Cain the firstborn, Abel the second.

God realized his promise in these two firstborn sons of the first parents of the human race. The power of God’s just judgment upon disobedience was immediately realized in the fall and depravity of these first parents. According to God’s true and faithful word recorded in Genesis 2:17, they were punished with depravity and became “children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). Thus they came into the same need that all their children would have. The parents needed the same remedy for the guilt and the pollution of their then natural depravity. They needed redemption from the mercy of God alone.

That redemption their gracious God gave to them. By his covenant word, before unspoken but then declared, he saved them from their sins. He sealed to them his redemption by clothing them with the skins of animals slain for their coverings. God spoke the first promise, the mother promise, after the fall. His action of covering them was his own. By his divine, gracious action, he nullified their actions. The shame of their nakedness had to be covered with the gracious work of their merciful, covenant, promising God and not with their own works, actions, or activity.

The word and action of God were alone sufficient. No word of reception from the first parents of the human race was needed. The mother promise was not met by a parent acknowledgment, a parent reception, or a parent confession. God’s promise and action were themselves sufficient to remove their guilt, shame, and condemnation. God’s promise and action were sufficient to break the government of their depravity and to begin the dominant, everlasting, and victorious rule of grace in their hearts, minds, and lives.

Redemption must be gracious and thoroughly gracious. Just as redemption can never be of works, so it can never be of nature. Adam and Eve had been created in the image of God, and in that blessed image they were able to conceive and to bring into the unfallen world children who bore the image of God in its blessed perfection; but they lost all that in the fall. “As in Adam all die.” “Since by man came death” (1 Cor. 15:22, 21). “So death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” “The judgment was by one to condemnation.” “By one man’s offence death reigned by one” (Rom. 5:12, 16–17). Whether the first or the second or the hundredth or the thousandth, all the generations of the human race are conceived and born in sin. David’s penitent confession, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps. 51:5), is the true condition of the whole of mankind by nature.

So it must be true of all the generations of Adam and Eve. Not only must it be true of Cain, but it must also be true of Abel and Seth. Although redeemed, Adam and Eve according to their nature could conceive and bear only children with the same nature. Of themselves they could produce only children of the flesh, the seed of the serpent. They could bring into the world only children of wrath, opposed in wrath to those who by the grace of God had been redeemed to be of the seed of the woman. Only the God of promise was powerful in sovereign grace to give them the seed of the woman. Just as Adam and Eve needed the grace of the promise of the seed of the woman, so did their seed.

Therefore it must be no surprise that the firstborn son of Adam and Eve was Cain, a child of the flesh and of the seed of the serpent. It was certainly true, as Eve confessed, “I have gotten a man from the Lord” (Gen. 4:1). But it could not be supposed, as many commentators allege she expressed, that simply because she received such “a man from the Lord,” this man was going to be of the seed of the woman. If Eve had entertained such hopes and thoughts that she would naturally give birth to covenant seed, she would be proved grievously wrong.

What ought to deeply register with the child of God in the study of Genesis 4 is that the chapter records powerfully and profoundly the power of both the righteous judgment of God and his gracious promise. The second generation of the children of men was indelibly marked with the stamp of God’s word, the firstborn with the stamp of Genesis 2:17 and the second with the stamp of Genesis 3:15. Between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman there was great enmity. Despite being the only two of the second generation of the children of men, the third and fourth persons to live and walk on the face of the earth so broad and wide, their enmity brought them into the ultimate conflict of life and death, with the seed of the serpent claiming victory over the seed of the woman.

What is also so striking about this enmity is that it manifested itself in the worship of the Lord. The enmity did not happen between these two brothers in their labors, Cain as a tiller of the ground and Abel as a keeper of sheep. Enmity did not happen between them in the older brother’s refusal to acknowledge the Lord and the worship of him, while the younger acknowledged and worshiped God. The seed of the serpent entered into the house of the Lord with the seed of the woman. The antithesis between them was made clear in their worship of the same Lord. Enmity developed and broke out in the church.

In that worship the difference was revealed. Scripture records the rejection of Cain instead of the acceptance he sought. It records over against that rejection of Cain the acceptance of Abel. Genesis 4:4–5 give the distinction succinctly: “The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” In whatever form that respect was made evident, it revealed that Abel’s offering was acceptable and that Cain’s was not. The acceptance was indicative also of entrance into God’s fellowship. Abel was accepted, while Cain was rejected.

Scripture gives only two reasons for the division between these two brothers of the same parents.

