Commentari biblici

4. the firstlings] i.e. “the firstborn,” regarded as the best and choicest, cf. Exodus 34:19; Numbers 18:17; Proverbs 3:9.

the fat] i.e. the fatty portions, which were regarded as choicest for the purpose of a banquet (cf. 1 Samuel 2:16), or for burning in sacrifice, Isaiah 1:11, “the fat of fed beasts.”

had respect unto] i.e. looked with favour upon. In the two passages which it is natural to quote in illustration of this expression, Numbers 16:15, “Respect not thou their offering,” and Amos 5:22, “Neither will I regard the peace-offerings,” the Hebrew has a different verb, but the Latin renders, as here, by respicere.

How the favourable regard was expressed we are not told. See note on the next verse.

5. but unto Cain] In what way the Divine displeasure was conveyed is not recorded. The suggestion that fire from heaven consumed the offering of Abel, but left that of Cain untouched, is a pure conjecture based upon the group of passages in the O.T., in which the fire from God attested the approval of the sacrifice, Leviticus 9:24; Jdg 6:21; Jdg 13:19-20; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1; 1Ma 2:10-11.

It is a serious omission, also, that we are left to conjecture the reason for the favour shewn to Abel and withheld from Cain. We can hardly doubt, that in the original form of the story the reason was stated; and, if so, that the reason represented in the folk-lore of Israel would not have been in harmony with the religious teaching of the book.

Taking, therefore, the omission of the reason in conjunction with the language of Genesis 4:6-7, and with the general religious purport of the context, we should probably be right in interring that the passage, as it stands, intends to ascribe the difference in the acceptability of the two offerings to the difference in the spirit with which they had been made. Jehovah looked at the heart (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7). Thus the first mention of worship in Holy Scripture seems to emphasize the fundamental truth that the worth of worship lies in the spirit of the worshipper, cf. John 4:24, “God is spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This is the thought of Hebrews 11:4, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.… God bearing witness in respect of his gifts.”

The following conjectures have at different times been put forward to explain the preference of Jehovah:

(a) It has been suggested that Abel’s offering was preferred, because it consisted of flesh, and that Cain’s was rejected, because it consisted of vegetable produce. Each man offered of the fruits of his work and calling. Did the original story contain a condemnation of the agricultural as compared with the pastoral calling? But Adam was commanded to till the ground (Genesis 2:15, Genesis 3:19).

(b) The old Jewish explanation was that Cain had failed to perform the proper ritual of his offering, and therefore incurred the Divine displeasure: see note on the LXX of Genesis 4:7. But, again, if so, it has to be assumed that Divine directions upon the ritual of service had previously been communicated to man.

(c) The common Christian explanation that Cain’s sacrifice, being “without shedding of blood” (Hebrews 9:22. cf. Leviticus 17:11), could not find acceptance, equally assumes that the right kind of sacrifice had previously been Divinely instituted, and that Cain’s rejection was, therefore, due to the wilful violation of a positive command as well as to the infringement of sacrificial rule.

In the silence of the narrative respecting the origin of the institution of sacrifice, these conjectures are merely guess-work, and must be considered more or less fanciful.

his countenance fell] A picture true to nature and more familiar than easy to express in any other words.

The passage illustrates the progress of sin in Cain’s heart. Firstly, disappointment and wounded pride, aggravated by envy of his brother, lead to anger; secondly, anger unrestrained, and brooding sullenly over an imaginary wrong, rouses the spirit of revenge; thirdly, revenge seeks an outlet in passion, and vents itself in violence and murder.

6. And the Lord said, &c.] Whether Jehovah appeared in a visible form, or spoke to Cain in a dream or vision, is not recorded. The importance of the interrogation lies in the fact, that Jehovah mercifully intervenes to arrest the progress of evil thoughts, by simple words demanding self-examination.

7. If thou doest well, &c.] A verse well known for its difficulties. The rendering in the marg. “shall it not be lifted up?” should be followed. Literally the first clause runs thus: “Is there not, if thou doest well, to lift up?” The infinitive “to lift up” must be taken as an infinitival substantive = “a lifting up,” with reference, in all probability, to the previous phrase, “the falling” of Cain’s countenance. The meaning then is, “If thou doest well, and makest thy offering with a pure and right motive, thy face, instead of falling, shall be lifted up in happiness.” This, on the whole, seems better than the alternative rendering “is there not forgiveness?” The word “to lift up” admits of the meaning “to forgive,” but is hardly likely to be used in this sense without an object, and before any mention of sin has been made.

sin coucheth] The meaning is, “and, if thou doest not well and cherishest evil in thy heart, then, remember, sin, like a savage wild beast, is lying in ambush ready to spring out upon you.”

“Sin” is here mentioned for the first time. Ḥattâ’th has a varied significance, and might here mean either “guilt,” or “punishment,” or “the active principle of sin.” And in view of the personification in the next clause, this last meaning is here to be preferred.

The Hebrew text of Genesis 4:7 is probably corrupt.

The LXX took the first clause to refer to a ritual inaccuracy in sacrifice, and mistranslated the words “sin coucheth,” failing to perceive the metaphor: οὐκ, ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, ὀρθῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες; ἡσύχασον. “If thou madest thine offering rightly, but didst not rightly divide it, didst thou not sin? hold thy peace.” In other words: “you broke the ritual rules of offering; you have no right to complain.”

