusing to recognize the superiority of Christ as the only acceptable sacrifice, paralleling the sacrifices offered by Cain and Abel.
The Consequences of Rejection of Christ as Greater-than-Abel
With the Jewish rejection of Christ came judgment upon Judaism, symbolized in the prophesied destruction of their temple (Matthew 24:2). The prediction “your house is left to you desolate” (Matthew 23:38) alludes to the coming destruction of the second temple, an event that would mark the end of temple worship. Its destruction would provide an unmistakable sign of the rejection of the old blood sacrifices with Christ’s better sacrifice.
A further sign would be the emergence of a new temple in Christ that would produce worship in accordance with Christ’s new covenant. Jesus would be the new “eschatological” temple in which true worship would be realized (cf. Matthew 26:61; Mark 14:58; John 2:19). As Seth was appointed the new head and new Priest-king from the physical line of Adam, Jesus would be the head and new High Priest/King from a new spiritual race of men born of Christ and His Spirit.
As the death of Abel required a new man to serve as priest, the death of Christ would require His resurrection as the validated High Priest and new man of the new covenant. The transition to the new priesthood was prophesied by Christ. He warned the Chief Priests, elders and teachers of the law that their authority would be taken and given to others in a parable:
1 He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2 At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty‑handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 “He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ 7 “But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8 So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Haven’t you read this Scripture: “‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 11 the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?” 12 Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away. Mark 12
Christ’s warning was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Temple destruction symbolized that Jewish appointment was taken away. The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost symbolized giving it to others. Opportunity for repentance was given from the preaching of John the Baptist to the preaching of the apostles after Christ’s ascension. Like Cain, Israel was warned (by Christ and the Baptist) to repent before sin overtook them. Even after their sin, like Cain, God afforded opportunity for Israel to repent.
Cain’s refusal to repent resulted in judgment – he would be a restless wanderer on the earth, driven from the land and hidden from God’s presence. The parallel seems fulfilled in the last two millennia, with the Jewish people driven from their land and scattered throughout the world, a people without a land, a people that seems hidden from God’s presence (Revelation 12:6).
Even after two thousand years, Judaism shows no signs of turning to Christ. Rather, much of Judaism has become subsumed by contemporary culture, becoming largely secular. [22] Mainstream Judaism remains to this day a part of the old-world order, refusing to recognize God’s new creation in Christ.
A Change in World-Order in Christ, Foreshadowed in Cain & Abel
While the story of Cain and Abel does not overtly reveal a change in world-order, there is a hint in the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s. Later scriptures confirm the established order in antiquity: the firstborn was favored and held in high esteem. The firstborn received the birthright, the blessing and a double portion.
Passing over the firstborn for Abel upset the established order. To Cain, it must have seemed inappropriate and unfair. It would not be in accordance with accepted practice and thus out of order. One can understand Cain’s opposition given family norms.
A new order was inherent in God’s choice. Cain sought to acquire the position of religious headship over his family. His motivation and worship were unacceptable to God. He sought to worship God on his terms. His sacrifice was not the best or the firstfruits.
Outwardly he was religious but inwardly he failed to grasp the importance of a pure heart as the basis for worship. These behaviors justified God’s choice of Abel over Cain. Cain also refused to acknowledge his error or master his carnal desires. Cain foolishly displayed a spirit of entitlement, thinking he could take religious headship by force. He would eliminate his competition, killing his brother and thus eliminating the threat of his brother’s headship.
Cain’s behavior seems to provide insight into the behavior of Jesus’ brethren. Certainly the new order claimed by Christ was not the norm Judaism had come to expect. Jesus’ new order was a threat to the existing Judaic authority and it would seem that its adherents sought to maintain entitlement to religious headship given established Levitical norms.
They were also not above use of force to maintain their privileged position. They sought to eliminate the threat through murder of their competitor. Central to Cain’s history however, was his unrepentant-ness and the resultant impact to his progeny who, in the seventh generation, were described as much more wicked than their father, that they were subject to judgment in the flood.
It surfaces the question how one should then view Israel? Guilty of a far greater sin and unrepentant for many generations longer, should not far greater wickedness be expected from their progeny? Should not their progeny expect judgment at the end of the age in keeping with Cain’s progeny?
It gives great weight to Christ’s words of Matthew 12:43-45. Are His words to be applied only to the generation that crucified Christ or is there potentially longer term ramifications that should be included? Given the parallels, church support of Israel merits deeper consideration and prayerful study given the possibility that Israel’s end-of-the-age spiritual condition may prove far more wicked than some expect. But if so, will God’s commitment to His people stand? A clue must be considered: the mark given to Cain.
Cain’s Mark Foreshadows God’s Protection of Israel?
The Hebrew word translated “mark” is oth meaning sign (cf. Part 1; Chapter 4). The “mark” has been the focus of much analysis by commentators:
The nature of Cain’s sign or mark has been the subject of endless inconclusive speculation (cf. Westermann’s excursus, 1:312-14, and R. Mellinkoff, The Mark of Cain). Signs (cf. F.J. Helfmeyer, TDOT 1:167-88) are typically given to men to assure them of God’s goodwill toward them and take a variety of forms (e.g. rainbow, circumcision, a fulfilled prophecy or miracle: 9:12; 17:11; Exodus 3:12; Isaiah 7:11), so various suggestions have been made along these lines to identify the sign given to Cain. In this case the sign deters would-be attackers, and this has led the majority of writers to conclude that the mark of Cain must be something about him that shows he has divine protection, e.g., a tattoo, special hairstyle, or the like. . . The simplest suggestion is that of P.A.H. de Boer (NedTT 31 [1942] 210) that the sign for Cain is simply his name (qayin), which sounds somewhat like yuqqam “shall be punished”; cf. Notes on v 1. His very name hints at the promise of divine retribution on his attackers. [23]
A clue may exist in the absence of the sign’s description. The Jews, who have suffered massive persecution over the past two millennia, have been miraculously preserved despite the loss of their land and temple – in spite of numerous attempts to destroy them via pogroms and the holocaust.
God’s promises of preservation and restoration despite generations of wanderings (preserved in a remnant, cf. Romans 11:1-6, 26-27), seem to parallel the gracious mark he placed upon Cain. Cain’s words “you are driving me from the land” also seem strangely prophetic and consistent with the destruction of Jerusalem which “drove” the Jews from Palestine.
Yet like Cain, the Jews have continued to exist under God’s protective hand. [24] Cain, despite being driven from the land and departing from God’s presence, bore a mark of protection that transcended Cain’s absence from God’s presence. Von Rad notes the peculiar relationship that is maintained between Cain and God despite Cain’s sin and failure to repent; a peculiarity that also seems to follow the relationship between God and the Jewish people:
This sign, however, is not to disgrace him but to refer to that mysterious protective relationship in which Cain henceforth will be held by God. The conclusion of the story, according to which Cain then goes forth “away from the presence of the Lord,” completely sharpens the riddle of his future existence: because of his murder he is cursed by separation from God and yet incomprehensibly guarded and supported by God’s protection. Even his life belongs to God, and he does not abandon it. [25]
Von Rad’s observation of Cain’s separation from God yet protection by Him seems to parallel the fate of the Jews during our age. Like Cain, the Jewish people have left God’s presence yet they are not rejected (Romans 11:2). Restoration and acceptance is still possible if they repent (Romans 11:23), much as Cain’s acceptance was conditioned upon doing what was right.
However, Paul’s insistence that God has preserved a remnant suggests that the masses of Judaism, like Cain and his posterity, will not repent. Though talion demanded Cain’s life, God mysteriously protected him, awaiting his repentance. Cain however, never repented, continuing in the way of destruction (Jude 1:11). Despite his defiance, God’s promise of protection persisted.
While quite puzzling, the case of Israel is equally puzzling. Seven times God warned Israel in Deuteronomy 28 that He would destroy them if they were unfaithful. [26] God even stated that their destruction would be “a sign and a wonder to you and your descendants forever” (Deuteronomy 28:46), paralleling the mark upon Cain.
The placement of a sign “for your descendants forever” suggests God will protect a remnant despite his curse-judgments of destruction upon them. Israel’s separation from God and the land seems to mark a cycle of destruction upon Israel. The cycle of destruction is so complete that Israel’s Sabbatical covenant “sign”(Exodus 31:16), is replaced with the sign of never-ending destruction throughout her generations (Deuteronomy 28:46), pointing to her unrepentance.
Israel’s history is stamped with the sign of destruction yet unmistakably shows the preserving mark of Cain. This unique sign of destruction testifies against those unwilling to repent while also serving as a sign to the remnant that will repent. It is illustrated in Figure 1. Christ warned that the first would be last, hinting that Israel’s repentance (as firstborn), would come at the end of the eschatological harvest.
