Genesis 4:3

Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Ver. 3. In process of time.] That distance of time between the creation and the general flood, Varro, the most learned of the Romans, calleth ‘Aσηλον, obscure or unknown, because the heathen had no records of that which we now clearly understand to have been then done, out of the Holy Scriptures.

Cain brought of the fruit.] They brought their sacrifices to Adam, the high priest of the family, who offered them to God in their name. {a} So in the Levitical law, though a man’s offering were never so good, he might not offer it himself, upon pain of death; but the priest must offer it. And the priest was to offer as well the poor man’s turtle, as the rich man’s ox. To teach that none may present his service to God, how good soever he may conceit it, but in the hand of the high priest of the New Testament Jesus Christ, the Just One, who will not only present, but perfume the poorest performances of an upright heart, with his odours. {Rev 8:3}

{a} Godw. Hebr. Antiq., p. 27.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 4:3. In process of time — After many years, when they were both grown up to man’s estate; at some set time, Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God’s favour, notwithstanding their apostacy.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES.—

Gen_4:7. Sin lieth at the door.] Rather: “A sin-offering is crouching at the door, or (more generally) opening”: e.g. “at the opening, or entrance, of thy brother’s fold.” This exegesis supplies a point of departure for the words which immediately follow, and which otherwise seem exceedingly abrupt. The connecting link may be shown by the following paraphrase:—“Though, in order to do well, thou must needs own thyself a sinner, and be indebted to thy brother for a sin-offering out of his fold; yet this will not destroy thy rights as firstborn: NOTWITHSTANDING, TO THEE shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Let not pride, therefore, deter thee from this better—this only proper—way. Let no obstinacy, no groundless fears, keep thee from thus doing well.” Much has been written on this passage, and many are the views of it that have been propounded; but, without dogmatising, we may express our pretty confident persuasion that no exposition so fully meets the case as the above.—

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Gen_4:3-8

THE TRUE AND FALSE WORSHIPPER OF GOD

I. That both the True and the False amongst Men are apparently Worshippers of God. Both Cain and Abel came to worship God. The false come to worship God.

1. Because it is the custom of the land so to do. The sabbath morning dawns, and the world of mankind awakes to the religious service of the day. All classes and conditions of men are seen wending their way to the temple of God. They reverence not the day. They join not heartily in its worship. They are the slaves of custom. They are the creatures of habit. Hence you cannot distinguish the moral character of men by the mere fact of worship. Attendance to the outward ceremonial of religion is not an infallible index to their piety or heavenly aspirations.

2. Because men feel that they must pay some regard to social propriety and conscience. Men would feel if they did not bring the first fruits of their religious service to God that they were little better than heathens. This to them is a social propriety. They would not disgrace their characters by an avowed neglect of the sabbath, or by a rejection of all moral worship. They always attend church once a day. This is their sabbath etiquette. This silences their conscience, preserves their reputation, and constitutes them moral and respectable people. Hence they bring their firstlings to the Lord. These are the false worshippers of God, and with them the sanctuaries of the world are crowded. They are Cainites.

3. Because men feel that their souls are drawn out to God in ardent longings and grateful praises. These are the true worshippers of God. They are in the minority. They are followers of Abel. They gladly welcome all the means of grace. They joyfully present their firstlings to the Lord. They come to God in his appointed way. They are animated by the true spirit of devotion.

II. That both the True and the False amongst men present their material offerings to God. Cain and Abel not merely came together to worship God, but they also brought of their substance to the Lord. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground. Abel brought the firstlings of his flock.

1. The trade of each brother suggested his offering. This was most natural. The trades, the temperaments, and the abilities of men, generally determine their kind of religious service and devotion. The men of great intellect will take to God the firstlings of a splendid literature. The man of great emotion will take to God the offerings of an enthusiastic prayer. The man of great wealth will take silver and gold. The man of leisure will give his time. The man of genius will give his originality. The poor man will give himself. Hence there are few men who neglect to give some offering to the Lord.

(1.) Some take their offerings for parade. They never take small offerings that can be concealed. Their offerings always go in droves, that men may see them, admire them, and inquire about them. They have no true piety to inspire society with respect, hence they substitute ostentation, and a pretence of goodness in its place. They will give ten thousand pounds to build a church, when privately they would not give ten shillings to save a soul.

(2.) They take their offerings to enhance their trade. They want to be known as great church goers, as men of benevolent disposition. Thus they hope to increase their financial returns, and to strengthen their business relationships. Their offerings to God are nothing more than investments for themselves.

(3.) They take their offerings to increase their social influence.

(4.) They take their offerings with a humble desire to glorify God. These are the offerings of a true manhood. They are the outcome of a penitent soul. They only are acceptable to heaven. Thus as you cannot estimate the moral character of a man by his worship, neither can you by the material offerings he presents to the Lord.

III. That both the true and the false amongst men are observed and estimated by God in their worship and offerings.

1. The worship and offerings of the one are accepted. “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering.” And why:—

(1.) Because it was well and carefully selected. Men should select carefully the offerings they give to God.

(2.) Because it was the best he could command. He brought the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. When men are searching their flocks for the Lord’s offering, they generally take the poorest they can find. The threepenny piece is enough.

(3.) Because it was appropriate His sacrifice preached the gospel, foreshadowed the cross.

(4.) Because it was offered in a right spirit. This makes the great point of difference between the two offerings. The grandest offerings given in a wrong spirit will not be accepted by God, whereas the meanest offering given in lowly spirit will be welcome to him. Thus the younger brother was the best. He was better than his name.

(2.) The worship and offering of the other was rejected. “But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.” The men who make their religious offerings a parade, who regard this worship as a form, are not welcomed by God.

