Chapter 4
Theology- Like Chapter 3, Chapter 4 displays the justice and mercy of God. God even reaches out to Cain and tells him, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be his desire, and you shall rule over him” (vs7). God doesn’t leave us without instruction. The path of righteousness is written, and God warns us of the deceitful nature of sin.
After Cain kills his brother, God again gives room for repentance, as He did with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. He asks Cain where his brother Abel is (9). Only after Cain denied having any knowledge of his brother did God pass down judgment. It should be noted here that the rightful judgment for Cain would have been death. But God spares his life and exiles him instead. The judgment is still heavy. He removed his profession from him, tilling the ground (2), by declaring that the ground would no longer yield its fruit for him (12), and then exiling him among the heathans. Even at this time, it was known that the heathens of the world were brutish and deadly, for Cain feared for his life (14). Again, God showed mercy to Cain and put a mark on him, a mark that protected him from harm.
Why does God show mercy to some and not to others? In this chapter, it would have been within God’s premium to slay Cain as Cain did to Abel. Instead, God showed him mercy, “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion” (Romans 9:15). At the same time, we know there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:11). Some would see this as a contradiction, for while we see that God has no partiality, He does show favor to some while denying the same favor to others.
The laws apply to all equally. We are all under the law of sin and death. Even before Cain rose up against his brother Abel, he had no faith in God in his heart. The law of sin and death still applied to him. But, God also showed him grace, not because Cain was in any way a good man, nor that he merited favor. But He showed him favor and grace so that His plans could be made, and His justice would be clearly seen in the near future.
When God shows favor, this is not a partiality as we would see partiality. It is favor for the sake of His glory alone.
Christology- In many ways, Abel and his sacrifice can be seen as pictures of Christ. Hebrews 11:4 tells us that Abel was commended as righteous. It wasn’t for a wrong that Abel was murdered by Cain, but instead for a right. Abel was righteous and this spurred Cain to a jealous rage in which he rose up and slew his brother. Jesus, likewise, wasn’t put to death for any wrong he had committed. Instead, it was because of His righteousness that the Pharisees rose up against Him to have Him crucified.
It’s impossible to know how old Abel was when Cain slew him, except to say that he was old enough to raise cattle and to be held responsible for his own sacrifice. However, we do know that his name, הבל, “Habel” or Abel, means breath. This name has a prophetic sense to it in the sense that his life is cut short, much in the same way that a breath is but a short increment of time. Likewise, Jesus had his life taken from Him at a relatively young age, around 33, and his Earthly ministry was a short three years. Like Abel, the ministry of Jesus was cut short.
The sacrifice of Abel was also a reflection of the Christ. Abel brought his firstborn, Jesus is the firstborn among man (Romans 8:29). Abel also brought, “The fat thereof” vs 4. To mean, Abel brought the best of his flock to the Lord. Jesus is the spotless lamb of God, and the one and only pure sacrifice. He is the best of the Lord. Finally, God had respect for Abel’s sacrifice. When Jesus was baptized, the Father spoke from Heaven as the Holy Spirit descended on Him and said, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17).
So Jesus is depicted as a two-fold witness. First Abel himself, who was murdered although innocent. Also, Christ is depicted in Abel’s sacrifice, which was the firstborn and perfect.
Pneumatology-
Anthropology- Two types of men, and two types of families are contrasted with each other in Chapter 4. On the one hand, we have the Godly line of Adam, Abel, Seth, and Enos. Abel, of course, not have children that we know of, but Seth was given to Eve, an appointed offspring instead of Abel. The other line is the line of Cain, Enoch, and Lamech. One lineage is humble before the Lord, and the other is prideful.
To start with, the Godly lineage of Seth called upon the name of the Lord (26). There is humility in the Godly line of Adam. The fact that Abel gave of his first and best demonstrated a specific level of faithfulness and trust. The text suggests that it was by faith that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and that it was by faith that the generation of Enos began to call upon the name of the Lord. From the beginning, it was faith that separates the Godly from the ungodly. This is not to say that we sin more than grace may abound (Rom. 6:1). Rather, it is by our faith that God produces good works in us that prove our faith (James 2:18).
This is in contrast to the faithless line of Cain. From the beginning, Cain sought to justify himself. In jealousy, he slew his brother Abel, and then tried to hide it from the Lord with indignation, “Am I my brother's keeper” (vs 9)? Cain would not allow himself to be humbled, but instead held on to a hardened and bitter heart, not even bearing his righteous chastisement with humility. It would have been righteous for God to slay Cain at that moment, but instead, God spared his life. Even this, Cain scoffed declaring that the burden was too great for him to bear (13). His response was one of self-justification and pride. This pride continued down the line to Lamech who killed a young man for injuring him. He boastfully claimed that if Cain would be avenged sevenfold, then he should be avenged seventy-sevenfold. There is some debate among translators as to how the killing of the young man happened. The King James Version says “I have slain a young to my wounding,” whereas the English Standard Version reads, “I have killed a young man for injuring me” (23). The ESV, and similar translations, read as if Lamech was attacked first, while the KJV and similar seem to indicate that Lamech was the attacker. Regardless, Lamech’s attitude is not one of humility and reverence, but one of a hotty expectation. Lamech was self-justified in his approach to what had happened.
In all of this, there is a question being asked in regard to God’s interaction with humanity. God allowed Cain to rise up and kill Abel. At any point, god could have intervened and stopped the righteous Abel from being brutally murdered. And then, after the deed was done, God not only allowed Cain to live but allowed him to have progeny and to build a city. It isn’t unrighteous for things like this to challenge us. Multiple Psalms are written on this very topic, Psalm 10 and Psalm 73 for example. However, no matter how God tolerates the works of evil, they are still storing up for themselves that righteous indignation of the Lord. There are times when God meets out justice right away, and other times justice comes later.
In the case of Cain, his progeny was entirely wiped out during the flood, which will be discussed at greater length in the coming chapters.
Soteriology- A burning question in this chapter is what was the reason for God’s favor to Abel’s sacrifice vs Cain’s. Some scholars point to the fact that Abel had a blood sacrifice, and Cain’s was a bloodless sacrifice. However, most modern Protestant scholars rightly point out that grain, wheat, and drink offerings are acceptable sacrifices throughout the Old Testament, and there are even guidelines on how to offer such sacrifices (Leviticus 2). The lesson here is that it wasn’t the matter of the sacrifice that caused the issue, but the attitude. The Bible makes a point to show that Abel, “Brought of the firstborn of his flock, and the fat thereof” (4). Meanwhile, Cain simply brought, “an offering from the fruit of the ground” (3). The implication here is that Cain just gave the bare minimum to God, whereas Abel brought his very best. Abel came to God in faithfulness, while Cain came to God in unfaithfulness. This is supported by Hebrews 11:4 which says, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.” Likewise, if we approach God without true faith, or as a matter of habit, then it prophets us nothing.
That said, the bloody sacrifice concept shouldn’t be simply dismissed either as it has value. Michael Horton ties the matter of the sacrifice back to the messiah. The final sacrifice for our sins, and the sacrifice that makes us worthy to stand before the throne of God was not a bloodless sacrifice, but a bloody one. It was the one where the lamb of God was taken and slain, wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. By offering a bloody sacrifice, Abel was identifying with the deep nature in which God is offended by our sinful nature, and recognizing that death is the ultimate end of sin. Meanwhile, Cain’s sacrifice does not represent the deep nature in which God was offended and doesn’t ascent to the idea that sin leads to death. While grain offerings were indeed valid expressions of worship because they were given to express thankfulness to God, being thankful to God for His provision is not what gets us into good favor with the Lord. Rather, it is the willingness to look at our sin natures, and believe that one truly did die on our behalf. In short, we need to trust that Jesus is the final sin offering.
So, which does a Christian stand on? The nature of the sacrifice, or the attitude of the sacrifice. This is a case of solid duality. Both explanations can be supported in equal measure as they both contain truth and lead to a righteous understanding of God. It would be a mistake to exclude one for the other.
Eschatology- As will be illustrated shortly, Cain’s line was set apart for total annihilation. Cain and his lineage will continue on for multiple generations, even drawing a multitude from the Godly line of Seth into its camp. Separated from God, the line of Cain becomes more prideful, more wrathful, and more given to prideful and sinful behavior, as witnessed in the attitude of Lamech (23-24).
There is an argument in the coming chapters which will be discussed at greater length in Chapter 6. But in general, there is a depiction here of the world waxing worse and people straying further from God. Of course, the postmillennial and the amillinial would point out that this was not the final judgment, and that Israel did grow into a powerful nation with worldwide influence. However, this discussion is better served in Chapter 6. For now, it’s still worth noting that the world did wax worse until God brought His judgment, but at the same time, this judgment did not usher in a Godly Kingdom.
Bibliology- In Genesis 1, there was a theological split between those who believe God created all mankind and then created Adam and Eve versus those who hold to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first people. Between chapters 1-2, the first group had to wrestle with the concept of humans dying before original sin. At this point, the latter group must wrestle with the concept that the entire human race is built from one strand of DNA. There is no easy answer to this conundrum. However, it could explain why life expectancy is so much younger than the people who were alive pre-flood. The latter would suggest that God created nations of men at the same time in Chapter 1 and that the proceeding Chapters were speaking of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob specifically. This presents the problem of death mentioned before. That said, there is symbolic meaning in the concept that God’s people alone inherit eternal life. This idea could be further bolstered by the fact that after Cain slew Abel he was cast out, but still found a wife, and even built a city called Enoch.
This is not to say that Adam and Eve couldn’t have been the first humans, nor does it necessarily suggest that Cain couldn’t have found a wife from among his siblings. But it must be noted that by doing so he would have had to break one of the later commands of God. The difference between natural law and covenantal law. There is little in scripture to suggest that this kind of incest is part of God’s natural law, although it would be considered morally repugnant by today’s standards. So it must be concluded that this is likely part of God’s covenantal law. This will become further evident after the flood and Noah and his family will be called to repopulate the Earth.
There is also some discussion as to the nature of Abel’s sacrifice and why it was pleasing to the Lord, while Cain’s was not. There will be greater discussion of this unser Soteriology, but It’s worth noting as an interpretive challenge. The discussion is centered around the faithfulness of Abel, as well as the substance of Abel’s sacrifice. The two things we can say for certain is that Abel brought the best of his flock, and Cain brought of the fruits that he grew in accordance with his vocation, although not necessarily his best fruits. Abel’s sacrifice was a blood sacrifice, while Cain’s was bloodless. There is controversy over whether Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because it was made without faith, while others say it was rejected because it was made without blood.
Ecclesiology- There is a constant theme in the opening Chapters of Genesis regarding Church structure. So often the Church opens its doors and welcomes open sinners to be in complete communion with the rest of the saints. This is not the structure that the Bible presents. Rather, exclusion is the pattern offered from the Old Testament to the New. Adam and Eve were excluded from the Garden of Eden, and now Cain is being excluded from the Godly family. This will show up again in Chapter 9 with Ham, but it’s worth reiterating here.
The Church has become a place of seeker sensitivity and a place where a man can partake of the Lord's table with a “clean conscience” even when s/he has blood on their hands. Church is meant to be a place of worship and equipping of the believers. This isn’t to say that the unbelievers can’t be welcomed in, but the experience shouldn’t be tailored to them. But more importantly, if a brother in Christ is in sin, it takes a brave congregation to separate that brother until and if that brother repents. This is the example given in the New Testament church as well.
In 1 Corinthians 5 we read of a member of that Church who was involved in sexual immorality. In fact, Paul said that such a one should be taken away from them (1 Cor. 5:2). Cain was guilty of murder, and he had no remorse for his deed. The only remorse he showed was for the consequences of his behavior. Such a one would have corrupted the Godly line that was being set apart. People are sinful by nature and, if they do not see a consequence for bad behavior, they will continue in bad behavior.
Angelology-
Satanology- In as much as Abel was a type of Jesus, it can be said that Cain was a type of Satan. Jesus said that Satan was a murderer from the start (John 8:44). Satan, from the start, was jealous and prideful. He boasted of his glory and thought to overcome God. In the same way, Cain would kill his brother out of jealousy, and pridefully try to hide it from God. He decided in his heart that his way was better than God’s ways. And when confronted, his greatest concern was for his own well-being, not for the sin that he caused against his family.
This is further traced in the character of Judas Iscariot who betrayed the Lord with a kiss after Satan entered his body (John 13:27). Likewise, when Cain was of a mind to kill his brother he spoke with him in the field. It is unlikely that Abel had any idea that Cain had a mind to kill him, such a thing would have likely been unheard of at this point. By usurping God and His order for the world, and ignoring the warnings that were given him, Cain demonstrates an image of Satan.
Demonology-
Heresies- The Gnostic heresy of Marcionism puts forth the idea that the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh, is not the same as the supreme God of all creation. In this view, Yahweh is an angry and vengeful God and is the true source of evil. This ties back to Jesus in that they claim Jesus came to right the wrongs of Yahweh. It should be noted that according to them, Jesus isn’t the promised Messiah of the Jews. In fact, that Messiah will likely be the anti-Christ by this measure.
This ties back to Cain because according to Marcionism, Cain was actually a hero of the Old Testament. Under this belief, Cain stood against the evil God and fought against His tyranny. Cain has a special place, in fact, because he is the first human being to make a stand against Yahweh.
Final Thoughts- Faith and faithfulness have been the standard of determining who is, or who isn’t, the people of God. While there was a physical kingdom, a civil governance that people were born into, God’s people were then, as they are now, the people who either put their trust in the coming Messiah, or the people who put their trust in the Messiah who has come.
Abel’s sacrifice was righteous precisely because it came from a place of faith. Cain’s was not accepted his sacrifice was not made in faith. Regardless of the blood issue, faith and faithfulness is the distinguishing mark between God’s people, and the people of the world. God isn’t looking for people born to the right family or the right lineage. As Paul wrote, “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Romans 2:28-29).
Comments
Post a Comment