Gênesis 4

Gênesis 4

MacArthur writes "Abel's offering was acceptable (cf. Heb 11:4+), not just because it was an animal, nor just because it was the very best of what he had, nor even that it was the culmination of a zealous heart for God; but, because it was in every way obediently given according to what God must have revealed (though not recorded in Genesis). Cain, disdaining the divine instruction, just brought what he wanted to bring: some of his crop." Allen Ross - Abel went out of his way to please God (which meant he had faith in God, Heb. 11:6), whereas Cain was simply discharging a duty. Abel’s actions were righteous, whereas Cain’s were evil (1 John 3:12). These two types of people are still present. (See context in The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Firstlings (firstborn) (01060) bekor means an offspring who came first in the order of birth (animals Ge 4:4) or persons (Ge 25:13). Swanson adds that bekor means "firstborn, usually, the first male offspring, the oldest son, with the associative meaning of prominence in the clan and privileges pertaining to clan and inheritance (Ge 43:33; Ne 10:37)." The firstborn of clean animals were sacrificed to the Lord (Dt. 12:6, 17), but the firstborn males of unclean animals could be redeemed (Nu 18:15) Walter Kaiser - Genesis 4:3–4 Did God Favor Abel over Cain? (Go to page 68 in Hard Sayings) Does God have favorites? Does he show partiality for one over another—in this case, Abel over Cain? And does God prefer shepherds to farmers? If not, what was the essential difference between these first two sacrifices in the Bible? The traditional interpretation says that the difference between Cain and Abel is that one offered a bloody sacrifice and the other did not. If this understanding is correct, why are neither we nor they given any specific instructions to that effect? Up to this point, that distinction had not been made. And even if a distinction between the use and absence of blood was in vogue at this early date, why are both sacrifices referred to throughout this whole narrative with the Hebrew term minḥâh, a “gift” or “meal offering”? The answers to these questions are not as difficult as they may appear. There is only one point on which there can be legitimate puzzlement: nothing in this episode indicates that this is the inauguration of the sacrificial system. While it does appear that this is the first time anyone ever sacrificed anything, the text does not specifically say so. That will remain, at best, only an inference. Actually, the supposition that Cain and Abel’s father, Adam, originated sacrifices may be closer to the truth, since no command authorizing or requesting sacrifices appears in these first chapters of Genesis. The whole subject of the origins of sacrifice is one that scholars have debated long and hard, but the subject remains a mystery. Even with this much caution, we must be careful about importing back into the times of Adam and Eve the instructions that Moses was later given on sacrifices. The word used to describe “sacrifice” throughout this episode of Cain and Abel is the word used in the broadest sense, minḥâh. It covers any type of gift that any person might bring. Consequently, the merit one gift might have over another does not lie in the content or type of gift—including the presence or absence of blood. Of course, there was a problem with Cain’s “gift”—he was the problem. Genesis 4:3 describes how Cain merely brought “some” of the fruits of the field. Nothing can be said about the fact that he, as an agriculturalist, naturally brought what farmers have to give. But when his offering is contrasted with Abel’s, a flaw immediately shows up. Abel gave what cost him dearly, the “fat pieces”—in that culture considered the choicest parts—of “the firstborn” of his flock. Abel could very well have rationalized, as we might have done, that he would wait until some of those firstborn animals had matured and had one, two or three lambs of their own. Certainly at that point it would have been possible to give an even larger gift to God, and Abel would have been further ahead as well. But he gave instead what cost him most, the “firstborn.” The telltale signs that we are dealing here with a contrast between formalistic worship and true worship are the emphasis that the text gives to the men and the verb it uses with both of them. In Genesis 4:4–5 there are four emphatic marks used with reference to the two brothers. Literally, the Hebrew of verses 4 and 5 says, “And Abel, he brought, indeed, even he, some of the firstlings of his flock and some of the fat portions belonging to him. And the Lord