“What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground!” God’s anguished words of accusation against Cain told a truth that rings out to us throughout history — no secret sin can be hidden from God. We know this truth even in forensic science today: you cannot expunge human blood. The murderous crime leaves a trail that cannot be erased. Others may not find the trail of blood, but the record still remains. Just as the Lady Macbeth ordered the blood stain removed in guilty delirium, cursing it, “Out, out…!” (Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 1), she could not erase blood from her guilt-ridden hand, even though no blood was physically there. The blood speaks, whether it be found or unfound. In God’s record book, there are no secrets that will not be revealed.

Cain did not seem to bear a conscience or the madness that overcame the Lady Macbeth, yet his guilt rested on him as surely as his brother Abel’s blood was received by the ground, which God used as a testimony against him. A consistent theme in the Bible says, “…be sure your sin will find you out” (Numbers 32:23).

“My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from me, nor is their sin concealed from my eyes.” – Jeremiah 16:17 [The Lord God speaking to His people]

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. – Ecclesiastes 12:14

God honored Abel’s sacrifice of worship, but did not have regard for Cain’s sacrifice. Abel offered the firstborn of his flocks with the choicest portions of the fat of his livestock. Cain brought some fruit from the ground, as he raised crops for a living. One opinion of scholars supports the idea of Cain’s produce itself being unacceptable, as the ground was under a curse. A similar view expresses his produce as improper or prohibited, as animal sacrifice was assumed to be required. According to either argument, Cain would have needed to buy some type of livestock, whether lambs, goats, bulls, etc., in order to present an acceptable offering on the altar. Nothing is said about whether Cain offered the “firstfruits” of his crops, but something was wrong with it. The firstfruits means that the first crops to ripen are offered as a sacrifice, an act of reverence. Now the scripture supports the offering of both the crops of the ground and livestock as a sacrifice (grain offerings and animal sacrifice in Deuteronomy, depending on the type of sacrifice). Therefore, the substance of Cain’s sacrifice was probably not in itself displeasing to God. No, Cain’s flawed sacrifice came from a heart that did not give the best of his produce. This is interpreted in the New Testament:

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead. – Hebrews 11:4

For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. – 1 John 3:11-12

Writing about religious violence, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks observed, “The story of Cain and Abel is the most profound commentary I know on the connection between religion and violence.” (Quoted from Jonathan Sacks, Genesis: The Book of Beginnings; New Milford, CT: Maggid Books & The Orthodox Union, First Edition, 2009.) Perhaps Rabbi Sacks’ assessment overstates the case of religious violence, considering the lack of religion in Cain’s heart. He cites the theories of Freud, Rene Girard, and postmodernists as possible explanations for modern religious violence, but in Cain’s case, one simple explanation might be that of telling oneself that he is indeed doing the will of God. Did Cain think that God was wrong about his sacrifice? Another possible explanation for exerting his wrath on the favored one (Abel) would be to assert, like Nietzsche, that there is no God, and his rival did not deserve to live. As Cain was in conversation with God, such a perspective would not be possible. However, if one were to bear contempt toward God while not questioning His existance, it makes sense to likewise bear contempt for God’s creation. Cain cared not for God’s authority, nor for His advice to do the right thing in order to gain acceptance. Neither did he care for the life of his brother. His actions began with his paltry sacrifice to God, then his downcast countenance, and then steadily moved toward the wrathful act itself. Note the progression of Cain’s attitude, his evil deed, and finally his answer to God:

God: “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do 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.”

Cain took his brother into the field and murdered him.

God: “Where is your brother?”

Cain: “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

God: “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse….”

Cain: “My punishment is more than I can bear.”

The fact that one’s gift or sacrifice was not accepted could elicit either a self assessment — what did I do wrong? — or anger over the rejection. The first reaction issues from a humble and caring heart. In the case of a worshipper, such an attitude means one is genuinely trying to worship the Lord. The other reaction — anger, Cain’s reaction — signifies a quid pro quo, or appeasement, or placating God, which is known as the “gift relationship” (Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship; New York: Pantheon, 1971). The gift relationship in the ancient tribal world was used as a means of control, whereby the leader would bestow gifts as a means to power; the practice was further exercised to influence the gods for favor, such as a sacrifice to a god in exchange for bounty of rain and harvest, or protection from enemies. Even today, a criminal kingpin fosters dependency and coercion by debt through giving. “You owe me” exerts control over one’s subjects. Insincere worshippers who live a double life, attending church or temple on the holy day but practicing evil during the week, may deceive themselves, thinking God is placated. Does God owe them something? God’s answer emphatically condemns trying to placate Him with meaningless worship, as indicated by 1 Samuel 15:22: “To obey is better than sacrifice.” In Isaiah God proclaimed:

“Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me…I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.” – Isaiah 1:13

“When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood!” – Isaiah 1:15

We immediately know that Cain’s heart had no humility or concern for pleasing God when he reacted in anger at the rejection of his gift. Cain was not worshipping, not humble, not caring, not in fear of the Lord God. Taken to the extreme, the gift relationship as far as the giver is concerned states: I give, therefore I rule (Sacks, Genesis, 2009). Cain wanted to rule by his own will and acknowledged no master, not even God Himself. With such an attitude, Cain took no responsibility for his actions and showed no remorse. In response to Cain’s fear of being killed, God, out of kindness, placed a mark on Cain as a warning to the rest of mankind. The warning signaled vengeance seven times for anyone who would potentially kill Cain.

Cain’s obvious contempt for God is synonymous to willing God’s nonexistance; in a sense Cain wanted to replace God with his own will to power. Even in this scenario, God was kind to him, offering a way for self-rule first when He said, “…sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” Following up our quotation of Ephesians 4:26, verse 27 says, “Neither give place to the devil.” The serpent in the garden of Eden tempted Eve with this same argument for being like God. Taking the place of God, or being like God, and exerting one’s own will with contempt for others — the height of arrogance — truly places Satan on the throne of one’s life. However, as the Lord recommended to Cain, self control provides the avenue toward honor and acceptance. In contrast, a Nietzschean will to power denies God and places oneself (rather, the devil) on the throne as the lord of one’s life. It is no wonder that the Bible often refers to God as the Lord God, using God’s own title for Himself, I AM, and translating it to HE IS (Exodus 3:14-15). We call God “Lord” to acknowledge that HE IS and to make the distinction between the Lord God, who is our Creator and Master, and ourselves, His subjects.

Adam and Eve had now lost their second-born son, righteous Abel, who was murdered by his wicked brother, Cain. Their third son, Seth, came and issued forth a more righteous lineage. As we follow the line of both Cain and Seth, we see some similarities in names, such as two Lamechs and two Enochs. Seth’s Enoch walked with God and was taken to heaven without dying. Nothing noteworthy of Cain’s Enoch may be determined, except for Cain’s naming a city after him. As for Cain’s Lamech, he was evil, establishing polygamy and killing two people. Seth’s Lamech fathered Noah and prophesied that Noah would be a comfort to the people after the struggle of working the ground that God had cursed. “Noah” means “comfort” or “rest.”

Genesis chapter 4 ends with some hope with the life of Seth. People began calling on the name of the Lord. This worship likely issued from the progression of righteousness from the line of Seth that culminated in Noah’s life as the ray of hope in God’s upcoming judgment on mankind, the Great Flood.