Questions From Genesis (Part 4)
One of the most important and pertinent questions of all time was posed by an impertinent man—the first son born on earth—Cain. God had asked him where his brother was—knowing that he had killed him. Cain lashed out against God by sarcastically asking, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" Ironically, the Scriptures will show that the answer is, "Yes." Before proceeding along those lines, however, we might observe that Cain, first of all, lied when he said, "I do not know" (Gen. 4:9). He knew full well where he had left his brother’s body. This is the type of person Cain was.
Not much is spoken about Cain after Genesis 4. His sacrifice is contrasted to that of his brother, Abel, whose offering bore witness of the fact he was righteous. Cain’s offering did not have that effect (Heb. 11:4). The main text concerning Cain is 1 John 3:12: "not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous."
Cain "was of the wicked one." He did not try to control himself. God had told him that he could do well, but he did not feel compelled to travel on that road. Sin was lying at the door for him; he flung it open and urged it to come in for a quick embrace. Never mind whether or not his actions were right or logical; he desired to kill his brother, and would let nothing stand in the way. No doubt Satan was likewise moved with passion when he opposed God.
Notice that God calls what Cain did murder. It was not an accident. It was not second- or third-degree murder. It was neither voluntary nor involuntary manslaughter. The right charge for such a premediated, cowardly action (one in which the victim has zero chance of survival) is Murder One. Courts and juries today who do not punish such individuals with even a year’s time in jail have no respect for human life (Gen. 9:5-6). Their injustice will not go unnoticed by Him Who abounds in justice and righteousness.
All of 1 John 3:12 stands in contrast to the preceding verse, which stresses "that we should love one another." Cain had no love for either God or man. Certainly, one who loves his brother does not kill him. How did he think his father and mother would react to the murder? He either did not think about that, or if he did, he did not care. He was selfish to the core, caring only for himself.
John asks and answers the question, "Why did Cain murder his brother?" His brother’s works were righteous, but his were evil. What works? The only thing mentioned in Genesis relates to the offerings both men brought. Abel’s was accepted; Cain’s was rejected—along with Cain himself. Offering something other than what God required is called evil by the inspired apostles. Cain was of the wicked one; his works were evil.
Jude also references Cain briefly. Some whom Jude was describing had "gone in the way of Cain" (11). What had they done? "But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves" (v. 10). Cain evidently spoke evil of his brother (at least to himself) and made no effort to understand the righteousness that motivated Abel. Cain thought his brother was a threat that needed to be destroyed. Any means to accomplish this feat was acceptable to Cain—even murder. No wonder nothing good is stated concerning him. He was arrogant and insolent in his disposition toward God, as well as impenitent concerning the murder of his brother.
Are We Our Brother’s Keeper?
First, what do we find written in the remainder of the Old Law on this subject? The following comments are taken from this writer’s chapter in Great Old Testament Questions, the 2003 Bellview lectures.
Obadiah is worthy of praise for keeping one hundred prophets alive. While they hid in caves out of fear that Queen Jezebel would kill them, he literally "kept" them alive with bread and water (1 Kings 18:4, 13). Both Michal, Saul’s daughter (David’s wife), and Jonathan, Saul’s son, "kept" David from being killed by their mad father by helping him escape (1 Sam. 19:12-17; 20:1-42).
A contrast in ideologies occurs between the husband and wife, Nabal and Abigail. The former felt that he had no obligation to David or his men, and he refused to be of help (1 Samuel 25:10-11). Not only did he fail to be a "keeper," he also flunked gratitude, since David’s men had protected his household and possessions (v. 16). Fortunately, his wife was both wiser and more generous. She graciously gave the provisions David and his men needed, thus avoiding the destruction that David had determined upon the churlish knave. Obviously, one need not be a literal brother to be a "keeper."
Most of these examples have been of fellow Israelites, who are brethren by race, rather than after the order of Cain and Abel. Therefore, the obligation is broader than one’s own family. It widens even more, however, to include the entire family of man. God has, for example, through His prophets "kept" Gentiles, such as the widow in Sidon (1 Kings 17:9-24) and Naaman the Syrian (2 Kings 5:1-19), as Jesus pointed out (Luke 4:24-27).
Surprisingly, such care has worked the other way around, also. When Jeremiah’s fellow Israelites decided to "keep" him almost like Cain did Abel, putting him in a dungeon where he sank into the mire and would surely have perished, it was a eunuch from Ethiopia, named Ebed-melech, who preserved him from death. Imagine, a Gentile having to save the prophet from the deeds of his own kinsmen, according to the flesh (Jer. 38:1-13)! Surely, we have a responsibility toward all—not just someone closely related by blood (19).
The New Testament
But what does the New Testament have to say about the way we treat others? Jesus taught us to go so far as to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44-48). But we actually find at least thirty passages that encourage us to relate to one another in certain ways. These should teach us that God expects us to be our brother’s keepers. What follows is from the same, afore-mentioned manuscript, but it is shortened considerably.
"Love one another" (Rom. 13:8; John 13:34-35; 15:12-13). Love is the one thing we owe all men…. If some are not very lovable, we must realize that such a quibble is irrelevant. We are to love our brethren as Jesus loved us. He loved His disciples when their attitudes were wrong (wanting to destroy Samaria, for instance, Luke 9:51-56), when they were immature (arguing over who would be greatest amongst themselves, Mark 9:34), or when they deserted Him and fled (Mark 14:50). Even Peter’s denial (Mark 14:66-72) could not deter Him from dying on the cross for his sins—and all who have ever denied Him (Rom. 5:8)…. Leslie B. Flynn, in the book, Great Church Fights, included the following rhyme:
To dwell above with saints we love,
That will be grace and glory.
To live below with saints we know;
That’s another story! (Swindoll 32).
Although those four lines reflect our feelings at certain times, nevertheless we know that love must prevail….
Furthermore, to love someone involves more than just refraining from doing him harm. Although we might consider such restraint a mighty achievement, there remain the positive actions that love requires: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18). Incorrect is the disposition that mistakes for love the absence of expressed ill will toward another; good will must be exercised. Jesus taught the importance of positive expression: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Mat. 7:12).
2. Brethren should be "kindly affectioned to one another with brotherly love" (Rom. 12:10). According to Vincent, the Greek word, philostorgoi, means "the natural love of kindred" (2:743). He also adds: "The word here represents Christians as bound by a family tie." Occasionally, the idea has been presented that we must love our brethren, but we do not have to like them. How easy is it, however, to be kindly affectioned to someone we cannot personally stand to be around? Perhaps avoidance is a helpful temporary solution, but this verse indicates that we can control our feelings. Those who say they cannot help the way they feel are mistaken. Wounds created by strife take a while to heal, but they can be overcome. "Let love be without dissimulation…" (Rom. 12:9). The preceding prepositional phrase is generally a word translated "unfeigned." Our love for one another cannot be faked; it must be genuine.
3. Christians are commanded to "in honor" prefer one another (Rom. 12:10). Literally, this phrase means "leading the way in showing the honor that is due" (Vincent 1:744). Nearly half a century ago Teresa Brewer’s song, "Mutual Admiration Society," (from the musical Happy Hunting), played on radios across the nation during November and December of 1956. The theme involved a pair of young lovers (in the innocent sense of the expression) who spent all their time complimenting and building each other up. This depiction ought to describe the church. These sentiments cannot be phony; they must be real and genuine. Petty jealousies, typified by Saul’s attitude toward David’s success in killing Goliath, have no place in the church. We ought to encourage one another to excel and rejoice in each other’s accomplishments. Perhaps at times we focus too much on what is wrong and not enough on the things that are right and done well. Appropriate admiration for one another is itself admirable.
4. Members of the body of Christ should be "of the same mind toward one another" (Rom. 12:16). James talked about the problem of favoritism with respect to the poor and the rich (James 2:2-4). We know better, but we do not always live up to our knowledge. A friend of this writer visited a congregation, and after worship he stood at the back door. He was dressed in blue jeans, but they were clean (and all he had at the moment). Person after person passed by and never said a word. Perhaps they would have ignored him also if he had been wearing a brand-new suit, but likely this was a social decision: "He’s not very well dressed; let’s just pretend we don’t see him." Members should be interested in everyone who visits….
5. As brethren, we must receive one another (Rom. 15:7). We do not all think alike. Tastes vary; preferences differ. We must co-exist peacefully in matters of judgment and not allow disagreements to interrupt fellowship or cause us to think less of one another. In a small Pennsylvania city, whose population is less than 10,000, sit two large church buildings on opposite corners in the heart of town. Both of the buildings belonged to Presbyterian groups. The history behind these two structures is probably a very interesting one, but in the mid-1970s both groups had shrunk to the size of 60 and 100 respectively. When this writer met one of the attendees, he asked, "Why don’t the two groups unite?" She replied, "Well, when our ladies get together for lunch, we like to eat out; their ladies like to bring their own lunches." Oh. Now it all makes sense. What a great barrier to unity! And some of us have been about as foolish! Matters of opinion and judgment should not disrupt fellowship; we must receive one another.
6. We also have a responsibility to "edify one another" (Rom. 14:19; 1 Thess. 5:11). Our desire should be that peace reign in the body (as much as possible). Toward that end we should try to build each other up in the faith. In Corinth the brethren wanted to showcase their own spiritual gifts by speaking in tongues, but Paul explained that edifying each other was far more valuable (1 Cor. 14:12-19) (from pages 20-23).