Genesis 1-2-3-4

[Resource Manager]

A consideration of this outstandingly important passage would be seriously incomplete without a review of the many passages, both Old Testament and New Testament, which allude to it. Some of these have already been touched on in connection with verses 1 and 6 and 14 (all of which, see), but there are many more, some of them casting a clearer light on the essential meaning.

 

1. Jesus himself identified the seed of the serpent when he denounced the Pharisees and scribes: “Ye serpents, ye generation (i.e. seed) of vipers, how can ye escape ...?” (Mt. 23:33, cp. 3:7). That same day “they consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety (s.w. Gen. 3:1), and kill him” (Mt. 26:4). Within 48 hours their condemnation was sealed by his death on the cross.

 

2. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth ...” (Jn. 3:14). Familiarity with these words can blind the mind to their startling implications. Apart from the impressiveness of the type (Num. 21:5-9), it is here declared that in the death of Christ sin itself was destroyed - “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14), yet another allusion to the serpent in Eden.

 

3. There can be no manner of doubt that when Paul wrote that “she (the woman) shall be saved through the childbearing” (1 Tim. 2:15), he was referring to the Seed of the woman. The alternative, that a woman achieves salvation through producing a large family may be good Catholic doctrine but Biblically it is hopelessly absurd.

 

4. “For he is our peace ... having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:15,16). Is it possible that here Paul is hinting at a correspondence between redeemed Jews and Gentiles, and Adam and Eve? (Or does the “parable” run differently?).

 

5. 1 John 3 has a sustained allusion to Genesis 3: “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he (Jesus) is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil (seed of the serpent); for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not go on committing sin; for his (God’s) seed abides in him: and he cannot go on sinning, because he (like the Seed of the woman) is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil” (3:7-10); then follows an allusion to Cain and Abel, as typical of the two classes.

 

6. Also, somewhat less obviously: “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not (does not go on sinning); but he that is begotten of God (Jesus, the Seed of the woman) keepeth him, and that wicked one toucheth him not” (1 Jn. 5:18). Here, with the word “keepeth” John seems to look back to the somewhat mysterious LXX reading of Gen. 3:16, which has “keep” for “bruise”.

 

7. “The knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (or, by his glory and virtue): whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises (Gen. 3:15 especially): that by these ye might be partakers (contrast Adam’s eating) of the divine nature (“ye shall be as Elohim”), having escaped the corruption (“thou shalt surely die”) that is in the world through lust (“when the woman saw ...”) “(2 Pet. 1:3,4).

 

8. Peter’s denunciation of contemporary corrupters of the faith employs Genesis phraseology: “... them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government ... not afraid to speak evil of dignities ... But these, as natural brute beasts (the serpent!), made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption ... Spots are they, and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you” (2 Pet. 2:10-13; and see also v.18,19).

 

9. “... the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal life which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began” (Tit. 1:2). What can this refer to, if not to Genesis 3:15?

 

10. Paul’s rebuke of Elymas the sorcerer is fairly explicit: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil (seed of the serpent), thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (Acts 13:10). Doubtless Paul used this kind of language because it had been used against him when he was an adversary of the truth:

 

11. “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5; 26:14). The usual explanation - a stubborn animal having to be prodded into useful activity - suffers from the drawback of being unBiblical. Is it possible to believe that such a man as Jesus would reprove such a man as Saul without having recourse to the words of Holy Scripture? On the other hand, the word for “kick” means more specifically “to kick with the heel.” And “pricks” actually describes the sting of a serpent (Rev. 9:10; 1 Cor. 15:55 only). “It is hard for thee to kick with thy heel against the sting of the serpent.” This puts the passage in a completely new light. Saul saw Jesus as being the serpent in Israel’s Eden and himself as the conqueror of a great power of evil! Within seconds he realised that the roles were just the reverse: as in –

 

12. Psalm 91:13: “Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.” But there is here the problem: why mention of the lion?

 

13. “Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me” (Ps. 41:9; Jn. 13:18). There is remarkable similarity here to Acts 9:5 as expounded in paragraph 11. Then, reading these words with reference to the serpent, is it possible that there is light here on the dramatic swing of loyalty made by Judas? - that, like Caiaphas (Jn. 11:50), he had come to the conclusion that the work of Jesus was going to mean destruction for the nation unless he, Judas, fulfilled the role of redeemer and crushed the threat before it became worse? - Jesus filling the part of the serpent, and Judas in the role of Redeemer!

 

14. Moses’ rod became a serpent. But, empowered by God, he made this symbol of sin harmless, turning it into a token of divine authority vested in himself (Ex. 4:4). But certain differences from Genesis 3:15 were essential to distinguish between the redeeming work of Moses and that of Christ. The other sign (4:6,7) foreshadows Christ afflicted with the consequences of the sin-disease and yet in his own bosom overcoming that sin-nature.

 

15. One of Isaiah’s lovely pictures of Messiah’s kingdom describes “the sucking child playing on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child putting his hand in the cockatrice den” (11:8), because the serpent is slain, his den is empty. Other rather less obvious Scriptures to consider are: Ps. 49:5: (applied to the death and resurrection of Jesus: Expos. of Daniel, J.T., p.14); Ps. 72:9; 74:13; Mt. 1:23; 10:16; Lk. 10:18,19; Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 15:25,26.

 

By contrast with the foregoing comments (OT and NT) on 3:15, the Century Bible (as a sample of modern commentaries) has this: “Part of the curse upon the serpent, is the constant feud between the serpent tribe and mankind.”

[Resource Manager]

3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

When first created, the man and his wife had been bidden: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” From the very first, procreation was an essential feature of the Creator’s purpose with them. Now, one of the fruits of transgression is to be an intensifying of the woman’s fecundity. Population explosion in the 20th century brings home the stark fact of the Fall. In ancient days they coped with this problem by passing their children through the fire to Moloch (or his equivalent), and thus causing yet more sorrow and more conception for the woman. In these enlightened times, we have the pill and organized abortion in a determination to cancel out Genesis. LXX reads: “pains and groaning” (cp. Rev. 12:2 with its reference to this place). A woman’s travail has become the Bible’s most vivid figure for extreme agony and wretchedness (Ps. 48:6; Is. 13:8; 21:3).

 

But there has been one delightful exception: “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Lk. 1:28).

 

With this single exception, “a woman when she is in travail hath sorrow ... but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world” (Jn. 16:21). With this parable of his disciples’ distress over his suffering, and joy regarding his resurrection, Jesus expounded beforehand the enigmatic symbolism of the woman and man-child in Rev. 12:2,5.

 

Appropriately Eve was now bidden see as her lord the one whom she had lured into transgression. Suffering through her union with him, she would yet desire to be subject to him more than ever: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” Desire and domination take the place of love and cherishing.

 

No amount of strident emphasis on women’s lib. can set aside this abiding principle established by God, that in the family the man has the superior status: just as “the head of every man (in the church) is Christ,” so also “the head of the woman is the man” (1 Cor. 11:3). “Let your wives keep silence in the churches ... they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the Law (in Gen. 3:16)” (1 Cor. 14:34). “I suffer not a wife to teach, nor to usurp authority over her husband” (1 Tim. 2:12).

 

Even when the husband is an unbeliever, the principle still applies: “Ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, that, if any obey not the the word (of the gospel), they also may without the word be won by the demeanour, the way of life, of the wives” (1 Pet. 3:1).

 

Apart from this husband-wife relationship, in Christ “there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

 

There is a more fundamental reason than the one already advanced why a woman must be content to accept a lower status:

 

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church ... Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (Eph. 5:22-24).

 

This highly important passage says the very opposite of what it is often taken to mean: not that the relationship of Christ and the church affords a useful illustration of man and wife, but that, immediately after the first promise of a Saviour (3:15), God appointed that the marriage bond should illustrate on a small scale the big grand Divine Idea: Christ and his redeemed. Human marriage was henceforward intended by God to be a small-scale replica, a microcosm, of Christ and the Church.

