Charles Ellicott Commentary Genesis 4

She ... bore Cain, and said ...—In this chapter we have the history of the founding of the family of Cain, a race godless and wanton, but who, nevertheless, far outstripped the descendants of Seth in the arts of civilisation. To tillage and a pastoral life they added metallurgy and music; and the knowledge not only of copper and its uses, but even of iron (Genesis 4:22), must have given them a command over the resources of nature so great as to have vastly diminished the curse of labour, and made their lives easy and luxurious.

I have gotten a man from the Lord.—Rather, who is Jehovah. It is inconceivable that eth should have here a different meaning from that which it has in Genesis 1:1.

It there gives emphasis to the object of the verb: God created eth the heaven and eth the earth, that is, even the heaven and even the earth. So also here, I have gotten a man eth Jehovah. even Jehovah. The objection that this implies too advanced a knowledge of Messianic ideas is unfounded. It is we who read backward, and put our ideas into the words of the narrative. These words were intended to lead on to those ideas, but they were at that time only as the germ, or as the filament in the acorn which contains the oak-tree. If there is one thing certain, it is that religious knowledge was given gradually, and that the significance of the name Jehovah was revealed by slow degrees. (See on Genesis 4:26.)

Eve attached no notion of divinity to the name; still less did she foresee that by the superstition of the Jews the title Lord would be substituted for it. We distinctly know that Jehovah was not even the patriarchal name of the Deity (Exodus 6:3), and still less could it have been God’s title in Paradise. But Eve had received the promise that her seed should crush the head of her enemy, and to this promise her words referred, and the title in her mouth meant probably no more than “the coming One.” Apparently, too, it was out of Eve’s words that this most significant title of the covenant God arose. (See Excursus on names Elohim and Jehovah-Elohim, at end of this book.)

Further, Eve calls Cain “a man,” Heb., ish, a being. (See on Genesis 2:23.) As Cain was the first infant, no word yet existed for child. But in calling him “a being, even the future one,” a lower sense, often attached to these words, is not to be altogether excluded.

It has been said that Eve, in the birth of this child, saw the remedy for death. Death might slay the individual, but the existence of the race was secured. Her words therefore might be paraphrased: “I have gained a man, who is the pledge of future existence.” Mankind is thus that which shall exist. Now, it is one of the properties of Holy Scripture that words spoken in a lower and ordinary sense are often prophetic, so that even supposing that Eve meant no more than this, it would not exclude the higher interpretation.

It is evident, however, from the fact of these words having been so treasured up, that they were regarded by Adam and his posterity as having no commonplace meaning; and this interpretation has a suspiciously modern look about it. Finally, in Christ alone man does exist and endure. He is the perfect man—man’s highest level; so that even thus there would be a presage of immortality for man in the saying, “I have gained a man, even he that shall become.” Grant that it was then but an indefinite yearning: it was one, nevertheless, which all future inspiration was to make distinct and clear; and now, under the guidance of the Spirit, it has become the especial title of the Second Person in the Holy Trinity.

Abel. Regarding this name, Dr. Oppert imagined that it was the Assyrian Abil, meaning "a son." In reality, it is Hebel; and there is no reason why we should prefer an Assyrian to a Hebrew etymology. An Akkadian derivation would have been significant, but Assyrian is only a Semitic dialect, and Abil is the Hebrew ben. Hebel means something unstable, not enduring, like a breath or vapor.

We can hardly suppose that Eve called her child this from a premonition of evil or a mere passing depression of spirits; it was more probably a title given to him after his untimely death. Giving names to children would become common only when the population increased, and it was not until a religious rite was instituted for their dedication to God that they received names in their infancy.

Even then, Esau’s name was changed to Edom, and Jacob’s to Israel. Previously, names like Eber and Peleg, and even earlier, Jabal and Jubal, must have been given to those who bore them based on what they became. Names such as Esau, Jacob, and most of those borne by Jacob’s children also seem to have been playful titles. These were given in the women’s tents by quick-witted nurses who picked up on any chance words of the mother, until eventually it became the Jewish custom for women to name their children.

Probably, therefore, it was only after Abel’s death that his sorrowing relatives called him the Breath that had passed away.

Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. As Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born (Genesis 5:3), there was a long period for the growth of Adam’s family , and also for the development of the characters of these two eldest sons.

In the one, we seem to see a rough, strong nature, who took the hard work as he found it and subdued the ground with muscular energy. In the other, we see a more refined and thoughtful nature, making progress upwards.

Adam had already tamed animals in Paradise. Abel devoted himself to these, tended them carefully, and gained from them ample and easy sustenance, higher in quality even than the fruits of Paradise.

The other sons and daughters of Adam grouped themselves around these two, and Cain already seems to have had a wife when he murdered his brother (Genesis 4:17).

In process of time. —Hebrew, at the end of days: not at the end of a week, or a year, or of harvest-time, but of a long indefinite period, shown by the age of Adam at the birth of Seth to have been something less than 130 years.

An offering. —Hebrew, a thank-offering, a present. We must be careful not to introduce here any of the later Levitical ideas about sacrifice. All that we know about this offering is that it was an act of worship, and apparently something usual. Now, each brought of his own produce, and one was accepted and one rejected. Why? Much ingenuity has been wasted on this question, as though Cain erred on technical grounds; whereas we are expressly told in Hebrews 11:4 that Abel’s was the more excellent sacrifice, because offered in faith. It was the state of their hearts that made the difference; though, as the result of unbelief, Cain’s may have been a scanty present of common produce, and not of first-fruits, while Abel brought firstlings, and of the fat thereof, the choicest portion.

Abel may also have shown a deeper faith in the promised Deliverer by offering an animal sacrifice; and certainly, the acceptance of his sacrifice stimulated among people the belief that the proper way of approaching God was by the death of a victim. But Cain’s unbloody sacrifice also had a great future before it. It became the minchah of the Levitical law, and under the Christian dispensation is the offering of prayer and praise, and especially the Eucharistic thanksgiving.

We have already noticed that Abel’s sacrifice shows that flesh was probably eaten on solemn occasions. If animals had been killed only for their skins for clothing, repulsive ideas would have been connected with the carcasses cast aside to decay, nor would Abel have attached any value to firstlings. But as soon as the rich abundance of Paradise was over, humankind would quickly learn to supplement the scanty produce of the soil by killing wild animals and the young of their own flocks.

The Lord had respect. —Hebrew, looked upon, showed that He had seen it. It has been supposed that some visible sign of God’s favour was given, and the current idea among the fathers was that fire fell from heaven and consumed the sacrifice . But there is real irreverence in thus filling up the narrative; and it is enough to know that the brothers were aware that God was pleased with the one and displeased with the other.

It is more important to notice, first, that God’s familiar presence was not withdrawn from humanity after the fall. He talked with Cain as kindly as with Adam of old. Second, in these earliest records of humankind, religion is built upon love, and the Deity appears as humanity’s personal friend. This contradicts the scientific theory that religion grew out of dim fears and terror at natural phenomena, gradually ending in the evolution of the idea of a destructive and dangerous power outside of humanity, which humanity had to propitiate as best it could.

Cain was very wroth. — Hebrew, it burned to Cain exceedingly: that is, his heart was full of hot indignant feelings, because of the preference shown to his younger brother.

If you do well. —This most difficult verse is capable of a satisfactory interpretation, provided that we refuse to admit into this ancient narrative the ideas of a subsequent age. Literally, the words mean, If you do well, is there not lifting up? It had just been said that his countenance fell; and this lifting up is often elsewhere applied to the countenance. (Job 11:15.) “Instead, then, of your present gloomy, despondent mood, in which you go about with a downcast look, you will lift up your head and have peace and good temper beaming in your eyes as the result of a quiet conscience.” The second half of the verse is capable of two meanings.

First: “If you do not well, sin lies (crouches as a beast of prey) at the door, and its desire is toward you, to make you its victim; but you shall rule over it and overcome the temptation.” The objection to this is that while sin is feminine, the verb and pronouns are masculine.

There are, indeed, numerous instances of a verb masculine with a noun feminine, but the pronouns are fatal, though most Jewish interpreters adopt this feeble explanation. The other interpretation is: “If you do not well, sin crouches at the door, that is, lies dangerously near you, and puts you in peril. Beware, therefore, and stand on your guard; and then his desire shall be toward you, and you shall rule over him. At present you are vexed and envious because your younger brother is rich and prosperous, while your tillage yields you but scanty returns. Do well, and the Divine blessing will rest on you, and you will recover your rights of primogeniture, and your brother will look up to you in loving obedience.” (Compare to the loving subjection of the wife in Genesis 3:16.)

We have in this verse proof of a struggle in Cain’s conscience. Abel was evidently outstripping him in wealth; his flocks were multiplying, and possibly his younger brothers were attaching themselves to him in greater numbers than to Cain. Moreover, there was a more marked moral growth in him, and his virtue and piety were more attractive than Cain’s harsher disposition. This had led to envy and malice on the part of Cain, increased, doubtless, by the favor of God shown to Abel’s sacrifice; but he seems to have resisted these evil feelings.

Jehovah would not have remonstrated thus kindly with him had he been altogether reprobate. Possibly, too, for a time he prevailed over his evil tempers. It is a gratuitous assumption that the murder followed immediately upon the sacrifice. The words of the Almighty rather show that repentance was still possible, and that Cain might still recover the Divine favor, and thereby regain that pre-eminence which was his by right of primogeniture, but which he felt that he was rapidly losing by Abel’s prosperity and more loving ways.