What did God say to Cain?

Cain, like every unbeliever, was insensible to the truth. He judged himself as he was capable of coming to God with gifts of the earth, which expressed neither sin nor death, neither judgment nor expiation. How could Jehovah have respect to him or his offering? Nor was this all. The acceptance of Abel provoked his proud spirit to fury and unrelenting hatred: Abel, his righteous and weak brother, was its object ostensibly; God's grace really and beyond all. Jehovah interposed with words of truth and grace, all in vain. "Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, will it not be lifted up? and if thou doest not well, sin (or, a sin-offering) couches at the door."

"And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." And Jehovah speaks to him thus — "Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" The principles of God's nature are immutable. Whether people are believers or not, whether they receive the truth or not, God holds to that which belongs to His own moral being. That any one is capable of meeting the character of God in an unfallen state is another matter. It is the same principle in Genesis 4, which we find more explicitly stated in Romans 2, where God shows His sure judgment of evil on the one hand, and His approval of that which is good, holy, and true on the other. So with Cain here — "and if thou doest not well;" and such was the fact. His condition was that of a sinner, and he looked not out of himself to God. But what characterises this scene is not the state in which man as such was — this we had in Genesis 3 — but what man did in that fallen state, and more especially what he did in presence of God and faith. Certainly he did not well. "And if thou doest not well," it is said, "sin lies at the door." Evil conduct is that which makes manifest an evil state, and flows from it.

I do not think that the expression means a sin-offering, as is sometimes supposed; for it does not appear that there is ground for inferring that the truth of a sin-offering was understood in the slightest degree till long afterwards. "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and until the law was brought in there was, as far as scripture tells us, no such discrimination, if any, between the offerings. They were all merged in one; and hence it is that we find that Job's friends, though guilty in the Lord's sight, yet alike with him offer burnt-offerings. When Noah brings his sacrifice, it is evidently of that nature also. Would there not have been a sin-offering on these occasions had the law been then in force? Most wisely all such details awaited the unfolding of another day. I merely use these scriptural facts to shew what seems to me the truth that "sin" here does not refer to the specific offering for it, but rather to that which was proved by evil conduct.

Cain became very angry rather than ashamed as he should have been: his countenance fell, that is, the very look of his face became sour and depressed. God spoke to him directly, questioning him in such a way that it ought to have appealed to his common sense. Why should he be angry? If he had done well, he would have been accepted. All he needed was the proper sacrifice. If he did not well, yet a sin offering was available to him at his very door. He could still bring the proper offering and be accepted, if he would. Thus God pleads graciously with the young man to change his mind.

Though God spoke to Cain directly, Cain showed no faith in God's omniscience. How futile and foolish it is to lie to God! But as well as lying, he asks irritably, “Am I my brother's keeper?” God did not have to answer this: Cain knew well enough that he was responsible to have some honest care for his brother, but he had not only neglected this: he had been guilty of the total opposite. God then speaks with solemn words to the criminal's conscience, “What have you done! The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground” (v. 10). Of course this means that Abel's blood cries out to God for righteous retribution (Compare Revelation 6:10).

"And Jehovah said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? and he said, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done?" It is not only now the testimony of sin against us, to say what have we done as sinners. But we hear from God, "Where is Christ?" The Holy Ghost is come, and convinces the world of sin, but more than this. He comes and says to the whole world, on God's part, "Where is my Son?" Then there is haughtiness too in Cain's reply, "Am I my brother's keeper?" as though why should God ask?

His second question Jehovah follows up with the direct and terrible fact. "And he said, What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother's blood cries unto me from the ground. And now cursed be thou from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand" (Gen. 4:10-11). The ground had fallen under curse for Adam's sin; and Cain, utterly thoughtless of sin and of God's sentence had brought of the fruit of it under his tillage, itself a consequence of the fall, as an offering to Jehovah. This might have been, had man not sinned. To ignore sin is to show neither repentance nor faith, without which no sinner can find the way to God. No believer would have offered what lay under curse, what spoke of his own toil. Now the proof of the unbeliever's evil was flagrant: violence and falsehood and irreverence. For his brother's blood cried to Jehovah from the ground. He himself too most righteously was pronounced accursed, not the ground now but the man who tilled it, because of the wrath which burned to white heat, not at the instant but the more his haughty spirit brooded over his own worship disowned, his brother's accepted.

It is to be observed that nothing answering to civil government was instituted originally; nor was it invented by man during all the centuries which preceded the flood. God set it up for the first time after that great event which ushered in those dispensations of God which still run their course till the Lord come. Hence it is that Cain was not punished by man, as responsibility would have required after the sword was committed to Noah. Thenceforward did God solemnly require blood for blood: "whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." The sword of civil government was only borne by man as God's minister after the deluge.

