11 replies to this topic

[nsr]

I've heard both of the following suggested:

1. God wanted an animal. Cain didn't have any because he farmed the ground, not livestock. He was too proud to ask Abel for one, and thought "I'll do it my way, God will accept that."

2. God wanted the best of what they had. Abel brought "of the firstlings of is flock and of their fat portions". Cain simply brought "an offering...of the fruit of the ground". Abel gave the best he had, and Cain though "Meh, that'll do."

What do you think?

[Gileade]

nsr, on Jul 16 2009, 05:34 PM, said:

I've heard both of the following suggested:

1. God wanted an animal. Cain didn't have any because he farmed the ground, not livestock. He was too proud to ask Abel for one, and thought "I'll do it my way, God will accept that."

2. God wanted the best of what they had. Abel brought "of the firstlings of is flock and of their fat portions". Cain simply brought "an offering...of the fruit of the ground". Abel gave the best he had, and Cain though "Meh, that'll do."

What do you think?

Because he did the same mistake as their parents, they tried to cover their sins with fig aprons, and he wanted to give to God also green stuff/vegetables. Abel understood that only through the shedding of blood he could approach God.

Edited to add: We can only approach God by His terms not ours.

Edited by Gileade, 16 July 2009 - 05:10 PM.

[Richie]

I think Cain was the first legalist. God put Adam and Eve out of the garden to till the ground. Cain was a tiller of the ground and he tilled the ground to bring his offering. He followed God's instructions. But as is evident from his subsequent actions (murdering his brother) his heart wasn't in the right place. Reading between the lines it does seem that Cain's attitude was wrong bringing of the fruit of the ground contrasted with Abel offering the best.

Abel, on the other hand, wasn't following any law. Hebrews says his offering was an act of faith and I think Ephesians 5:1 has the answer - "be imitators of God as dear children". Abel looked at what God had done previously in providing a covering for Adam and Eve and he followed suit, undoubtedly understanding the principle.

[Richie]

And what Gileade said regarding fig leaves too.

[twoofseven]

I think it's option 2. God desires humble obedience, it's not what the offering is, it's about our hearts and minds when we give the sacrifice.

[nsr]

Good point regarding fig leaves, I hadn't thought of that one

[Jeremy]

Richie, on Jul 16 2009, 06:11 PM, said:

I think Cain was the first legalist.

The word for "offering" in Gen. 4 v 3 is the usual word used later for the "meat" (grain/meal) offering. Abel brought firstlings from his flock "also", suggesting a blood sacrifice as well as the grain offering.

Later, under the Law of Moses, the firstlings were offered to God as a symbol that everything belonged to him (Ex. 13 v 1-2, 12), rather like the. But under the Law, I don't think a grain offering was ever offered by itself, something which Abel seems to have understood when he brought his burnt offering (representing dedication of everything to God) too. The grain offering, representing your own works, could be offered to God provided it was offered on the basis that everything had been dedicated to God in the first place - if our whole heart, soul, mind and spirit belong to God, He will accept our works offered in faith. But He won't accept our own works if that underlying dedication isn't there. It seems to me that Abel understood all this, but Cain was only prepared to offer what he was prepared to offer. It smacks of trying to be justified by works.

The NT passages tend to confirm this difference of approach between the two brothers. Abel was justified by faith, Heb. 11 v 4; but in Cain's case the word used in 1 John 3 v 12 is works. There's a deliberate contrast between the two. Intrinsically there was nothing wrong with Cain's works, but they weren't offered in faith and obedience. In John's words, that made Cain's works "evil".

[Phil]

Short answer? Cain's sacrifice wasn't rejected. Cain was.

Jeremy said:

Abel brought firstlings from his flock "also", suggesting a blood sacrifice as well as the grain offering.

I think it's pretty easy to overread these accounts, especially in the early chapters of genesis. The "also", in context, could easily be simply that Abel also brought an offering.

Heb 11 speaks of Abel offering a "better sacrifice", but doesn't tells us what or why. Christians in general make a big deal about distinguishing the natures of the actual physical sacrifices, and the tendency is to link these offerings to those given in the law of moses. But i don't think that's a legitimate link, given the separation by thousands of years, and since we know that God has always been interested in "living sacrifices" and "the sacrifices of a broken heart", and even more importantly than that he wants simple obedience.

It gets even more interesting when you see what criticism of Cain is actually offered:

Gen 4:4-4 said:

And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard

1 John 3:12 said:

- 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.

God's criticism/approval is for the combination of person/offering, not for the offering itself. No mention that what God really wanted was a lamb. He was upset with Cain's hypocrisy - an evil man thinking that his paltry offerings actually meant something in the grand scheme of things.

The same problem afflicted Israel centuries later; i was just reading it this morning in Jer 7 - a nation which thinks that rocking up to the temple and offering sacrifices would impress God when they would then walk off and beat up orphans and steal widows' houses. But he never wanted sacrifice, he just wanted them to obey.

Jer 7:9-10, on 22-23, said:

Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, 'We are delivered!'—only to go on doing all these abominations?
[...]
For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this command I gave them: 'Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.'

[R2D2]

Phil,

I'm not sure if God works like that by rejecting people before they've done something seriously wrong. Usually, in the Bible we have an action that speaks for itself and brings judgement on a person. Are there any other examples in the Bible where God rejects a person but there are no incriminating actions spoken of that reveal their personality or true inclination? Cain murdered Abel after his sacrifice was rejected and he was only incited to murder Abel after his sacrifice had been rejected. We don't actually know for sure what Cain's state of mind was when he brought his sacrifice.

[Richie]

I think it's a mixture of both things. Cain's attitude is clearly wrong evidenced by his subsequent actions. At what point he displayed that attitude is uncertain, but at least in verse 7 God tells him that sin is like an animal at the door ready to pounce out of him, and he needs to exercise self control. Cain didn't listen and murdered his brother. John says he was envious of his brother and this is a pattern seen throughout Scripture:

- legalistic mindset leads to pride
- pride leads to envy of those who don't observe religion as you do
- envy leads you to persecute others because the only defence is attack (other than to humble oneself) - when a legalistic proud envious person is challenged by a humble person after God's own heart who upsets the status quo it's viewed as drawing battle lines
- persecution leads to murder

This was true of Cain, King Saul, the chief priests, Saul of Tarsus and all like them. Cain is the archetypical "prince of this world" who met his end at Golgotha.

But at the same time we can't then turn around and say it's all about attitude no matter what we do. If that was true then Christ wouldn't have instituted the memorial meal and baptism wouldn't be such an important NT theme. Jesus said we should worship God "in spirit and in truth". Sincerity in itself isn't sufficient and there has to be something in the actual offerings which was wrong for Cain and right for Abel.

[Phil]

R2D2 said:

Phil,

I'm not sure if God works like that by rejecting people before they've done something seriously wrong. Usually, in the Bible we have an action that speaks for itself and brings judgement on a person. Are there any other examples in the Bible where God rejects a person but there are no incriminating actions spoken of that reveal their personality or true inclination? Cain murdered Abel after his sacrifice was rejected and he was only incited to murder Abel after his sacrifice had been rejected. We don't actually know for sure what Cain's state of mind was when he brought his sacrifice.

G'day R2,

Sorry, i wasn't trying to say that God was rejecting Cain before he'd done anything seriously wrong. I just don't think we know what that wrongness was. We're told that God's respect was to "[the person] and [their] offering". John says his deeds were evil BEFORE he murdered Cain. Is that just about the sacrifice? Could be - could be i'm overreading it too - but we've got a whole bible's worth of stuff telling us that it was never really about the offerings, so i'm inclined to think not. I just don't think it's reasonable to retrospectively fit some kind of sacrifice law that we know nothing of either.

For me the interest in Gen 4 is two-fold: (a) Cain is condemned for being an evil guy and is surprised when it turns out his sacrifice means nothing (a la pre-captivity Judah), and (b) God tries really hard to get Cain to see the bigger picture but Cain doesn't want to know about it.

[R2D2]

Thanks for clarifying Phil. I'm inclined to agree that there was probably a whole range of things about Cain that attested to his "bad attitude" and which displeased God that we are not told about except in general terms. On the other hand I also agree with Richie that there was likely something about the offering as well, something along the lines that Gileade has articulated earlier in this thread. I can only be vague because as you say, we aren't told of a law before hand in which they had to make meat offerings. We can only see echos.

Interesting discussion.