The first reason we are told in Genesis 4:3–4. The brothers offered very different sacrifices. “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.” This statement, it must be emphasized, was the only distinction made, and it was made immediately prior to the distinction in the Lord’s respect to their sacrifices.

It is not very difficult to understand from this distinction between the sacrifices why the Lord did not have respect to Cain’s offering but did to Abel’s. The younger brother’s sacrifice was after the manner of God’s clothing of his parents with coats of skin. The shedding of blood and the offering up of a slain animal was to be a proper sacrifice. The fruit of the ground had no blood to be shed or life to be taken. The offering up of a firstling with its fat was a respectable offering in form. Its form was in submission to the pattern of sacrifices established by the living God.

Rejected must be any thought that the acceptance of Abel’s sacrifice and the rejection of Cain’s were due to their differing occupations. Cain could have been the keeper of sheep and Abel the tiller of the ground. Had each then brought the fruit of his own labors to sacrifice to the Lord, both would have been rejected. Abel’s sacrifice was accepted not because he was the keeper of sheep, and Cain’s was rejected not because he was a tiller of the ground. Neither was Abel’s sacrifice accepted merely because he offered the proper kind of offering, a sacrifice of life which is in the blood. The following history of God’s word makes clear not only that he abhors merely formal sacrifices, but also that his wrath rests upon the sacrifices of the wicked no matter how formally correct they are.

The difference in form found in Genesis 4 is revealed in Hebrews 11:4 according to its root difference. The root difference, the difference that resulted in the proper form, was not of works but of faith. “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Abel’s faith was the instrument whereby he laid hold on the mother promise of God spoken to his parents. By faith Abel accounted that promise as giving him such a strong foundation for his faith that he could not offer up his own efforts or the fruit of his labors for acceptance with God. Through faith he received the same substance of the promise as his parents had received—the true seed of the woman, Jesus Christ. By faith Abel received Jesus Christ crucified, the lamb that was slain, whose blood is the precious blood of the covenant.

By faith Abel’s offering was in remembrance of the promise of salvation. He knew his gracious forgiveness as the covering of the shame of his own sin in the sight of God. By faith his sacrifice had to be not his own production but a remembrance of the promise of God and the token of that promise, also of God.

In the strict difference of the antithesis must Cain’s sacrifice be understood.

That difference is further shown by Cain’s reaction both to the rejection of his sacrifice and to the acceptance of Abel’s. Genesis 4:5 relates Cain’s reaction in two respects: “Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” There are many ways in which these two respects can be explored and identified, but the following word of God to Cain must identify the heart of that reaction. The focus of Cain’s anger was completely away from himself and directed toward others. God confronted Cain with his own fault and failure. Cain himself was to blame for the rejection of his sacrifice. It was not Abel’s fault. Nor was it the Lord’s, who had graciously redeemed Abel and given to him, in distinction from Cain, the gift of faith.

Cain’s unbelief was his own fault. It was his own fault that he did not offer a sacrifice to which the Lord would have respect. It was Cain’s own fault that he offered up his own work as a sacrifice. It was his own fault that he rejected a proper sacrifice of a slain animal in remembrance of the Lord’s promise and his instituted sacrifice and covering. It was Cain’s own fault that he confided in his own works to make him acceptable to God, rejecting the mother promise and reliance on it. “The cause or guilt of this unbelief, as well as of all other sins, is no wise in God, but in man himself” (Canons of Dordt 1.5, in Confessions and Church Order, 155).

The following rebuke of the Lord made perfectly clear to Cain that he ought to have no confidence in himself: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” (v. 7). Cain did not do well. He rebelled against the Lord. His unbelief was rebellion. His sacrifice was rebellion, offered neither in faith nor in harmony with God’s word and action. Cain’s sacrifice was therefore not accepted. The Lord also rebuked Cain for his present state of anger: “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?” (v. 6). Cain’s anger was sin. His fallen countenance was sin. His anger and fallen countenance were sure signs of his wicked impenitence. In his sin he had steeled himself against the repentance that ought to have broken his heart the moment the Lord did not have respect to his sacrifice.

The seed of the serpent still lives in the world and is ruled by the living God. That seed, like Cain, continues in its way of rebellion against its creator and judge. That seed continues on its way in stubborn defiance. The seed of the serpent is inexcusable in its rebellion. It is inexcusable not only because it remains always aware of its creator and his law, but it is also inexcusable because it constantly has ringing in its ears and driving upon its stubborn heart the judgments of God constantly rebuking it for its sin. Especially that seed of the serpent that stands before the altar to offer its sacrifices to the Lord must hear an even stronger rebuke and a greater condemnation for its wicked pretensions.

