John Calvin Commentary Genesis 4:2

"And again she bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." — Genesis 4:2 (ASV)

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.