regarded with favor Abel and [then] his offering. But unto Cain and [then] unto his offering, he did not have regard.” Clearly the focus of this passage is on the men. There are four emphatic elements in the text that mark this emphasis: first, the man’s name; then the verb for “bringing” with the pronominal suffix; then the emphasizing particle gam; and finally the personal independent pronoun. It is difficult to see how the writer could have made it any more pointed that it was the men, and their hearts’ condition, that was the determinative factor in God’s deciding whose sacrifice was to be accepted. The text almost stutters: “And Abel, he, he also, he brought.” The verb shā˓âh means “to gaze,” but when it is used with the preposition ˒el (“unto” or “toward”), as it is here, it means “to regard with favor.” Ever since Luther, commentators have noticed that God’s favor was pointedly directed toward the person first and then, and only then, toward the offering that person brought. Accordingly, this became the determinative factor in all worship: the heart attitude of the individual. If the heart was not found acceptable, the gift was likewise unacceptable. It is true that an old Greek translation of this text rendered shā˓âh in Greek as enepyrisen, “he kindled.” Apparently the translator wanted to say that on some occasions God did kindle acceptable sacrifices. But since there is a double object for this verb, namely, Abel and his sacrifice, this translation is unacceptable, for it would set the man on fire as well as the sacrifice! That Cain’s heart and not his offering was the real problem here can be seen from the last part of verse 5: “So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast”—literally, “it burned Cain greatly [or, to the core] and his face dropped.” God’s displeasure with Cain revealed the sad state of affairs in Cain’s heart. Instead of moving to rectify his attitude, Cain let it harden into murder. For the moment, however, anger hid itself in Cain’s eyes—he avoided looking anyone in the eye. Averting his own gaze, he kept others from seeing (through the eye gate) what was in his heart. Hermann Gunkel—who unwisely called this episode a myth—was truly unjustified in claiming this story taught that God loved shepherds but not farmers. Despite others who have followed Gunkel’s lead, there is no proven connection between this narrative and any parallel stories in the ancient Near East of rivalries between shepherds and farmers. Sacrifice in the Old Testament is not a “preapproved” way of earning divine credit. The principle behind it remains the same as it does for all acts of service and ritual in the Christian faith today: God always inspects the giver and the worshiper before he inspects the gift, service or worship. See also comment on 1 SAMUEL 15:22 (Does the Lord Delight in Sacrifices? go to page 180); PSALM 51:16–17, 19 (Does God Desire Sacrifices? go to page 245). (Hard Sayings) Genesis 4:5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. LXE but Cain and his sacrifices he regarded not, and Cain was exceedingly sorrowful and his countenance fell. BGT ἐπὶ δὲ Καιν καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις αὐτοῦ οὐ προσέσχεν καὶ ἐλύπησεν τὸν Καιν λίαν καὶ συνέπεσεν τῷ προσώπῳ KJV But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. NET but with Cain and his offering he was not pleased. So Cain became very angry, and his expression was downcast. CSB but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he looked despondent. ERV but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. ESV but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. NIV but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. NLT but he did not accept Cain and his gift. This made Cain very angry, and he looked dejected. NRS but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. YLT and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen. GWN but he didn't approve of Cain and his offering. So Cain became very angry and was disappointed. NKJ but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. NAB but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. NJB But he did not look with favour on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast. ASV but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. DBY and upon Cain, and on his offering, he did not look. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. BBE But in Cain and his offering he had no pleasure. And Cain was angry and his face became sad. BHT wü´el-qaºyin wü´el-minHätô lö´ šä`â wayyìºHar lüqaºyin mü´öd wa|yyiPPülû Pänäyw NIRV But he wasn't pleased with Cain and his offering. So Cain became very angry. His face was sad. RSV but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. but for Cain - Nu 16:15 Heb 11:4 So Cain became very angry - Ge 31:2,5 Job 5:2 Ps 20:3 Isa 3:10,11 Mt 20:15 Lu 15:28-30 Ac 13:45 Genesis 4 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries GOD DID NOT GAZE AT CAIN'S OFFERING But - Term of contrast in this case ultimately contrasting the lives and destinies of two brothers. For Cain and for his offering (minchah) He had no regard (shaah) - NLT = "but he did not accept Cain and his gift." The text does not tell us how God let Cain know his offering was not acceptable. Derek Kidner - It is precarious to claim that the absence of blood disqualified Cain’s gift (cf. Dt. 26:1–11); all that is explicit here is that Abel offered the pick of his flock and that Cain’s spirit was arrogant (Ge 4:5b; cf. Prov. 21:27). The New Testament draws out the further important implications that Cain’s life, unlike Abel’s, gave the lie to his offering (1 John 3:12) and that Abel’s faith was decisive for his acceptance (Heb. 11:4). (See context in Genesis - Tyndale OT Commentary or borrow Genesis: an introduction and commentary) Cain wasn’t rejected because of his offering, but his offering was rejected because of Cain: his heart wasn’t right with God. --Warren Wiersbe THOUGHT - The fact that people attend religious meetings and participate in church activities is no proof that they’re true believers. It’s possible to have “a form of godliness” but never experience its saving power (2 Tim. 3:5). “These people come near to Me with their mouth and honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me” (Isa. 29:13; Matt. 15:8). The most costly sacrifices apart from the submission of the heart can never make the worshiper right before God (Ps. 51:16–17). “The way of Cain” (Jude 11) is the way of self-will and unbelief. (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament) Allen Ross - In contrast to Abel’s offering, Cain’s is simply mentioned—he brought an offering of the fruit of the ground. Cassuto concludes that, whereas the one worshiper went out of his way to please God, the other simply discharged a duty (see context in Commentary on Genesis, vol. 1, p. 205). That there was something wrong with Cain’s attitude or motivation may be seen immediately in the Lord’s response: “And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but he did not respect Cain and his offering.” In each case the person is mentioned before the offering, which suggests that the kind of offering is not as important to the story as the attitude of the person making the offering. Here again we can see that Cain is not right. (A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis) Bruce Waltke concludes (see below) that "Elsewhere Yahweh rejected the gifts of Korah (Nu 16:15), Saul's men (1Sa 26:19), and apostate Israel (Isa 1:13), not because of some blemish in their offering, but because of their deformed characters. The three NT uses of Cain paint a picture of why his offering was rejected by God - Cain was without faith (cf Heb 11:6) and of his father the devil. And ultimately he did the deeds of his father by murdering his brother because of his anger and jealousy. Hebrews 11:4+ By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 1 John 3:12+ not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. Comment - John explains that Cain's "deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous." (1Jn 3:12). Deeds is plural and would include the deeds of his offering and his murder. Both were evil. While some writers posit that Cain's offering was unacceptable because it was not an animal, but that is not easy to support because the word used for offering (minchah) was used in Leviticus for grain or cereal offerings which were acceptable to the LORD. Jude 1:11+ Woe to them (WHO IS THEM? Jude 1:10)! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. So - Term of conclusion. Based on God's disapproval of his offering. Cain became (charah) very (meod) angry (charah) - Cain should have been crushed in spirit and contrite in heart, but that was not to be! Note that charah is used twice which intensifies the picture of Cain's anger! In addition the Hebrew text adds the word meod which even further intensifies the degree of his anger as "muchness" or "abundance." Literally the Hebrew reads "and it was hot to Cain" which pictures him filled with angry (possibly even with face flushed because he was so angry). We would describe Cain as "burning with anger!" Given that Cain's anger led to murder, it is interesting to note that when Samson's anger was kindled, he killed