-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
G
Amen, welcome to a life serving Jesus, remembering His finished work, that covers your sins present, past, future, live in His moments for you every day of your life, phillip 
--------:-------
Also, it should be noted too God could forgive Cain (have mercy) on Cain a lot more than once too .
I think this would be a good bumper sticker: IF you're alive there's still a chance for you, unbeliever. Only believe John 3:16.
--------:-------
Also, it should be noted too God could forgive Cain (have mercy) on Cain a lot more than once too .
I think this would be a good bumper sticker: IF you're alive there's still a chance for you, unbeliever. Only believe
John 3:16.
Notice that the "respect" God gave was to the offering...it was not primarily an issue of wholeheartenedness and zeal. Cain may well have been zealous for his offering, doing his very best to make it acceptable. But God accepted Abel's offering and didn't accept Cain's offering. This made Cain angry to the point of murdering Abel. Dead religionists would say that God was "unfair" in not accepting Cain's offering. After all, Cain was a farmer so it was only natural that Cain brought an offering from what he produced, while Abel was a shepherd, and Abel naturally brought an offering from what he produced. Abel's offering was accepted, and Cain's offering rejected. Why? Because Abel brought the blood of sacrifice, which was a picture of the atoning blood of Christ. Cain brought the best he could offer, which was only dead works. Abel pled the atoning blood of the coming Messiah as the only ground of his salvation. Cain pled the best he could offer, which was only dead works. And Cain hated Abel because of this.
Exactly There are lots of theories and lots of conclusions, but the basis is Christ. It is through the blood of Christ that we live on with God. They only "slept with their fathers", etc. under only the symbol of that blood, but always it is Christ. Anything else will not do. They were told that from the beginning, but Cain decided his own reasoning was good enough. Giving of his crops seemed good enough to him, made common sense.
What I think we are to learn is to obey God, God is supreme. If it seems silly to us, if it doesn't make sense to us, still obey. God created us.
What I think we are to learn is to obey God, God is supreme. If it seems silly to us, if it doesn't make sense to us, still obey. God created us.
K
I, as the originator of this post, have my own opinion on this issue. But I am really enjoying how everyone is bringing scriptural passages to support their claim on what was the major cause of Cain's sacrifice being rejected. I would like to say that the last two post before this is the closest to what I want to believe was the major reason for rejection. Among others who have commented, many have touched on the point, but they kept going further. We have to settled down and 'zero in on' the one major reason here. And I believe we're getting closer to that.
So I would please refer everyone to the last two posts, that is, the ones I've quoted above. Let's see if there is any possibility that the 'major reason' is within these comments, so we can pick it out and further support it.
Thanks everyone for the comments. Let's keep them coming. I hope we would come to just one conclusion at the end of this issue, even though I think that is just wishful thinking.
G
I don't think it was a blood sacrifice, tribers. We are not to Exodus and on where God began to declare blood sacrifices critical to Israelites obedience to Him that meant death to them ortherwise. No, I don't know that God told Cain or Abel what kind of sacrifice, or, wouldn't Scripture say so???
What is true is both knew God , and, both knew innately that God was God! When He asked for an offering, it was a GIVEN that YOU gave your very BEST. Abel did. Cain did not. Plain and simple, that part, God is just, tribers, the only distinction to make is choice:Best and not best. Fruit was fine, God understood that. Giving not his best fruit was the problem, and, Cain KNEW it before he plopped the token of an offering down for God.
What is true is both knew God , and, both knew innately that God was God! When He asked for an offering, it was a GIVEN that YOU gave your very BEST. Abel did. Cain did not. Plain and simple, that part, God is just, tribers, the only distinction to make is choice:Best and not best. Fruit was fine, God understood that. Giving not his best fruit was the problem, and, Cain KNEW it before he plopped the token of an offering down for God.
G
No, Scripture nowhere says God gave them instructions but they did already know exactly what God wanted--their best. This is the 1st real sign of faith,too . For things both men worked hard for, God WANTED then their very BEST to offer Him. And, that , you can be certain, was umderstood by both men, no instructions necessary, or, at least, if we want to say instructions, then God simply asked them to do the right thing when God asked for their best. Able gave the very best lamb he had to offer and, Cain thought he could get by just giving 'some fruit,' Scripture says This is not even some of his best fruit. God wants our best, it takes FAITH to give Him that, like a tithe to church or c.c. or whetever It is tough to part with what you earned but God does keep count, not saying salvationally, but , sinfully, YES! When we don't tithe then sin crouches at our door too, our conscience then is a playful instrument for Satan to behold
Sin will master those who do not give God their best , this happening from a lack of faith .