 

When two people come together with this divine relationship as the dominating ideal of all that they hope to be to each other, then - and only then - is the marriage on a proper footing. The wife is dedicated to seek the well-being of her husband as completely as a true church aims at pleasing her Lord. And as Christ gave himself fully, completely, and utterly, in life and in death, for those he came to save, so will a true husband unselfishly care for his wife in everything at the expense of his own inclinations.

 

When a marriage is built on this God-appointed foundation, both partners making a conscious and sustained effort to turn this ideal into a living reality, all marriage difficulties evaporate - there is no problem that is not capable of sweet solution.

[Resource Manager]

3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

 

Again, there is an element of appropriateness about this curse. Man (Adam), made out of the ground (adamah) and eating of the forbidden tree growing out of it, finds himself chained as a slave to the ground. What was designed originally to be one of his highest pleasures (2:15,16,19), is to be a discouraging drudgery. “Vanity of vanities ... what profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun” (Ecc. 1:2,3). “The creation (Paul certainly means the New Creation of redeemed men and women) itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth (Gen. 3:16) in pain together until now” (Rom. 8:21,22).

 

It is surely significant that only the serpent and the ground are cursed - the great enemies: sin and death.

 

The phrase: “cursed for thy sake” could well read: “by thy transgression,” by the sin of the man taken out of the ground. Or, by the slightest possible change (because of the common confusion in Hebrew between R and D): “by, or in, thy works.” LXX reads thus. If the last of these, then it is an anticipation of the grim pronouncements of v.18,19. The psalmist’s allusion to “eating the bread of sorrows” probably looks back to this curse in Genesis (Ps. 127:2).

 

Yet the world is a very lovely place and in many considerable areas it is wonderfully fertile. Then, if so productive now, when the curse of God lies on it, and when men in their thoughtless selfishness plunder it to the top of their bent what can it be expected to be like when the whole earth becomes a paradise restored, “a new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth (not curse, but) righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13)?

 

One of Isaiah’s pictures of the age to come has frequent allusions back to Genesis:

 

“The sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed ... they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them ... as the days of a tree (LXX: the tree of life) are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain (as Adam), nor (as Eve) bring forth for trouble (LXX: for the curse): for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord (the seed of the woman) ... dust shall be the serpent’s meat ...” (Is. 65:20-25).

[Resource Manager]

3:18 “Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;”

 

It is not by accident that the Hebrew word for “thorn” also means “that which is to be abhorred.” From this time on “thorns and thistles” becomes one of Scripture’s most pejorative terms (Num. 33:55; Mt. 7:16; Job 31:40; Heb. 6:8), an appropriate description for sons of Belial (2 Sam. 23:6). And some passages seem to imply an intensification of the curse of Eden (Hos. 10:8; Is. 34:13, with which contrast 35:1,2).

 

Adam had been given a mandate of mastery - to “replenish the earth and subdue it” (1:28). But here now is a reversal of those high powers. Here was a feature of nature which he would forever have to contend with and never win - until paradise is restored by Messiah: “Instead of the thorn shall come up the fir tree, and instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle tree” (Is. 55:13).

 

It looks as though the principal of vegetarian diet was continued to the human race (1:29; contrast 9:3). But “herb for the service of man” (Ps. 104:14) was to be “herb of the field”, that is, of the ground outside the garden. This red earth which had brought forth Adam was now to bring forth its curse for him.

 

Yet this very expression: “bring forth” became (in Hebrew) the source of one of the Old Testament’s most lovely expressions associated with the Messiah: the Branch (Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12; Ps. 85:11,12 - a strongly Messianic passage — and 132:17). The Man whose Name is The Branch was brought forth out of the cursed soil of the human race, a soil where spiritual thorns and thistles are prolific.

 

But on him, The Branch, came the curse of Eden in every detail - sorrow, sweat (Lk. 22:44 only), eating bread, thorns and thistles, a return to the ground. He was a man of sorrows (the gospels give no hint of a laugh or even of a smile on his face), in Gethsemane the perspiration on his brow (on a particularly cold night) was a sweat like great drops of blood; it was his food and drink to do the will of his Father; he was crucified crowned with thorns; and that day he returned to the ground from which the first Adam was taken.

[Resource Manager]

3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

 

Here the word for “face” is, literally, “nostrils.” The word is much used for “anger” - in this context it expresses a man’s dislike of drudgery.

 

Work is not a legacy of the Fall (2:15), but toil is. Wordsworth comments: “Here is mercy: for to fallen man labour is a preservative against sin” - it keeps a man out of mischief. How the twentieth century, over-endowed with leisure, underlines the truth of this!

 

And what is true regarding ordinary bread stands true also about Bread of Life. The Bible does not yield its treasures to those who lack diligence, but “much food is in the tillage of the poor” - but tillage there must be.

 

“Dust thou art” told Adam of his origin, which he may not have known until now (2:7). There is no plainer declaration of man’s mortality. It is an abiding mystery that thousands of devout Bible readers miss the evident meaning of these words, and cling pathetically to the Greek philosophical futility of soul-immortality. It is, of course, taken for granted that the decree of mortality applied to the woman also.

 

It is noteworthy that even in this pronouncement of condemnation, death is not specifically mentioned - because of the hope of redemption already taught (v.15), and soon to be re-emphasized by the idea of sacrifice. “If a man keep my saying (i.e. hold on in faith to the saying about me), he shall never see death” (Jn. 8:51); for such a man does not die, he sleeps till the day of resurrection - this is the word Jesus uniformly used about the death of believers.

 

A surprising number of Old Testament passages look back to this fiat: “unto dust shalt thou return” 18:27; Ecc. 3:20; 12:7; Ps. 90:3; 22:15,29; 104:29.

[Resource Manager]

3:20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

 

Formerly (2:23) her name was Ishah. Then why a new name so soon? In the Bible new names are always specially significant: Abraham, Sarah, Israel, Peter, Paul, Barnabas etc. And so here: “By this new name (wrote a Reformation commentator) Adam testifieth his faith in, and thankfulness for, God’s former promise in verse 15.” And by his assigning of the name, Adam also asserted the truth of verse 16: “and he shall rule over thee.”

 

The name Eve has come into the English Bible by a remarkable sequence of translator’s modifications from Hebrew: chawwah, which itself is closely connected with the word chai (= life, living being). There are linguistic problems regarding the name, because (a) the root is extremely irregular, and (b) it occurs nowhere else with this sense (except in one or two names, as Hivites: dwellers).

 

Modern scholars, eager to make Genesis dependent on pagan sources, try to establish that Eve is Aramaic for “serpent” (if true, what does it prove?), or else they point to the Sumerian creation story about Nin-ti, a double-meaning name: Lady of the rib, or Lady who makes to live. Couldn’t this show that the Sumerian story depends on the Hebrew?

 

“Eve” is perhaps best read as a Hebrew hiphil: “causing to live.” The emphasis on “mother” underlines Adam’s faith in the promised Redeemer, the seed of the woman. Death was come through the woman; so also life would come. Here was justification by faith - and so also with Eve (4:1).

[Resource Manager]

3:21 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”

 

Viewed naturally, this divinely-appointed switch from fig leaves to garments of skin seems odd. In the climate of paradise, where hitherto they had gone naked without discomfort, would not the former clothing be much more suitable? Yes, of course. But not so from God’s point of view.

 

There can be no doubt that traditional exposition is correct in inferring that coats of skin meant the slaying of animals and the slaying of animals meant the inauguration of sacrifice: “without the shedding of blood is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).

 

And that there was remission of the sin may be inferred from the fact that the penalty was remitted: “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (2:17). Adam lived nearly a thousand years after this. Just as “the soul that sinneth it shall die” has its fulfilment today for many in the rite of baptism, an act of faith, so also Adam and Eve died in the sacrifice which covered their sin.

 

Yet it also stands true that “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb. 10:4), either by curing the sinner or as adequate recompense. So there is a further inference that the real ground of Adam’s forgiveness was his faith in the promised Redeemer, the Seed of the woman, a better sacrifice. Thus his salvation was on precisely the same basis as that of any believer in Christ today. The only difference, and that negligible, is that those now in Christ look back, believing, to the merits of his sacrifice, whereas Adam (and all Old Testament saints) looked forward with the same conviction and faith.

 

As God provided the garments, so also He provided the covering of sin which they symbolized.

 

The sequence of ideas in the narrative is logical and complete: Sin, Confession, Promise of a Saviour, the Promise understood and believed, this Faith openly expressed, Sacrifice, and the covering of Sin by personal identification with the Sacrifice. All the essentials of the doctrine of the Atonement were there in Eden. The principles of Salvation are always the same.

 

A detail easily overlooked is that in the Hebrew text the word for “skins” is actually singular, thus clearly implying one Sacrifice to cover the sin of Adam and the sin of Eve, and of course the sin of all other true believers! Thus the picture is complete: over the centuries many animals slain, but only one true Sacrifice.

 

It has also been inferred that Adam was instructed and inaugurated into office as priest ministering the offering. But this is surely a mistake. Whilst it is true that the word for “coat” (Heb: k’tōneth; Gk: chitōn; Jn. 19:23) means a priestly robe (there might be two exceptions to this), the garment could not be made until the sin-offering was slain and its blood poured out before the Lord. So the more correct inference would be that once the sacrifice was offered (with the angel of the Lord as ministrant, thus teaching Adam his need of a priest also), holy garments - to be worn only on holy occasions? - were fashioned for Adam and for Eve. Thereafter, until a son of the family was equal to the responsibility, Adam would fulfil the office of priest.

 

For “coats of skins” the Targum of Onkelos has “clothing of honour,” and apparently Paul refers to this: “Those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour” (1 Cor. 12:23).

 

The sinful pair now knew the comforting truth of the later Scripture: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity” (Ps. 32:1,2).

 

This basic idea carries through many a Scripture. The Apocalypse emphasizes that the Book of Life can be opened only by a slain Lamb (5:6), and thereafter Old Testament saints (“souls under the altar”) are retrospectively granted white robes (6:11). Others who are now called out of Egypt, “the great tribulation,” also “wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb” (7:14). And when men like blind Bartimaeus come to Christ and find new sight, they cast away their (old) garments (Mk. 10:50). So also the restored prodigal (Lk. 15:18,22).

 

Ephesians 4:22-25, already quoted with reference to the Promise of 3:15, is worth quoting again to show that Paul’s exhortation took in the whole range of teaching from Genesis 3:

 

“Put off concerning the former way of life the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts: and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on (s.w. Gen. 3:21) the new man, which after God (1:26) is created in righteousness and true holiness. Wherefore putting away lying, speak ever man truth (O.T. idiom for the Promise) with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (2:23).” And so also in Col. 3:10, Gal. 3:27; 2 Cor. 5:3; Rom. 13:14.

 

It has to be admitted that both Paul’s approach to this verse 21, and the present writer’s, differ somewhat from that of the modern commentators and the Jewish rabbis. The former educe that Adam was being taught the lesson of social service - the clothing of the poor, and so on. The latter go in for pure romance: “On these coats were painted all beasts and birds of the world, and Adam gave these coats to Cain. When he was killed these coats came into the hands of Nimrod. Esau killed Nimrod, and got possession of them, and they were worn by Jacob when he went to Isaac to obtain the blessing.” (“Fables and endless genealogies”?).

[Resource Manager]

3:22 “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

The plural pronoun here only makes sense when read with reference to the angels whose presence in these transactions is constantly implied. The phrase: “to know good and evil” might imply that the angels had earlier known an experience of probation such as provides an appropriate environment for saints today; for it is only “by reason of use that the senses are exercised to discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:14 - an allusion to Genesis?) But such a conclusion needs reinforcement from other and plainer Scriptures.

 

The alternative is to take the words as spoken in irony, as who should say: ‘Well, he’s now our equal, is he? Then shouldn’t he be shown that he is not?’

 

That expression, “become as one of us” echoes (in a different irony, surely) the beguiling words of the serpent ([[v.5), so in that respect the creature spoke truth.

 

If more precision is sought in the meaning of the phrase, then the “good” Adam now knew was the Promise of a Redeemer (v.15), and the “evil” was the curse of labour and mortality (v. 17-19).

 

It is tempting to read the text: “as the one among us,” as though implying a fear of Adam’s immortal superiority to themselves. But this cannot be pressed. Nor will such a higher status be fully achieved until paradise is restored (1 Cor. 6:3).

 

Eating of the fruit of the tree of life would certainly impart immortality. (Rev. 2:7 clearly implies this; and see also the comment on 2:16,17). But the objection may have referred to ready access to “the leaves of the tree for healing” (Rev. 22:2), so that by constant eating of them mortality would be kept in abeyance. Such a view would be possible only by taking the phrase “for ever” as governing all three verbs: “for ever take ... for ever eat ... for ever live.”

 

The unfinished sentence in this verse expresses either the need for prompt action, or the angelic horror at the possibility of the world being peopled with immortal sinners: ‘Just now he wants redemption. But will he always be of that mind?’ And later experience with Cain (see notes on 4:13-16) show that the fear may not have been unfounded.

 

If it be asked: “What happened to the tree of life?” the answer would seem to be: Before ever it came to fruit-bearing, it withered and died, for now it grew in cursed ground (v.17).

[Resource Manager]

3:23 “Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.”

 

This passage plainly intimates that Adam was made from the red (edom) ground (adamah) outside the garden. God’s tillage there had brought forth thorns and thistles for Him! And so it has been for Adam also.

 

Here the rabbis have tacked another strange fancy on to the record. They speculate that God bade Adam cultivate the ground outside the garden just as he had already tilled the garden itself, giving as a reason: “Adam, you were taken from that soil outside the garden.” Adam did so. But when he turned to re-enter the garden he found that the Holy One, blessed be He!, had locked the garden-gate.

 

How is one to reconcile this immoral fantasy with the next verse?

[Resource Manager]

3:24 “So he drove out the man: and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”

 

The subject of the Cherubim is large, complex, and obscure. Here it is only possible to summarise a few ideas and suggestions.

 

1. The chief associations of the Cherubim are with the presence of God - in the Holy of Holies of Tabernacle and Temple (Ex. 25:18ff; 1 Kgs. 6:23ff); they are certainly to be identified with the Seraphim of Isaiah 6:2; the Lord in glory is described as sitting enthroned above the Cherubim (Ez. 1:26-28; Ps. 80:1). In the Holy of Holies Cherubim were everywhere - not only on the mercy-seat (Ex. 25:20), but also on the Veil (26:31) and also on the walls and ceiling provided by the inner curtain (Ex. 36:8). Hence in the Apocalypse, the Divine Presence is described as having Cherubim “in the midst of the throne and round about the throne” (Rev. 4:6,7).

 

2. Other Cherubim associations are definitely with a Chariot (1 Chr. 28:18). Ezekiel 1:10 describes the Chariot of the Lord (note 1:18-21). “He rode upon a cherub, and did fly” (Ps. 18:10). The four chariots go out from the presence of the Lord (Zech. 6:1), from between the two “mountains of brass” - the Jachin and Boaz of the new temple. Cp. Ps. 147:15; 2 Th. 3:1 RV. The Chariot is, of course, to be deemed to have an angel driver. Here is God going into action in His world, sometimes going to war.

 

3. The four distinctive faces appear to represent God’s activity in all His creation. On this, consider Genesis 9:9,10.

 

4. Traces of the cherubim tradition from Eden have been found in other ancient religions - the man-headed winged bulls or lions at Nineveh. So also, less markedly, in Egypt. And winged “griffins” guarding a sacred tree (the tree of life?) have been found at more than one place in Syria.

 

5. In the Tabernacle, cherubim were also on the Candlestick (Arch of Titus) and on the incense altar (Josephus), and the horns of the brazen altar only make sense on the assumption of embossed ox-cherubim on the four brazen sides. These Tabernacle cherubim are to be thought of as having bodies of oxen, because of their special association with sacrifice (note Ez. 1:7). The golden calf (calves) of Exodus 32 was not Egyptian in origin, but a debased Cherub. So also the calves of Dan and Bethel were intended to persuade the ten tribes that the whole of their land was holy to the Lord and protected by Him - again, a subtle perverting of received religious truth (cp. Heb. 9:5). The artist’s depiction of a cherub as an innocent little child with tiny wings is derived from a rabbinic fancy.

 

6. The three essential ideas associated with Cherubim appear to be:

 

a. The guarded holiness of God.

 

b. God going into action (e.g. Ps. 18:6ff; 29; Zech. 6).

 

c. Symbols of Israel, thus:

 

Ephraim:		Man
Judah:		Bull
Dan:		Eagle (or Serpent)
Reuben:		Man

 

These four signs are equally-spaced constellations in the Zodiac. After Genesis 2 and 9 all allusions to cherubim have an Israel context. See the end of par. 2 here.

 

7. Cherubim are not angels, but they symbolize angelic activity. Hence the emphasis on eyes and wings; e.g. Ps. 34:15,7.

 

8. There is remarkably little evidence for the idea that Cherubim are to be seen as symbolic of redeemed saints, the multitudinous Christ. This notion can be read into the details in a number of places, but it is doubtful if there is anything which points specifically to such an interpretation. Indeed, there are some places (e.g. Gen. 3:24; Rev. 5:9, 10) where there is marked difficulty.

 

9. The meaning of Cherub has become a focus of much speculation. Some examples: (a.) Connection with a word for “hold,” thus giving the idea of being a guardian. But the form of the word in Hebrew is rather against this, (b.) Derivation from Q-R-B, describing one who is near; i.e. a close attendant on the majesty of God. (c.) Compound K-ROB, like a multitude (Dan. 7:10?). (d.) Association with a root meaning “to plough” (cp. ox figures in the Tabernacle).

 

Returning now to Genesis 3:24: From the later analogy in Tabernacle and Temple, the Eden Cherubim were at a centre of worship. And being sited at the east of the garden, when Adam came to offer sacrifice, he would necessarily approach from the east, precisely as did the Israelite when coming to the Tabernacle.

 

The word for “placed” is, strictly, “he caused to dwell.” There is close association with mishkan, dwelling, tabernacle, and with Shekinah Glory, the Glory that dwelt in the sanctuary. LXX has: “And he caused him (Adam) to dwell at the east of the garden” (see comments on 4:15,16).

 

The accompanying phrase has never been clearly explained: “the flame of the sword turning itself.” It is fairly likely that there is here an allusion to the vivid brightness of the Glory of the Lord by which God’s acceptance of sacrifice was intimated (e.g. Ps. 80:1), but why such an unusual expression should be used is not clear. In the word for “turning itself” there may be a hint of the wheels of the Cherubim chariot (Jud. 7:13 - “tumbled” - has just the same form of the same verb).

 

Almost universally the keeping of the way of the tree of life is taken to mean guarding, so as to prevent Adam’s access. But every other detail in this verse suggests the opposite idea: to keep open the way of the tree of life (Jn. 14:6), that is, to keep hope alive that one day paradise would be restored. The Tabernacle in the wilderness had a tree of life - the candlestick, with its trunk, branches, leaves, buds, flowers, fruit.

[Resource Manager]

ADAM AND CHRIST

 

The parallel is insisted on in these Scriptures:

 

Romans 5:18,19

1 Corinthians 15:45

Ephesians 5:30-32

Philippians 2:5-8.

 

However, it is not easy to assemble the many details in a strictly correct order. And, inevitably, at times comparison becomes contrast. There are, of course, places where the correspondence is not exact. This is true to some extent in nearly all parables, prophecies and types. If always exact, would Christ our Lord be unique?

 

 

1.	Birth announced	Genesis 1:26
	beforehand by angels	Luke 2:13; 1:30
2.	Made outside paradise	Genesis 2:15
3.	In God’s image	Genesis 1:26
		2 Corinthians 4:14
4.	God ‘tilled’ the ground,	Genesis 2:7; 3:18
	then Adam (Christ) did	1 Corinthians 3:9
		John 5:21,26
5.	Adam came to a garden,	Genesis 2:15
	Christ to a wilderness	Matthew 4:1
6.	His commission was to	Genesis 2:15
	‘work’ it and ‘keep’ it	John 4:34; 17:12
7.	No fellowship was possible	Genesis 2:20
	with ‘beasts’	Psalm 49:20
8.	A deep sleep, caused by	Genesis 2:21
	God	Luke 23:46
9.	Eve fashioned from his	Genesis 2:22
	side	John 19:34
		1 John 5:8
10.	A help meet for him, one	Genesis 2:18
	like himself
11.	Eve “built”; a process	Genesis 2:22
		Ephesians 2:22
12.	Eve brought to Adam by	Genesis 2:22
	God	John 6:44; 17:6,9,11,24
13.	Woman called by the name	Genesis 5:2
	of her Husband	James 2:7
14.	‘Ishah’ means ‘Man-ward,	Genesis 2:23
	towards Man’	Ephesians 4:15
15.	“Bone of my bones, and	Genesis 2:23
	flesh of my flesh”	John 17:23
		1 Corinthians 6:17
		Ephesians 5:30
16.	The Man must leave Father	Genesis 2:24
	and mother - and so must	Psalm 22:1
	the woman	Philippians 2:6
		Mark 3:33
		John 19:26
		Matthew 26:53
17.	The Man to be the teacher	Genesis 2:16,22
18.	“Not ashamed”	Genesis 2:25
		1 John 2:28 (Hebrews 2:11)
19.	Adam chose to join his	Genesis 3:6,12
	wife in her fallen state	1 Timothy 2:14
		1 John 4:2,3
		Ecclesiastes 4:10
20.	Christ makes the Tree of	Acts 5:30
	Death into a Tree of Life	1 Peter 2:24
21.	A tree now good for food,	Genesis 2:16
		Song of Songs 2:3
22.	pleasant to the eyes,	John 12:21
23.	to be desired to make one	1 Corinthians 1:30
	wise.
24.	Descent from Abraham (fig	Matthew 3:9
	leaves) in itself proves to
	be of no value
25.	The fruits of Adam’s sin	Genesis 5:3
	and Christ’s obedience are	Romans 5:14,17
	entailed on their families
26.	Enmity between the	Genesis 3:15
	Woman and the power of	Romans 8:7
	sin
27.	Adam hid himself and his	Genesis 3:8 (Hebrew)
	wife	1 Peter 4:8 (Greek)
28.	The curse of sweat	Genesis 3:19
		Luke 22:44
29.	and thorns,	Genesis 3:18
		John 19:2
30.	and the ground,	Genesis 3:17,19
		John 19:42
31.	and thus he did eat bread	Genesis 3:19
		John 4:34
32.	“Sorrow all the days of thy	Genesis 3:17
	life”	Isaiah 53:3
33.	Both the Man and his Wife	Genesis 3:21
	clothed through the slaying	Hebrews 2:14
	of one sacrifice (Adam first,
	then Eve)
34.	Salvation through the	Genesis 3:15
	Child-bearing	1 Timothy 2:14
35.	The curse encountered in	Genesis 3:16-19
	the garden	Matthew 26:36
		John 19:41
36.	Suffering outside the place	Genesis 3:24
	of holiness	Hebrews 13:12,13
37.	“Thy desire shall be to thy	Genesis 3:16
	Husband, and He shall rule	Psalm 45:11
	over thee”
38.	Eve promised tribulation	Genesis 2:18; 3:16
	and many children	John 16:1-4
		Mark 16:15
39.	The two beget a worthy	Genesis 4:1-5
	and an unworthy seed	Matthew 25:32
40.	They are united in a	Revelation 21:2; 22:2
	paradise
41.	in a “sabbath” without	Genesis 2:3
	night	Revelation 22:5
42.	“Have dominion” was	Genesis 1:26
	spoken to both	Psalm 8:6
43.	The seventh “day	Genesis 2:3
	specially blessed

 

[Resource Manager]

Commentary on Genesis, Chapter 4

 

4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife: and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

 

How wisely Scripture uses this word “know” in this context, for it is very true that man and wife do not really know each other until they know each other.

 

It is difficult to see how the translation can read: “a man from the Lord.” The reading must be either “a man with the Lord,” i.e. with the help of the Lord (cp. LXX: by means of the Lord), or “a man, even the Lord.” The first of these is distinctly irregular. The usage is hard to match elsewhere. On the other hand, the immediate context strongly supports the second reading, for the very next verse has: “bare his brother, even Abel,” (using the same Hebrew particle). So also in v.25,26; and 1:1: “In the beginning God created even the heaven and even the earth.” In these places, “with” would be impossible.

 

There can, then, be little doubt that in naming her child (a responsibility she did not leave to Adam; contrast v.26) she was joyfully proclaiming her conviction that here was the promised Seed of the woman (3:15) who would redeem the family from sin and curse. Instead of referring to her baby as “son” or “child” she called him “Man.” Since Ish usually means a man of special consequence (contrast adam), there is perhaps a further hint here of Eve’s faith-full Hope of Salvation.

 

As Adam had openly proclaimed his faith in the Promise (3:20), so Eve also: “I have given birth to the divine Man,” and note the word “faith” in 1 Tim. 2:15. Both were justified by a firm faith in the Redeemer.

 

The little Hebrew word which is the crux of this understanding is the equivalent of AZ in English, and of Alpha-Omega in the New Testament, where it comes as the name of Jesus alongside “the LORD,” which is, and which was, and which is to come (Rev. 1:8). Nor can it be accident that when he was born the angel of God used the same verbal device: “a Saviour which is Christ - (even)-the-LORD” (Lk. 2:11). The Jewish Targum of Jonathan groped towards the right idea, but succeeded only in making nonsense of Eve’s words: “I have gotten as man the angel of the Lord.”

 

Her confession of faith also shows a familiarity with the Covenant Name, Jehovah. It is as though she said: ‘I, the mother of all Life, have gotten from the Ever-Living One the Man-Child who will bring Life in place of our curse of Death.’

 

The assertion is often made, on the basis of a misunderstood Exodus 6:3, that the Covenant Name was not revealed until the time of Moses. Only careless Bible reading can lead to such a conclusion as this, for there is ample evidence in the text that the patriarchs before Moses were familiar with the Covenant Name (9:26; 15:7,8; 18:14; 19:13; 22:14; 24:7,12,27,31). And didn’t they need to be? What use would God’s Covenant be to them without His Covenant Name as a reassurance of faith?

 

On the other hand what has been deemed to be decisive the other way is really no hindrance at all, for Exodus 6:3 can as easily be read as a rhetorical question: “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them?” - as who should say: “Of course I was.” This equally valid reading provides harmonization.

 

Some scholars insist that the name of Eve’s baby means “spear or javelin” - anything to insinuate disbelief of the Bible text! But there is an easy connection between the name Cain and the intensive form of the verb “to get.” So Eve was not attempting a bad pun when she triumphantly declared: “I have gotten.”

 

But this very qanah is a double-meaning word. It also means, very frequently: “to purchase,” and particularly in the sense of “redeem” (e.g. Ruth 4:5,9,10; Jer. 32:7-9). So this provides further intimation of Eve’s enthusiastic conviction: “Here is the promised Redeemer.” Alas, later events were to infuse dramatic irony into her expectation! Indeed this name Cain could, with equal readiness, be linked with the common word for “jealousy.” So, as verse 5 proves, Eve was no false prophetess.

[Resource Manager]

4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

 

The change in emphasis in the naming of this second son is most marked. “Cain” was Messianic in flavour. But by the time of his brother’s birth (this must have been some years later, and probably with the birth of daughters intervening), it was already evident to the parents that evil propensities were now built not only into their own nature but into all their family. So with a despairing swing to the other extreme, the second son was called Hebel, vanity, worthlessness (in the English Bible the aspirate has got lost through adoption of LXX spelling - Greek has no letter H). Already it was easy to see that Adam was begetting sons “in his own likeness, after his image” (5:3).

 

Commentators seem eager to press for equation of Abel’s name with a Sumerian word for “son,” but is it not more likely that this Sumerian word was derived from “Abel” than conversely?

 

The occupations followed by the two sons - almost the only thing in which they are set in contrast - are mentioned first as though important as well as explanatory, and significantly Abel’s is specified first. Yet it was Cain the husbandman who accepted the curse laid on Adam (3:17), whereas this was only indirectly true for Abel.

 

The older brother, being a tiller (literally, a slave) of the ground, subsisted by a very obvious dependence on his own works. But Abel was (literally) “an overseer of the flock” (LXX: a shepherd of the sheep; Heb. 13:20) - and not, be it noted, a herdsman of cattle (Heb: baqar). He concentrated on what would provide milk (1 Cor. 9:7); and sacrifice, and a covering such as God had given to his parents. Indeed, the sheep he tended were probably the flock of sanctuary sacrifices.

 

The shape of the Hebrew sentence sets these two in marked contrast. The one grew for the satisfying of his own appetites, and apart from that aim had no personal involvement with his plants. But the other lived a more outward-looking life, having concern for each individual animal (Jn. 10:3).

 

It is interesting to note that the charge laid upon the Rechabites by their forefather Jonathan bade them follow the way of Abel and eschew the life of Cain (Jer. 35:6,7). And they were commended for their faithfulness in adhering to this.

 

In what has been written here already about the two brothers it is not difficult to see that Abel is to be taken as a type of Christ and Cain as a type of the Jews who slew him. The relevant details will be brought together near the conclusion of the story.

[Resource Manager]

4:3-5a And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.

 

“In process of time” surely misses the more precise force of the Hebrew idiom. Literally it is “at the end of days,” and since “days” is sometimes used to intimate a year (e.g. Jud. 11:40; 17:10; Num. 9:22 - Heb.), and “end of days” appears to signify the end-of-the-year religious festival (1 Sam. 1:3,20; 2:19, 1 Kgs. 17:7,11), it is not unreasonable to see these offerings by Cain and Abel as the primitive equivalent of the later Day of Atonement service associated with the Tabernacles harvest festival.

 

The traditional interpretation is almost certainly correct, that the basic reason for rejection of Cain’s offering was that he failed to bring a blood sacrifice, for “without shedding of blood is no remission.”

 

The age-old Jewish explanation, that “the best fruit he ate himself, and the worst fruit he brought for an offering,” although doubtless reasoned from Malachi 1:7,8, is very inferior. In fact, it is just the kind of explanation a doctrine of justification by works would evolve. In any case, the spirit behind Cain’s offering is suggested by the pointed omission of “firstfruits,” in contrast with Abel’s “firstlings.” The former was a minchah, a meal-offering (RV: Lev.2), whereas the mention of “the fat thereof” is a detail usually, though not invariably, associated with a sin-offering (Lev. 4:8-10).

 

Abel offered this “by faith” (Heb. 11:4). But since “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” it follows that the first family had received angelic instruction concerning sacrifice, its mode and meaning. All of this Cain evidently chose to ignore. The apostle John comments that Abel’s murder ensued because his works were righteous but Cain’s were evil (1 Jn. 3:12). Here is one sense in which they were evil. The comment on verse 7 will suggest another. “The sacrifice of the wicked is abomination: how much more, when he bringeth it with a wicked mind” (Pr. 21:27).

 

The use of the word “brought” seems to imply an appointed sanctuary of the Lord, as does the mention of cherubim (3:24). By and by there are further indications of such an institution (v.7,15,16).

 

All the details regarding Abel are specially significant. The text does not say: “he brought,” but “he also brought of the firstlings.” Thus is implied that Abel brought of the fruit of the ground, as Cain did (hence the word minchah used about his offering; it would be quite inappropriate to a blood sacrifice), but he brought a lamb or kid of the first year also. And the firstling would be offered first, and then the minchah afterwards, for in the Law of Moses this principle is insisted on that, until there has been expiation of sin by means of a sin-offering, no other sacrifice is appropriate (e.g. Num. 6:14-17).

 

There need be no difficulty over the plural “firstlings,” for one such as Abel would wish to offer not only sin-offering but also burnt-offering and peace-offering (and he had yet another purpose besides these; see below on v.7). This was evidently the understanding of the writer of “Hebrews,” for he refers to “God testifying of his gifts” (11:4). Such sacrifices would have been adequate for them all. Yet Cain incurred God’s displeasure. So it would seem that already there was a rift in the family, Cain refusing to join in religious fellowship with Abel (who no less than seven times in this chapter is called his “brother”). Should this be seen as the first example of the odium theologicum which with its block disfellowship has often been the plague of God’s people right up to the present day?

 

How did God “have respect unto” (Heb: look upon) Abel and his offering? It is surely right to see here an acceptance of the sacrifice by fire from heaven or from between the cherubim (3:24). The Biblical examples of this are sufficiently numerous to make such an idea eminently reasonable (Lev. 9:24; Jud. 6:21; 13:19; 1 Kgs. 18:38; 1 Chr. 21:26; 2 Chr. 7:1). A tolerable alternative to this view is that there was vivid manifestation of the Shekinah Glory, as apparently happened on the Day of Atonement (Ps. 80:1; Is. 58:8). Either of these would be implied by Hebrews 11:4: “God testifying (bearing witness) concerning his gifts.”

 

So Abel, a sinner like his parents, inevitably so, was accounted righteous. In fact, every other Biblical allusion to him says so - 1 Jn. 3:12, Mt. 23:35 and Heb. 11:4 explicitly and Heb. 12:24 by implication. There was also a “Brother Abel” - Apelles — in the ecclesia at Rome, and Paul, sending greetings to him, seems to have had his mind on the great prototype, as he wrote: “Salute Apelles approved in Christ” (Rom. 16:10).

[Resource Manager]

4:5b,6,7a And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

 

Millenniums later Jesus was to teach that anger with one’s brother is murder (Mt. 5:22), and, as the narrative goes on to show, Cain’s anger was against Abel, not with God, and certainly not with himself.

 

But there was chagrin concerning himself. That fallen countenance was the reaction from head uplifted. Cain had felt pleased with and sure of himself, without need of repentance before God or of atoning sacrifice.

 

Now came the insistent angelic “Why? ... Why?” Here, as in 3:9,11 and many other places in Scripture, rebuke was by direct questions designed to activate conscience, and so lead on to repentance and honest confession.

 

But also: “Come now, and let us reason together: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow” (Is. 1:18). “If thou doest well, shall there not be an uplifting, an exalting” - an uplifting of his fallen countenance, or an exaltation in status (priesthood?), or the smile of the divine countenance (Num. 6:26).

 

“But if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” This A.V. reading can hardly be correct, for - paraphrased - it merely says: ‘If you sin, there is a danger that you will sin.’ There is a much more meaningful alternative which is also more true to the text.

 

With hardly an exception, the word “lieth” is used of flocks and herds peacefully lying down. Also, the extremely common word for “sin” (169 occurrences) is a double-meaning word; it also signifies “sin-offering” (116 times). In Leviticus 4, the same word comes translated “sin” 8 times and “sin-offering” 10 times (In Dan. 9:24 A.V. has got the wrong meaning). Again, the word “door” (87 times) needs to be taken in a literal sense; the figurative usage of it has hardly a single parallel in Scripture.

 

Putting these details together, there is complete justification for the reading: “a sin-offering lieth at the door” - at the door of the place of meeting (3:24) where this was spoken. In other words, here was further rebuke that Cain could, if he would, find acceptance through the offering of a fitting sacrifice.

 

But if the votive animal was there, and Cain manifestly had not brought it, how did it come to be there? The answer lies in the word “firstling” (plural) describing Abel’s offering (v.4). In other words, Abel, understanding the need for animal sacrifice and knowing something of his brother’s intransigent frame of mind, had also brought the needful sacrifice for Cain to avail himself of - and this helpfulness had been scorned.

 

Yet a further detail seems to support this reading. With the rabbinic pointing of the Hebrew text there is a grammatical solecism in the phrase: “sin (a sin-offering) lieth at the door.” With either reading the verb “lieth” should be feminine in form to match the noun: chattath. But it is masculine. “The verse is unintelligible,” says one commentator. “This most difficult verse,” says another. “Sin is personified as masculine,” says a third. One Jewish paraphrase is: “By the door of hell shalt thou rest.”

 

There are two better alternatives. Either the masculine form is there to indicate a male animal for sin-offering (as in Lev. 4:23); or by simple re-pointing, to read:” he (Abel) has laid a sin-offering at the door.”

 

In this verse LXX is markedly different from the Hebrew text; and since there is very good reason to believe in the superiority of LXX in the next verse there is encouragement to take it seriously here, especially since it does not read as an invention:

 

“If thou didst bring a sacrifice rightly (correctly), but didst not rightly divide it, didst not thou sin? Hold thy peace.”

 

These words are capable of being read in more than one way. “Divide” may refer to the parting in two of a covenant sacrifice (as in Gen. 15:10). The Hebrew idiom is, consistently: “to cut a covenant.”

 

Or, the reference may be to a God-appointed sub-dividing of an animal sacrifice before it is set in order on the altar; compare the instruction about the burnt-offering in Lev. 1:12,17.

 

Another possibility (preferred here) is, by implication: ‘If thou hadst brought an animal sacrifice and yet not followed proper procedure of sacrifice, would not that be sin? Then how much more if heaven’s instruction is flouted, and no blood sacrifice offered at all.’

 

The first of these explanations implies a solemn divine appointment treated with indifference. They all imply self-will. And that peremptory “Hold thy peace!” suggests a Cain making angry violent protestation.

[Resource Manager]

4:7b And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

In times later than this, until the appointment of a Levitical priesthood, this mediatorial office seems to have been the prerogative of the firstborn in the family (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12,13; Ex. 24:5; Gen. 27:15; 37:3; Dt. 33:16).

 

So the “rule” mentioned here could well be the priority of priesthood. Cain had been expecting to succeed his father in this office, but he now faced the likelihood of being superseded by Abel, and was bitter about it.

 

Such a conclusion is supported by the fact that the very rare Hebrew word for “desire” is derived from another which normally describes the choice right shoulder of a sacrifice, assigned to a priest; e.g. Lev. 7:32-34.

 

Thus, whereas Eve allowed herself to be talked into sin by the serpent, it seemed impossible for Cain to be talked out of sin by God.

[Resource Manager]

4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

 

There is something odd about the Hebrew text here. Strictly, it reads: “And Cain said unto Abel his brother...,” but with no indication of what was said. RV attempts a solution of the difficulty thus: “And Cain told Abel ...,” but this is hardly accurate; and it ignores the preposition “unto.”

LXX and several other versions have a small addition which makes all the difference: “And Cain said unto Abel his brother, Let us go into the field.” This also serves to explain the next phrase: “and when they were in the field ...”

 

Two other inferences follow - that the murder of Abel was premeditated (as 1 Jn. 3:12 makes clear), and that Cain was loth to attempt the foul deed close by the sanctuary of the Lord.

 

The primary reference of Jn. 8:44 is undoubtedly to the serpent, but the phrase: “he was a manslayer from the beginning,” was surely chosen to indicate Cain as the first of the serpent’s seed murdering the one who so admirably foreshadowed the promised seed of the woman; see p.136f.

 

And how was the murder committed? Most probably by cutting Abel’s throat (with a sharp stone knife; note 4:22) such as had already been used for a similar slaughter of animal sacrifices. Such a method would certainly be appropriate to the type.

 

Thus, whereas Adam broke only the First Commandment, Cain broke both the First and the Second (Mk. 12:29-31).

 

The “field” which figures so prominently in this story has interesting (and not accidental) associations. Almost the identical Greek word has its only occurrence in Luke’s introduction to the sermon on the mount, called here “the plain, the field” (6:17). And the immediately preceding expression (v. 16) is: “Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.” And Peter, recalling Judas’s defection, reminded the brethren how “this man purchased - literally: got (= Cain) a field” (Acts 1:18).

 

One could almost believe that the Book of Proverbs also was making deliberate commentary on this violent incident:

 

“He that hateth dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him; when he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart” (26:24,25). It makes an interesting exercise to identify Cain’s seven.

 

There is a strange rabbinic fantasy about the murder of Abel: “The two brothers began to quarrel, and they said, ‘Let us divide the world between us.’ One said: ‘The ground on which thou standest is mine.’ And the other said: ‘The ground on which thou standest is mine.’ One said: ‘The temple shall be situated on my portion of the ground,’ and the other said the same; and thus they quarrelled together. And with Abel, the younger son, were born two daughters, his sisters. With Cain was born only one sister. And Cain said: ‘I will take thy second sister for a wife, because I am the firstborn.’ Abel said: ‘I will have her, for she was born with me.’ As they thus quarrelled, Abel threw Cain to the ground, and sat upon him. Cain said to Abel: ‘We are but two sons to our father; why wilt thou kill me? Abel had compassion on him and released him. Hence says the text: ‘Cain rose up, and slew Abel.’ (Hershon: Genesis). No wonder Paul inveighed against “fables and endless genealogies” and “vain jangling.” It was this sort of rubbish that he was warning against.

[Resource Manager]

4:9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? and he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

 

As with his parents (3:9-13) so also now the goodness of God would fain lead Cain to repentance - and to confession, and so to forgiveness. But with a bald lie, Cain proved himself the seed of the serpent in yet another respect.

 

However his answering expostulation be read, it betrays a bad spirit:

 

‘Do I have to shepherd the shepherd?’ or:

 

‘Is that my duty as firstborn? But I’ve been superseded, haven’t I?’ (with reference to v.7). or:

 

‘Am I to be the keeper of his commandments? Does he have that authority over me?’

 

That every man is his brother’s keeper is made plain by many a New Testament precept and example.

[Resource Manager]

4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground.

 

In the Hebrew text the word “blood” is plural (though not normally so). Various explanations have been offered - that in slaying Abel, Cain also slew his progeny; or, that Cain inflicted many wounds, a measure of his furious jealousy; but much more likely is the semitechnical explanation that this word “bloods” is an intensive plural, to be translated “murder” (cp. 2 Sam. 3:28 - another plural).

 

This idiom - using plural for singular, for the sake of emphasis - is commonplace in the Old Testament. A few examples:

 

Dan. 2:1,5:	“Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams” - it was one dream actually, but extra vivid, a nightmare, and he came out of it with a scream.
Num. 5:15,29:	(Heb.): intense jealousy.
Ezra 10:9:	“the great rains” (Heb.) - incessant, drenching downpour.
Zech. 6:11:	“Make crowns, and set them (it; note the italics) on the head of Joshua” - an impressive crown. This Joshua was no pope with triple tiara.
Ps.42:5:	“I shall yet praise him for the salvations of his countenance” - His great salvation.

 

There are scores of examples like these.

 

In the sight of God, if not in the sight of men, the shedding of human blood defiles the ground (Num. 35:33), hence Judah’s argument: “What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood” (37:26). Instead, Joseph’s brother hoped that the blood of a kid would conceal their somewhat less serious crime (v.31).

 

Did the angel’s words mean that Abel’s blood cried out the guilt of Cain or for the vengeance due against him? Probably the latter, for the text goes on to enunciate the principle of “the avenger of blood” (v. 12,14,15; Num. 35:12).

 

The same idea is associated with the blood of martyrs: “How long, O Lord ... dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?” (Rev. 6:10). These are certainly Old Testament martyrs (see “Revelation,” by H.A.W, ch. 13), for New Testament saints have received emphatic instruction not to look for vengeance. The blood of sprinkling of the New Covenant “speaketh better things than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:24) - grace and forgiveness, not revenge.

 

The phrase: “crieth from the ground” may also suggest that Cain, well aware of his intense guilt, had buried the corpse (see the next verse).

 

[Resource Manager]

4:11 “And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;”

 

An alternative suggestion to that just made under 4:10 is that these words describe an earthquake. “The earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth” (Ps. 18:7, a prophecy of the crucifixion). This certainly happened when Christ died (Mt. 27:51 ). And LXX strongly implies the same thing about the death of Abel, for it translates “opened her mouth” with a word meaning “gape,” used in such phrases as “may the earth open, and swallow me” (L. and S.).

[Resource Manager]

4:12 “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.”

 

Here is intimation of another curse, specific to Cain and his serpent progeny, in addition to that already pronounced because of Adam’s sin (3:17). Presumably, this was the curse which was taken away after the Flood (8:21) - because the Cainites had been taken away. Was it because of this curse that there came in the Cainite line a marked change in living style (v.17) and in occupations (v.21,22? Contrast Lev. 26:3,4). Cain’s response chimes in with this: “Thou hast driven me out from the face of the ground” (RV; Heb: adamah).

 

The phrase: “a fugitive and a vagabond” seems to have been chosen not only for its dire meaning but also for its telling curtness in Hebrew, rather like the tohu, bohu in 1:2. The word for “fugitive” does not imply flight, but certainly wandering; whilst the other has in its usage a suggestion of misery. It is this word “vagabond” which gave its name to the land of Nod (v.16).

 

LXX has “groaning and trembling,” a phrase for which one would expect to find telling use in the New Testament, but apparently not.

[Resource Manager]

4:13,14 “And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth: and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.”

 

This AV reading suggests a Cain who was a craven coward or drenched in self-pity. But RVm has a very different translation which there is every reason to accept as more correct: “Mine iniquity is greater than can be forgiven” (Ps. 32:5; 85:2 Heb. have the identical words “iniquity, forgiven”). The same Hebrew word which here and in ten places is translated “punishment” (e.g. 19:15; Lev. 26:41,43; 1 Sam. 28:10) reads “iniquity, sin” in no less than two hundred and twenty-two places. This is the normal meaning of the word. In Hebrew there are several examples of the same kind of thing - a word with another meaning which is either its consequence or even its opposite; e.g. sin and sin-offering (see note on v.7), work and wages (Is. 62:11), bless and curse (barak; Job 1:5 etc). And there are at least twenty instances of nasa (bear) also meaning “forgive.”

 

LXX and other versions (including Tindale) also line up with this RVm reading, though LXX, somewhat anachronistically reads “my crime is greater than can be forgiven,” using Pilate’s word regarding Jesus (Jn. 18:38; 19:4,6).

 

Accepting, then, this drastically different understanding of the Hebrew text, there is here a clear indication of repentance in the soul of Cain, albeit mixed with more concern for himself than for the honour of God (v. 14, 16).

 

Yet, such is God’s grace, He is willing to accept a low-grade repentance rather than none at all. In the days of the Judges Israel’s repeated turning to God nearly always sprang out of self-interest. Many would say that Simon the sorcerer could hardly have been a true convert, yet his baptism was evidently accepted as such. So also with the Judaists whose motives for conversion were anything but pure (Gal. 2:4; Phil. 1:16,18; see “Studies in Acts,” H.A.W. App. 3). And in the parable the prodigal turned homeward in the first instance because he was starving and miserable (Lk. 15:17). So also not infrequently in modern times there has probably been more than one motive for giving loyalty to the Truth. Yet God knows, and is not unwilling, for He never despairs of human nature.

 

There is almost an Irishism about the AV reading: “Every one that findeth me shall slay me;” and the Revisers, scenting this, opted for “whosoever;” but in fact King James’ men were correct. The language assumes a fast-growing human race (note v.17), and every one of them an “avenger of blood,” horrified and resentful.

 

On this point other suggestions are: (a) that “every one” (Heb: all) includes also fierce animals (but will v.14,15 allow of this rabbinic explanation?); (b) that Cain expected to encounter other human families as he wandered abroad (but if there were such, why should they immediately seek to slay him?).

 

On the other hand, the situation here is marvellously like that described in Num. 35:19,27: “The avenger of blood shall slay the murderer when he meeteth him ... if the avenger of blood find him without the borders of his city of refuge ...”

 

The angel of the Lord evidently spoke with impressive wrath, and Cain cowered away. “Thou hast driven me out,” he said, using the very term which had described the rejection of his parents (3:24). “And from thy face shall I hide myself,” in terror of judgement (s.w. Dt. 7:20; Jer. 16:17). 

[Resource Manager]

4:15 “And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.”

 

For “therefore” LXX evidently had a slightly different Hebrew text reading: “Not so!” - and this, it must be conceded, follows on even better after Cain’s expressed fear of a revenge killing.

 

Instead, because of his expressed repentance, protection is appointed, and a sevenfold judgement pronounced on any family, who might flout God’s decree in this. Both aspects of the principle set out here still carried weight in the time of David - in the death of seven of Saul’s house because of his slaying of the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1,6,8), and in the clemency extended to Absalom the murderer (2 Sam. 14:14b).

 

This sign of protection appointed for Cain makes no sense at all except the earlier inference regarding his repentance be correct. But now there is a divine logic about this sequel.

 

The old idea that a mark (the sign of the cross!) was branded on Cain’s forehead has no support in the Genesis text, but has to lean heavily on Ez. 9:4 and its deliberate echo in Rev. 7:3 (and compare Ex. 12:22). If there is any truth in this, then the mark was certainly for protection, and not as the brand of a murderer.

 

But the RV reading is more correct: “The Lord appointed a sign for Cain, lest ...” The remarkably close anticipations, already noted, of the later idea of a man-slayer finding refuge in an appointed place (Num. 35) encourages a like interpretation here. Before ever Israel came into the Land of Promise the principle of refuge for the manslayer was already in operation:

 

“He that smiteth a man ... I will appoint him a place whither he shall flee. But if a man ... slay him (his neighbour) with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die” (Ex. 21:12-14).

 

Thus, before and in addition to the six cities of refuge there was also a seventh (isn’t this number to be expected?); compare 1 Kgs. 1:50; 2:28.

 

It seems likely, then (and v. 16,17 support the idea) that, just as a covering was appointed for repentant Adam and Eve, so now God appointed that Cain should dwell permanently at the altar of the sanctuary already in use. Such a punishment and such a forgiveness would very aptly fit the crime.

 

As it turned out, Cain tired of this life of restriction and godliness, tired of being a permanent witness to others against the evil of violence, and chose instead to be his own saviour. So, seven generations later, God Himself became the avenger of blood on the line of Cain, the more so because they “filled the earth with violence” (Gen. 6:11). And then, from the Flood till the time of Moses the principle of a manslayer’s city of refuge seems to have been in abeyance (9:6).

[Resource Manager]

4:16,17 “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife: and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”

 

This part of the narrative is often read as though, as soon as his encounter with the angel of the Lord was concluded, Cain rushed away from the divine presence and forthwith went off into some remote country. But it is at least equally possible that an appreciable lapse of time took place between verses 15 and 16. Such chronological lacunae are by no means uncommon in the Bible narrative; e.g. there is an unspecified gap of forty years at Exodus 2:21; a gap of approximately a year exists between John, chapters 4 and 5, and again between chapters 5 and 6; the synoptic gospels supply plenty more examples.

 

The understanding of verse 15 developed here suggests that Cain would continue to find sanctuary at the altar of the Lord for some time; but then, tiring of the unpalatable holiness of the place and of the life there, he went out upon the face of the earth (v.16) not seriously daunted at being now finally estranged from the face of the Lord.

 

Where did he go? “Nod” means “wandering” - it is the word translated “vagabond” (v.12,14). Today it is not identifiable, but (with only the consonants to go on) the guess has been made that Cain went to India.

 

Wherever it was, there he built a city - for only himself and his wife and son? There is here a further intimation (as in the word “every one” - Hebrew: all; v.14) of a rapid growth of population which this highly selective narrative has not described. The words can even be read to imply that when Cain went forth to the land of Nod he was accompanied by an appreciable number of others who either sympathized with him or were impressed with his project. One could wish for fuller detail.

 

However, one thing is clear - that Cain, utterly self-dependent, as in the earlier matter of sacrifice, now had his own city of refuge in preference to the sanctuary appointed him by God.

 

And he called the city after the name of his firstborn, who at this time was almost certainly not a helpless baby but a grown man. Enoch means “dedicated” - in the rest of the Old Testament the word is used always in a holy context; so here is an indication of the establishment of a new religion, with Enoch as its priest. In the well-chosen phrase of one commentator, here is the beginning of “a self-sufficient society” - God no longer needed! How appropriate is the irony of Psalm 49: “Their inward thought is that their houses shall continue for ever ... they call their lands after their own names (v.11). Contrast God’s “wanderers”, who “have here no continuing city” (Heb. 13:14).

 

Cain means “getting,” and here the emphasis is on that fulfilment: he got for himself wife, children, city, riches, arts and crafts, religion - and the renewed curse of God.

 

“Hast thou marked the old way which wicked men trod? which were cut down out of time, whose foundation was overflown with a Flood: which said unto God, Depart from us: and, What can the Almighty do for them. Yet he filled their houses with good things” (Job 22:15-18).

[Resource Manager]

Cain and Abel as types of an unworthy Israel and a slain Christ

 

As Cain was an unworthy firstborn of Adam, so also was Israel God’s unworthy firstborn (Ex. 4:22), gotten out of Egypt (Ex. 15:16). Israel was a tiller (literally: a slave) of the cursed ground of the Law, thus seeking justification by their own human effort, and with little concern for the well-being of individual plants (by contrast with the aims of the dedicated modern amateur gardener!).

 

Abel’s name (= vanity) proclaims the essential truth that he shared the cursed nature which is the inheritance of all the race. Seven times he is called Cain’s brother. He is also called a prophet (Lk. 11:50,51), yet not one word of his is recorded; nevertheless “he, being dead, yet speaketh.” As a type of Christ he is eloquent (Heb. 12:24).

 

He was a Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. 13:20), an overseer of the flock, and as such he showed unremitting concern for each individual animal (Jn. 10:3).

 

Devoutly he brought before God all needful sacrifices, not only for himself but also for his brother. This essential help was abruptly rejected. His brother deemed himself self-sufficient. Thus hostility crystallised out into planned murder which an all-seeing God condemned with frightening earthquake.

 

The priesthood was lost to Cain, and instead Abel was high-priest elect.

 

To this day the challenge to a Cainite Israel: “Where is thy brother?” receives still the same false answer: “I know not,” with the added repudiation: “Am I the keeper of my brother’s commandments?” The sacrifice to cover Israel’s sins is still available, and is still scorned.

 

In the first century there came a repentance to match Cain’s but like his there was no enduring (Jude 11; 1 Jn. 2:19). Cursed from the Land, Israel as a fugitive and a vagabond has faced persecution. And with the utter loss of a sanctuary of the Lord all personal satisfaction from a man’s own religious works was utterly lost.

 

In place of the Law first given by God there is now a wholly man-made religion. Israel is dedicated to wrong thinking, away from the presence of the Lord. Yet still the voice of “Abel” cries from the ground, from an empty tomb.