thirty men in Ashkelon (Jdg 14:19+). Note well that Cain's lack of faith is shown by his response to God's displeasure. In other words, Cain's reaction was a reflection of the state of his unbelieving heart (See Jesus' description of "evil thoughts, murders" in Mt 15:18-20+), causing him to respond with a storm of rage that eventually led to murder, instead of responding with an attitude of brokenness and contrition, which the LORD would have readily received (Ps 51:16, 17). Allen Ross - Cain’s lack of faith shows up in his response to God’s rejection of his offering of fruit (Gen. 4:5). Rather than being concerned about remedying the situation and pleasing God, he was very angry. (See context in The Bible Knowledge Commentary) Alfred Edersheim - Instead of inquiring into the reason of his rejection, and trying to have it removed, Cain now gave way to feelings of anger and jealousy. In His mercy, God indeed brought before him his sin, warned him of its danger, and pointed out the way of escape. But Cain had chosen his course. And his countenance (panim/paniym) fell - Literally the Hebrew reads "and his face fell." The NET NOTE explains "The idiom means that the inner anger is reflected in Cain’s facial expression. When someone is extremely angry it is difficult to hide this deep emotion. The fallen or downcast face expresses anger, dejection, or depression. Conversely, in Num 6 the high priestly blessing speaks of the LORD lifting up his face and giving peace." Thompson on his countenance fell - When the text says Cain’s “countenance fell” it is not just a reference to something facial, but also something theological . Cain’s relationship to God, his status, his position fell from that which was once honorable, to that which is sinful . The heart of Cain's offering problem, was the problem of his heart! In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke about offering from a right heart. “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering. (Mt 5:23-24+) While Cain may not have need to be reconciled to Abel prior to his offering, after Yahweh rejected his offering, clearly Cain became very angry. The text does not say at whom his anger was directed, but by simple deduction (in context of his rejection of God's plea to "get right" and his subsequent murder of Abel) Cain was very angry with God and with Abel. God was giving him and opportunity in Ge 4:6-7 to be reconciled and then present his offering with a right heart attitude, an attitude of faith. Sadly Cain rejected reconciliation and chose "revenge!" The rest is history! THOUGHT - When people are affirming and praising us, it’s very easy to be nice. The test comes when we are criticized or rejected; how do we react then? How can we tell if a grape is ripe? We squeeze it, and see if the juice is sweet or bitter. Cain was “squeezed,” and out came bitterness. (Thomas Hale in Applied Old Testament Commentary) Regard (look, turn gaze)(08159) (shaah) means to look at with interest. To gaze intentionally or look intently (Job 7:19; Ps. 39:13). Shaah is never a casual or disinterested look. Ge 4:4 has the connotation to look upon with approval so as to accept. to look on some burdensome thing or situation in trepidation, dismay (Ex. 5:9). To look on some burdensome thing or situation in trepidation or dismay (Ex. 5:9). It can mean to hope for or desire (2Sa 22:42). Looking at with high regard and appreciation (Isa. 17:7) or just the opposite according to context (Isa. 17:8; 41:10). Isaiah 17:7-8 God says that the time is coming when a "man will regard his maker" and no more have regard for the altars which his hands have made. It can also have the sense of seeing with understanding (Isa. 32:3). Another sense means to look at something with dismay. (cf Isa. 41:10, 23) In Isa 31:1 Israel looks to horses and chariots and not to the Holy One of Israel. Another meaning is "look away from," (with the preposition min) always in a request meaning "leave me alone!" (Isa 22:4; Job 7:19; Job 14:6; Ps 39:13). NET NOTE - The Hebrew verb שָׁעָה (sha’ah) simply means “to gaze at, to have regard for, to look on with favor [or “with devotion”].” The text does not indicate how this was communicated, but it indicates that Cain and Abel knew immediately. Either there was some manifestation of divine pleasure given to Abel and withheld from Cain (fire consuming the sacrifice?), or there was an inner awareness of divine response Shaah - 15x in 14v gaze away(1), had regard(1), had...regard(1), have regard(3), look(3), looked(1), pay...attention(1), turn your eyes(1), turn your gaze(2), turn your gaze away(1). Gen. 4:4; Gen. 4:5; Exod. 5:9; 2 Sam. 22:42; Job 7:19; Job 14:6; Ps. 39:13; Ps. 119:117; Isa. 17:7; Isa. 17:8; Isa. 22:4; Isa. 31:1; Isa. 41:10; Isa. 41:23 Became angry (02734)(charah) means to burn or be kindled with anger, and in the Hithpael, charah is used 4x (Ps 37:1, 7,8, Pr 24:19) always meaning "to worry" and describing the agitation, irritation or vexation resulting from active worry. Charah is used in reference to the anger of both man and God. The verb emphasizes the kindling and burning aspects of anger. This primary nuance is attested in Talmudic and Middle Hebrew. There is evidence of the translation "rage" found in Yaudic, Middle Hebrew, Targumic, Arabic and Syriac. In the Qal stem, the noun aph is usually the subject, yielding the Hebrew idiom, "nose was kindled." Although aph is often omitted, e.g., "it was kindled." Often the anger of a human is kindled. When Potiphar's wife made the false claim that Joseph had made sexual advances on her, Potiphar's anger was kindled, and Joseph was thrown in prison (Ge 39:19f). Moses' anger burned when he came down from Mount Sinai after receiving the Ten Commandments because of the sin which the Israelites committed in making a golden calf (Ex 32:19). When the Philistines extorted the answer to Samson's riddle from his wife, Samson's anger was kindled, and he killed thirty men in Ashkelon (Jdg. 14:19). When Saul heard that Nahash the Ammonite had threatened to gouge out the eyes of the Israelites, he became angry and raised an army to defeat the Ammonites (1Sa 11:6). Charah in Genesis - Gen. 4:5; Gen. 4:6; Gen. 18:30; Gen. 18:32; Gen. 30:2; Gen. 31:35; Gen. 31:36; Gen. 34:7; Gen. 39:19; Gen. 44:18; Gen. 45:5 Very (great, exceedingly)(03966) meod is usually used as an adverb. (and means "very" - Ge 1:31) Me'ōd occurs in many combinations with adjectives and verbs to communicate the idea of “exceeding,” thereby showing an intensification of the word modified (1 Sa 20:19; Obad. 2; Ps. 31:11; 46:1; 139:14). Below are words used to translate meod in the NASB.... abundantly(1), all(1), almost(1), badly(3), carefully(1), closely(1), diligent(1), diligently(3), enough(1), especially(1), exceeding(1), exceedingly(14), exceedingly*(3), excessive(1), extremely*(1), far(1), firmly(1), fully(1), great(16), great abundance(1), greatly(52), greatly*(1), hard(1), harder*(1), highly(4), immense(1), louder(1), measure(2), might(2), more(2), more*(1), most(1), much*(1), quickly(1), richly(1), serious*(1), severely(1), so(2), so much(1), sorely(1), strongly(1), swiftly(1), too(2), utterly(1), utterly*(3), very(139), very well(1), very*(2), violently(1), violently*(1), well(2). Countenance (06440) panim/paniym/paneh occurs over 2000x and is a masculine plural (it always occurs in plural in OT) noun which literally means face (Ge 43:31; Lev. 13:41; 1Kgs. 19:13). Paniym can be a substitute for the entire person (Ex 33:14,15). More often it is used figuratively. The face identifies a person and reflects attitude and sentiments of person. As such, panim can be a substitute for the self or the feelings of the self. The "face" (along w other parts of body) is described not merely as an exterior instrument in one's physiology, but rather as being engaged in some from of behavioral pattern, and is thus characterized by some personal quality. It is only natural that the face was considered to be extraordinarily revealing vis-a-vis a man's emotions, moods, and dispositions. Paniym is used many times in Genesis - Gen. 1:2; Gen. 1:20; Gen. 1:29; Gen. 2:6; Gen. 3:8; Gen. 4:5; Gen. 4:6; Gen. 4:14; Gen. 4:16; Gen. 6:1; Gen. 6:7; Gen. 6:11; Gen. 6:13; Gen. 7:1; Gen. 7:3; Gen. 7:4; Gen. 7:7; Gen. 7:18; Gen. 7:23; Gen. 8:8; Gen. 8:9; Gen. 8:13; Gen. 9:23; Gen. 10:9; Gen. 11:4; Gen. 11:8; Gen. 11:9; Gen. 11:28; Gen. 13:9; Gen. 13:10; Gen. 16:6; Gen. 16:8; Gen. 16:12; Gen. 17:1; Gen. 17:3; Gen. 17:17; Gen. 17:18; Gen. 18:8; Gen. 18:16; Gen. 18:22; Gen. 19:13; Gen. 19:27; Gen. 19:28; Gen. 20:15; Gen. 23:3; Gen. 23:4; Gen. 23:8; Gen. 23:12; Gen. 23:17; Gen. 23:19; Gen. 24:7; Gen. 24:33; Gen. 24:40; Gen. 24:51; Gen. 25:9; Gen. 25:18; Gen. 27:7; Gen. 27:10; Gen. 27:30; Gen. 27:46; Gen. 29:26; Gen. 30:30; Gen. 30:40; Gen. 31:2; Gen. 31:5; Gen. 31:21; Gen. 31:35; Gen. 32:3; Gen. 32:16; Gen. 32:17; Gen. 32:20; Gen. 32:21; Gen. 32:30; Gen. 33:3; Gen. 33:10; Gen. 33:14; Gen. 33:18; Gen. 34:10; Gen. 36:7; Gen. 36:31; Gen. 38:15; Gen. 40:7; Gen. 40:9; Gen. 41:31; Gen. 41:43; Gen. 41:46; Gen. 41:56; Gen. 43:3; Gen. 43:5; Gen. 43:9; Gen. 43:14; Gen. 43:15; Gen. 43:31; Gen. 43:33; Gen. 43:34; Gen. 44:14; Gen. 44:23; Gen. 44:26; Gen. 45:3; Gen. 45:5; Gen. 45:7; Gen. 46:28; Gen. 46:30; Gen. 47:2; Gen. 47:6; Gen. 47:7; Gen. 47:10; Gen. 47:13; Gen. 48:11; Gen. 48:15; Gen. 48:20; Gen. 49:30; Gen. 50:1; Gen. 50:13; Gen. 50:16; Gen. 50:18 GOTQUESTIONS - Why did God accept Abel’s offering but reject Cain’s offering? Why did Cain then kill Abel? ANSWER - The stories of the first act of worship in human history and the first murder are recorded in Genesis chapter 4. The act of worship—Cain’s and Abel’s offerings—follows the account of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, their disobedience to God, and the entrance of sin into the human race. Death, the judgment pronounced upon them by God, soon made its entrance in the first family. Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, “in the course of time” brought offerings to the Lord (Genesis 4:3). Without doubt, they were doing this because God had revealed to them the necessity of a sacrifice. Some wonder how Cain and Abel were supposed to know what to sacrifice. The answer is that God must have instructed them concerning the details of acceptable worship, although those instructions are not included in the Genesis narrative. Abel was a shepherd, and his offering to the Lord was “the best portions of the firstborn lambs from his flock” (Genesis 4:4NLT). Cain was a farmer, and his offering was “some of his crops” (Genesis 4:4NLT). The most evident difference between the two sacrifices is that Abel’s offering was an animal (blood) sacrifice, and Cain’s was a vegetable (bloodless) sacrifice. There may be an additional implication that, while Abel brought “the best portions,” Cain simply brought some of his ordinary crops. Scripture does not give an indication, however, that either of these differences factored into God’s acceptance of Abel and rejection of Cain. What we know for sure is that “the LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor” (Genesis 4:4–5). We also know that God looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). There was something in Cain’s motivation and heart attitude, and possibly something in his performance, that made his offering unacceptable to God. It was obviously something that he was aware of and could remedy, since God tells him after the fact, “You will be accepted if you do what is right” (Genesis 4:7NLT). Abel, on the other hand, had the proper motivation, the proper procedure, and the proper relationship with God. That relationship was based on faith: “By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did” (Hebrews 11:4). Ever since the beginning, people must come to God in faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11:6), and faith is evidently what Cain lacked. In Jude 1:11, we read, “They have taken the way of Cain,” a description that refers to lawless men. This may mean that they, like Cain, disobediently devised their own ways of worship, and they did not come to God by faith. Cain’s offering, while acceptable in his own eyes, was not acceptable to the Lord. In some way, Cain had perverted God’s prescribed form of worship, and his heart was not right. He grew jealous of Abel, and he selfishly nursed his wounded pride. Rather than repent at God’s rebuke, Cain became angry, and later, in the field, he killed Abel and brought judgment upon himself (Genesis 4:8). The apostle John gives us more insight into Cain’s heart: “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” (1 John 3:12). Those who belong to the evil one will have evil actions, and those with evil actions will naturally hate those with righteous actions. The evil in Cain’s heart was further revealed when the Lord asked him, “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain replied, “I don’t know. . . . Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). In this response Cain tells a stone-cold lie and shows an amazing level of insolence. When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, He became the substitutionary atonement for our sins. The blood of Christ “speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:24). Both Abel and Christ were slain by wicked men. But, as the theologian Erasmus commented, “The blood of Abel cried for vengeance; that of Christ for remission.”GotQuestions.org Norman Geisler - GENESIS 4:5—Does God show respect to certain persons? PROBLEM: God is represented in the Scriptures as someone who “is no respect[er] of persons” (Rom. 2:11, KJV), and one who “shows no partiality” (Deut. 10:17). Yet, this verse tells us that God “did not respect Cain and his offering,” which seems contradictory to the other verses. SOLUTION: First of all, in the fundamental sense of the word, God respects every person for who he or she is, a creature made in His image and likeness (Gen. 1:27). If He didn’t, He would not be respecting Himself. But, when the Bible says God is no respecter of persons, it means that He does not show partiality in meeting out His justice. As Deuteronomy 10 puts it, He “shows no partiality nor takes a bribe” (v. 17). In other words, God is completely fair and even-handed in His dealings. However, there is a sense in which it can be said that God does not respect some persons because of their evil deeds. God “did not respect Cain and his offering” (Gen. 4:5) because it was not offered in faith (Heb. 11:4). Thus, the Bible also speaks of God hating Esau (Mal. 1:3) and the Nicolaitans (Rev. 2:6), not because of their person, but because of their practice. As John told the believers at Ephesus, they should “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans” (Rev. 2:6). God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Related Resources: Bruce K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 363–72. - If you are wrestling with the interpretation of why God accepted Abel and rejected Cain's offerings, I would recommend taking a few moments and reading this 10 page article by Waltke. Here is his conclusion... Although the narrative by repeating the preposition 'el with both the proper names, Abel and Cain, and with minha syntactically distinguishes the brothers and their offerings, yet theologically, as suggested above, the two are inseparable. Elsewhere Yahweh rejected the gifts of Korah (Nu16:15), Saul's men (1Sa 26:19), and apostate Israel (Isa 1:13), not because of some blemish in their offering, but because of their deformed characters. Cain's flawed character led to his feigned worship. Had his mind been enlightened Jack P. Lewis, “The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A History of Interpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):481-96. (click for article) Genesis 4:6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? LXE And the Lord God said to Cain, Why art thou become very sorrowful and why is thy countenance fallen? BGT καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῷ Καιν ἵνα τί περίλυπος ἐγένου καὶ ἵνα τί συνέπεσεν τὸ πρόσωπόν σου KJV And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? NET Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? CSB Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why do you look despondent? ERV And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? ESV The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? NIV Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? NLT "Why are you so angry?" the LORD asked Cain. "Why do you look so dejected? NRS The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? YLT And Jehovah saith unto Cain, 'Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen? GWN Then the LORD asked Cain, "Why are you angry, and why do you look disappointed? NKJ So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? NAB So the LORD said to Cain: "Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? NJB Yahweh asked Cain, 'Why are you angry and downcast? ASV And Jehovah said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? DBY And Jehovah said to Cain, Why art thou angry, and why is thy countenance fallen? BBE And the Lord said to Cain, Why are you angry? and why is your face sad? BHT wayyöº´mer yhwh(´ädönäy) ´el-qäºyin loºmmâ Häºrâ läk wüläºmmâ näplû pänʺkä NAS Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? NIRV Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why are you looking so sad? RSV The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 1Ch 13:11-13 Job 5:2 Isa 1:18 Jer 2:5,31 Joh 4:1-4,8-11 Mic 6:3-5 Mt 20:15 Lu 15:31,32 Genesis 4 Resources - Multiple sermons and commentaries Cain, by Henri Vidal, 1896, YAHWEH'S RHETORICAL QUESTIONS TO CAIN Then - Pay attention to this word as it usually marks progression in a narrative so helps to establish the timeframe. The LORD said to Cain - At this time in man's history God was still speaking directly with man. How was He manifest? We simply do not know, but He spoke audibly and clearly. "Why are you angry (charah)? And why has your countenance (panim/paniym) fallen? - Notice how the LORD phrases these two facts as questions (i.e., rhetorical questions), in an attempt to give Cain an opportunity to acknowledge his sin. THOUGHT - Believers need to heed this lesson of Cain's anger out of control. We are on dangerous ground when we become angry and even righteous anger can be an opportunity for Satan to shoot fiery missiles at our minds. Paul writes "BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27and do not give the devil an opportunity." (Eph 4:26-27+)