The first three chapters of Genesis form the background for the understanding of all the rest of the Scriptures and of the whole history of the world. If these chapters were not historical we would have grave problems with the rest of the Bible and especially the way of salvation. However, the book of Genesis raises no doubts regarding the historicity of these chapters. The basic problem in our time is not found in the area of interpretation but, rather, in the view of Scripture! Having given the history of creation and of the fall of man the author naturally goes on to inform us concerning the history of man after the fall. There is no abrupt change between the last part of chapter three and chapter four. No wonder that those who began with a denial of the historicity of the first three chapters soon had to add eight more to this list. If Adam and Eve were not historical persons it would be difficult to main­tain the historicity of the persons, Cain and Abel.

No children were born in Paradise. Adam and Eve had indeed received the command to multiply while they were in the garden and surely they would have been obedient to that command before the fall, but no child was born. This gives the impression that the time between their creation and the fall into sin may have been quite brief. Chapter four begins with the birth of the first children. "And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain." That is the manner in which the history of man after the fall is introduced. The generation of man is placed in a different light than that of animals. With man there is a deep love relationship between the man and his wife. He knew her. It is not only a physical union, but a union of the two persons. The Bible speaks with great chastity and accuracy regarding this union. Then she conceived and bore a son. Eve recognized this child as a gift of God and said: "I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah." What an experience for her! She is the first one to ex­perience the miracle of the birth of a child! A little life entrusted to her who had never seen a child before!

Does she have high hopes for this child? Un­doubtedly she does. However, when some commentators teach that she already sees a fulfillment of the promise given in Genesis 3:15, i.e., that this one shall save them from the wretched condition which their sin has brought into the world, we would ob­ject that the text gives no warrant for this. No doubt she believes the promise given her but that does not mean that she believes this child is the one promised to crush the serpent's head. She has another child and calls his name Abel — vanity. Have her hopes already died? No, nor should we pour too much con­tent into the meaning of the names given these children. Only when a name is given at the command of God does it have special meaning, but the names given by parents, either in early times or later, have not that special meaning because no parent can predict the future. Besides, did Adam and Eve speak Hebrew? Remember, this was centuries before Babel.

Both of the sons of Adam and Eve are engaged in perfectly legitimate pursuits. Cain becomes a tiller of the ground and Abel is a keeper of small cattle. What else is there for them to do? The difference in occupation must be borne in mind to understand the offerings they bring later.

The history which Genesis gives us of Cain and Abel is brief. Nothing is said about their childhood or their growing years. All the emphasis is placed on the one episode which has so much bearing on future history. Cain brings an offering to Jehovah of the produce of the ground. This is natural and legit­imate. The very fact that an offering is brought reveals to us that he realizes from whence his bless­ings come and that he brings a gift to the Giver. Abel too brings an offering. He brings an offering of his flock. Again, very natural and legitimate. Of Abel we read that he brought of the firstlings and of the fat while of Cain we do not read anything com­parable to this. But, both bring their gifts to Jehovah.

We find no record prior to this time that a com­mand had been given to bring offerings to God. Perhaps such a command had been given which is not recorded, or that the bringing of offerings was natural to man while he still stood so close to the time of the garden of Eden. We must not use the standards of the Mosaic legislation, which came so much later, to judge the offerings of Cain and Abel. The fact that the one may have been bloody while the other, from the nature of the case, could not be bloody, did not determine acceptability or unaccept­ability of either offering. The offerings were brought for the purpose of expressing gratitude to their God and seeking His blessing on future labors.

The difference in the offerings of Cain and Abel is not found in the things they offer, nor in the ritual observed, but in the reception of the offerings. God had respect unto Abel and his offering but unto Cain and his offering he had not respect. Not only is the offering of the one accepted and the other rejected, but the person of the one is accepted and the other is not. Why is this so? Because the persons themselves are here involved in the acceptance or non­-acceptance and not the offerings only, we are already pointed to Hebrews 11:4. The mere fact that a person brings offerings to God does not make him acceptable. Abel offers his sacrifice by faith, and Cain doesn't! That is the heart of the matter. Because Abel brings his offering from the heart, he, and his offering, are accepted. According to all out­ward appearances, Cain does the same thing Abel does, but He who sees the heart of man accepts the one and not the other. Jehovah does not need the of­fering because all the wealth of the universe is His. He wants the heart of the giver!

Cain became very angry when he realized that his offering had not been accepted. His countenance fell — it became evident at a glance that he was angry. But, the question arises: How did he know that his offering had not been accepted? Various fan­ciful interpretations have been given. There are still those who believe that fire descended from heaven and consumed Abel's offering but not Cain's. Others believe that the smoke of Abel's offering went straight up and the smoke of Cain's did not. None of these views can be based on the text. How then did he know? Of Abel the writer to the Hebrews writes that by his sacrifice "he had witness borne to him that he was righteous." He left the place of sacrifice with the assurance that his God had accepted him, that he was righteous and that he could go his way rejoicing. Cain had none of these. He brought his offering and left the place of sacrifice empty! Should not this empty feeling have spurred him to repentance? Of course, if sin were not irrational it would have done exactly that. However, the nature of sin is here clearly revealed. That he was not ac­cepted was his own fault — but he became angry with the one who was accepted! Sin is shown and described in many different ways in the Scriptures later, but here we are already shown its strange nature.

Even though neither Cain nor his offering have been acceptable to Jehovah, He speaks to Cain. He does not desire that this man shall continue in sin and fall victim to its full terror, as he will if it is un­checked. God spoke directly to Adam and Eve and seems to speak to Cain in the same way. The Lord is warning Cain. He was not accepted when he brought his offering because he did not bring it with a true heart — not in faith. Why is he now angry? Will this not lead him to sin more and more? Is there no way by which he may be accepted? Let him do well. In New Testament language — let him repent. Let him then bring worthy offerings and, as he will then be accepted, his countenance will be lifted up because the heart will no longer be empty. It is a gracious invitation to return! Let not sin go unconfessed and grow and fester! Repent and forsake sin.

Having urged Cain to go in the way he should go, the Lord warns him of the grave dangers if he does not repent. If he does not do well things will not re­main as they are, but will become far worse. Sin doesn't stand still — it grows! It is here pictured as a wild beast crouching at the door, ready to devour. He has sinned — his offering was sin — therefore it was not accepted. This has angered him — but let him take heed — far worse is still to come if he does not turn away from the first sin. Sin is crouching at the door, ready to spring, and its desire is to ruin you completely. Let the experience of your parents teach you! Eve listened to the serpent; she looked longingly at the tree; she ate and gave her husband and they have loosed a flood of evil on the earth! The offering was not accepted because it could not be ac­cepted. Repent and bring an offering with an obedient heart. If you don't, sin will be loosed on you like a wild beast and will slay you!

God commands him: "Do thou rule over it." These words present us with various difficulties. Are we able to rule over our sins or has sin become the master whose slaves we are? Paul complains that he doesn't do the things he wishes to do and does those things he doesn't want to do as a believer. Hasn't man then become helpless before the attacks of sin? Yet, Cain is commanded to rule over sin. We must understand these words in the light of the figure which is used. Sin, pictured as a wild beast, is crouching at the door waiting for the best opportun­ity. God does not speak here, first of all, of the sinful heart nor of all the various powers of sin, because man is not able to conquer or "rule over" those. He is here warning him not to open himself wide to the lurking temptations. Later we are taught "lead us not into temptation." We mustn't seek that tempta­tion ourselves! Cain must learn to be afraid of sin — also because of its destructive power. But — he doesn't listen — and sin reveals what it can do!

Questions for Discussion:

1. Why are some scholars eager to dispute the historicity of the first chapters of Genesis? Does the Bible assume the historicity of Cain and Abel? See Matthew 23:35; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 11:4; 12:24; 1 John 3:12 and Jude 11.
2. What does it mean to bring an offering to God? Do we worship with our offerings? Does the value of our offering have any significance? Explain.
3. How can a person really know whether or not he is accepted of God? Does this knowledge belong to the experiential?
4. Is it sensible to be angry at another for one's own sin? Is it common?
5. Can we rule over sin, and, if so, how and over which sins?