IV. That the true, in the Divine reception of their worship and offerings, are often envied by the false.

1. This envy is wrathful. “Why art thou wrath.”

2. This envy is apparent. “Why is thy countenance fallen.”

3. This envy is unreasonable. “If thou doest well, shalt thou be accepted.”

4. This envy is murderous. “Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.”

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON THE VERSES

Gen_4:3. Sin, however it made man apostate from God, did not extinguish his worship of God.

God and nature teach parents to nurture children in the religion of God.

Set and stated times there have been for God’s worship from the beginning. The Sabbath.

From the fall of man God did teach their recovery by sacrifice.

Wicked ones, even the children of the devil, have made show of religion from the fall.

Hypocrites come without blood, even without sense of their own deserts and self-abasement, to serve God.

Sincere worshippers have been in the Church of God from the beginning.

THE SACRIFICES OF THE ANCIENT DISPENSATION

Gen_4:4.

I. That from the earliest times, the only way of acceptable worship has been by sacrifice. It is impossible to account for the origin and prevalence of sacrifice, but upon the principle of divine appointment. We cannot suppose that this offering of Abel, so highly approved, was uncommanded. Analogy against it. In subsequent times God appointed the whole Jewish ritual. Tabernacle was erected after His pattern. It is not likely that God would leave fallen man without direction in this matter. There is no natural connection, to the eye of reason, between the sacrifice of a brute and the forgiveness of a sinner. Without shedding of blood is no remission.

II. The sacrifice which God accepts must be offered upon principles which God will approve. Abel gave of the firstlings. He offered his sacrifice in faith—in obedience to a divine institution—in dependence upon divine promise—in the exercise of devout affections. A better sacrifice than Cain—better as to the substance, better as to the feeling. Cain considered God as Creator, but Abel as Redeemer.

III. The order of divine procedure is to accept, first the person, and then the offering. The Lord had respect to Abel and his offering. Man first regards the gifts, and then the person according to the gifts, but God the contrary. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His delight.

IV. The commencement of sacrifice with man’s sin, and the consummation of sacrifice in a Saviour’s death, plainly show that a system of atonement is incorporated with the whole train of Divine dispensation.

1. How important to ascertain our interest in the great sacrifice.

2. That the church on earth has always presented a mixed company, and has always been in a militant state. Cain worshipped in form, Abel in truth. The sheep and the goats, the wheat and the tares, will always be mingled till judgment.

3. How singular is the fact that the first man who died, died a martyr.

4. Let us all learn to scrutinize our motives in religious worship, as we know that God strictly observes them. He is not a Christian who is one outwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart.—(The Evangelist.)

Strange to say that the worship of God was the first occasion of difference amongst men.

God does not accept men according to the priority of their earthly birth.

Persons are accepted before duties can be.

No work of man can of itself find favour with God.

HISTORY OF CAIN AS A BEACON

Gen_4:5.

I. That he was the first-born of the family of man. Who can describe the anxiety and wonder which his birth would produce? The birth of any child is both an interesting and momentous event; but the first, how especially so!

II. He was a worshipper of the true God. We know nothing of the history of his childhood. He recognised:

1. Proprietorship of God;

2. Bounty of God in His gifts;

3. His right to our homage. These were right. He was defective in faith.

III. He was distinguished for his industrious labour. Labour is honourable—healthy. It prevents temptations. Satan may tempt the industrious, but the idle tempt him. It is the real wealth of the commonwealth.

IV. He was the subject of the deadly passion of envy. God had respect to Abel, but not to Cain. His pride was wounded. Who can stand before envy. It sees no excellency in another. It corrodes the soul.

V. He was a murderer.

VI. He was an accursed vagabond.

VII. He was the subject of the Divine mercy and long-suffering.—(Dr. Burns.)

It is proper for hypocrites to be angry with God about his non-acceptance, but never with themselves for their ill performance.

The contrast between Cain and his brothers:—

1. Cain lives and Abel dies.

2. Cain’s race perishes; the race of Seth continues.

3. Cain the first natural born; Abel the first spiritual born.

The countenance an index to the moral sentiments of the heart.

Gen_4:6. God takes notice of the wrath of the wicked against His saints, and reproves it.

The anger of Cain was probably in part occasioned by the fear that the acceptance of his younger brother before God, might lead to some infringement of the rights of the firstborn. In the next verse he is assured that this should not be the case.

The relations and duties of social life are not altered by a person being admitted into the family of God.

RELIGION OF NATURE AND THE RELIGION OF THE GOSPEL

Gen_4:7. Cain and Abel, like Sarah and Hagar, may be allegorized: the former was a fair representative of natural religionists, the father of Deism; the latter the representative of those who embrace revealed religion. Cain’s religion, in common with many other false religions, had the following characteristics:—

1. It was a religion that had in it some good. It acknowledged the existence of Divine Providence, and human obligations. There are no religions, however false, which do not contain some elements of good. The evils far preponderate.

2. It was a religion of expediency. It was assumed to keep up appearances. There was no principle underlying it.

3. It was a religion which lacked faith. It concerned itself about the present, but was utterly blind to the future. No faith, no reality.

4. It was a religion abounding in self-righteousness. It ignored the existence of sin. It ignored the existence of a breach between man and his Creator.

5. It was a persecuting religion. It could tolerate no other views but its own. It soon stained its hands with blood; an example followed in subsequent ages. The religion of God is forbearing, that of man vindictive. Abel’s religion had also its characteristics:—

1. The religion of Abel embodied all the good that was in the other. Whatever is of value in Deism is found in Christianity.

2. It surpassed it even in its own excellencies. There is no mention of Cain’s being the best of the kind as of Abel’s. Christianity reveals the truth of Deism with clearer light, and holds them with firmer grasp.