The rebuke of the Lord showed further where Cain was required to pick up the battle. As Cain was ready to continue on in his evil way, he had demonstrated already that he was of the seed of the serpent. Sin was ready at the door to lead him wherever sin willed. His anger, as controlling self-will, was blinding him to the truth of sin’s governance over him. The word of the Lord, instructing Cain in true self-knowledge, set before him his responsibility with complete clarity. The Lord called him to cast off the governance of sin: “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him” (v. 7). So the Lord commanded Cain. So the Lord held Cain responsible.

There are two radically different views concerning that rebuke of the Lord. One view is that of common grace, and that view of common grace includes the well-meant offer. This view would have that word of the Lord engaging in the work of restraining sin. Common grace sees an unrestrained Cain murdering Abel and the implications of that sin for the future of the human race in bloodshed and war. According to common grace, the word of the Lord had a definite purpose: to keep Cain from carrying out the horrible crime of fratricide. The well-meant offer of common grace explains that with those words God expressed a desire for Cain’s salvation. God had a genuine desire for Cain’s repentance over his wrong, unbelieving sacrifice and over his subsequent great wrath and fallen countenance.

The above view must completely fall apart under the judgment of what follows in the record of scripture. This view can only leave behind a God whose will for Cain’s repentance was entirely thwarted and whose efforts to prevent the horrific crime of fratricide were utterly futile. Continuing to maintain such a doctrine of common grace must result in a God who has no real sovereignty over the universe and who consequently has no right to judge it either. If God is not the absolute sovereign over all, including Cain, then God has no right to hold him either responsible or accountable, rights clearly demonstrated in the following verses.

Rather, it is exactly the other, correct view that alone can account for all the following history.

God is sovereign, the absolute sovereign, who always performs all his will and good pleasure and before whom all, both the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, are responsible and accountable. The true God, who is sovereign and particular in his grace and in the giving of that grace through faith, is the God who elected Abel and reprobated Cain. He is the God who determined according to that decree to apply the grace of the mother promise to Abel and who determined according to that decree to leave Cain in his depravity and unbelief. God’s rebuke was therefore not of grace but of judgment. Without sovereign, particular grace, his rebuke could only harden Cain’s graceless heart in its impenitence.

The absolute sovereignty of God’s grace was exactly the reason for the following murder of Abel by Cain.

The Lord who rebuked Cain was the absolutely sovereign, gracious God of the covenant. He was the Lord who had spoken the gracious mother promise to Cain’s parents, the mother promise against which their son Cain, who was of the seed of the serpent, had closed his ears in unbelief. The Lord graciously gave the tokens of that redemption and covering of sin to Cain’s parents, clothing them with coats of skin. Against those tokens their son Cain had closed his eyes. The Lord had taken Cain’s younger brother Abel for his own, giving him the faith whereby he offered to God a more pleasing sacrifice than Cain. He was very wroth against his younger brother because that brother was of the seed of the woman, the seed brought about by God’s gracious mother promise. Cain’s countenance fell because of his brother’s believing sacrifice. Indeed, in Cain’s deep anger is fulfilled the gracious word of God’s mother promise in Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity.”

The above is also the teaching of 1 John 3:12. The Holy Spirit’s explanation for Cain’s murder of Abel is the antithesis. “Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.” Because Abel was of the covenant, made the friend-servant of God by grace alone, his works were righteous. Because his works were righteous, Cain hated him.

The truth of 1 John 3:12 is applied in the following verse: “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.”

That Cain hated Abel for the righteousness of his works and that the world hates the “brethren” for the righteousness of their works, that is, the love of the brethren, must not be a marvel. What the world hates about the brethren is that their love of one another is the fruit of God’s sovereign, particular grace. Those righteous works displayed to the world are the righteous works of God, having their basis and root in Christ—the seed of the woman, the perfectly righteous Son of God. The brethren must not marvel. The enmity of the world against them is the faithfulness of their God’s faithful mother promise. The hot breath of the seed of the serpent on the necks of the seed of the woman in its heated, hateful pursuit is the divine execution of that promise. So is that relentless, hateful seed under the sovereignty of God’s just judgment. So are the brethren, the seed of the woman, under the protection and care of the sovereign God who has graciously promised to be their God, their friend-sovereign.