Acts: Opposing the Gospel: the Way of Cain

I have written two introductory posts thus far on Opposition to the Gospel, here and here. With the introduction out of the way, we should recognize that opposition comes from within and without. Let’s look at internal opposition first, and then look at external opposition in a later post. We’ll see after running through both whether there are any material differences in the motivation that drives the two spheres of opposition.

In Luke’s account of the infant church in Acts, we shouldn’t be surprised to see opposition to the Gospel and its adherents. Jesus prepared his disciples for such opposition:

They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God. John 16:2.

Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and killed, and you will be hated by all nations on account of My name. Matthew 24:9

Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil because of the Son of Man. Luke 6:22

The servants would not be greater than their master. “Remember what I told you,” he said. “‘A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” John 15:20.

We learn something about this opposition in the pre-repentance life of Saul. On the road to Damascus, Jesus said, “Saul, Saul. Why are you persecuting me?” Even though Saul was savaging the Church, that opposition was personal to Jesus. Opposition to his people is at bottom opposition to him.

How can this be? That is evident in the opposition of Judas Iscariot; but what is its root? To answer that question we should look to Cain.

Cain has a way, and unfortunately we can still walk in it. See Jude 1:11 (“Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain . . . .“). To understand what this way is, let’s turn to Genesis 4.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.

Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 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.”

Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.

The issue here is not shepherd vs. farmer; the point of contention is not vocation or occupation. That is not the lesson to be learned. The story is also not best thought of as ‘Cain and Abel’, or ‘Cain vs Abel.’ Rather, a better way to understand this story, and the way of Cain that issues from it, is to think of this passage as ‘Cain and God,’ or ‘Cain vs. God.’

After telling us what each man does for a living generally, the passage brings us quickly to a specific point in time. “In the course of time” means “at the end of days.” How this time was appointed, and how Cain and Abel knew both the time and the import of it, we are not told. But from their conduct we can infer a time for offering to God, or for meeting with God through an act of worship, had been ordained.

The language of the offerings mark the critical distinction between the two: “some of the fruits of the soil” and “fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.” With no Mosaic framework for these two offerings work with, we can only examine them as reflections of the hearts of the two men. Cain did not bring the firstfruits of his harvest, simply some of his harvest. Abel, on the other hand, brought the firstborn of his flock, and the fattest portions at that.

Cain’s offering suggests indifference compared to Abel’s. His shows little interest or care. But the distinction does not rest with the chosen material of worship: grain vs. animal. The distinction rests with each men’s response to his own fruitfulness. Whether the fruitfulness means heads of grain or little lambs does not matter. What matters here is where each man finds the source of the fruitfulness. One man begrudges, it seems, while the other expresses his gratitude best as he can.

What does God care for lambs and grain? Not much, but He does examine the heart. The Lord has respect and regard for Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s.

When Cain was angry, who was he angry with? Well, we have to look at who made him angry. Was it Abel? No, Cain is angry at God’s lack of respect and lack of regard for his offering. Cain is angry because God, with his lack of respect, directly challenges Cain’s indifference and ingratitude, and the root of his indifference and ingratitude as well—i.e., the belief that Cain himself is the source of his own fruitfulness: what debt or obligation does he owe to God?

Do you understand that’s how Cain sees the offering? As an obligation? Thus, his perfunctory response to the appointed time, whereas Abel sees the act of offering as a gift—his real opportunity to show his gratitude for the fruitfulness he sees as coming from the hand of God. And thus, his extravagant gift.

Abel sees his flourishing as tied up with God, whereas Cain sees his flourishing as evincing distance between him and God—he and God are separate. God is there, Cain is here;. God and Cain are not joined together in humanity. God is other, whereas Abel sees life as connected to God, and his act of worship is both an acknowledgement of that connection and another opportunity to connect or join together (this attitude of heart is something that will reach its fulness in Christ Jesus and his disciples).

Cain and Abel represent two different ways of seeing God and this life. Same earth, same sky, same fruitfulness, same God—but two very different views of the same set of circumstances and two very different reactions to them as a result. Cain expects to make his way in the world without God—why should he honor God for something he has accomplished?

Maybe he thought God would respect his independence; Cain was living and moving and having his being in himself like God does. But God rejects Cain’s view of himself. God’s rejection forces Cain to realize he is not as independent as he thinks; he wants God’s approval. Because Cain believes he deserves God’s approval, he is wroth when he doesn’t get it.

But, what good does it do to be angry with God? What can one do to God? It’s fruitless. So, we see Cain’s anger turn to despondency. He can do nothing . . . against God.

God does not leave Cain to himself, however. Since Cain learned nothing from the object lesson of the offerings, God speaks to him directly, giving him another opportunity to repent from himself actually — to offer himself up to God, so to speak, and to maintain an open relationship with God (remember he is speaking to God; he hears and knows God’s voice; but he experiences no union with God)

Cain couldn’t do it. He could not repent of himself. For Cain, the implications of God’s rejection of his offering incite him to violence. God would always serve as a reminder that Cain is not who he thought he was: not like God, and not independent of God. God had to gotten out of the way so that Cain could live life as he pleased.

It was an illusion, and self-deception; but Cain could not accept his position, which he viewed as lower than God’s, and subject to God—in his mind, he was servile and abased. Compare Abel’s view, he rejoiced in his view, which was union with God, and a position elevated by God’s abundance and life as evidenced in the little lambs or tiny kids. Perhaps Abel did not see equality with God (and it appears he was not grasping after that), but his gratitude must have issued out of the harmony with God he had enjoyed.

What is important to see is the problem is not with God. The issues flow from the hearts of the two men. And it isn’t that God is subject to the two images of God, which each man has; it is that Cain’s desires, away from God, blind him to the nature of the Person of God (someone who gives him life and abundance, and grace and mercy) and Abel’s desires, towards God, gives him a fuller view of the Person of God (His life and abundance, and the grace and mercy, opened a way of fellowship and relationship). Cain’s heart only allows him to see limits; he therefore does not want to know God. In contrast, Abel’s heart allows him to see possibilities that God can be known.

But, Cain is in crisis. He cannot kill God externally or physically place himself above and over God; but if he can accomplish that end in his heart, Cain can put God to death within his heart and then live once and for all free from God and live in the lie he has created for himself. See Romans 1. That is the sin crouching at the door, God is referring to.

Ironically, God offers Cain the opportunity to rule, to have authority, in a way that is like God. Cain doesn’t take it. In contrast, murder is not like God at all. The fruitfulness and multiplication of field and flock evidence God is all about life, not death. But Cain has chosen and is blinded forever to the possibilities of life Abel has embraced and lives in.

Cain kills God in his heart, but he has a problem—another reminder of God’s way with men, Abel. Alive unto God, Abel actively represents God in the earth. Cain cannot look at Abel and not see God in reflection. Abel has to be killed also. And then, and only then, will God have been gotten completely out of the way Cain has chosen. So, he kills Abel outwardly in the same manner he has killed God inwardly. Note: Cain is all wrong about all of this; but the desires of his heart have corrupted his thinking. See James 1:13-15 (“When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when by his own evil desires he is lured away and enticed. Then after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”).

This is the way of Cain.

This way of Cain reached its fulness when man could in fact kill God finally—Jesus was crucified, as we all know. What was in the heart of man could be literally acted out, and it was acted out, horribly and violently, against the Author of life. In the crucifixion of Jesus, man’s heart is exposed once and for all. He cannot live a lie or cover it up with religious pretense any longer. The cross exposes the darkness that was birthed in Cain’s heart and nurtured in Judas Iscariot’s, and the religious leaders’, and the crowds’ and Pilate’s (his was expressed in indifference and cynicism. See here.)

Because the cross of Christ shines this light on the way of Cain, man is without excuse. Man now chooses the way of Cain knowingly, if he does. The disciples rejected the way of Cain, and replaced Judas Iscariot with Matthias in Chapter 1 of Acts (See here and here). But they also continued to proclaim a way that was in its infancy with Abel, but was made manifest in Jesus Christ. Both Abel and Christ shed their blood on the earth; the disciples had to have realized what the way of Christ meant for them. But as we read Acts, the disciples saw that life as a disciple of Christ was a gift—a real opportunity to show his or her gratitude for the fruitfulness he or she sees as coming from the hand of God. And thus, we see some of them giving extravagant gifts.

In any event, the world is divided into Cain’s and Abel’s, goats and sheep, chaff and wheat, darkness and light. The Cain’s of this life will always kill God in their hearts, and they will always seek to kill God’s reflection, the Abel’s of this life, in order to put God to death once and for all. Irrational? Yes. Futile? Yes. Christ Jesus rose again from the dead—meaning you cannot kill God. And we Abel’s in this life will rise again from the dead as well, even if our blood has to cry out here on the earth.

In closing, this way of Cain informs the opposition we see in Acts. It would also inform the opposition to the Gospel we see today. The opposition in Acts and today is the fruit from the poisoned tree of opposition to God—birthed in Adam, but best seen in Cain.