One might expect that the consummation of the cycle of Israel’s destruction will be seen in the tribulation, leading a remnant to repentance. That remnant then joins the new-world order. The masses that remain unrepentant remain part of the old-world order that is passing away, with destruction as a perpetual sign of unrepentance. Given that this sign is perpetual, the destruction cannot result in total annihilation. Thus, the sign of perpetual destruction becomes a preserving sign, like that of Cain. [27]
Relevance for Christians Today
Perhaps most interesting in Jewish tradition is the idea of Cain as one who denied future judgment. In denying a future judgment, Cain becomes a symbol of lawless individuals who comingle with true believers and quietly introduce destructive heresies within the body of Christ:
4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. 5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home–these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. 9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you!” 10 Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals–these are the very things that destroy them. 11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. Jude 1
Jude shows the conflict has existed from “long ago”, going back to Cain, marked by sexual immorality and carnality (“by instinct like unreasoning animals”), rejection of spiritual authority, denial of the sovereignty of Christ and ultimately opposing and persecuting those of faith. Changing God’s grace into a license for immorality is noteworthy given Cain’s descendant Lameck was the first to have two wives, an immoral violation of the marriage covenant.
The “way of Cain” is described using “godless”, “deny Jesus Christ”, “dreamers”, “pollute their own bodies”, “reject authority”, “slander celestial beings”, “speak abusively” “do not understand”, “by instinct, like unreasoning animals”. Changing God’s grace into license for immorality, they destroy themselves in pursuing these things.
The reminder that God destroyed those he delivered because they did not believe, points to the unbelief of those who follow the way of Cain. They do not believe, are unrepentant, and the description of having “secretly slipped in among you” reveals their purpose to lead believers astray.
The boldness of their rebellion and deceptions shows they do not believe in coming judgment. They are free to live as they see fit, willfully committing covenantal violations. Their behavior is in no way constrained by the warnings of judgment brought upon Israel’ for unbelief, nor the imprisonment of rebellious angels nor the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is what Cain came to represent. In denying Christ as sovereign – much as Cain denied Abel’s election, they are enemies of Christ, a threat to “all entrusted to God’s holy people” (vs 3).
The warnings reveal that true worship is comingled with false worship. The sinful behaviors of the faithless apostates are compared to the way of Cain: faithless, immoral, lascivious, libertine and slanderous. By rejecting authority, they deny the deity of Christ.
Cain is thus portrayed as the quintessential enemy of the truth of the Word, one in opposition to the authority and teaching of God. He is a teacher and leader of sinful practices within the congregation of the saints. His evil behavior is further described in 1 John 3:
11 This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him.16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
John contrasts Cain – who belongs to the evil one – with Christ, the righteous One: the one who hates his brother with the One who loves his brothers, the one who murdered his brother with the One who laid down his life for his brothers. It makes Cain the representative head of those opposed to Christ.
If the narrative of Cain is typical, it suggests that God has placed a mark upon Israel for our age despite her rejection of Christ. Christ has not rejected Israel but will faithfully bring a remnant to salvation. They will know the joy of Christ, having crossed from death to life, having left the old order of Mount Sinai and traveled to spiritual Mount Zion:
18 You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; 19 to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, 20 because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned.” 21 The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, 23 to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. Hebrews 12
The writer of Hebrews draws a comparison between the covenant of Sinai and that of Christ, paralleling the blood of Jesus with the blood of Abel. The declared superiority of Jesus’ blood suggests Abel’s martyrdom at the hands of his brother foreshadowed Christ’s murder at the hands of His Jewish brethren. The reference to sprinkled blood assures that it was not just murder and martyrdom but blood sacrifice for sin.
What the religious leaders meant for evil, God had foreordained for good. How strikingly ironic and unexpected that their murder of Christ would provide the needed sacrifice for sins for all, including those culpable for His death. Christ’s love for all, and particularly for His brethren, was evident in laying His life down for His brothers, to provide a means to reconciliation with God.
It brings an answer to the question earlier proposed regarding God’s commitment to Israel in the event she debilitates into greater degrees of wickedness throughout our age. God’s love for Israel, and His commitment to Abraham reveal a love undiminished even if evil in her greatly enlarges. The offer of repentance and restoration stands. How shockingly different is Christ’s way from Cain’s way, and how incredibly better.
[1] The progression of sin in these protological chapters can be traced from individual to family, societal and consummating with sins against all creation.
[2] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 99
[3] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 96
[4] Numerous views have been advanced to explain the rejection of Cain’s sacrifice. Some clues may be found in the sacrifice itself. Each offering was made publicly, and it seems reasonable that the acceptance would also be public. Some expositors believe the sign of acceptance was fire from heaven, and if so, may parallel the offerings of the prophets of Baal versus that of Elijah’s offering (1 Kings 18:16-40). Fire from heaven would suggest a burnt offering. Offerings recorded in early Genesis were burnt offerings involving blood sacrifice (cf. Noah’s sacrifices, Genesis 8:20 and Abraham’s sacrifice on Mount Moriah, Genesis 22:2-13). The emergence of grain and first-fruit offerings was not seen prior to the Passover, the ordination of the Priests and consecration of the Tabernacle after the exodus from Egypt. The Passover Lamb was a blood sacrifice and burnt offering, being roasted and eaten with unleavened bread (a grain offering). The sacrifice of the lamb and application of the blood to the doorpost of the house preceded eating the lamb and unleavened bread, suggesting the pre-eminence of the blood sacrifice to the grain offering as a burnt offering. Burnt offerings occurred during the ordination of the Priests and consecration of the Tabernacle, involving blood sacrifice and grain offerings. The first offering was a sin offering, a burnt offering involving blood sacrifice (cf. Leviticus 8) which was followed by a burnt offering of a ram and then a consecration offering (burnt offering) of a ram and of grain(s) – again suggesting the pre-eminence of the blood sacrifice. However, the Hebrew used in this passage for offering is מנחה minchah meaning tribute or gift offering, typically sacrifices offered without blood. Though blood sacrifices may have preeminence over grain offerings, the use of minchah suggests no such lesson is present here. Also often argued is the source of Cain’s offering: the ground, which had been cursed. Scripture records no acceptable grain or first-fruit offerings before the flood, an event that symbolized baptism, washing and purifying the earth, allowing acceptable grain and fruit offerings. God’s post-flood promise never again to curse the ground suggests the cleansing of the ground, making way for offerings of the ground. The use of minchah calls this theory into question as well. Scripture does not specify the type of offering or method of acceptance. The best explanation may be God’s assessment of the heart of each offerer. Cain failed to offer the first-fruits or the best of his fruits. His focus was on the outward observance of the offering in order to “acquire” the blessing, rather than demonstrating a heart of gratitude. Or it is possible that God sovereignly determined that Abel as the second born foreshadowed the coming second man as the true arbiter of God’s everlasting covenant?
[5] It is interesting that the ancient Sumerians had a demon named Rabisu, “the croucher”. “Many of the names [of the demons] are those of diseases, others are names of hostile forces in nature, or of the characteristic activities of certain demons, e.g., we often hear of Rabisu, “the croucher,” because he was supposed to lie in wait secretly.” Hooke, S. H., Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1963, p. 77. See also Saggs, H.W.F., The Greatness that was Babylon, New York, The New American Library, 1962, p.456 which argues the Hebrew word rabats likely derives from rabisu, the Sumerian word for the demon “the croucher”. If the Hebrew has its basis in a Sumerian demon, it suggests the Hebrews believed in demon possession at a much earlier date than prior acknowledged by some scholars.
[6] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 99-100.
[7] In Genesis 1:28, God blessed man with “life” by giving him the ability to (re)produce life as God created life. In killing his brother, Cain has inverted God’s blessing, bringing the consequent curse of death. Though not cursed with immediate physical death, his separation from God is what Jewish people traditionally considered death.
[8] Von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis, A Commentary, Revised Edition, Bloomsbury Street London, SCM Press Ltd, 1972, p. 106
[9] If one views the garden as an earthly simulation of God’s Most-holy-place and the area surrounding the garden as an earthly simulation of God’s holy-place where priestly duties would be performed, then Cain’s departure further east to Nod could hint that he is moving to an earthly simulation of the outer court, the place traditionally viewed as holding the spiritually dead. If so, his exit from God’s presence carries deep significance, providing insight into the sinful plight that would follow his progeny.
[10] Gesenius’ Lexicon, available @ www.blueletterbible.org
[11] The Targums suggest an alternative translation “At that time men began to profane the name of the Lord.” We will consider this alternative in future studies though we believe that the present exegesis is most likely.
[12] The change in appointment was further validated by contrasting the genealogical line of Adam through Cain found in Genesis 4:17-18 against that of Adam through Seth found in Genesis 5. The genealogical line of Adam through Seth begins with the statement “This is the book of the generations” where Adam’s line through Cain does not have the familiar beginning “these are the generations of . . .” but merely lists the line of descent without giving ages at birth or death.