Sin will master those who do not give God their best , this happening from a lack of faith .
Much ink has pooled on the pages of recent and not so recent commentaries on the book of Genesis, some favorable to divine origin and some favorable to secular, scientific conclusions. The intent is often to prove that God created the material world, that there was a garden, an evolutionary origin and Big Bang or not, or that there was a flood, Babel or a man named Abraham. Though the importance of these questions is not to be denied, enough on these topics has been written to suffice for a while. I, for one, believe these ancient chronicles, but so much more was intended than what has captured the attention of contemporary theologians, exegetes, apologists, controversialists and interested bystanders. That something is the origin of worship. The Fall changed much for Man, but did not change everything. Father continued to love his children and the Image remained in the son and daughter. However, sin had entered the world. St Ambrose pointed out that the love of God, in spite of this horrific advent, immediately began the redemptive process by imposing death. He believed this to be a stopgap measure to prevent sin from growing indefinitely. Hence, the exclusion from eating from the Tree of Life. St Ambrose was not merely trying to put a positive or insightful spin on death; he was trying to show that though death may be a punishment it is also a remedy, even if short term. Nevertheless it remains for humanity an unwelcome intervention; man was made to live, therefore death diminishes the glory and substance of being Man by depriving him of his dust. Perhaps that is part of the point…that death would bring about humility to counter the audacity of breaking the only law given to him. Adam returned to dust. The great theologians of the Church are correct to say that Man as made in the Image of God is a whole being of dust and spirit. He is irreducible in his constituent parts. Without the dust he is but a breath that cannot interact with physical creation. Without spirit he is a creature of dust only, comparable to the animals and no more than any other creature could ever be. Man is a physical and spiritual being. As each child is born in the image of its parents, similarly the heritage, and ultimately, the inheritance of humanity, is God. Yet, there remains this problem of sin and measureless separation that sin places between God and his children. The irreducible has been reduced and must be restored. Still, there was a relationship between God and his children that he would not sever, for God always so loved the world that he would bring about its salvation. Some of the ancients responded to this with delight and were called the sons of God while others who were descended from Cain began to build a world of their own. The knowledge of God was not quickly diminished for Cain and Abel worshipped God, and that worship was the recollection of their father “walking with God in the cool of the Day” when there was no obstacle in the way or apparatus of worship necessary. It may be interesting to note that at the end of Genesis 3 that the Trinity remarks that because Adam and Eve had eaten from the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they had become
like God able to discern between good and evil. It may also be interesting to explore why God says that the human was now like Himself when they were created that way in the first place. That question is for another time. Rather, of interest here is the implication this knowledge put into the hands of humankind. Without a new law, for none was given, they were a law unto themselves. Being able to discern between good and evil opened them up to self-governance and the opportunity to always do good. Pelagius would have us believe that it is within man to always choose good if he willed and wanted it. Augustine would have us believe that it is original sin that makes it impossible to always choose good. Modern evangelicalism in many of its forms would have us believe that goodness in any form is impossible to ever achieve. The point that he has not achieved this is not novel teaching. According to Genesis, the culprit is man’s own imagination that overtook him and became the fertile soil for every kind of violence. Self rule becomes capricious when driven by unrestrained imagination. The world of man becomes a fantasy world unhinged from the reality of good discernment, wisdom, kindness and goodness. Evil is the absence of goodness and goodness is God-given. Evil grows slowly but is a slippery slope that gets ever steeper until it plunges everything around it into an abyss of darkness, oppression, corruption and violence. Goodness then cannot be measured since imagination allows the individual to believe anything, even that he or she is good as they raise their weaponized hands against each other. This is not beside the point. Cain and Abel demonstrate this in the very process of the goodness of seeking to bridge the chasm between God and themselves through worship. Cain appears to have taken the initiative to worship God with an offering from the fruit of his labors which was not accepted because it was not given in the right context of heart. It is helpful to examine this sacrifice in more detail since it has bearing on how false worship has manifested itself through the rest of human history. Cain was a tiller of the ground, a farmer, or what an anthropologist might call an early agriculturalist; no longer nomadic because having settled on the land and eking out a living on the unforgiving soil. He lived out his life under the curse imposed on Adam that stipulated the ground would not give its strength to him (nor to his descendants). Mankind was consigned to eat the lettuce of the field, as Archbishop Aelfric calls the grass and herbs. This was the same diet as the animals he was given to dominate and now had to compete with for sustenance. Because the ground was resistant to Cain, his efforts were strenuous and consuming, thus the phrase, “labor under the sweat of your brow”. He would work hard for little gain. The Fast in the Garden, that is, the prohibition to not eat from one tree, was broken. Now came an enduring penance imposed upon all of mankind in that there would now be little to eat; enough for nourishment, but not enough for satiety. There was a certain logic to Cain’s sacrifice, or offering. First of all, it does not appear that he was making an attempt at atonement for sin since he was warned after the offering was rejected that sin crouched at the door. A particular sin did not enter the story prior to this. Attempting to atone for the fall of his parents is an unreasonable solution to the question since the punishment had already been meted out. No, the offering was for something else. It was an attempt at bridging the gap of separation that was present in his life as he lived under the constraints of the curse. However, he did so with elemental matter born of the curse. He achieved nothing because there was nothing under the curse worthy of use in worship. Abel was different. He did not cultivate the ground even though he likely benefited from his brothers’ efforts in bringing in the grain and herbs. It is important to realize that working the ground was not a sin. The curse brought difficulty and hardship but the curse was not evil, per se. It was not absent of God. Death, as part of the curse was also a remedy and the work imposed was a means of penance. The curse was certainly religious if viewed from this vantage. In any case, it was still loathsome. It is not surprising then that Cain would look to God who placed him in this environment for approval and acceptance. Where Adam and Eve had been placed in the Garden that God had made, exile into the world was also a placement arranged by God. Adam walked with God in the cool of the day in paradise and Cain set about to offer a sacrifice in the harshness of the wilderness. In this wilderness Abel had a different occupation and perhaps his occupation gave him insight into how to worship God. Husbandry of sheep requires a very different skill set than the agriculturalist. The shepherd has to follow the sheep or lead them under safe conditions to new pastures, but does not have to create those pastures. Neither does it appear that animals had been cursed, nor were thy slaughtered for food. If that is the case, why care for sheep if not for their food? Sheep, when on their own, get into all kinds of trouble. The comparison to self-governing humanity is obvious here. They are vulnerable to predators, disease, and accidents like getting lost or falling into holes or off of cliffs. Abel recognized the sheep needed care and his occupation therefore is grounded in compassion; seeing their need he cared for them. As for humanity in the general, their (our) self governance has brought more trouble than needs examples. It is an historical given. Seeing that his brother offered up a sacrifice, he thought it “meet, just and right” that he should also offer a sacrifice to God. Abel was far more limited than Cain in available resources but had to offer something of himself, as Cain did. There is no sacrifice where there is no cost. It might appear at first that offering up a sheep is obvious, but not so in their world. Animals were not slaughtered then and Abel was responsible for the health and welfare of his flock, not their destruction. God had given no commandment concerning sacrifice either or regulation of worship. What then was going on here? Abel offered up a lamb with its choice entrails as a risk. There was the possibility that not only would God reject the offering but that He would be outraged and impose a worse condition in which to live than he found himself in now. God could have seen this offering as murder. Rather than bowing out of this risk, however, he believed that this was the most appropriate way to make an offering to God, that is, by offering the life of a creature whom he loved. It was an act of faith. In this process of faith Abel did not make a blind risk or gamble, he did so based upon revelation, the opening of his mind to what was right and good and appropriate. Only the revelation of the Father could have brought Abel to see that the elements of his sacrifice were of a nature suitable for an offering. To Cain, whose offering was rejected, Abel’s offering must have been scandalous and ghastly and incongruous with nature and not what he felt was pleasing to God. The sacrifice, indeed, was pleasing to God and his was not. His anger, no, wrath, over this was serious; not a surprising reaction to those of us who have been snubbed, or been disappointed by someone else’s success, or rejected or any host of offenses that have given rise to envy and resentment. This was an outrage! The God, whom he sought to please, refused to accept his gift. Pride goes before the fall, as the proverbialist says. The complexity of intent, resources, and labor involved in his offering was in no way helpful for all of it together testified to his self achievement and work driven success at overcoming, by his own hand, the difficulties of the curse. Abel had used none of this; he had simply killed a lamb, offered it to God and subsequently caused a scandal with tremendous repercussions. Besides who was this brother of his? What was he to him that he would bring about such
a humiliation
and disgrace?