Nor do we find explicitly the eternal judgment in Cain's case any more than in Adam's. No doubt words employed occasionally imply more to the ear of faith; but the open statement speaks of God's government of the earth, as was suitable in a revelation given to His people Israel. Therefore we hear not of heaven or of hell; but "when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield its strength to thee; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be on earth" (Gen. 4:12). Heavier than before was to be the lot of him who slew his righteous brother, cursed himself on the reluctant earth, whence with difficulty he should draw his food, and where he should be a constant prey to a bad conscience and anxious fears, shunned by all around him.

But, how graciously did the Lord deal with Cain, when He manifested displeasure at his rejection. Was the Lord unrighteous in His dealings with the two brothers? "If thou doest well shalt thou not be accepted?" Or, as the margin reads, "have the excellency." But to do well was to own, like Abel, what one born in sin needed. How little do men understand this! Yet, what higher or truer ground could Abel take, than simply to confess what he was? It was in this Cain had failed. Yet the Lord would not for that finally cast him off, so He added, "If thou doest not well, sin," or, as is by some understood, a sin offering "lies at the door:" and, if offered, his sin would be forgiven, and his position as first-born would still remain to him: "to thee shall be his desire [that is, Abel's] and thou shalt rule over him." Here we have the first mention of an offering for sin. God told him what to do, but he refused to obey, and instead of the sacrifice, as pointed out, he took his brother's life. Was he desirous to secure the rights of the first-born, and so slew his brother, as others afterwards could say, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours?" It may have been so, but scripture is silent about it. One thing, however, is clear, the way of acceptance, even after he had sinned, was pointed out to him, so he was left without excuse, when he turned from the place of sacrifice without having brought the sin-offering. The Lord would not allow him to be ignorant of what he should do, any more than Abel of the results of what he had done. Multitudes have fallen into Cain's mistake, but what the Lord told Cain He tells them. For Cain, and for them a sacrifice must be offered up. But in Cain's case it was the offering up of one from the flock; in the sinner's case now, it is trusting wholly to the sacrifice of God's Lamb on the cross. How clearly then is the whole question of a sinner's acceptance shadowed forth in this brief history! How has this history spoken to the heart of the readers of these lines? If hitherto it has been read simply as the record of a bygone age, with which we are not concerned, now may its voice penetrate to the depths of the heart, and it be found speaking directly to each soul. We read here what Cain and Abel respectively offered: but we read in it also what men are doing in these days, and how each one should act, if desirous to be found on the same side as "righteous Abel."

That sacrifice, on the other hand, was of God's appointment, not of human device, His words to Cain are full proof. — "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, a sin-offering coucheth at the door." So, I am persuaded, this ought to be read. "Sin" and "sin-offering" are the same word whether in Greek or Hebrew; but what would be the force of "if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door"? That the last expression refers to an animal seems plain: some interpreters take it figuratively, as if sin as a wild beast were in the act to spring. Too late, surely, when one has already sinned! Rather would it not be the provision of mercy for one in need of it — an offering not far to seek, but at the very door! and in what follows, the assurance of his retaining still the first-born's place with regard to Abel — "Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him"?

I should not answer very dogmatically as to Genesis 4:7. Those who take the sense of sin-offering argue on that on account of which you argue against it, the word being applied to the lying down of an animal, the victim is there before you at your door. "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? - and unto thee shall be his (Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him." Then there is the parenthesis, "If thou doest not well, sin lies at the door." Now I do not doubt that this speaks of the culpability of Cain; the only question is, if it does not present this culpability, as God has presented it to us, that is in Christ as the sin-offering. Other translations take the whole thing in another sense; I apprehend that the primary sense is, sin is there before you; you meet it in going forth; it lies at your door. He could not escape finding it attached to him: only God has laid it before us in the sin-offering in Christ. I do not doubt the English is right, and in general the other translations wrong. I believe these were all the passages you asked me about, so I close, dear -

It was this assurance of acceptance by God which Abel possessed that so provoked his elder brother. "Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to Cain, Why art thou wroth?" If a man says, I don't believe that any one can know he is forgiven, then I know he is not forgiven himself. If you were forgiven, you would know what I know, viz., the joy of a present salvation through faith in a glorified Saviour, and the precious privilege of serving Him. Acknowledge that you are in "the way of Cain," and you may get out of that way. That is what I am here for tonight. I want to get you out of "the way of Cain," and into the way of Abel. I want to get you to know and to enjoy the truth of God's salvation. But how is that obtained? By the acceptance first of the fact that you are ruined, and then by the acceptance of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. If there has never sprung up in your heart trust in the Lord Jesus, and if you have not yet found salvation, then I beseech you to listen to the voice of Abel, that dead man who yet speaks. What does he say? "Trust the sacrifice, sinner; put between your guilty soul and God the body of the spotless victim. Between my soul and God I put one that was the type of Him who is to be placed between your soul and God, and I am accepted." Truly "he being dead, yet speaks."

Cain's voice, we have seen, is silent. Cain had the same opportunity of securing acceptance and blessing as Abel, but he missed it. Mark that! "And the Lord said to 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 (or, a sin-offering) lies at the door." The Lord says in effect to Cain: You can go and do as Abel did. Follow your brother. Why don't you take his road? Alas! Cain did not like it; and a little while after, he "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."