[13] Bauckham, Richard J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 50, Jude, 2 Peter, Waco TX, Word Books, Publisher, 1983, p. 80
[14] Bauckham, Richard J., Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 50, Jude, 2 Peter, Waco TX, Word Books, Publisher, 1983, p. 79
[15] Thackeray, H. St. J., M.A., English Translation of The Complete Works of Josephus,Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1978 p. 25-29
[16] The link to Babel may be important in Judaic and pagan thought as it brings a possible link to Rome through Babylon and ancient traditions of Romulus and Remus. “Augustine takes note that Cain murdered his brother Abel, so also Romulus killed Remus, that the city might carry his name (The City of Cod, xv 5). The identification of Rome as the chaotic earthly city is perhaps suggested also in its sitting upon seven hills, a city like Babylon (Revelation 17:9). The idea that the heavenly city had seven mountains is an ancient one, implicitly suggested in Proverbs 9:1 (wisdom’s house of creation rests on seven pillars) and explicitly noted in 1 Enoch 32. The chaos cities have in common the sacking of Jerusalem; Babylon destroys the first temple and Rome the second.” Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 59 Footnote 53. The link of Cain to Rome brings a possible parallel between Tubal-Cain and Vulcan: “The name Tubal-Cain, though aphaeresis of the Tu and interchange of the bilabial consonants b/v, reads remarkably like the Latin ‘Vulcan,’ the Roman god of fire and craftsmanship. This workmanship in bronze and iron suggests the tremendous technical advance of this race of Cainites. Iron work would not be commonly duplicated in Syro-Palestine until ca 900 B.C.” Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 112-113 Footnote .7 Also noteworthy, the ancient tradition that the heavenly city (Jerusalem?) was founded upon seven hills, enhances that Rome sought to be an Edenic simulation by fallen men (Cainites?).
[17] Thackeray, H. St. J., M.A., English Translation of The Complete Works of Josephus,Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1978 p. 31
[18] Josephus claims the punishment of Cain was to occur in the seventh generation, which may account for the reckless lifestyle seen in Lameck and his son Jubel. The claim may be included to point to the flood as the end of Cain’s line.
[19] Herod’s alarm upon hearing of the birth of the king of the Jews and his star in the east testify to his fear that a new world order would follow (Matthew 2:1-12).
[20] Note: “The condemnation of Cain corresponds to the judgment of Israel. Abel’s murderer, the fratricide Cain, became a fugitive. Likewise, Christ’s brethren put him to death (Acts 2:36), and Israel, the regicide, learned the despair of the diaspora.” Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 110
[21] Note the inversion in the testimony of John, where brotherly love is a willingness to lay down one’s life for his brother as Christ laid down His life for his brethren. The solution is not found in fratricide or blood-violence against one’s enemies, but in love defined by a willingness to sacrifice one’s life.
[22] Ironically, this was predicted by Moses in Deuteronomy 28:64b “you will serve other gods”.
[23] Wenham, Gordon J., Word Biblical Commentary 1, Genesis 1-15, Waco, Texas, Word Books, 1987, p. 156
[24] Cain did not come under the expected judgment of death in accordance with lex talionis. Rather he and his posterity are spared judgment until the end of the epoch when they (presumably along with their city) were destroyed in the flood. There may be a parallel between Cain’s preservation (and by implication the preservation of his city) and the preservation of Babel/Babylon from judgment until the end of the ages. In both cases, Yahweh saw fit to preserve what each came to represent, a rival false religious system that would test the hearts of true believers. In preserving Babylon, God assures that the conflict between the righteous seed of the woman and the unrighteous seed of Satan will continue throughout the age (Genesis 3:15)
[25] von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis, A Commentary, Bloomsbury Street London, SCM Press Ltd, 1972, p. 107
[26] The warning is offered using the Hebrew שמד shamad (Deuteronomy 28:20, 24, 45, 48, 51, 61, 63). Failing the covenant required death. As with Cain, Yahweh inexplicably preserves Israel despite the threat of annihilation from consistently failing the covenant. The explanation is found in the remnant. The door to Israel’s acceptance is left open for the sake of the remnant as the masses of Israel, like Cain, prefer to worship their own way.
[27] That Israel is condemned to death and destruction seven times in the covenant is not a surprise as Yahweh is illustrating the end consequences of unrepentant sin. Further, that Israel is preserved despite the seven-fold curse of destruction should come as no surprise. Destruction becomes a sign to the Jews, requiring the survival of a remnant to recognize the sign and repent. Ironically, in preserving unrepentant Israel till the end, Yahweh also fulfills His promise of Genesis 3:15 to preserve the enmity of the contending seed (the serpent’s seed) and the seed of the righteous (her seed) . The penalty for sin continues unabated until the end of the age.