3. It recognised the existence of guilt and its merited doom.

4. It was actuated by faith.

5. It was approved by God.

I. Natural Religion. This consists in “doing well.” Look at the principle on which it is founded. The principle is practical goodness. This principle is intrinsically excellent. Man was created to do well. It is to be desired that all men should act upon this principle. The world would be different if men were to. No need of police—prison. It is a principle to which none can object. Let us look at the standard by which it is to be tested. The standard is the moral law of creation. In order to do well, man must love God with all his heart, &c. There must be no omission. The act must be perfect. It must be a gem without a flaw. The motive must be good. The rule must be good. It must be done as God directs. Look at the reward, “Shalt thou not be accepted?” Such a religion will command the approval of the Almighty. It will secure immortality for its votaries. Had Adam continued to do well, he would have continued to live. This, then, is the religion of nature—is glorious. Have you performed its requirements? Think of sin—its nature—its effects—its ultimate consequences. How can we escape them? Ask natural religion. Will she suggest repentance? Will repentance replace things as they were—Reformation? This cannot alter the past. An offering—man has none to present—the mercy of the Eternal? God is merciful, but how can he show it to the sinner, in harmony with justice? Nature has no reply.

II. Revealed Religion. “A sin offering lieth at thy door.”

1. That revealed religion assumes that men are guilty. If there is no sin, there can be no need of a sin-offering; and if there is a sin-offering, it is presumed that there is sin. Men have not done well. They are sinners. They are liable to punishment.

2. That revealed religion has provided a sin-offering. Three kinds of sacrifices were offered by the Jews—eucharistic—peace-offerings—atoning. The last the most prominent. Type of Calvary. In the sin-offering there was a substitution of person—a substitution of sufferings—the acceptance of the sin-offering was accompanied with Divine evidence. This sacrifice is efficient.

3. That this sin-offering reposeth at the door. The atonement of Christ is accessible to the sinner—it rests with man to avail himself of it—men neglect it—God exercises great long-suffering—sinners cannot go to hell without trampling on the sacrifice of the Cross—they will be deprived of exercise if they neglect it.—(Homilist.)

Doing well unto God is only effected by faith in the Divine Mediator.

Guilt and judgment come speedily upon the head of the evil-doer.

Outward rule God sometimes gives to wicked ones over His saints.

Gen_4:8. God’s convictions and reproofs upon the wicked often occasion greater hardness, and rage in sin.

It is usual for wicked men to disemble their rage toward God and His saints.

The simplicity of the saints often makes them a prey to the hypocrisy of the wicked.

Hypocritical enemies, though they be restrained for a time, opportunity reveals them.

Occasion, advantage, and privacy, make discovery of hypocrisy.

Nearest relatives escape not the violence of hypocrites.

The method of Satan is to draw men from envy to murder.

It is not merely from the influence of bad example, as many think, that vice and misery have so abounded in the world: before that could have effect, this crime presents us with as dreadful an instance of malignant passion as any age can afford; and as convincing a proof that it is from within—“out of the heart proceed evil thoughts and murders.”

THREE EXPERIMENTS AND THREE FAILURES

I. The Family idea won’t keep men right. Cain and Abel were brothers.

II. Religious Ceremonial won’t keep right. Cain and Abel both offered sacrifice.

III. Religious Persecution won’t keep men right. Cain killed his brother, but a voice cried against him. What will keep men right? The love of God through Jesus Christ [City Temple].

THE FIRST MURDER

I. It was the murder of one brother by another. We should have thought that the members of this small family could have lived on amicable terms with each other. We should never have dreamed of murder in their midst. See here:—

1. The power of envy.

2. The ambition of selfishness.

3. The quick development of passion.

II. It was occasioned by envy in the religious department of life. The two brothers had each presented their sacrifice; only Abel’s was accepted. This awakened the envy of Cain. Brothers ought to rejoice in the moral success of each other. Envy in the church is the great cause of strife. Men envy each other’s talents. They murder each other’s reputation. They kill many of tender spirit. You can slay your minister by a look—a word—as well as by a weapon. Such conduct is:—

1. Cruel.

2. Reprehensible.

3. Astonishing.

4. Frequent.

III. That it was avenged by Heaven.

1. By a convicting question.

2. By an alarming curse.

3. By a wandering life.

He, who, according to his mother’s hope was to have been the slayer of the serpent, becomes the murderer of his brother. It is well that parents are ignorant of the future of their children, or they would not entertain such bright hopes concerning them in infancy.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Genesis

THE GROWTH AND POWER OF SIN

Gen 4:3 - Gen 4:16.

Many lessons crowd on us from this section. Its general purport is to show the growth of sin, and its power to part man from man even as it has parted man from God. We may call the whole ‘The beginning of the fatal operations of sin on human society.’

1. The first recorded act of worship occasions the first murder. Is not that only too correct a forecast of the oceans of blood which have been shed in the name of religion, and a striking proof of the subtle power of sin to corrupt even the best, and out of it to make the worst? What a lesson against the bitter hatred which has too often sprung up on so-called religious grounds! No malice is so venomous, no hate so fierce, no cruelty so fiendish, as those which are fed and fanned by religion. Here is the first triumph of sin, that it poisons the very springs of worship, and makes what should be the great uniter of men in sweet and holy bonds their great separator.

