The Way Of Sin
THE WAY OF SIN
BY
FELIX AMPARO
SCRIPTURE READING: GENESIS 4:1-7
INTRODUCTION:
In Genesis chapter 4 we read the story of Cain and Abel, two brothers; Cain, the elder brother, a jealous persecutor who killed his brother and Abel whom sacrifice was accepted before God. But, the most important thing is that we also see a God of love who gave Cain an open door to escape from the wrath that was about to come upon him because of the murder of his brother Abel. The sentence God gave Adam was carried out in the person of his son Abel, at that time a mystery to himself, but a fulfilled reality, “thou shall surely die”. God’s love was shown to Cain, but he rejected it. The Lord gave him an open door: yet he closed it. Many scholars have misrepresented Gen. 4: 7, and as a result, they have misrepresented the character of a loving God, who is always calling us to reason with Him. God is looking for worshiper that would be ready to worship Him in spirit and true and follow His Holy character of love. We do not worship Him according to our desires but according to His will and purpose for our life. Cain misrepresented the Holy character of God, and many in our days are doing the same in the way they worship Him, to those as well as to Cain the word of God is, If thought doe well though would have receive praise from Him.
We come empty to the church and we leave empty because our offerings are not accepted before Him, nor can they ever be unless we worship Him according to His will and purpose in Christ Jesus. If we come to Him without a willing spirit and the required offering from our hands our sacrifice will not be accepted from God, and we will leave as empty as we can and our joy will not abide. The purpose of this paper is to expose the excuses given for Cain’s murder of his brother Abel. It is to clarify the misunderstood conception of God’s character. God is not waiting for us to sin to punish us or push us off the border when we are almost falling. The main point I’m trying to establish is found on Genesis 4:7 the periscope start on Genesis 4:1 and end on Genesis 4:16, but I will only focus on Genesis 4:1-7 the last verse had been my main discussion.
Genesis 4:1 “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.” We can see that Eve was hoping that the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 was soon to take place in the person of her first born son. This is clearly seen in the name that she gave her second son Abel, whose name means “Breath” or “Vanity” in the original Hebrew. The hope of Eve rested on her first born son Cain. She named her other son Abel; which means the vanity of this life without an expression of hope without the Messiah.
“Eve said, I have gotten a man from the Lord —that is, “by the help of the Lord”—an expression of pious gratitude—and she called him Cain, that is, “a possession,” as if valued above everything else…”[1]
Other commentaries would call Cain’s name “spear” it has a double meaning. Cain was to Eve “value” above anything else. She had lost paradise, but on the promise given in Gen. 3:15, by faith she looked up to the coming Messiah. In the person of her first son Cain, she wrongly perceived that the prophecy had been fulfilled. “Cain” means “acquired”—the baby boy was looked upon as a gift from God.”[2] Cain was to be looked upon by his parents as a gift from God, or the “acquired.” He became the disappointment of them both. Cain’s life fell very short of the modeled life by Jesus. As he grow up it became clear to Adam and Eve that their first born son was not the anticipated Messiah.
Cain ( Qayin ). The word Cain is usually associated with the Hebrew word qānâ , “to acquire” or “to get.” The derivation is based on the resemblance of sound, rather than on basic etymology. It might be called a play on words. The actual meaning of the word possibly came through the Arabic (“a lance” or “a smith”). Eve was overjoyed at the birth of her son. She exclaimed, “I have gotten a man.”[3]
Eve’s joyfulness was soon to be turned into bitterness. The one whom was raised with pride and devotion, was about to become the world’s first murderer. Genesis 4:2 “And she again bares his brother Abel. b And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” “Abel ( Hebel ). The name given to the second son indicates “a fleeting breath” or “a vapor.”[4] In the name given to the second son Abel, we can see that Eve’s hope of the soon coming of the Messiah was followed by a disappointed hope that was soon to end by a catastrophic flood, which was to wipe away all human flesh with the exception of Noah and his family. But Abel’s duty was a simple duty, since God’s original purpose was for men to have dominion over life on earth; this was to be accomplished under God’s command by following his divined authority. The literal translation here is that he was “a feeder of a flock” including both sheep and goats. “Abel was a keeper of sheep —literally, ‘a feeder of a flock,’ which, in Oriental countries, always includes goats as well as sheep.”[5] We also see a clear division that took place very early in their youth. “From the very beginning, we see a division of work: as Cain is identified with the ground, Abel with the flock. God had already cursed the ground (3:17), so Cain is identified with that curse.”[6] Abel was being identified with the flock or the seed of the woman as given in Gen. 3:15, Rev. 12:17 he was identifying himself with the church of God, which is to have one flock and one shepherd Jesus Christ. We will see that Abel put his trust and faith in this mean of salvation by offering a sacrifice to the Lord. Cain was identifying himself with that which is the work of men. Later on we will see that the things that we do, if not of faith in the Lamb of God can not be accepted by God.
Genesis 4:3. “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.” Once both of their works were made evident, and their characters and the intentions of their hearts were identified “in process of time” when they were mature enough in their attitude toward the Creator, they each brought an offering to the Lord. Harris outlines three of the primary meanings that can be given to the Hebrew word for fruit. “( pĕrı̂ ) fruit. Three primary meanings are covered by Hebrew pĕrı̂ : (1) the fruit of a tree ( Gen 1:12 ); a vine ( Zech 8:12 ): or a fig tree ( Prov 27:18 ); (2) the fruit of the womb, i.e. children ( Gen 30:2 ; Deut 28:4 , 11 ; Ps 21:10 [H 11]; 127:3 ); (3) fruit as consequences resulting from an action, e.g. “reward” ( Ps 58:11 [H 12 ]): Prov 11:30.”[7] Even though the fruit that Cain offered was literal fruits we can not understand the symbolic spiritual lesson that was hidden behind it. When Cain offered his gift to God, his heart was not right with Him. There is always more to it, than just a simple offering to the Lord. Our attitude toward the receiver is to be made right with him. Man was to rule over the earth under the command of God. This is clearly spoken of in the meaning of the name of Adam which was created out of the ground to till the ground. See Harris’s comment below…
The ădāmâ was God’s possession and under his care (Gen 2:6). Thus, the first ādām (the man, Adam) and his family were to act as God’s servants by obeying him in maintaining the divinely created and intended relationships vertically and
horizontally. As long as this condition was sustained God caused the ădāmâ to give its fruitfulness (blessing) to ādām .[8]
The translation of the Hebrew word “minha” does not specifically describe a meat offering, it can also be a “cereal-offering”. Bringing gifts is defined many times in the Bible as recognizing someone else’s supremacy or kingship. Cain recognized that God is supreme and we ought to give Him or return to Him a portion of the blessing He has bestowed upon us. “minḥâ …The word is used in secular contexts of gifts to superior persons, particularly kings, to convey the attitude of homage and submission to that person.”[9] Cain submission to God was not a sincere one, it didn’t come from the heart, and his heart was not with God but with the things of the world. The place where the sacrifices were offered to the Lord was most assuredly at the door of Paradise. It is also noted that Adam knew how to approach a Holy God; he probably received instruction from God Himself in how to worship him, or how to offer sacrifice to Him. This is noted as we read (Wiersbe’s commentary on Gen. 4:1-5)
This earliest family must have known a definite place for worship, for both sons brought offerings to the Lord. It may be that the glory of God tabernacle at the tree of life, with the way guarded by the cherubim (3:24…God probably “answered by fire” (Lev. 9:24) and burned up Abel’s offering, but Cain’s offering lay there on the altar.[10]
Cain is mentioned first as bringing a sacrifice to the Lord and then Abel; it is possible that as Cain left the altar of sacrifice that Abel came in with his offering. This could have made Cain more furious with God and his brother, even to the point that his face bore physical evidence of his wrath and disappointments.
Genesis 4:4 “and Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock d and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” While they both brought an offering (minha) to the Lord, it is not mention that Cain brought his best; yet Abel brought the best of his herd.
[Both Cain and Abel offered a minḥâ to the Lord (Gen 4:4–3). But whereas it is said of Abel that he offered the choicest portions of the animals to the Lord, an act reflecting his heartfelt commitment to him, it is merely said of Cain that he offered a minḥâ from the fruit of the ground.[11]
The offering didn’t necessarily need to be an animal sacrifice; yet if Cain’s heart was not right with God and his brother, the only sacrifice that was acceptable for reconciliation with God and man was an animal sacrifice. He had sinned against God and men and the only mean of forgiveness available to Cain was to put faith in God’s expiatory sacrifice which at that time was a lamb.
The words, “had respect to,” signify in Hebrew, —“to look at any thing with a keen earnest glance,” which has been translated, “kindle into a fire,” so that the divine approval of Abel’s offering was shown in its being consumed by fire (see Ge 15:17 ; Jdg 13:20 ).[12]
There was a need for an outward appearance that showed how God accepted Abel’s sacrificed or rejected Cain’s. It is implied in the Hebrew as “kindle into fire” so the sacrifice of Abel needed to be totally consumed by Divine fire to be recognized as accepted before God. Another thing we should look at is that there were not meat eaters at the time; meat eating came after the flood. If the sacrifice was not totally consumed by divine fire then part of the sacrifice needed to be done away with by Abel. This not being the case, it is assumed that the sacrifice was totally burned and accepted by Divine Fire, Abel was exonerated. Easton’s Bible Dictionary is clear in this point…
Burned offering-Hebrew olah ; i.e., “ascending,” the whole being consumed by fire, and regarded as ascending to God while being consumed. Part of every offering was burnt in the sacred fire, but this was wholly burnt, a “whole burnt offering.” It was the most frequent form of sacrifice, and apparently the only one mentioned in the book of Genesis. Such were the sacrifices offered by Abel[13]
Why didn’t God accept Cain’s sacrifice? Reading Mathew Henry commentary on Genesis, we see where the difference really was. “There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering. Cain was a wicked man, led a bad life, and under the reigning power of the world and the flesh; and therefore his sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord (Prov. 15:8), a vain oblation, Isa. 1:13...”[14] The sacrifice of Cain was according to the flesh, but that of Abel according to the Spirit; he walked by faith in the coming Messiah that was to come into the world. Wiersbe’s commentary explains the details, the real issues behind Cain’s and Abel’s offering.
“Jude 11 talks about “the way of Cain,” which is the way of religion without blood, religion based on religious good works and self-righteousness. There are only two religions in the world today: (1) that of Abel that depends on the blood of Christ and His finished work on the cross; and (2) that of Cain that depends on good works and man-pleasing religion. One leads to heaven, the other to hell!”[15] (Wiersbe’s)
Wiersbe also clarified a very important point on which most or all of the religions of the world have their ground. He makes emphasis that there are only two religions on our world today, those who put faith in Christ and in His finished work at the cross and those, who like Cain depended on their good works, which he calls “man-pleasing religion.” Cain’s lack of faith was made evident in his responses to God’s rejection of his offering. Rather than recognizing his faults and examining his heart toward God and men, he shows his discontent and bared open his heart showing what was really going on inside of him. “There was apparently no sorrow for sin, “no spirit of inquiry, self-examination, prayer to God for light or pardon, clearly showing that Cain was far from a right state of mind” (Murphy).[16] His change countenance was a sign of what was really going on in the heart of Cain. There is much that our way of worshiping God can tell of the real condition of our hearts.
There are many in our midst today who like Cain come to the Lord with the wrong spirit; they bring before a Holy God something that He did not ask for. Their worship is not more than a man’s way of worship their hearts is not elevated above from the earthly thing to those of the heavenly because they follow the old way of Cain, they look not up to the things that are pleasing to God, but to the things that are pleasing to themselves, and the result of that is death at the end of the road. Our hearts are not in tune with God’s heart, our ways are not His way and if we follow our path the end result will be sorrow and bitterness toward God and men. Cain’s bitterness and vertical relationship toward God was soon turning toward the horizontal relationship with his brother Abel.
Genesis 4:6 “and the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen?” It was well said by King Salomon, a fool’s wrath is a heavier than stone or sand, let us read… Proverbs 27:3 “A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool’s wrath is heavier than them both. 4 Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand before envy? [17] (KJV)” In Gen. 3, we have the fall of man by sinning against God, and in chapter 4, we have man sinning against men. These are the consequences of sin; we first sin against God, then we sin against our brother. But here we see a God of love who doesn’t give up that easily on his creatures. He calls us to reason with Him, as a father reasons with his son whom he loves. “Nāsā, ‘lift up’, lends itself to the idea of forgiveness. The merciful Jehovah thus held out to Cain the hope of forgiveness and victory as he faced his momentous decision.”[18] Genesis 4:7 “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 thou shalt rule over him.” This text is a very controversial one there are many translation and interpretations that throughout the years has puzzled many scholar and confused the mind of many student of the Scriptures. “The word Shalt thou not be accepted?” “Literally, Is there not lifting up? (seāth, from nasa, to raise up). Either—1. Of the countenance (Gesenius, Fürst, Dathe, Rosenmüller, Knobel, Lange, Delitzsch). 2. Of the sacrifice, viz., by acceptance of it (Calvin); akin to which are the interpretations—Is there not a lifting up of the burden of guilt? Is there not forgiveness? (Luther); Is there not acceptance with God? (Speaker’s Commentary); Is there not a bearing away of blessing? (Ainsworth). Vulgate, Shalt thou not receive? (sc. the Divine favour).” [19]
“ Walvoord below also seemed to be a little out of context when he comments in Ver. 7; we need to look at the context not only in this verse but in the complete chapter, book, and the entire Bible. God was not telling Cain to resist the “crouching animal” for he was already a sinner; sin existed in his heart before he exercised any action over it. Let us look at Walvoord’s comments below…
