Genesis 4:5

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect,.... Not because of the matter of it, as some have thought; but because it was not offered in faith and sincerity, but in a formal and

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Cain was very wroth; partly with God, who, had cast so public a disgrace upon him, and given the preference to his younger brother; and partly with Abel, because he had received more honour from God, and therefore was likely to have more respect and privilege from his parents than himself. His countenance fell; whereas before it was lifted up and cheerful, now it fell down through sense of guilt, disappointment of his hope, shame and grief, and envy at his brother.

Genesis 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.Ver. 5. But to Cain and his offering, &c.] Because he brought not the person but the work of a person as Luther hath it; who also calls those Cainists that offer to God the work done, but do not offer themselves to God. Works materially good may never prove so, formally and eventually. That which is fair to men, is abomination to God. He rejected the swan for sacrifice, because under a white feather it hath black skin. Sordet in conspectu Iudicis quod fulget in conspectu operantis, saith Gregory. A thing may shine in the night from its rottenness. Luth., in Decal

(5) Cain was very wroth.—Heb., it burned to Cain exceedingly: that is, his heart was full of hot indignant feelings, because of the preference shown to his younger brother.

Verse 5. Unto Cain] As being unconscious of his sinfulness, and consequently unhumbled, and to his offering, as not being accompanied, as Abel's was, with faith and a sacrifice for sin, he had not respect - He could not, consistently with his holiness and justice, approve of the one or receive the other. Of the manner in which God testified his approbation we are not informed; it was probably, as in the case of Elijah, by sending down fire from heaven, and consuming the sacrifice. Cain was very wroth] That displeasure which should have been turned against his own unhumbled heart was turned against his innocent brother, who, though not more highly privileged than he, made a much better use of the advantages which he shared in common with his ungodly and unnatural brother.

5. but unto Cain] In what way the Divine displeasure was conveyed is not recorded. The suggestion that fire from heaven consumed the offering of Abel, but left that of Cain untouched, is a pure conjecture based upon the group of passages in the O.T., in which the fire from God attested the approval of the sacrifice, Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; Judges 13:19-20; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1; 1Ma 2:10-11. It is a serious omission, also, that we are left to conjecture the reason for the favour shewn to Abel and withheld from Cain. We can hardly doubt, that in the original form of the story the reason was stated; and, if so, that the reason represented in the folk-lore of Israel would not have been in harmony with the religious teaching of the book. Taking, therefore, the omission of the reason in conjunction with the language of Gen 4:6-7, and with the general religious purport of the context, we should probably be right in interring that the passage, as it stands, intends to ascribe the difference in the acceptability of the two offerings to the difference in the spirit with which they had been made. Jehovah looked at the heart (cf. 1 Samuel 16:7). Thus the first mention of worship in Holy Scripture seems to emphasize the fundamental truth that the worth of worship lies in the spirit of the worshipper, cf. John 4:24, “God is spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This is the thought of Heb 11:4, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.… God bearing witness in respect of his gifts.” The following conjectures have at different times been put forward to explain the preference of Jehovah: (a) It has been suggested that Abel’s offering was preferred, because it consisted of flesh, and that Cain’s was rejected, because it consisted of vegetable produce. Each man offered of the fruits of his work and calling. Did the original story contain a condemnation of the agricultural as compared with the pastoral calling? But Adam was commanded to till the ground (Genesis 2:15, Genesis 3:19). (b) The old Jewish explanation was that Cain had failed to perform the proper ritual of his offering, and therefore incurred the Divine displeasure: see note on the LXX of Gen 4:7. But, again, if so, it has to be assumed that Divine directions upon the ritual of service had previously been communicated to man. (c) The common Christian explanation that Cain’s sacrifice, being “without shedding of blood” (Hebrews 9:22. cf. Leviticus 17:11), could not find acceptance, equally assumes that the right kind of sacrifice had previously been Divinely instituted, and that Cain’s rejection was, therefore, due to the wilful violation of a positive command as well as to the infringement of sacrificial rule. In the silence of the narrative respecting the origin of the institution of sacrifice, these conjectures are merely guess-work, and must be considered more or less fanciful.

5. But unto Cain… not respect — Why? From Hebrews 11:4, we infer that it was because of some lack of faith, for “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.” Cain’s, then,