2. Sin here appears as having power to bar men’s way to God. Much ingenuity has been spent on the question why Abel’s offering was accepted and Cain’s rejected. But the narrative itself shows in the words of Jehovah, ‘If thou doest well, is there not acceptance?’ that the reason lay in Cain’s evil deeds. So, in 1Jn 3:12, the fratricide is put down to the fact that ‘his works were evil, and his brother’s righteous’; and Heb 11:4 differs from this view only in making the ground of righteousness prominent, when it ascribes the acceptableness of Abel’s offering to faith. Both these passages are founded on the narrative, and we need not seek farther for the reason of the different reception of the two offerings. Character, then, or, more truly, faith, which is the foundation of a righteous character, determines the acceptableness of worship. Cain’s offering had no sense of dependence, no outgoing of love and trust, no adoration,-though it may have had fear,-and no moral element. So it had no sweet odour for God. Abel’s was sprinkled with some drops of the incense of lowly trust, and came from a heart which fain would be pure; therefore it was a joy to God. So we are taught at the very beginning, that, as is the man, so is his sacrifice; that the prayer of the wicked is an abomination. Plenty of worship nowadays is Cain worship. Many reputable professing Christians bring just such sacrifices. The prayers of such never reach higher than the church ceiling. Of course, the lesson of the story is not that a man must be pure before his sacrifice is accepted. Of course, the faintest cry of trust is heard, and a contrite heart, however sinful, is always welcome. But we are taught that our acts of worship must have our hearts in them, and that it is vain to pray and to love evil. Sin has the awful power of blocking our way to God.

3. Note in one word that we have here at the beginning of human history the solemn distinction which runs through it all. These two, so near in blood, so separate in spirit, head the two classes into which Scripture decisively parts men, especially men who have heard the gospel. It is unfashionable now to draw that broad line between the righteous and the wicked, believers and unbelievers. Sheep and goats are all one. Modern liberal sentiment-so-called-will not consent to such narrowness as the old-fashioned classification. There are none of us black, and none white; we are all different shades of grey. But facts do not quite bear out such amiable views. Perhaps it is not less charitable, and a great deal truer, to draw the line broad and plain, on one side of which is peace and safety, and on the other trouble and death, if only we make it plain that no man need stop one minute on the dark side.

4. The solemn divine voice reads the lesson of the power of sin, when once done, over the sinner. Like a wild beast, it crouches in ambush at his door, ready to spring and devour. The evil deed once committed takes shape, as it were, and waits to seize the doer. Remorse, inward disturbance, and above all, the fatal inclination to repeat sin till it becomes a habit, are set forth with terrible force in these grim figures. What a menagerie of ravenous beasts some of us have at the doors of our hearts! With what murderous longing they glare at us, seeking to fascinate us, and make us their prey! When we sin, we cannot escape the issues; and every wrong thing we do has a kind of horrible life given it, and sits henceforth there, beside us, ready to rend us. The tempting, seducing power of our own evils was never put in more startling and solemnly true words, on which the bitter experience of many a poor victim of his own past is a commentary. The eternal duty of resistance is farther taught by the words. Hope of victory, encouragement to struggle, the assurance that even these savage beasts may be subdued, and the lion and adder {the hidden and the glaring evils-those which wound unseen, and which spring with a roar} may be overcome, led in a silken leash or charmed into harmlessness, are given in the command, which is also a promise, ‘Rule thou over it.’

5. The deadly fruit of hate is taught us in the brief account of the actual murder. Notice the impressive plainness and fewness of the words. ‘Cain rose up against his brother, and slew him.’ A kind of horror-struck awe of the crime is audible. Observe the emphasis with which ‘his brother’ is repeated in the verse and throughout. Observe, also, the vivid light thrown by the story on the rise and progress of the sin. It begins with envy and jealousy. Cain was not wroth because his offering was rejected. What did he care for that? But what angered him was that his brother had what he had not. So selfishness was at the bottom, and that led on to envy, and that to hatred. Then comes a pause, in which God speaks remonstrances,-as God’s voice-conscience-does now to us all,-between the imagination and the act of evil. A real or a feigned reconciliation is effected. The brothers go in apparent harmony to the field. No new provocation appears, but the old feelings, kept down for a time, come in again with a rush, and Cain is swept away by them. Hatred left to work means murder. The heart is the source of all evil. Selfishness is the mother tincture out of which all sorts of sin can be made. Guard the thoughts, and keep down self, and the deeds will take care of themselves.

6. Mark how close on the heels of sin God’s question treads! How God spoke, we know not. Doubtless in some fashion suited to the needs of Cain. But He speaks to us as really as to him, and no sooner is the rush of passion over, and the bad deed done, than a revulsion comes. What we call conscience asks the question in stern tones, which make a man’s flesh creep. Our sin is like touching the electric bells which people sometimes put on their windows to give notice of thieves. As soon as we step beyond the line of duty we set the alarm going, and it wakens the sleeping conscience. Some of us go so far as to have silenced the voice within; but, for the most part, it speaks immediately after we have gratified our inclinations wrongly.

7. Cain’s defiant answer teaches us how a man hardens himself against God’s voice. It also shows us how intensely selfish all sin is, and how weakly foolish its excuses are. It is sin which has rent men apart from men, and made them deny the very idea that they have duties to all men. The first sin was only against God; the second was against God and man. The first sin did not break, though it saddened, human love; the second kindled the flames of infernal hatred, and caused the first drops to flow of the torrents of blood which have soaked the earth. When men break away from God, they will soon murder one another.

Cain was his brother’s keeper. His question answered itself. If Abel was his brother, then he was bound to look after him. His self-condemning excuse is but a specimen of the shallow pleas by which the forgetfulness of duties we owe to all mankind, and all sins, are defended.

8. The stern sentence is next pronounced. First we have the grand figure of the innocent blood having a voice which pierces the heavens. That teaches in the most forcible way the truth that God knows the crimes done by ‘man’s inhumanity to man,’ even when the meek sufferers are silent. According to the fine old legend of the cranes of Ibycus, a bird of the air will carry the matter. It speaks, too, of God’s tender regard for His saints, whose blood is precious in His sight; and it teaches that He will surely requite. We cannot but think of the innocent blood shed on Calvary, of the Brother of us all, whose sacrifice was accepted of God. His blood, too, crieth from the ground, has a voice which speaks in the ear of God, but not to plead for vengeance, but pardon.

‘Jesus’ blood through earth and skies,

Mercy, free, boundless mercy, cries.’

Then follows the sentence which falls into two parts-the curse of bitter, unrequited toil, and the doom of homeless wandering. The blood which has been poured out on the battlefield fertilises the soil; but Abel’s blasted the earth. It was a supernatural infliction, to teach that bloodshed polluted the earth, and so to shed a nameless horror over the deed. We see an analogous feeling in the common belief that places where some foul sin has been committed are cursed. We see a weak natural correspondence in the devastating effect of war, as expressed in the old saying that no grass would grow where the hoof of the Turk’s horse had stamped.

The doom of wandering, which would be compulsory by reason of the earth’s barrenness, is a parable. The murderer is hunted from place to place, as the Greek fable has it, by the furies, who suffer him not to rest. Conscience drives a man ‘through dry places, seeking rest, and finding none.’ All sin makes us homeless wanderers. There is but one home for the heart, one place of repose for a man, namely, in the heart of God, the secret place of the Most High; and he who, for his sin, durst not enter there, is driven forth into ‘a salt land and not inhabited,’ and has to wander wearily there. The legend of the wandering Jew, and that other of the sailor, condemned for ever to fly before the gale through stormy seas, have in them a deep truth. The earthly punishment of departing from God is that we have not where to lay our heads. Every sinner is a fugitive and a vagabond. But if we love God we are still wanderers indeed, but we are ‘pilgrims and sojourners with Thee.’

9. Cain’s remonstrance completes the tragic picture. We see in it despair without penitence. He has no word of confession. If he had accepted his chastisement, and learned by it his sin, all the bitterness would have passed away. But he only writhes in agony, and adds, to the sentence pronounced, terrors of his own devising. God had not forbidden him to come into His presence. But he feels that he dare not venture thither. And he was right; for, whether we suppose that some sensible manifestation of the divine presence is meant by ‘Thy face’ or no, a man who had unrepented sin on his conscience, and murmurings in his heart, could not hold intercourse with God; nor would he wish to do so. Thus we learn again the lesson that sin separates from our Father, and that chastisements, not accepted as signs of His love, build up a black wall between God and us.

Nor had Cain been told that his life was in danger. But his conscience made a coward of him, as of us all, and told him what he deserved. There were, no doubt, many other children of Adam, who would be ready to avenge Abel’s death. The wild justice of revenge is deep in the heart of men; and the natural impulse would be to hunt down the murderer like a wolf. It is a dreadful picture of the defiant and despairing sinner, tortured by well-founded fears, shut out from the presence of God, but not able to shut out thoughts of Him, and seeing an avenger in every man.

We need not ask how God set a mark on Cain. Enough that His doing so was a merciful alleviation of his lot, and teaches us how God’s long-suffering spares life, and tempers judgment, that there may still be space for repentance. If even Cain has gracious protection and mercy blended with his chastisement, who can be beyond the pale of God’s compassion, and with whom will not His loving providence and patient pity labour? No man is so scorched by the fire of retribution, but many a dewy drop from God’s tenderness falls on him. No doubt, the story of the preservation of Cain was meant to restrain the blood-feuds so common and ruinous in early times; and we need the lesson yet, to keep us from vengeance under the mask of justice. But the deepest lesson and truest pathos of it lies in the picture of the watchful kindness of God lingering round the wretched man, like gracious sunshine playing on some scarred and black rock, to win him back by goodness to penitence, and through penitence to peace.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4:3 There was nothing wrong with offering grain to the Lord (Lev 2:14; Deut 26:2-4), but Cain brought only a token gift (some of his crops), whereas God requires the first and best (Exod 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26). Cain’s heart attitude made his offering inferior to Abel’s (cp. Heb 11:4).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

This declareth that the father instructed his children in the knowledge of God, and also how God gave them sacrifices to signify their salvation, albeit they were destitute of the sacrament of the tree of life.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Here we have, I. The devotions of Cain and Abel. In process of time, when they had made some improvement in their respective callings (Heb. At the end of days, either at the end of the year, when they kept their feast of in-gathering or perhaps an annual fast in remembrance of the fall, or at the end of the days of the week, the seventh day, which was the sabbath) - at some set time, Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord, for the doing of which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God's favour to him and his thoughts of love towards him and his, notwithstanding their apostasy. God would thus try Adam's faith in the promise and his obedience to the remedial law; he would thus settle a correspondence again between heaven and earth, and give shadows of good things to come. Observe here, 1. That the religious worship of God is no novel invention, but an ancient institution. It is that which was from the beginning (Jo1 1:1); it is the good old way, Jer 6:16. The city of our God is indeed that joyous city whose antiquity is of ancient days, Isa 23:7. Truth got the start of error, and piety of profaneness. 2. That is a good thing for children to be well taught when they are young, and trained up betimes in religious services, that when they come to be capable of acting for themselves they may, of their own accord, bring an offering to God. In this nurture of the Lord parents must bring up their children, Gen 18:19; Eph 6:4. 3. That we should every one of us honour God with what we have, according as he has prospered us. According as their employments and possessions were, so they brought their offering. See Co1 16:1, Co1 16:2. Our merchandize and our hire, whatever they are, must be holiness to the Lord, Isa 23:18. He must have his dues of it in works of piety and charity, the support of religion and the relief of the poor. Thus we must now bring our offering with an upright heart; and with such sacrifices God is well pleased. 4. That hypocrites and evil doers may be found going as far as the best of God's people in the external services of religion. Cain brought an offering with Abel; nay, Cain's offering is mentioned first, as if he were the more forward of the two. A hypocrite may possibly hear as many sermons, say as many prayers, and give as much alms, as a good Christian, and yet, for want of sincerity, come short of acceptance with God. The Pharisee and the publican went to the temple to pray, Luk 18:10.

II. The different success of their devotions. That which is to be aimed at in all acts of religion is God's acceptance: we speed well if we attain this, but in vain do we worship if we miss of it, Co2 5:9. Perhaps, to a stander-by, the sacrifices of Cain and Abel would have seemed both alike good. Adam accepted them both, but God, who sees not as man sees, did not. God had respect to Abel and to his offering, and showed his acceptance of it, probably by fire from heaven; but to Cain and his offering he had not respect. We are sure there was a good reason for this difference; the Governor of the world, though an absolute sovereign, does not act arbitrarily in dispensing his smiles and frowns.

1. There was a difference in the characters of the persons offering. Cain was a wicked man, led a bad life, under the reigning power of the world and the flesh; and therefore his sacrifice was an abomination to the Lord (Pro 15:8), a vain oblation, Isa 1:13. God had no respect to Cain himself, and therefore no respect to his offering, as the manner of the expression intimates. But Abel was a righteous man; he is called righteous Abel (Mat 23:35); his heart was upright and his life was pious; he was one of those whom God's countenance beholds (Psa 11:7) and whose prayer is therefore his delight, Pro 15:8. God had respect to him as a holy man, and therefore to his offering as a holy offering. The tree must be good, else the fruit cannot be pleasing to the heart-searching God.

2. There was a difference in the offerings they brought. It is expressly said (Heb 11:4), Abel's was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's: either (1.) In the nature of it. Cain's was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more, and, for aught I know, they might be offered in innocency. But Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. Or, (2.) In the qualities of the offering. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, any thing that came next to hand, what he had not occasion for himself or what was not marketable. But Abel was curious in the choice of his offering: not the lame, nor the lean, nor the refuse, but the firstlings of the flock - the best he had, and the fat thereof - the best of those best. Hence the Hebrew doctors give it for a general rule that every thing that is for the name of the good God must be the goodliest and best. It is fit that he who is the first and best should have the first and best of our time, strength, and service.

3. The great difference was this, that Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. There was a difference in the principle upon which they went. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and God's glory as his end, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer; but Cain did what he did only for company's sake, or to save his credit, not in faith, and so it turned into sin to him. Abel was a penitent believer, like the publican that went away justified: Cain was unhumbled; his confidence was within himself; he was like the Pharisee who glorified himself, but was not so much as justified before God.

III. Cain's displeasure at the difference God made between his sacrifice and Abel's. Cain was very wroth, which presently appeared in his very looks, for his countenance fell, which bespeaks not so much his grief and discontent as his malice and rage. His sullen churlish countenance, and a down-look, betrayed his passionate resentments: he carried ill-nature in his face, and the show of his countenance witnessed against him. This anger bespeaks, 1. His enmity to God, and the indignation he had conceived against him for making such a difference between his offering and his brother's. He should have been angry at himself for his own infidelity and hypocrisy, by which he had forfeited God's acceptance; and his countenance should have fallen in repentance and holy shame, as the publican's, who would not lift up so much as his eyes to heaven, Luk 18:13. But, instead of this, he flies out against God, as if he were partial and unfair in distributing his smiles and frowns, and as if he had done him a deal of wrong. Note, It is a certain sign of an unhumbled heart to quarrel with those rebukes which we have, by our own sin, brought upon ourselves. The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and then, to make bad worse, his heart fretteth against the Lord, Pro 19:3. 2. His envy of his brother, who had the honour to be publicly owned. Though his brother had no thought of having any slur put upon him, nor did now insult over him to provoke him, yet he conceived a hatred of him as an enemy, or, which is equivalent, a rival. Note, (1.) It is common for those who have rendered themselves unworthy of God's favour by their presumptuous sins to have indignation against those who are dignified and distinguished by it. The Pharisees walked in this way of Cain, when they neither entered into the kingdom of God themselves nor suffered those that were entering to go in, Luk 11:52. Their eye is evil, because their master's eye and the eye of their fellow-servants are good. (2.) Envy is a sin that commonly carries with it both its own discovery, in the paleness of the looks, and its own punishment, in the rottenness of the bones.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

in process of time--Hebrew, "at the end of days," probably on the Sabbath.

brought . . . an offering unto the Lord--Both manifested, by the very act of offering, their faith in the being of God and in His claims to their reverence and worship; and had the kind of offering been left to themselves, what more natural than that the one should bring "of the fruits of the ground," and that the other should bring "of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof" [Gen 4:4].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. In process of time] מקץ ימים mikkets yamim, at the end of days. Some think the anniversary of the creation to be here intended; it is more probable that it means the Sabbath, on which Adam and his family undoubtedly offered oblations to God, as the Divine worship was certainly instituted, and no doubt the Sabbath properly observed in that family. This worship was, in its original institution, very simple. It appears to have consisted of two parts:

1. Thanksgiving to God as the author and dispenser of all the bounties of nature, and oblations indicative of that gratitude.

2. Piacular sacrifices to his justice and holiness, implying a conviction of their own sinfulness, confession of transgression, and faith in the promised Deliverer. If we collate the passage here with the apostle's allusion to it, Heb 11:4, we shall see cause to form this conclusion.

Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering] מנחה minchah, unto the Lord. The word minchah is explained, Le 2:1, &c., to be an offering of fine flour, with oil and frankincense. It was in general a eucharistic or gratitude offering, and is simply what is implied in the fruits of the ground brought by Cain to the Lord, by which he testified his belief in him as the Lord of the universe, and the dispenser of secular blessings.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(3, 4) In process of time.—Heb., at the end of days: not at the end of a week, or a year, or of harvest-time, but of a long indefinite period, shown by the age of Adam at the birth of Seth to have been something less than 130 years.

An offering.—Heb., a thank-offering, a present. We must be careful not to introduce here any of the later Levitical ideas about sacrifice. All that we know about this offering is that it was an act of worship, and apparently something usual. Now, each brought of his own produce, and one was accepted and one rejected. Why? Much ingenuity has been wasted on this question, as though Cain erred on technical grounds; whereas we are expressly told in Heb_11:4 that Abel’s was the more excellent sacrifice, because offered “in faith.” It was the state of their hearts that made the difference; though, as the result of unbelief, Cain’s may have been a scanty present of common produce, and not of first-fruits, while Abel brought “firstlings, and of the fat thereof,” the choicest portion. Abel may also have shown a deeper faith in the promised Deliverer by offering an animal sacrifice: and certainly the acceptance of his sacrifice quickened among men the belief that the proper way of approaching God was by the death of a victim. But Cain’s unbloody sacrifice had also a great future before it. It became the minchah of the Levitical law, and under the Christian dispensation is the offering of prayer and praise, and especially the Eucharistic thanksgiving. We have already noticed that Abel’s sacrifice shows that flesh was probably eaten on solemn occasions. Had animals been killed only for their skins for clothing, repulsive ideas would have been connected with the carcases cast aside to decay; nor would Abel have attached any value to firstlings. But as soon as the rich abundance of Paradise was over, man would quickly learn to eke out the scanty produce of the soil by killing wild animals and the young of his own flocks.

The Lord had respect.—Heb., looked upon, showed that He had seen it. It has been supposed that some visible sign of God’s favour was given, and the current idea among the fathers was that fire fell from heaven, and consumed the sacrifice. (Comp. Lev_9:24.) But there is real irreverence in thus filling up the narrative; and it is enough to know that the brothers were aware that God was pleased with the one and displeased with the other. More important is it to notice, first, that God’s familiar presence was not withdrawn from man after the fall. He talked with Cain as kindly as with Adam of old. And secondly, in these, the earliest, records of mankind religion is built upon love, and the Deity appears as man’s personal friend. This negatives the scientific theory that religion grew out of dim fears and terror at natural phenomena, ending gradually in the evolution of the idea of a destructive and dangerous power outside of man, which man must propitiate as best he could.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. in process of time] Lit. “at the end of days,” a phrase for a period of quite indefinite length; LXX μεθʼ ἡμέρας; Lat. post multos dies.

of the fruit of the ground] Probably the best, or the earliest, of the fruit, corresponding to the “firstlings” in Abel’s offering. Cf. Num_18:12, “All the best (Heb. fat) of the oil, and all the best (Heb. fat) of the vintage, and of the corn.”

an offering] Heb. minḥah, lit. a “gift” or a “present,” as in Gen_32:13, when Jacob sends “a present for Esau his brother,” and in Gen_43:11, where he says unto his sons, “carry the man down a present.” The word is used especially for “a gift” made to God; and with that sense, especially in P and Ezek., of the “meal offering,” cf. Leviticus 2; Lev_6:7-10. Here it is used of “offerings to God” generally, both of animals and of the fruits of the earth.

This is the first mention of sacrifice in Scripture. Its origin is not explained, nor is an altar mentioned. Man is assumed to be by nature endowed with religious instincts, and capable of holding converse with God. Worship was man’s mode of approach to the Deity; and sacrifice was its outward expression. The purpose of the offering was (1) propitiatory, to win favour, or to avert displeasure; and (2) eucharistic, in expression of gratitude for blessings on home or industry. It was deemed wrong to approach God with empty hands, that is, without an offering or gift, Exo_23:15; Exo_25:30.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And in process of time it came to pass,.... Or "at the end of days" (c); which some understand of the end of seven days, at the end of the week, or on the seventh day, which they suppose to be the sabbath day, these sons of Adam brought their offerings to the Lord: but this proceeds upon an hypothesis not sufficiently established, that the seventh day sabbath was now appointed to be observed in a religious way; rather, according to Aben Ezra, it was at the end of the year; So "after days" in Jdg 11:4 is meant after a year; and which we there render, as here, "in process of time". This might be after harvest, after the fruits of the earth were gathered in, and so a proper season to bring an offering to the Lord, in gratitude for the plenty of good things they had been favoured with; as in later times, with the Israelites, there was a feast for the ingathering of the fruits of the earth, Exo 23:16. The Targum of Jonathan fixes this time to the fourteenth of Nisan, as if it was the time of the passover, a feast instituted two thousand years after this time, or thereabout; and very stupidly one of the Jewish writers (d) observes, that"the night of the feast of the passover came, and Adam said to his sons, on this night the Israelites will bring the offerings of the passovers, offer ye also before your Creator."

That Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord; corn, herbs, seeds, &c. the Targum of Jonathan says it was flax seed; so Jarchi makes mention of an "agadah" or exposition, which gives the same sense; and another of their writers (e) observes, that Cain brought what was left of his food, or light and trifling things, flax or hemp seed. This he brought either to his father, as some think, being priest in his family; or rather he brought and offered it himself at the place appointed for religious worship, and for sacrifices; so Aben Ezra, he brought it to the place fixed for his oratory. It is highly probable it was at the east of the entrance of the garden of Eden, where the Shechinah, or the divine Majesty, was, and appeared in some remarkable manner.

(c) "in fine dierum", Pagninus, Montanus; "a fine dierum", Schmidt. (d) Pirke Eliezer, c. 21. (e) Ib. Vid. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 8. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Either,

1. In general, at the return of the set time then appointed, and used for the solemn service of God. Or,

2. At the end of the year, when there might be now, as there was afterward among the Jews, more solemn worship and sacrifices; the word days being often put for a year, as Lev 25:29; 1Sa 1:3; 27:7. Or,

3. More probably at the end of the days of the week, or upon the seventh and last day of the week, Saturday, which then was the sabbath day, which before this time was blessed and sanctified, Gen 2:3.

Cain brought an offering, either to the place appointed for the solemn worship of God, or to his father, who at that time was both king, and prophet, and priest. Or brought, i.e. offered.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. In process of time — Heb, at the end of days. Of how many days is not specified, and some understand at the end of the year, or at the time of the gathering of fruits; others explain the phrase indefinitely, as our version, or as Keil: “After a considerable lapse of time.” It seems better, however, to understand it of the days of the week — that is, at the end of the ordinary and well-known week of seven days. In this sense we have here another trace of the original institution of the Sabbath as a day of worship.