The Latin reads: Nonne, si bene egeris, recipies? sin autem male, statim in foribus peccatum aderit; sed sub te erit appetitus ejus, et tu dominaberis illius.

shall be his desire, &c.] Better, as marg., “is its desire, but thou shouldest rule over it.” Evil, like a savage animal, is ravening for thee; but thou hast strength, if thou hast the will, to overcome it. The alternative rendering of the text, “his desire … over him,” introduces the idea of one brother’s authority over the other, which seems foreign to the context.

The metaphor of sin as a wild beast ready at any moment to spring upon, and get the mastery of, the man who will not make the effort to do what he knows to be right, embodies deep spiritual truth. The evil passions, always ready to take advantage of the will that refuses to hear the voice of the better self, have often in literature been likened to a wild beast, cf. Tennyson’s In Memoriam, Canto 118:

“Arise and fly

The reeling Faun, the sensual feast;

Move upward, working out the beast,

And let the ape and tiger die”;

and George Meredith’s expression: “The unfailing, aboriginal, democratic, old monster, that waits to pull us down” (Diana of the Crossways, p. 14, edit. 1892).

his desire … rule over] The phrase is identical with that in Genesis 3:16, but obviously the words have a different signification suitable to the context. That these words should refer to the younger brother is the interpretation of the text (R.V.), to which no exception can be taken on lexical or grammatical grounds. But the relation of a younger to an elder brother is not that which is likely to be described in this way. It is better to refer the phrase to the personification of sin, over which Cain can, if he will, obtain the mastery.

8. told] Heb. said unto, which is the only possible meaning of the original. The rendering “told” implies that Cain repeated to Abel, his brother, the words spoken to him by Jehovah. But this is not the meaning of the original, which is, “Cain said unto Abel his brother”; some words, which are wanting in the Hebrew text, either having been intentionally omitted by the compiler, or accidentally dropped by carelessness in transcription. As the R.V. margin states, “many ancient authorities [Sam., LXX, Syr. Pesh., and Ps. Jon.] read said unto Abel his brother, Let us go into the field”; LXX, διέλθωμεν εἰς τὸ πεδίον; Lat. egrediamur foras. This addition has all the appearance of an insertion, supplied to fill up an obvious gap, and borrowed from the next verse. Gunkel proposes to read, instead of “and said” (vayyômer), “and was bitter” (vayyêmer), i.e. “and made a quarrel.” Here, as in the preceding verse, we have probably an instance of a very early disturbance of the text.

Possibly, the words spoken by Cain to his brother Abel contained some allusion which seemed wanting in the right spirit towards the faith and worship of the God of Israel, and were omitted without other words being substituted.

the field] i.e. having left the sacred place, shrine or altar, where they had offered their sacrifices. An allusion to such a spot might well have been omitted as unsuitable.

rose up] preliminary to assault: see Jdg 8:21; 2 Samuel 2:14; 2 Kings 3:24.

9. And the Lord said, &c.] The condensed narrative does not say whether Cain tried to conceal the body of Abel, or had fled at once from the spot. Apparently Jehovah speaks to him suddenly, when at a distance from the scene of the murder. The process of interrogation may be compared with that in Genesis 3:9-13.

I know not: am I my brother’s keeper?] Cain’s reply consists of (a) a statement which is a falsehood; and (b) a question which is defiance. “Keeper,” perhaps with reference, in a mocking tone, to Abel’s occupation as a keeper of sheep. “Am I the keeper’s keeper?”

The first words of the first murderer renounce the obligations of brotherhood. The rejection of the family bond is the negation of love; it is the spirit of murder; cf. 1 John 3:12; 1 John 3:15.

10. What hast thou done?] The same question as that put to Eve (Genesis 3:13). This question has been put by the voice of conscience to every murderer since Cain; it had a special force in reference to the first man done to death by his brother.

the voice of thy brother’s blood] Probably it would be more accurate to translate, as Driver, “Hark! thy brother’s blood, &c.” The word “blood” in the Hebrew is plural, and the word “crieth” is in the plural agreeing with it. The Hebrew for “voice” (ḳôl) should similarly be rendered “Hark!,” instead of “noise,” in Isaiah 13:4, and instead of “the voice of,” in Isaiah 52:8; see Heb. Lexicon.

The Hebrew idea was that blood shed, for which there was no avenger, cried to Jehovah for vengeance against the murderer. Jehovah has learned of Abel’s murder from the cry of his blood spilt upon the ground. Another Hebrew belief was that, if only the blood were covered with earth, it would be silent. Cf. Job 16:18, “Oh! earth, cover not thou my blood and let my cry have no resting-place”; Isaiah 26:21, “The earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain”; Ezekiel 24:7. To this ancient supposition there is an allusion in Hebrews 12:14, “the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better than that of Abel.”

“In the picturesque legend of the Arabs, there rose from the blood (or bones) of the slain man the ‘death-owl,’ which shrieked, ‘Give me to drink,’ until it was appeased by the blood of vengeance.” (Gordon’s Early Traditions of Genesis, p. 203.)

11. from the ground] The meaning is not quite obvious. Probably, we should not understand, that the curse is to come from the ground upon Cain, but that Cain is driven by Jehovah’s curse from the ground. The emphasis is on “the ground” (hâ-adâmâh). It is the ground which Cain tilled, the ground whose fruits he offered, and the ground which he has caused to drink human blood. From this ground he is now driven by a curse. For pollution of the land by bloodshed cf. Numbers 35:33, “So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood, it polluteth the land: and no expiation can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.”

On blood-revenge, cf. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage, pp. 25–27.