This younger
brother who
wandered around
watching animals graze and calve? What kind of work is that? It is easy to project thoughts of this kind into the mind of Cain because they are thoughts that are common to all us. He began his judgment of Abel. Thoughts are the precursors of actions and the anger in Cain’s heart was comparable to murder, as Jesus teaches his disciples. God, who is not far from any of us, confronted Cain and warned him that sin was crouching at the door and that he had to get a grip on himself. There was still time to prevent a heinous crime. It is worth noting two things here. First, that God was talking to him and second, that the crime that was welling up in Cain’s heart could have been prevented. In the first case, the notion that after the Fall God considered mankind so sinful that He could not bear to even look at them is a preposterous proposition. God has always so loved the world… He maintained contact with humanity as exampled here with his intervention into Cain’s life and is hinted at in a later generation when he told Noah that He would not struggle with mankind forever. One does not struggle with what one does not have contact with. The second thing is that the outcome of temptation can be averted, at least theoretically. Everyone has sinned and Christ, to my knowledge, was the only one not to sin. Nevertheless, God’s concern and love is expressed in His warning to Cain. An act with affinity to the character of Abel in this case. Following the warning, Cain went and told his brother. He told his brother what? That God had spoken to him about doing well and that sin crouched at the door? He confessed to Abel the jealousy in his heart, possibly. If it was a confession it was imperfect because it did not change his heart; instead, he decided to ignore the warning and allow the passions of pride and envy overtake him. The supposed nobility of his confession was a manifestation of his religious pride. Confession about hidden matters of the heart and the warning of God can surely spur one to do the right thing; but by whose measure? Pride wants to be rewarded and confession does not have the kind of reward that would prevent him from doing the wrong in his heart. More and more, his religion was shown to be centered upon himself, a corruption of the true religion. Putting this together Cain gathered the fruits of his labor, that is, grass from the ground under the sweat of his brow and in pride offered this to God. It was rejected thus sowing seeds of resentment compounded by his reaction to the scandalous sacrifice God accepted at the hands of his brother. As the seeds began to grow the sprout began to foreshadow what kind of fruit would be born, and such a fruit impelled God to warn Cain of what could, and finally, did, come. [Here prophecy and wisdom come into the story.] The warning had some effect because he went to his brother. Yet, his own judgment against his brother prevented adequate confession. It is here underscored that if one does not love his brother he cannot love God. Drawing his brother into the field of his labors, Cain slew Abel. This is the extreme perversion of religion. Persuading Abel into the field may have been part of his “confession” but not necessarily. It was certainly a false invitation not unlike a wolf in sheep’s clothing that comes to the flock with soothing words and a false gospel. Regardless, a murder took place. It took place in the field where Cain gathered his fruit. Recognizing the irregularity of Abel’s actions he committed an irregular act as well and slew Abel as Abel slew the lamb, and buried him in the dust of the earth. The mockery is obvious. If God would accept the slaughter of an animal, maybe he would accept the slaughter of a man (tongue in cheek). The thing is, God set the murder of Abel as the icon of righteousness and a type of sacred sacrifice. His blood speaks from the ground, the author of Hebrews writes. Death is not the desire of God for mankind; why else would blood or life testify to its pouring out into the ground? Death is certainly the result of sin, as is well attested, but it is a temporary remedy to help mankind toward salvation, rather than an Allah-like giddiness on God’s part to impose cruelty. However, an unjust death must be requited. Cain’s trial is brief because he knows he is guilty despite the evasiveness of his answer, “am I my brother’s keeper?” He is judged in order to reveal what was hidden in his heart, that is, who indeed is his brother and what kind of relationship should he have had with him? He chose not to care for his brother but satisfy his own passions of pride, vengeance, betrayal and others. God is not mocked and was not to accept this faux sacrifice of Cain. Abel offered the lamb in faith and purity of heart with love. It was a creature untouched by the curse and in and of itself had caused no sin. It was a creature under the dominion of mankind as well. Cain mocked God by doing none of this, in fact, he saw the Image of God, like himself as fair game. Indeed he took a risk, like Abel. Where Abel risked the wrath of God by offering the lamb, Cain risked the wrath of God by murdering his brother. The outcomes were vastly different. One was justified and one was condemned. When the punishment was pronounced Cain was mortified that his crime should be rewarded with such harshness. He was to be sent away into a deeper exile. The ground would no longer give him anything and he could no longer approach God. Perhaps it was self-pity that caused his fear; pride sometimes manifests itself as self-pity. Or, perhaps he truly saw the gravity of his sin in this last moment. God’s mercy intervened here as well, for God restrains his wrath and does not give to us what we deserve. He put on Cain a mark that set him apart from the rest of his kin so that he would not be killed. Exile is better than execution. Yet, when we consider such ancients as Socrates who preferred to commit suicide than banishment we begin to see the importance of belonging. In the Roman era, exile was also a notorious punishment. The pain of exile is in the struggle against homesickness, unfamiliar surroundings which are often harsh, new and perhaps hostile natives, new and unpleasant foods, shelter and clothing. The banishment from the garden was an exile, as death is an exile of sorts. The final exile after judgment day at the end of time will have no return. Cain’s pride led to his crime which led to his exile. His is a tragedy of religion and yet a revelation about God and what is acceptable and unacceptable to Him, what is just and merciful, what is a true outrage and a false outrage, and ultimately about two kinds of religion that have separated mankind into two camps. A final note here. The founder of the civilization of mankind, what Augustine calls the City of Man, founds a world made with hands and tools. From this city come all kinds of corruption, horrors, perversions, novelties, sorceries, and such like. It is a place founded in the wilderness of exile because of the sacrifice of a corrupt man offering a cursed gift. When God calls Abram many generations later, it is from the city to a voluntary exile full of promises and life. Abel is the founder of true religion because he was willing to risk, that is, to step out in faith, believing that his gift of an innocent life would be pleasing to God. That faith justified him before God and his blood interceded for him for restitution of his life. And so it is that the groundwork was set in this very early history for how true religion would grow and interact with false religions. Those are tales of wanderers, prophets, martyrs, evangelists, apostles and the saints. They are together one people, one body redeemed and to be redeemed by the very Son of God, Jesus Christ, who brought meaning to Abel’s sacrifice to the Law of Moses and the fulfillment of the prophets’ words. This is the better city to which we are called.
like God able to discern between good and evil. It may also be interesting to explore why God says that the human was now like Himself when they were created that way in the first place. That question is for another time. Rather, of interest here is the implication this knowledge put into the hands of humankind. Without a new law, for none was given, they were a law unto themselves. Being able to discern between good and evil opened them up to self-governance and the opportunity to always do good. Pelagius would have us believe that it is within man to always choose good if he willed and wanted it. Augustine would have us believe that it is original sin that makes it impossible to always choose good. Modern evangelicalism in many of its forms would have us believe that goodness in any form is impossible to ever achieve. The point that he has not achieved this is not novel teaching. According to Genesis, the culprit is man’s own imagination that overtook him and became the fertile soil for every kind of violence. Self rule becomes capricious when driven by unrestrained imagination. The world of man becomes a fantasy world unhinged from the reality of good discernment, wisdom, kindness and goodness. Evil is the absence of goodness and goodness is God-given. Evil grows slowly but is a slippery slope that gets ever steeper until it plunges everything around it into an abyss of darkness, oppression, corruption and violence. Goodness then cannot be measured since imagination allows the individual to believe anything, even that he or she is good as they raise their weaponized hands against each other. This is not beside the point. Cain and Abel demonstrate this in the very process of the goodness of seeking to bridge the chasm between God and themselves through worship. Cain appears to have taken the initiative to worship God with an offering from the fruit of his labors which was not accepted because it was not given in the right context of heart. It is helpful to examine this sacrifice in more detail since it has bearing on how false worship has manifested itself through the rest of human history. Cain was a tiller of the ground, a farmer, or what an anthropologist might call an early agriculturalist; no longer nomadic because having settled on the land and eking out a living on the unforgiving soil. He lived out his life under the curse imposed on Adam that stipulated the ground would not give its strength to him (nor to his descendants). Mankind was consigned to eat the lettuce of the field, as Archbishop Aelfric calls the grass and herbs. This was the same diet as the animals he was given to dominate and now had to compete with for sustenance. Because the ground was resistant to Cain, his efforts were strenuous and consuming, thus the phrase, “labor under the sweat of your brow”. He would work hard for little gain. The Fast in the Garden, that is, the prohibition to not eat from one tree, was broken. Now came an enduring penance imposed upon all of mankind in that there would now be little to eat; enough for nourishment, but not enough for satiety. There was a certain logic to Cain’s sacrifice, or offering. First of all, it does not appear that he was making an attempt at atonement for sin since he was warned after the offering was rejected that sin crouched at the door. A particular sin did not enter the story prior to this. Attempting to atone for the fall of his parents is an unreasonable solution to the question since the punishment had already been meted out. No, the offering was for something else. It was an attempt at bridging the gap of separation that was present in his life as he lived under the constraints of the curse. However, he did so with elemental matter born of the curse. He achieved nothing because there was nothing under the curse worthy of use in worship. Abel was different. He did not cultivate the ground even though he likely benefited from his brothers’ efforts in bringing in the grain and herbs. It is important to realize that working the ground was not a sin. The curse brought difficulty and hardship but the curse was not evil, per se. It was not absent of God. Death, as part of the curse was also a remedy and the work imposed was a means of penance. The curse was certainly religious if viewed from this vantage. In any case, it was still loathsome. It is not surprising then that Cain would look to God who placed him in this environment for approval and acceptance. Where Adam and Eve had been placed in the Garden that God had made, exile into the world was also a placement arranged by God. Adam walked with God in the cool of the day in paradise and Cain set about to offer a sacrifice in the harshness of the wilderness. In this wilderness Abel had a different occupation and perhaps his occupation gave him insight into how to worship God. Husbandry of sheep requires a very different skill set than the agriculturalist. The shepherd has to follow the sheep or lead them under safe conditions to new pastures, but does not have to create those pastures. Neither does it appear that animals had been cursed, nor were thy slaughtered for food. If that is the case, why care for sheep if not for their food? Sheep, when on their own, get into all kinds of trouble. The comparison to self-governing humanity is obvious here. They are vulnerable to predators, disease, and accidents like getting lost or falling into holes or off of cliffs. Abel recognized the sheep needed care and his occupation therefore is grounded in compassion; seeing their need he cared for them. As for humanity in the general, their (our) self governance has brought more trouble than needs examples. It is an historical given. Seeing that his brother offered up a sacrifice, he thought it “meet, just and right” that he should also offer a sacrifice to God. Abel was far more limited than Cain in available resources but had to offer something of himself, as Cain did. There is no sacrifice where there is no cost. It might appear at first that offering up a sheep is obvious, but not so in their world. Animals were not slaughtered then and Abel was responsible for the health and welfare of his flock, not their destruction. God had given no commandment concerning sacrifice either or regulation of worship. What then was going on here? Abel offered up a lamb with its choice entrails as a risk. There was the possibility that not only would God reject the offering but that He would be outraged and impose a worse condition in which to live than he found himself in now. God could have seen this offering as murder. Rather than bowing out of this risk, however, he believed that this was the most appropriate way to make an offering to God, that is, by offering the life of a creature whom he loved. It was an act of faith. In this process of faith Abel did not make a blind risk or gamble, he did so based upon revelation, the opening of his mind to what was right and good and appropriate. Only the revelation of the Father could have brought Abel to see that the elements of his sacrifice were of a nature suitable for an offering. To Cain, whose offering was rejected, Abel’s offering must have been scandalous and ghastly and incongruous with nature and not what he felt was pleasing to God. The sacrifice, indeed, was pleasing to God and his was not. His anger, no, wrath, over this was serious; not a surprising reaction to those of us who have been snubbed, or been disappointed by someone else’s success, or rejected or any host of offenses that have given rise to envy and resentment. This was an outrage! The God, whom he sought to please, refused to accept his gift. Pride goes before the fall, as the proverbialist says. The complexity of intent, resources, and labor involved in his offering was in no way helpful for all of it together testified to his self achievement and work driven success at overcoming, by his own hand, the difficulties of the curse. Abel had used none of this; he had simply killed a lamb, offered it to God and subsequently caused a scandal with tremendous repercussions. Besides who was this brother of his? What was he to him that he would bring about such
a humiliation
and disgrace?