God’s advice was that if Cain would please God by doing what is right, all would be well. But if not sin would be crouching ( rōḇēṣ is used here in the figure of a crouching animal) at his door, ready to overcome him. Sin desires to have Cain…but Cain could have the mastery over it. Here is the perpetual struggle between good and evil. Anyone filled with envy and strife is prey for the evil one. (Walvoord)[20]
Another point is that he is trying to define the door as the heart of Cain, which is not implied in the text. The door that was being talked about was the door of the Garden of Eden that was kept by an angel with a flaming sword. That door symbolized that through “The Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world,” man’s hopes to enter paradise will surely come to pass. There was an altar at that door where man would go and offer a lamb as a sin offering. The problem with Walvoord and other scholar is that they used only one meaning for the translation that the Hebrew gives us about sin, the word can also be translated sin offering. I prefer Jamieson comments on the text…
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? —A better rendering is, “Shalt thou not have the excellency”? which is the true sense of the words referring to the high privileges and authority belonging to the first-born in patriarchal times. (Jamieson)[21]
The argument behind the scene is that of the right of the first born child, over the younger. Cain felt that his right has been violated. He wanted to have the preeminence over his brother. But God assured him that he could still rule over his brother if he repented from his sin. Proof of that repentance would have been shown by offering the lamb that had already been provided at the door of paradise. Let us read below…
sin lieth at the door —sin, that is, a sin offering—a common meaning of the word in Scripture (as in Ho 4:8 ; 2Co 5:21 ; Heb 9:28 ). The purport of the divine rebuke to Cain was this, “Why art thou angry, as if unjustly treated? If thou doest well (that is, wert innocent and sinless) a thank offering would have been accepted as a token of thy dependence as a creature. But as thou doest not well (that is, art a sinner), a sin offering is necessary, by bringing which thou wouldest have met with acceptance and retained the honors of thy birthright.” This language implies that previous instructions had been given as to the mode of worship; Abel offered through faith ( Heb 11:4 ).[22]
Here God has been justified, He pleaded with Cain as a father for his son, and He did everything that was possible to do without violating the freedom of choice. Now everything else was for Cain to decide. He had to recognize his situation and fall on his knee, recognizing God’s great love and mercy toward sinners. But this he would not do, he was like the Pharisee whose heart was too proud to open up to the voice of God speaking in the person of the Son.
CONCLUSION: It is written in the Midrash that; “sin is weak as a woman, but then it grows strong, like a man. At first it is like a spider’s web, but eventually it becomes like a ship’s rope…At first it is like a visitor, then like a guest [who stays longer], and finally like the master of the house.” God was showing mercy after mercy to Cain but he kept on rejecting Him. God’s love and propitiations for our sins were not appreciated by Cain. Otherwise he would have gone to the door to offer the lamb for his sin. Many people today are walking in the step of Cain; their lives do not reveal the love to which God has entrusted them. Others think to do what right, expecting as an ending result, to win salvation. This class thinks like Cain, that there is no need for a sacrifice; we can do it on our own! They said; our good works can saves us! We can worship God according to the dictate of our hearts, it doesn’t matter what day of the week we choose to worship Him as long as we worship Him. It doesn’t matter what music play, or the words we used to worship Him. But unless we have knowledge of the Holiness of the God we worship, and differentiate between the holy and the common, our offering will be a strange fire before God. The story of Cain and Abel is the story of worship in the world an illustration of the way of the world and the way of God, it is my desires to choose the way of God. Which path would you take?
----
[1]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[2]Wiersbe, W. W. 1993. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL
[3]Pfeiffer, C. F. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible commentary : Old Testament . Moody Press: Chicago
b Abel: Heb. Hebel
[4]Pfeiffer, C. F. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible commentary : Old Testament . Moody Press: Chicago
[5]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[6]Wiersbe, W. W. 1993. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL
[7]Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. 1999, c1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) . Moody Press: Chicago
[8]Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. 1999, c1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) . Moody Press: Chicago
[9]Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. 1999, c1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) . Moody Press: Chicago
[10]Wiersbe, W. W. 1993. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL
d flock: Heb. sheep, or, goats
[11]Harris, R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. 1999, c1980. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) . Moody Press: Chicago
[12]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[13]Easton, M. 1996, c1897. Easton's Bible dictionary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[14]Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume . Hendrickson: Peabody
[15]Wiersbe, W. W. 1993. Wiersbe's expository outlines on the Old Testament . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL
[16] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004, S. 78
[17]The Holy Bible : King James Version. 1995 . Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[18]Pfeiffer, C. F. 1962. The Wycliffe Bible commentary : Old Testament . Moody Press: Chicago
[19] Spence-Jones, H. D. M. (Hrsg.): The Pulpit Commentary: Genesis. Bellingham, WA : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2004, S. 79
[20]Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. 1983-c1985. The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures . Victor Books: Wheaton, IL
[21]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA
[22]Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA