John Calvin Commentary Genesis 4

And Adam knew his wife Eve. Moses now begins to describe the propagation of mankind. In this history, it is important to notice that this blessing of God, Increase and multiply, was not abolished by sin. Not only that, but Adam’s heart was divinely strengthened so that he did not shrink with horror from producing offspring.

And just as Adam recognized, at the very beginning of having offspring, the truly paternal moderation of God’s anger, so he was later compelled to taste the bitter fruits of his own sin when Cain slew Abel.

But let us follow Moses’ narrative. Although Moses does not state that Cain and Abel were twins, it still seems probable to me that they were. For, after he has said that Eve, by her first conception, brought forth her firstborn, he soon after adds that she also bore another. Thus, while mentioning a double birth, he speaks of only one conception. Let those who think differently enjoy their own opinion. To me, however, it seems consistent with reason that, when the world had to be filled with inhabitants, not only Cain and Abel should have been brought forth at one birth, but many others also later, both males and females.

I have gotten a man. The word Moses uses signifies both to acquire and to possess; and it is of little importance to the present context which of the two you choose. It is more important to inquire why she says that she has received את יהוה (eth Yehovah). Some explain it as ‘with the Lord’—that is, ‘by the kindness, or by the favor, of the Lord’—as if Eve were attributing the accepted blessing of offspring to the Lord, as it is said in Psalm 127:3, The fruit of the womb is the gift of the Lord. A second interpretation amounts to the same thing: ‘I have possessed a man from the Lord’; and Jerome’s version has similar force: ‘Through the Lord.’ These three readings, I say, tend to this point: that Eve gives thanks to God for having begun to raise up posterity through her, though she was deserving of perpetual barrenness, as well as of utter destruction.

Others, with greater subtlety, explain the words as ‘I have gotten the man of the Lord,’ as if Eve understood that she already possessed that conqueror of the serpent who had been divinely promised to her. Therefore, they celebrate Eve’s faith because she embraced, by faith, the promise concerning the bruising of the head of the devil through her seed. However, they think she was mistaken about the person or individual, because she restricted to Cain what had been promised concerning Christ.

To me, however, this seems to be the true meaning: while Eve congratulates herself on the birth of a son, she offers him to God as the first-fruits of his race. Therefore, I think it should be translated, ‘I have obtained a man from the Lord,’ which more closely approaches the Hebrew phrase. Moreover, she calls a newborn infant a man because she saw the human race renewed, which both she and her husband had ruined by their own fault.

And she again bare his brother Abel. It is well known from where the name of Cain is derived, and for what reason it was given to him. For his mother said, קניתי (kaniti), I have gotten a man; and therefore she called his name Cain. The same explanation is not given with respect to Abel. The opinion of some, that he was so called by his mother out of contempt, as if he would prove superfluous and almost useless, is perfectly absurd. She remembered the purpose to which her fruitfulness would lead, nor had she forgotten the blessing, Increase and multiply. We should (in my judgment) more correctly infer that while Eve had testified, in the name given to her firstborn, the joy that suddenly burst upon her and celebrated the grace of God, she afterward, in her other offspring, returned to the recollection of the miseries of the human race.

And certainly, though the new blessing of God was an occasion for uncommon joy, on the other hand, she could not look upon a posterity devoted to so many and great evils—of which she herself had been the cause—without the most bitter grief. Therefore, she wished that a monument of her sorrow should exist in the name she gave her second son. At the same time, she would hold up a common mirror by which she might admonish her whole progeny of the vanity of man.

That some censure Eve's judgment as absurd—because she regarded her just and holy sons as worthy to be rejected in comparison with her other wicked and abandoned son—is something I do not approve. For Eve had reason to congratulate herself on her firstborn. No blame attaches to her for having intended, in her second son, a memorial to herself and to all others of their own vanity, to induce them to diligently reflect on their own evils.

And Abel was a keeper of sheep. Whether both brothers had married wives, and each had a separate home, Moses does not relate. This, therefore, remains uncertain to us, although it is probable that Cain was married before he slew his brother, since Moses soon after adds that he knew his wife and begot children, and no mention is made there of his marriage.

Both followed a way of life in itself holy and laudable. For the cultivation of the earth was commanded by God, and the labor of feeding sheep was no less honorable than useful. In short, the whole of rustic life was innocent and simple, and best suited to the true order of nature.

Therefore, this must be maintained in the first place: that both engaged in labors approved by God and necessary for the common needs of human life. From this it is inferred that they had been well instructed by their father. The rite of sacrificing more fully confirms this, because it proves that they had been accustomed to the worship of God.

The life of Cain, therefore, was, in appearance, very well regulated, since he cultivated the duties of piety toward God and sought a livelihood for himself and his family by honest and just labor, as befitted a provident and sober father of a family. Moreover, it will be proper here to recall what we have said before: the first humans, though deprived of the sacrament of divine love when they were prohibited from the tree of life, were yet deprived of it only in such a way that a hope of salvation was still left to them, of which they had the signs in sacrifices.

For we must remember that the custom of sacrificing was not rashly devised by them but was divinely delivered to them. For since the Apostle refers the dignity of Abel’s accepted sacrifice to faith (Hebrews 11:4), it follows:

1. That he had not offered it without the command of God.
2. That it has been true from the beginning of the world that obedience is better than any sacrifices (1 Samuel 15:22) and is the parent of all virtues.
3. That humanity had also been taught by God what was pleasing to Him. Since God has always been like Himself, we may not say that He was ever delighted with mere carnal and external worship. Yet He deemed those sacrifices of the first age acceptable. It therefore follows, further, that they had been spiritually offered to Him: that is, that the holy fathers did not mock Him with empty ceremonies but comprehended something more sublime and secret, which they could not have done without divine instruction. For it is interior truth alone which, in the external signs, distinguishes the genuine and rational worship of God from that which is gross and superstitious.

And certainly, they could not sincerely devote their minds to the worship of God unless they had been assured of His benevolence. Voluntary reverence springs from a sense of, and confidence in, His goodness; but, on the other hand, whoever regards God as hostile is compelled to flee from Him in great fear and horror.

We see then that God, when He takes away the tree of life, in which He had first given the pledge of His grace, proves and declares Himself to be propitious to humanity by other means. If anyone objects that all nations have had their own sacrifices and that in these there was no pure and solid religion, the solution is ready: namely, that mention is made here of such sacrifices as are lawful and approved by God, of which nothing but an adulterated imitation afterward descended to the Gentiles.

For although only the word מנחה (minchah), which properly signifies a gift and therefore is extended generally to every kind of oblation, is used here, yet we may infer that the command respecting sacrifice was given to the fathers from the beginning for two reasons:

1. To make the practice of piety common to all, since they professed themselves to be the property of God and esteemed all they possessed as received from Him.
2. To admonish them of the necessity of some expiation for their reconciliation with God.

When each person offers something of his property, it is a solemn act of thanksgiving, as if he would testify by his present action that he owes to God whatever he possesses. But the sacrifice of cattle and the effusion of blood contain something further: namely, that the offerer should have death before his eyes and should, nevertheless, believe in God as propitious to him.

Concerning the sacrifices of Adam, no mention is made.

And the Lord had respect to Abel, etc. God is said to have respect for the man to whom He grants His favor. We must, however, notice the order Moses observed here; for he does not simply state that the worship Abel had paid was pleasing to God, but he begins with the person of the offerer; by which he signifies that God will regard no works with favor unless their doer has already been accepted and approved by Him.

And no wonder, for man sees what is apparent, but God looks into the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Therefore, He estimates works only as they proceed from the fountain of the heart. This is also why it happens that He not only rejects but abhors the sacrifices of the wicked, however splendid they may appear in the eyes of men.

For if someone who is polluted in his soul contaminates otherwise pure and clean things with his own impurities by his mere touch, how can anything that proceeds from himself be anything but impure? When God repudiates the false righteousness in which the Jews were boasting, He objects through His prophet that their hands were “full of blood” (Isaiah 1:15). For the same reason, Haggai contends against the hypocrites.

Therefore, the external appearance of works, which may delude our overly carnal eyes, vanishes in the presence of God. Even the pagans were not ignorant of this; their poets, when they speak with a sober and well-ordered mind about the worship of God, require both a clean heart and pure hands.

Hence, the solemn rite of washing before sacrifices can be traced even among all nations. Now, seeing that in another place the Spirit testifies by the mouth of Peter that ‘hearts are purified by faith’ (Acts 15:9), and seeing that the purity of the holy patriarchs was of this very same kind, the apostle rightly infers that Abel’s offering was, by faith, more excellent than Cain’s.

Therefore, in the first place, we must hold that all works done before faith, whatever splendor of righteousness may appear in them, were nothing but mere sins. They were defiled from their roots and were offensive to the Lord, whom nothing can please without inward purity of heart.

I wish those who imagine that men, by their own free will, are made fit to receive the grace of God would reflect on this.

Certainly, no controversy would then remain on the question of whether God justifies men freely, and by faith. For this must be accepted as a settled point: that in God’s judgment, no respect is given to works until man is received into favor.

Another point appears equally certain: since the whole human race is hateful to God, there is no other way of reconciliation to divine favor than through faith.

Moreover, since faith is a free gift of God and a special illumination of the Spirit, it is easy to infer that we are preceded by His grace alone, just as if He had raised us from the dead. In this sense, Peter also says that it is God who purifies hearts by faith.

For the fact would not agree with the statement unless God had so formed faith in human hearts that it might be truly considered His gift. It can now be seen how purity is the effect of faith.

It is a shallow and insignificant philosophy to present as the cause of purity that men are not led to seek God as their rewarder except by faith.

Those who speak this way entirely bury the grace of God, which His Spirit especially commends.

Others also speak coldly, teaching that we are purified by faith only on account of the gift of regeneration so that we may be accepted by God.

For not only do they omit half the truth, but they build without a foundation, since, because of the curse on the human race, it became necessary that free reconciliation should precede.

Again, since God never regenerates His people in this world in such a way that they can worship Him perfectly, no work of man can possibly be acceptable without expiation.

And the ceremony of legal washing relates to this point, so that men may learn that as often as they wish to draw near to God, purity must be sought elsewhere.

Therefore, God will finally have respect for our obedience when He looks upon us in Christ.

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. It is not to be doubted that Cain conducted himself as hypocrites are accustomed to doing; namely, that he wished to appease God, as one discharging a debt, by external sacrifices, without the least intention of dedicating himself to God.

But this is true worship: to offer ourselves as spiritual sacrifices to God. When God sees such hypocrisy, combined with gross and manifest mockery of himself; it is not surprising that he hates it and is unable to bear it; from which it also follows that he rejects with contempt the works of those who withdraw themselves from him.

For it is his will, first to have us devoted to himself; he then seeks our works in testimony of our obedience to him, but only in the second place. It should be noted that all the figments by which men mock both God and themselves are the fruits of unbelief: to this is added pride, because unbelievers, despising the Mediator’s grace, throw themselves fearlessly into the presence of God.

The Jews foolishly imagine that the offerings of Cain were unacceptable because he defrauded God of the full ears of corn and stingily offered him only barren or half-filled ears. Deeper and more hidden was the evil; namely, that impurity of heart of which I have been speaking. Just as, on the other hand, the strong scent of burning fat could not win over the divine favor for the sacrifices of Abel; but, being pervaded by the good odor of faith, they had a sweet-smelling savor.

And Cain was very wroth. Here it is asked, how Cain understood that his brother’s offerings were preferred to his. The Hebrews, according to their manner, resort to divinations and imagine that the sacrifice of Abel was consumed by celestial fire; but since we ought not to allow ourselves so great a license as to invent miracles for which we have no testimony of Scripture, let Jewish fables be dismissed. It is, indeed, more probable that Cain formed the judgment which Moses records from the events that followed.

He saw that it was better with his brother than with himself; therefore he inferred that God was pleased with his brother and displeased with himself. We also know that to hypocrites nothing seems of greater value, nothing is more to their heart’s content, than earthly blessing. Moreover, in the person of Cain is portrayed to us the likeness of a wicked man, who yet desires to be esteemed just, and even arrogates to himself the first place among saints.

Such persons truly, by external works, strenuously labor to deserve well at the hands of God; but, retaining a heart wrapped in deceit, they present to him nothing but a mask; so that, in their laborious and anxious religious worship, there is nothing sincere, nothing but mere pretense. When they afterwards see that they gain no advantage, they betray the venom of their minds; for they not only complain against God but break forth in manifest fury, so that, if they were able, they would gladly tear him down from his heavenly throne.

Such is the innate pride of all hypocrites that, by the very appearance of obedience, they would hold God as under obligation to them. Because they cannot escape from his authority, they try to soothe him with blandishments, as they would a child.

In the meantime, while they make much of their fictitious trifles, they think that God does them great wrong if he does not applaud them. But when he pronounces their offerings frivolous and of no value in his sight, they first begin to murmur, and then to rage.

Their impiety alone hinders God from being reconciled to them; but they wish to bargain with God on their own terms. When this is denied, they burn with furious indignation, which, though conceived against God, they unleash upon his children. Thus, when Cain was angry with God, his fury was poured out on his unoffending brother.

When Moses says, his countenance fell (the word ‘countenance’ is in Hebrew put in the plural for the singular), he means that not only was he seized with sudden, vehement anger, but that from a lingering sadness, he cherished a feeling so malignant that he was wasting away with envy.

And the Lord said unto Cain. God now proceeds against Cain himself and cites him to His tribunal, so that the wretched man might understand that his rage can profit him nothing. He wishes honor to be given to him for his sacrifices; but because he does not obtain it, he is furiously angry.

Meanwhile, he does not consider that through his own fault he had failed to gain his wish; for if he had but been conscious of his inward evil, he would have ceased to expostulate with God and to rage against his guiltless brother. Moses does not state in what manner God spoke.

Whether a vision was presented to him, or he heard an oracle from heaven, or was admonished by secret inspiration, he certainly felt himself bound by a divine judgment. To apply this to the person of Adam, as being the prophet and interpreter of God in censuring his son, is constrained and even frigid.

I understand what good men, not less pious than learned, propose when they sport with such fancies. Their intention is to honor the external ministry of the word and to cut off the occasion for Satan to insinuate his illusions under the guise of revelation. Truly I confess, nothing is more useful than that pious minds should be kept under the order of preaching and in obedience to Scripture, so that they may not seek the mind of God in erratic speculations.

But we may observe that the word of God was delivered from the beginning by oracles, so that afterwards, when administered by the hands of men, it might receive greater reverence. I also acknowledge that the office of teaching was enjoined upon Adam, and I do not doubt that he diligently admonished his children. Yet those who think that God only spoke through his ministers excessively restrict the words of Moses. Let us rather conclude that, before the heavenly teaching was committed to public records, God often made known His will by extraordinary methods, and that this was the foundation which supported reverence for the word, while the doctrine delivered through the hands of men was like the edifice itself.

Certainly, even if I were silent, everyone would acknowledge how greatly such a view as the one to which we refer diminishes the force of the divine reprimand. Therefore, just as the voice of God had previously sounded so clearly in Adam’s ears that he certainly perceived God speaking, so it is also now directed to Cain.