#13. Cain and Abel. — The two Seeds.

     The names given by Eve to the two sons whose birth is recorded in the opening of  Genesis iv.  provide a fair insight into the frame of mind, and the modifications wrought by experience, of the first man and woman. 

     They had been expelled from the garden planted by God;  the ground upon which they stood, and from which they wrung a living by the sweat of the face, spoke to them continually of the curse which had settled upon it.  The sorrows of their new experiences, however, were lustred by hope.  Had not God said that the woman’s seed should bruise the serpent’s head?  Did He not set before them the wonderful symbol of a restored and redeemed creation when He caused the cherubim to tabernacle at the east of the garden?  In view of this we can understand in measure the fulness of hope and desire that possessed the breast of those first parents, and the reason why they named their infant son Cain.  Cain in the Hebrew language means “acquisition”, the verbal form occurs in  Gen. xxv. 10  and  Exod. xv. 16  as “purchase”;  in  Gen. xxxiii. 19,  xxxix. 1  as  “buy”;  in  Neh. v. 8  it is  “redeem”,   in  Isa. xi. 11  it is  “recover”,  and in  Gen. iv. 1  and  Prov. iv. 5  it is  “get”.   It will be seen that the word, while indicating acquisition, does not convey any idea as to how the acquisition is made;  it may be as a gift, or as a purchase, it may be by power or by redemption.  Cain was looked upon by his parents as an acquisition;  the A.V. reads, “I have gotten a man from the Lord”, the Hebrew ‘ish ‘eth Jehovah, is literally, “a man, even Jehovah”.  This rendering suggests the reason why the name Cain was given.  Adam and Eve felt sure that this man-child born to them was none other than the “seed of the woman” promised in the earlier chapter;  how mistaken they were events were to prove.  Scripture indeed tells us that instead of being the promised seed of the woman, Cain “was of that wicked one”, in other words, he was rather “the seed of the serpent”.  It is important to notice that the good, or the types of good, do not come first.  Cain comes before Abel, Ishmael before Isaac, Esau before Jacob, Reuben and the others before Joseph, “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual”.  Cain is one of the great foreshadowings in this book of beginnings.  Jude, writing of the last days, says, “Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain”.  John in his first epistle likens Cain to the world, “we should love one another, not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother … marvel not, my brethren if the world hate you”.  Not only so, a strong division is made between the two seeds, Cain was “of that wicked one”, “he that committeth sin is of the devil”, “in this are the children of God manifest, and the children of the devil”.  In our Lord’s day there were those who were “the offspring of vipers”, and all down the age, from Cain onwards, the two seeds have run their course together.  Satan, as the god of this age, and the prince of this world, by those who are his children, persecutes and seeks to destroy those who are God’s children.  The Lord Himself has ordained the “enmity” (Gen. iii. 15), therefore whosoever is a friend of the world constitutes himself an enemy of God.  The presence and purpose of Cain is repeated in parable form by the Lord in the parable of the Tares, “the good seed are the children of the kingdom;  but the tares are the children of the wicked one”. 

     We cannot help feeling that a due recognition of those scriptures which speak of one section of the human race as “children of the wicked one” (Matt.xiii.38), “children of the devil”  (I John iii. 10;  cf.  Acts xiii. 10;  John.viii.44),  a “generation of vipers”, and of The man of sin as the “son of perdition”, etc., is necessary to arriving at a true understanding of the scope and results of redemption.  When the Lord asked the question, “Ye serpents, ye brood of vipers, how can ye escape the judgment of Gehenna?”.  He gave expression to a query that runs through the whole Bible.  As a “fundamental of dispensational truth” the recognition of the two seeds and their destinies is all-important. 

     The high hopes that burned in the heart of our first parents were doomed to disappointment, Cain was not the promised deliverer.  By the time Abel was born experience had taught the lesson of the age, at least in its elements, that the creature had been made subject to vanity.  “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity”, was the summing up of the wisest man that lived, and we venture to say that no more important portion of Scripture from the dispensational point of view can be found than that of Ecclesiastes.  Abel was so named because Abel means vanity.  Cain is referred to in the N.T. three times, viz.,  Heb. xi. 4,  “Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”;  I John iii. 12, “Not as Cain who slew his brother”;  Jude 11,  “They have gone in the way of Cain”.  Abel is mentioned four times in the N.T., viz.,  Matthew xxiii. 35,  “From the blood of righteous Abel”;  Luke xi. 51,  “From the blood of Abel”;  Hebrews xi. 4,  “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous”;  Heb. xii. 24, “The blood of sprinkling which speaks something better than Abel”.

     The first thing we learn is that Abel was RIGHTEOUS, and that Cain was “of that wicked one”.  There is no question of salvation in the case of Cain and Abel, but rather of righteousness and unrighteousness.  Abel was evidently a prophet (Matt. xxiii. 34), and when Cain shed his brother’s blood, he shed “righteous blood” (Matt. xxiii. 35).  The two offerings that figure in  Genesis iv.  were not offerings for sin, but for worship, the word minchah is that rendered meat offering, an offering that is in the nature of a gift, not an expiation (see Gen.xxxii.13-21, “gift”).  Abel’s offering is given in  Genesis iv.  as, “the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof”.  Cain’s as “the fruit of the ground”.   Hebrews xi.  gives no such details, but says instead that Abel “offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain”.  The testimony that God bore to Abel was, “that he was righteous”. 

     To introduce the future into the past or present is to fail in interpretation;  to introduce into  Genesis.iv.  the question of justification by faith is to teach a truth that does not find a place therein.   Genesis iv.  does not raise the question as to how righteousness was obtained, but whether it existed, the purely elementary fact that is taught by  Genesis iv.  in the light of  Hebrews xi.  and  Matthew xxiii.  is that Abel was righteous.  We might, in the light of subsequent revelation, be led to suppose that because Abel’s offering was that of an animal, and involved the shedding of blood, that this constituted the great difference.  It must be remembered that when God Himself gave the law of the minchah, the offering of  Genesis iv.,  He says nothing about the slaying of an animal, or the shedding of blood.   Leviticus ii.  gives the specification, and it will be seen that Cain’s offering of the fruit of the ground is nearer to the bloodless minchah than was Abel’s.  The excellency of Abel’s offering therefore seems to arise from another origin.  The cause of the acceptance of Abel’s offering and the rejection of Cain’s is found in the character of the offerers rather than their offering.  Abel’s gift was accepted because he was “righteous”;  Cain’s was rejected because he was wicked.  The same principle is found in the words of the Lord in  Matt. v. 23, 24:--

     “If therefore thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that the brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.”

     Here is the case of Cain and Abel, Cain’s offering was rejected because God could not bear witness that the offerer was righteous. 

    Let us look at the reference to Cain and Abel in  I John iii.   What is the theme of this chapter?  The structure makes it very clear that John is urging a practical manifestation of righteousness and love upon those who have believed. 

I  John   iii.   1-18. 

A   |   1, 2.  The Father’s love to us. 

     B   |   3-9.  Distinguishing mark between God’s children

                          and the devil’s.--Righteousness. 

     B   |   10-17.  Distinguishing mark between God’s children

                           and the wicked one’s.--Love. 

A   |   18.  Our love to brethren. 

     The member   B   is the one that contains the reference to Cain, and we will give that in detail. 

I  John   iii.   10-17. 

B    |    e   |   10, 11.  “In this” are manifested the children of God 
                                             and of the devil. 
               f   |   12.  Cain slew his brother. 
                   g   |   13.  The world’s hate. 
                       h   |   14, 15.  No murderer has eternal life 
                                              abiding in him. 
           e   |   16-.  “In this” we perceive the love of God. 
               f   |   -16.  Lay down lives for brethren. 
                   g   |   17-.  The world’s good. 
                       h   |   -17.  No compassion.  
                                          How abideth the love of God in him? 

     The two seeds are characterized by their deeds;  the emphasis is not put upon the righteousness which is upon faith without works, but the righteousness which is “done” and manifested.  The apostle says:--

     “Little children, let no man deceive you, the one who does righteousness is righteous, the one who does sin is of the devil;  no one not doing righteousness is of God, and no one who loves not his brother.”

     Then follows the example of Cain who manifested that he was “of the devil”, and was not righteous, by his hatred of his brother.  “And wherefore slew he him?  Because his works were wicked and his brother’s righteous”.  Cain’s works were poneros (wicked), because he was of the poneros (the wicked one).  We do not understand the mystery of the divine begetting, we know it to be a reality, and we see its manifestation.  We do not understand the mystery of satanic begetting, but Scripture emphasizes the “sonship” of the devil’s children as clearly and in the same terms as it does those of God, and we see their manifestation.  Cain slays his brother, children of God lay down their lives for their brethren. 

     We must not attempt to pursue this theme further, for the whole epistle is an exposition of this manifestation (see i. 6-10;  ii. 4-6, 29;  iii. 3, 7, etc.).   Genesis.iv.7  places emphasis upon “doing well”, and by so doing Cain would have been accepted.  If he did not well "a sin offering was lying at the entrance (of the garden of Eden, where the Presence of the Lord tabernacled between the cherubim)".  Cain repudiated the word of God, he would not go the way of true acceptance, and instead of slaying the sacrifice, he slew his brother.  Cain’s punishment was:--

     “Now thou art cursed more than the ground … a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.”

     Cain realized that the greatness of his punishment consisted more in the being driven out from God’s presence than from the extra curse upon the ground.  In answer to his fear that  he  would  be  slain,  the Lord  set a  sign or  token  for  Cain,  and  protected  him (O! wondrous mercy) by a threat of sevenfold vengeance.  The vagabond takes his name with him, for the land he travelled to is named Nod (wandering or vagabond);  it does not say “and he took unto himself a wife” in the land of Nod, as so many misquote. 

     Cain was the first one that Scripture says built a city, the second recorded builder was Nimrod.  The Israelites were compelled to build cities for Pharaoh, but the only building that is recorded of God’s children in the first two books of the Bible is that of altars.  The rebels in the land of Shinar said, “Go to, let us build us a city”.  Lot, not Abraham, was attracted by “the cities of the plain”, and when Sodom was about to be destroyed Lot pleaded that he might be allowed to go to another city, Zoar.  Abraham, on the other hand, built no city, for he looked for a city that had foundations, whose Maker and builder is God.  Cities are symbols of civilization, the arts and crafts and music were all introduced by the descendants of Cain.  The “world” with all its attractiveness is of Cain, who was of that wicked one, and the true child of God is found outside with Abel, with Enoch, with Noah, with Abraham, and with Christ. 

     We must not go further, much more should have been considered, but space is limited.  May the practical lessons not be lost upon us, and may we grasp this great fundamental of dispensational truth – the two seeds.