Genesis 4:5-8. What could Cain have done differently?

Question

Given the understanding that Cain was upset and God tried to reason with Cain to resolve Cain's discomfort, but Cain chose to cause even worse "discomfort" on Abel, how would you have applied God's Reasoning to resolve that situation?

Answer 1

Cain was the first-born child of Adam and Eve. Just as his parents failed to heed the warning God gave to them and ended up cast out - banished - from thee garden provided for them, so Cain failed to heed the warning God gave to him. And he ended up cast out - banished.

To say "that Cain was upset and God tried to reason with Cain to resolve Cain's discomfort, but Cain chose to cause even worse 'discomfort' on Abel" makes me wonder what commentary on the account might have given rise to such a gross misunderstanding.

Cain was not upset - he was consumed with raging jealousy. It had rooted in his heart to cause such bitterness that murder entered his heart. And God clearly warns all of us in his written word that it is out of our hearts that murders and fornications come.

God was not trying to reason with Cain to sooth his 'discomfort'. He was warning him, just as he'd warned his father, that to pursue a course of disobedience would result in death. But, just like his father, Cain was not listening because he was heeding (at the same time) another 'voice' that contradicted God's clear warning as to how to keep on living instead of dying. Cain was listening to his emotions, his feelings, his desires, his furious anger.

To hear God is to receive - from God, his words, his instructions. But when our attention is diverted from the word of God to words from elsewhere, we will not receive God's direction because we are not really listening. We will end up making excuses for our own sinful thoughts and actions. Consider this paragraph about Cain in the book below:

"The firstborn of Adam was Cain who, despite the example of God in the provision of skins, and despite the exemplary, faithful obedience of Abel, slew his brother, went out from Gods presence and builded a city, naming it after his own firstborn. Man has chosen his own potential, his own inheritance, his own progression, his own succession, his own multiplication, his own increase over the whole earth - by means of created life and by means of - now - sinful flesh." Knowledge and Life, Nigel Johnstone, p.59 Belmont Publications, 2013

What can I say about what I might have done differently, when I am a daughter of Eve? I have already done, in my own life, the disobedient things that Eve did. The reasoning of all of Adam and Eve's children is not only deficient, it fails to hear what God says as shown by finding another way to think and act that 'allows' us to satisfy our own sinful cravings and twisted thoughts. We rationalise matters to our own satisfaction so that we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are pleasing God, when we are walking away from him; we just suppose that we are not. Till we discover we are banished from his presence, like Cain - too late.

Answer 2

It takes two to tangle. Therefore I'll address the broader question: what could Cain and Abel have done differently. I'll start with Cain.

Cain felt he had be rejected unjustly. This was a consistent pattern in Genesis: Abel (the younger son) was chosen over Cain. The younger son Jacob was chosen (seemingly unjustly) over Esau. Joseph was chosen over his older brothers, who saw him as an arrogant usurper of their father's affection. We should add the archetypal relationship: that Adam was chosen over Lucifer, who was the older "son of God," although this is not directly stated in the text. So Cain had restore Lucifer's failure to overcome his resentment of the younger "brother," Adam. Once Cain's offering was rejected, he had an opportunity to nip the fallen pattern in the bud. God let him know in a general sense what is necessary:

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? 7 If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.

This brings us to he crucial moment. Cain had to master the urge to sin. This urge is what the rabbis called the "yetzer harah" - the tendency to evil. It is the same urge that Adam and Eve had to master when they were tempted to eat of the forbidden tree. Cain should have been guided by his inner conscience - the "yetzer ha-tov" or tendency to goodness - instead of the tendency to evil. The key to doing this is to follow God's word. In Adam and Eve's case this meant uniting with the Commandment; in Cain's case it meant following God's advice to do what is right and master the urge to sin because of his anger over being rejected.

Abel's part in the drama

Finally, let's consider what Abel could have done differently. This is not mentioned in the text, but we know from our own experience that it is natural to assume that God's blessing confers some kind of moral superiority. Jesus warned against this, urging his disciples to be humble and not to lord it over others. (Mark 10:41-43, etc.)

The first restoration of the Cain/Abel relationship came when Esau overcame his anger at Jacob and embraced him at the Ford of Jabbok. This was preceded by Jacob sending Esau many gifts and bowing to the ground before him seven times. This is a hint as to what Abel should have down with Cain: he should have acted to demonstrate an attitude of generous humility and a desire to share the blessing with him.

Conclusion: Cain should have united with God's word and followed his conscience, in order to overcome his anger and forgive Abel for what seemed to Cain to be an injustice. For his part, Abel should have demonstrated humility and generosity to Cain, so that his elder brother would share in God's blessing.

Answer 3

God declared that as punishment for eating of the fruit, Eve's seed will be at emnity with the seed of the serpent. Cain and Abel were a dynamic pair of sons fulfilling the symbolism of duality. Crops ( wheat) and animals (blood). The baker and the cupbearer, bread and wine, righteous offering by faith and a blemished offering. Also the two cherubim covering the Ark of the covenant. The biblical twin motif.

God didn't accept Cain's offering for several reasons.

• he struggled with sin, it was crouching at his door . ( The adversary wanted to sift him) the book of Job tells us what Satan is allowed to do to a believer
• God desired the sweet smell of burnt flesh/ blood was the payment for sin

Matthew 5:23-24 23 “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

When God rejected Cain's offering his countenance dropped and Satan entered him ( like Judas) and he killed Abel fulfilling Genesis 3:15.

The book of Jubilees states that Cain repented but that aside and keeping to the bible Cain was-

• marked on the forehead by God
• destined to wander the earth (like a Hebrew)
• exempt from being killed
• a city builder , as the ground would not yield any more for him

As Abel is the prototype for the Christ, the lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world Cain is the prototype for the Antichrist, the scapegoat Azazel who receives Israel's sins on the head and is sent out into the wilderness.

Answer 4

It is worth considering whether the statement in Genesis 4:7 was intended solely for Cain or if it applies to all readers who encounter it.

If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” (NIV)

The Lord's omniscience should have foreseen the murder of Abel. Genesis 4:7 does not provide evidence that the Lord reasoned with Cain or that Cain had an opportunity to act differently. Only the Lord's intervention can make a difference in inevitable circumstance.