Cain brought of the fruit — A most natural offering for a tiller of the ground to bring, and a gift sufficiently proper in itself. But his failure to bring also a bleeding sacrifice may well be looked upon as evidence of a want of faith in the doctrine of sacrifices, and a disposition to substitute what was most convenient to him for all that the law of sacrifice required.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And in process of time. Literally, at the end of the days, i.e.

1. Of the year (Aben Ezra, Dathe, De Wette, Rosenm Bohlen), at which season the feast of the ingathering was afterwards kept. (Exo_23:16) (Bush) Aristotle, "Ethics," 8:2, notes that anciently sacrifices were offered after the gathering of the fruits of the earth (Ainsworth).

2. Of the week (Candlish).

3. Of an indefinite time, years or days (Luther, Kalisch).

4. Of some set time, as the beginning of their occupations (Knobel). It came to pass (literally, it was) that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering. Qusia, LXX; oblatio, Vulgate; speisopfer, Luther. The mincha of Hebrew worship was a bloodless sacrifice, consisting of flour and oil, or flour prepared with frankincense. (Lev_2:1) All tree fruits and garden produce were excluded; it was limited to the productions of agriculture and vine growing (cf..Kurtz,. "Sacrificial Worship," 140). Here it includes both meat offerings and animal sacrifices (cf. ver. 4). Unto the Lord. Probably to the gate of the garden, where the cherubim and flaming sword were established as the visible monuments of the Divine presence.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In process of time - At the end of days, either at the end of the year when they kept their feast of in-gathering, or at the end of the days of the week, the seventh day; at some set time Cain and Abel brought to Adam, as the priest of the family, each of them an offering to the Lord; for which we have reason to think there was a divine appointment given to Adam, as a token of God's favour notwithstanding their apostacy.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Cain

Cain ("acquisition") is a type of the mere man of the earth. His religion was destitute of any adequate sense of sin, or need of atonement. This religious type is described in 2 Peter 2. Seven things are said of him:

(1) he worships in self-will

(2) is angry with God

(3) refuses to bring a sin offering

(4) murders his brother

(5) lies to God

(6) becomes a vagabond

(7) is, nevertheless, the object of the divine solicitude.

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

It came about that

This phrase is used to mark the beginning of a new part of the story. If your language has a way for doing this, you could consider using that method here.

in the course of time

Possible meanings are 1) "after some time had passed" or 2) "at the right time"

fruit of the ground

This refers to the food that came from plants he had tended. AT: "crops" or "harvest" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

some of the fat

This refers to the fatty parts of the lambs that he had killed, it was the best part of the animal. AT: "some of their fat parts" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

accepted ... did not accept

"looked favorably upon ... did not look favorably upon" or "was pleased with ... was not pleased with"

was very angry

Some languages have an idiom for anger such as "He burned" or "His anger burned."

he scowled

This means that the expression on his face showed that he was angry or jealous. Some languages have an idiom that describes what a person's face looks like when he is angry. (See: Idiom)

translationWords

Cain

fruit

sacrifice

Yahweh

Abel

firstborn

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

מפרי האדמה OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND —of the worst fruits (Genesis Rabbah 22:5); there is an Agada which says that it was linseed (Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshit 9).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND CAIN BROUGHT OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL. 4. AND ABEL, HE ALSO BROUGHT. These men [Cain and Abel] understood the great secret of the sacrifices and the meal-offerings. So also did Noah, [who likewise offered sacrifices]. Our Rabbis have said that the first man also sacrificed a bullock. This should close the mouth of those who speak foolishness concerning the reason of the sacrifices. I will yet intimate a great principle concerning this matter with the will of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ויהי מקץ ימים, it was some time after Kayin had become a farmer tilling the soil, that he offered a gift to G’d. The Torah is deliberately vague about how much time had elapsed, writing only מקץ ימים, at the end of a number of years. It is reasonable to assume that the word ימים refers to years rather than days, as it is clear from Leviticus 25,29 that in that verse the word ימים represents the number of days that make up a year. It would seem therefore, that after having worked the soil for a full year Kayin offered a gift to G’d, part of what he had harvested. He did this in the spot in which his father Adam had offered prayer and had offered a sacrifice of his own as an acknowledgement of his gratitude, his sons presumably having been in attendance. Although the Torah does not spell out the composition of Adam’s sacrifice, the Talmud in Shabbat 28 suggests that it included a one-horned ox, basing itself on Psalms 69,32 משור פר מקרן מפריס, “ox with horn and hooves,” His sons imitated him, each one bringing a gift from what his labour had produced. The offering was meant to be an expression of man’s gratitude to G’d for the success of his endeavours. מפרי, the Torah is vague about precisely what the offering consisted of, other than saying that it was part of the fruit produced by the earth. We know nothing about the quality or quantity of this offering. Seeing that when describing Hevel’s offering the Torah adds the words: “from the firstborn of his sheep and from their best ones,” it is reasonable to assume that Kayin’s gift, by comparison, was stingy, in fact represented an insult to G’d rather than a grateful acknowledgment of G’d’s part in making the earth produce a crop for him. This is why his offering was not welcome, was rejected. Had Kayin at least brought of the best quality of the produce he had grown, the Torah would have mentioned this to his credit, just as it had done in the case of Hevel’s offering. As a result of the philosophical contrast expressed by these two offerings, i.e. Kayin’s flax and Hevel’s wool, mixing these two fibres in one garment has been outlawed by the Torah for the Jewish people. The lesson for us is that the gifts proffered by a Kayin and the gifts proffered by a Torah-observant Jew are not compatible with one another.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.