This younger
brother who
wandered around
watching animals graze and calve? What kind of work is that? It is easy to project thoughts of this kind into the mind of Cain because they are thoughts that are common to all us. He began his judgment of Abel. Thoughts are the precursors of actions and the anger in Cain’s heart was comparable to murder, as Jesus teaches his disciples. God, who is not far from any of us, confronted Cain and warned him that sin was crouching at the door and that he had to get a grip on himself. There was still time to prevent a heinous crime. It is worth noting two things here. First, that God was talking to him and second, that the crime that was welling up in Cain’s heart could have been prevented. In the first case, the notion that after the Fall God considered mankind so sinful that He could not bear to even look at them is a preposterous proposition. God has always so loved the world… He maintained contact with humanity as exampled here with his intervention into Cain’s life and is hinted at in a later generation when he told Noah that He would not struggle with mankind forever. One does not struggle with what one does not have contact with. The second thing is that the outcome of temptation can be averted, at least theoretically. Everyone has sinned and Christ, to my knowledge, was the only one not to sin. Nevertheless, God’s concern and love is expressed in His warning to Cain. An act with affinity to the character of Abel in this case. Following the warning, Cain went and told his brother. He told his brother what? That God had spoken to him about doing well and that sin crouched at the door? He confessed to Abel the jealousy in his heart, possibly. If it was a confession it was imperfect because it did not change his heart; instead, he decided to ignore the warning and allow the passions of pride and envy overtake him. The supposed nobility of his confession was a manifestation of his religious pride. Confession about hidden matters of the heart and the warning of God can surely spur one to do the right thing; but by whose measure? Pride wants to be rewarded and confession does not have the kind of reward that would prevent him from doing the wrong in his heart. More and more, his religion was shown to be centered upon himself, a corruption of the true religion. Putting this together Cain gathered the fruits of his labor, that is, grass from the ground under the sweat of his brow and in pride offered this to God. It was rejected thus sowing seeds of resentment compounded by his reaction to the scandalous sacrifice God accepted at the hands of his brother. As the seeds began to grow the sprout began to foreshadow what kind of fruit would be born, and such a fruit impelled God to warn Cain of what could, and finally, did, come. [Here prophecy and wisdom come into the story.] The warning had some effect because he went to his brother. Yet, his own judgment against his brother prevented adequate confession. It is here underscored that if one does not love his brother he cannot love God. Drawing his brother into the field of his labors, Cain slew Abel. This is the extreme perversion of religion. Persuading Abel into the field may have been part of his “confession” but not necessarily. It was certainly a false invitation not unlike a wolf in sheep’s clothing that comes to the flock with soothing words and a false gospel. Regardless, a murder took place. It took place in the field where Cain gathered his fruit. Recognizing the irregularity of Abel’s actions he committed an irregular act as well and slew Abel as Abel slew the lamb, and buried him in the dust of the earth. The mockery is obvious. If God would accept the slaughter of an animal, maybe he would accept the slaughter of a man (tongue in cheek). The thing is, God set the murder of Abel as the icon of righteousness and a type of sacred sacrifice. His blood speaks from the ground, the author of Hebrews writes. Death is not the desire of God for mankind; why else would blood or life testify to its pouring out into the ground? Death is certainly the result of sin, as is well attested, but it is a temporary remedy to help mankind toward salvation, rather than an Allah-like giddiness on God’s part to impose cruelty. However, an unjust death must be requited. Cain’s trial is brief because he knows he is guilty despite the evasiveness of his answer, “am I my brother’s keeper?” He is judged in order to reveal what was hidden in his heart, that is, who indeed is his brother and what kind of relationship should he have had with him? He chose not to care for his brother but satisfy his own passions of pride, vengeance, betrayal and others. God is not mocked and was not to accept this faux sacrifice of Cain. Abel offered the lamb in faith and purity of heart with love. It was a creature untouched by the curse and in and of itself had caused no sin. It was a creature under the dominion of mankind as well. Cain mocked God by doing none of this, in fact, he saw the Image of God, like himself as fair game. Indeed he took a risk, like Abel. Where Abel risked the wrath of God by offering the lamb, Cain risked the wrath of God by murdering his brother. The outcomes were vastly different. One was justified and one was condemned. When the punishment was pronounced Cain was mortified that his crime should be rewarded with such harshness. He was to be sent away into a deeper exile. The ground would no longer give him anything and he could no longer approach God. Perhaps it was self-pity that caused his fear; pride sometimes manifests itself as self-pity. Or, perhaps he truly saw the gravity of his sin in this last moment. God’s mercy intervened here as well, for God restrains his wrath and does not give to us what we deserve. He put on Cain a mark that set him apart from the rest of his kin so that he would not be killed. Exile is better than execution. Yet, when we consider such ancients as Socrates who preferred to commit suicide than banishment we begin to see the importance of belonging. In the Roman era, exile was also a notorious punishment. The pain of exile is in the struggle against homesickness, unfamiliar surroundings which are often harsh, new and perhaps hostile natives, new and unpleasant foods, shelter and clothing. The banishment from the garden was an exile, as death is an exile of sorts. The final exile after judgment day at the end of time will have no return. Cain’s pride led to his crime which led to his exile. His is a tragedy of religion and yet a revelation about God and what is acceptable and unacceptable to Him, what is just and merciful, what is a true outrage and a false outrage, and ultimately about two kinds of religion that have separated mankind into two camps. A final note here. The founder of the civilization of mankind, what Augustine calls the City of Man, founds a world made with hands and tools. From this city come all kinds of corruption, horrors, perversions, novelties, sorceries, and such like. It is a place founded in the wilderness of exile because of the sacrifice of a corrupt man offering a cursed gift. When God calls Abram many generations later, it is from the city to a voluntary exile full of promises and life. Abel is the founder of true religion because he was willing to risk, that is, to step out in faith, believing that his gift of an innocent life would be pleasing to God. That faith justified him before God and his blood interceded for him for restitution of his life. And so it is that the groundwork was set in this very early history for how true religion would grow and interact with false religions. Those are tales of wanderers, prophets, martyrs, evangelists, apostles and the saints. They are together one people, one body redeemed and to be redeemed by the very Son of God, Jesus Christ, who brought meaning to Abel’s sacrifice to the Law of Moses and the fulfillment of the prophets’ words. This is the better city to which we are called.
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] God make coats of skins, and clothed them.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where did the coats of skin come from to cover their nakedness. So both Cain and Abel knew that a blood sacrifice was acceptable.
Secondly, when the promise was given of a redeemer. Eve actually thought Cain was the Redeemer.
[/FONT] Genesis 4:4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notice from the Lord. Even from the beginning we rely on our flesh which is not acceptable by God.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where did the coats of skin come from to cover their nakedness. So both Cain and Abel knew that a blood sacrifice was acceptable.
Secondly, when the promise was given of a redeemer. Eve actually thought Cain was the Redeemer.
[/FONT] Genesis 4:4 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif].[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Notice from the Lord. Even from the beginning we rely on our flesh which is not acceptable by God.[/FONT]
Altho there was later a sacrifice of plants, that sacrifice was not for the covering of sins, for atonement. The sacrifice for atonement was animal. Perhaps this sacrifice was for the covering of sins.
Until the flood, man did not eat meat, but only plant food. So Abel did not supply food but clothing and animals for sacrifice. The first thing God did after the fall was to supply clothing from skins, this was symbolic of covering sins. Cain grew up with this knowledge.
Until the flood, man did not eat meat, but only plant food. So Abel did not supply food but clothing and animals for sacrifice. The first thing God did after the fall was to supply clothing from skins, this was symbolic of covering sins. Cain grew up with this knowledge.
Are you saying that Abel did not bring forth a blood sacrifice??? Of course we must assume the same principle for sacrificing already from the beginning. We must also assume from this that both knew what pleased God.
Cain knew God? He was of the wicked one and it was proven that his works were UNRIGHTEOUS. And why wouldn't Cain give his "best"? Where is the scripture that says that "Cain did not give his best"? Cain gave what HE thought was "best" and he did so wholeheartedly. He placed his faith in self and his dead works, thinking it should be acceptable to God.
It is in the mindset of the dead religionists to make this example a matter of half vs whole heartedness because it fits their thinking that zeal in itself is enough to please God. But it is obedience out of faith which pleases Him. Abel pleaded the blood of the coming Messiah is his only ground for a right relationship with God, while Cain pleaded his dead works.
Cain knew God? He was of the wicked one and it was proven that his works were UNRIGHTEOUS. And why wouldn't Cain give his "best"? Where is the scripture that says that "Cain did not give his best"? Cain gave what HE thought was "best" and he did so wholeheartedly. He placed his faith in self and his dead works, thinking it should be acceptable to God.
It is in the mindset of the dead religionists to make this example a matter of half vs whole heartedness because it fits their thinking that zeal in itself is enough to please God. But it is obedience out of faith which pleases Him. Abel pleaded the blood of the coming Messiah is his only ground for a right relationship with God, while Cain pleaded his dead works.
Last edited: