| Author |
Message |
Jtree
Registered user
Username: Jtree
Post Number: 208
Registered: 5-2000
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 7:18 am: |     |
Though there were no children born to Adam and Eve before the fall, there were many born to them after the fall (Gen. 5:4-5). Adam lived for 930 years! In all likelihood, before he died Adam had thousands of descendants, including sons and daughters, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. Cain was his firstborn son; but how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve had between Cain and Abel we do not know.
Verse 1 ñ "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD." When Cain was born, Eve thought that he was the promised Messiah, Redeemer and Savior. She cried, "I have gotten a man from the Lord!" Those words might imply that she had already had many daughters; but now she had gotten a man.
Verse 2 ñ "And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." God the Holy Spirit has singled out these two sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, to teach us by example the blessed gospel doctrine of redemption by blood (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22), and to condemn the doctrine of salvation by works. The way of Abel is the way of grace. The way of Cain is the way of works.
This is the line that divides the whole human race. It divides husbands and wives, mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters. It probably divides your family, as it does mine. All who attempt to come to God must choose either the way of Cain or the way of Abel, the way of works or the way of grace. The two cannot be mixed, or intermingled, at any point, to any degree (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 5:2, 4).
Verse 3-5 ñ "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell." Cain and Abel were not young boys. They were grown men. Evidently, they were heads of households, with wives and children and occupations. Cain was a farmer. Abel was a shepherd.
In Genesis 3 we saw the entrance of sin into the world. Here we see the progress of sin and the fruit of sin. In Genesis 3 we saw sin against God. Here it is against man - The man who has no fear of God has no regard for his neighbor - In Genesis 3 we read about enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent, the sons of God and the children of the devil. Here we see that enmity displayed. Cain, the wicked works-monger, persecuted and murdered Abel, the child of God. However, the central, primary thing revealed in this chapter is that God is to be worshipped, and that he can only be worshipped by faith in a blood sacrifice.
A PRESCRIBED PLACE
There was a prescribed place where God was to be worshipped. We are told that both Cain and Abel brought their sacrifices to the Lord, to the place of the Lord's presence. We are not told where this prescribed place of worship was; but it was somewhere east of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24).
The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary translates Genesis 3:24, "So he drove out the man; and he dwelt at the east of the Garden of Eden between the Cherubims, as a Shekinah (a fire-tongue, or fire-sword) to keep open the way to the tree of life." That translation is, in my opinion, very accurate. My reasons for saying so areÖ
1. The word "placed" in this verse is never translated "placed" anywhere else in the Old Testament. It means "to tabernacle," or "to dwell." Eighty-three times in the Old Testament it is translated "dwell."
2. The Lord God is always portrayed as the One who dwells upon the mercy-seat, between the cherubims (Ex. 25:17-18, 22; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chron. 13:6; Psa. 80:1; 99:1; Isa. 6:1-6; 37:16; Ezek. 10:2, 6, 7).
3. Our great God, the God of all grace, "who delighteth in mercy," has kept open for sinners the way to the tree of life (Rev. 22:2). He kept the way open from eternity by our covenant Surety, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). He kept the way open under the types and ceremonies of the law, all of which pointed to him by whom the way of access to God would be opened and maintained (Heb. 10:1-22).
When the Lord God expelled Adam from the Garden, he appears to have established an altar, a mercy-seat, protected by the Cherubims. The flaming sword, or, as it might be rendered, the flaming tongue, represented God's presence, the Shekinah glory. Anyone who approached God must worship him at this place by means of a blood sacrifice. There was a prescribed place of worship.
I know that there are no holy places upon this earth. We are not idolaters. "God is Spirit. And they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth." True worship is spiritual. It is a matter of the heart (Phil. 3:3). We have no material altar. Christ is our Altar (Heb. 13:10). We have no literal mercy-seat. Christ is our Mercy-Seat (1 John 4:10). Yet, God has always had a prescribed place of worship. ñA place where men and women gather in his name. ñA place where he gives out his Word. ñA place where he meets sinners upon the grounds of mercy through blood atonement. ñA place where he dispenses his grace.
During the forty years Israel spent in the wilderness, the prescribed place of divine worship was the tabernacle. Later, the temple of God was established at Jerusalem. In this gospel age, the place appointed for divine worship is the local church, the public assembly of his saints (Matt. 18:20; 1 Cor. 3:16-17). This is the prescribed place of the divine presence, divine instruction, and divine blessing (Psa. 122:1-9; 133:1-3; Heb. 10:23-26).
A PRESCRIBED TIME
It also appears that there was a prescribed time for the worship of God. Look at the marginal translation of verse three. The words, "in the process of time," are translated, "at the end of days." Though there was no appointed sabbath, it appears that at the end of every week men and women came to the altar at the east of Eden to worship God.
In this gospel age we do not keep a literal sabbath day. The Holy Spirit expressly forbids any form of legal sabbath keeping (Col. 2:8-19). Believers are not under the law, in any sense whatsoever. Sunday is not the "Christian Sabbath." Our Sabbath is Christ. We rest in him. Yet, Sunday is "the Lord's day." God the Holy Spirit says so (Rev. 1:10). This is the day of Christ's resurrection (Matt. 28:1). This is our appointed day of divine worship (Acts 20:7; Psa. 118:21-24). I do not suggest that the Scriptures require a specific day or time when we must gather in the house of God. However, it is obvious from the universal testimony of Scripture that it is always both proper and needful for us to have specified, appointed times set aside for the worship of God. God will not be worshipped haphazardly.
A PRESCRIBED MEANS
God's ordained means of worship was and is blood atonement. The holy Lord God cannot be approached and will not accept the worship of fallen sinful man, but means of a blood sacrifice. It appears that the children of Adam and Eve had been clearly instructed in the worship of God.
Adam showed his sons what he had done, how he had sinned against the Lord. He told them plainly what God had done for him and Eve, sacrificing the innocent victim for them, stripping away their fig leaves, and clothing them with the garments of salvation he had made specifically for them. He spoke plainly to them about God's promise of redemption through the woman's seed. Adam understood and taught his family the necessity of blood atonement. Believing God, our father Adam, in his fallen state, taught his children that the only way a sinner could ever worship God is by faith in that One whom the Father would send to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Abel believed the gospel his father preached to him. Cain refused to believe.
What was wrong with Cain's sacrifice? No doubt, this proud man brought the very best thing he could to God. Yet, God despised his sacrifice. Why? Because It was a bloodless sacrifice! (Heb. 9:22). Cain's sacrifice, his religion, was a denial of his need of Christ, the Redeemer. Cain thought he could approach God on his own merit, be his own priest, his own mediator and his own intercessor. His sacrifice was a denial of sin. Cain denied his guilt and sin before God. He denied that he deserved condemnation and death under the wrath of God. He approached God on the ground of his own merit and works. Cain's sacrifice, indeed, his entire religious system, was a refusal of God's revelation. God had revealed the way of worship and acceptance and life (Lk. 24:44-47; Eph. 1:6-7); but Cain did not believe God. This man was not an infidel. He was a proud religionist, a self-righteous Pharisee, an unbeliever. His offering to God was the fruit of his own labor. He really thought, just as most religious people think today, that he was really good enough for God.
Why did the Lord God have respect unto Abel and his offering? God accepted Abel's sacrifice, because it looked to Christ. It was an offering of faith (Heb. 11:4). Abel believed God. He came to God through faith in a Substitute. His offering was a confession of sin, guilt, and just condemnation.
Our sins deserve the wrath of God. The only way for a holy God to justify guilty sinners is by the satisfaction of Divine justice through blood atonement. That blood atonement which magnifies God's law and makes it honorable is found only in the substitutionary death of God's own dear Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Abel's offering was a type of Christ, the Lamb of God (Ex. 12:5-6). It was a lamb, the innocent, dying for the guilty. It was a male of the first year, in the prime of life. It was a lamb without spot or blemish, as Christ was without sin. It was a slain lamb. Its blood was shed in a violent death. Abel's slain lamb was consumed by fire of God (Lev. 9:24), because God accepted it as a type of Christ, whose blood of atonement is a sweet smelling savor to the holy, Lord God, our heavenly Father. There were only two differences between Cain and Abel: ñ blood and faith. These are the only differences between God's elect and the lost world around us. The only distinction between God's elect and the reprobate is the distinction of grace (1 Cor. 4:7).
The way of Cain is the way of natural religion (Jude 10-11). It is the religion of works. It gives no comfort, but only misery (Gen. 4:6-8). It is the way of all men and women by nature. The way of Cain is the way of ceremonialism and ritualism. The way of Cain is the way of every persecutor. The first human blood to be shed upon the earth was shed by a religious legalist; and the blood he shed was the blood of a sovereign gracer, a worshipper of God. The battle still rages. The issue is still the same. The way of Cain persecutes the way of faith. The way of Cain is the way of God's curse (vv. 10-12). The way of Cain is the way of endless wandering (vv. 12, 16). "Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod." Nod means "wandering." There is no rest for the wicked; neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
The way of Abel is the way of life everlasting. It is the way of grace. It is the way of blood redemption. It is the way of faith. It is the way opposed and persecuted by the world. It is the way of life. It is the way of acceptance with God. Here two ways are set before us. The way of Cain (Prov. 14:12; 16:25) is the way of works religion and everlasting destruction. The way of Abel (John 14:6; 10:9) is the way of free and sovereign grace in Christ, the way of everlasting salvation. Which way will you go? |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1310
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 8:28 am: | |
Jtree, What you wrote above was extremely interesting to me. I have always wondered my entire life how come God rejected Cain's offering. Now I know. Thank-you. |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1200
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 10:40 am: | |
Jtree, Your exposition above is interesting, yet I believe we cannot absolutely conclude some of the points you made.
First, I know it is thought by many commentators that the reason God rejected Cain's sacrifice and accepted Abel's is that Cain brought produce and Abel brought a blood sacrifice. That may be true, but we really cannot conclude that from the text alone. We can speculate that the absence of blood may have been the reason God rejected Cain's offering, but the literal text of Genesis 4 does not imply that.
First, Cain's profession was farming produce. Abel's profession was shepherding. Each man's offering was a return of his increase, the very concept behind tithe later in Israel. Cain brought an ofrering from the earnings of his particular work, and Abel brought his.
In verse 3, Cain brought "an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground." (NASB)
Verse 4: Abel "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions."
As I read this, I did not see a contrast between the identity of the offerings, and the NIV Study Notes, which comment on the meanings of the text in the original Hebrew, confirm my reading. The Study Notes say, " The contrast is not between an offering of plant life and an offering of animal life, but between a careless, thoughtless offerin and a choice, generous offering (cf. Leviticus 3:16). Motivation and heart attitude are all-important, and God looked with favor on Abel and his offering because of Abel's faith (Hebrews 11:4)."
Cain did not bring any particularly fine specemins of his produce. He just brome "some"of it, as the NIV translates it. Abel, on the other hand, brought firstling--the first offspring of his sheep. Offerings of firstlings acknoweldged that all ones increase was from God. Israel was commanded to bring offerings of firstfruits. Cain, in this instance, did not bring his firstfruits, nor did he bring his best fruits. Abel, on the other hand brought not only firstlings but "of their fat portions."
Leviticus 3:16 summarizes God's later commands to Israel to bring the fat from around the entrails of a burnt offering. The priest was to burn them on the altar "as food, an offering by fire for a soothing aroma; all fat is the Lord's."
Nothing in this passage indicates that Cain and Abel were bringing sin offerings which were usually blood offerings. But even in Israel, the very poor did not have to bring animals for sin offerings; they could bring a tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Guilt offerings, on the other hand, were always rams.
The passage suggests that they were simply worshiping God by bringing Him sacrifices. In Leviticus, both burnt offerings and grain offerings were voluntary acts of worship and surrender to God. While clearly God has instructed the first family in the acts of sacrifices and offerings, the specific requirements of the Mosaci law had not yet been given.
We just cannot get from the text of Genesis 4 the idea that God rejected Cain's offering because it was not blood. God's words to Cain (as well as the descriptions of their offerings) do reveal that God knew Cain's heart. An offering to God from a heart that is rebellious is not an act of worship. It is an act of works, or placating God. God did not honor this act of human works. He did, however, honor Abel's gift of faith and ssubmission to God.
Hebrews 11:4 underscores this point. "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice that Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." (NIV)
Thousands of years later, the author of Hebrews confirms that Abel's offering was better because of his faith. God commended him for his faith, not for the nature of his offering.
While it is only the blood of Jesus that saves us, that pointn was not the point of the passage regarding Cain and Abel. This passage is one of the earliest passages in the Bible to show that one's heart surrender to God is what God commends. It is not our works--but, as is suggested in Genesis 4:3,4, our works reflect our hearts. Cain brought some produce. Abel brought the symbolic firtslings, acknowledging that God was responsible for all his increase and blessings.
As far as "at the end of day" in verse 3 is concerned, there is none of the typical language connected to Sabbath. While your idea is interesting and provocative, still we cannot conclude a Sabbath-type observance from this passage.
And yes, God now tabernacles in us, both individually and corporately as Christ-followers. I do not believe, though, that we can deduce that this passage is admonishing us today to worship with the local church--although I support that idea! What it is saying is that we bring our gifts and sacrifices to God, either individually or coporately. In fact, Romans 12:1 admonishes us to offer our "bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Godóthis is your spiritual act of worship."
Because God's presence is now in us, we can give offerings Cain and Abel were not even capable of giving. We can surrender our actual bodies to God, allowing Him to use our minds and decisions and hands and feet and words as His own, completely surrendered and directed by His indwelling Holy Spirit.
The problem with Cain's offering was that he was holding back. He didn't freely take to God the best he had, the most he had. He took God "some" of what he had.
Abel, on the other hand, gave up to God the firstlings, the best and most significant of his property.
Cain was not surrendered to God--as God bluntly pointed out to him in Genesis 4:6-7. Abel was completely surrendered. He lived and worshiped by faith, not by works. Abel's faith still speaks to us after all these millennia, calling us to trust and surrender.
It is only our faith God counts as righteousness, not our spcific works.
And, I want to stress something here again that I know I keep repeating (English teacher that I'll always be at heart!)--we cannot infer more from the text than the text will support. We are blatantly speculating and making things up if we move beyond what the text actually says. We don't have to force verses to say things they don't say in order to find the truth in the Bible. If we read them literally and ask what they meant when the author first wrote them to his audience, we may actually discover more spiritual insight than if we begin applying metaphorical meanings to them based on other Bible passages.
Praise God for His word!
Colleen |
Freeatlast
Registered user
Username: Freeatlast
Post Number: 257
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 12:05 pm: | |
I have always found the phrase "fruit of the ground" to be very revealing. It is as if Cain simply gathered up some fruit from off of the ground and offered it up because he felt obligated to offer something. Perhaps it was even spoiled? There was no faith as there would have been in offering his very best fruit from his top-producing tree. It seems Cain was just going through the motions instead of actually sacrificing something of value to him in honor of his relationship with God.
I know I'm putting more into the text than what it says. We don't know if he offered tree fruit that had fallen to the ground, or fruit that grew on the ground. In any event, it's only my opinion based on what I personally read in the text.
Food for thought, so to speak... |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 249
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 1:28 pm: | |
Another note about the ground is that when Abel was killed his blood cried out to God. How do the SDA's explain that one with their "Dead know nothing" theories? |
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa
Post Number: 666
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 1:31 pm: | |
B says that is not literal. |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 535
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 2:31 pm: | |
For what it's worth, I agree with B on his interpretation of "The Voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground." We don't want to force the text to say more than it says or to force an overly literal wooden intepretation onto common idioms.
Red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma do not have a voice or cry out to God. Someone might object that I have wrongly interpreted the meaning of blood here. Someone might argue that "blood" is just a figurative way of referring to Abel's spirit or soul.
Okay, but then why would we interpret any part of this particular idiom in a wooden, overly literal sense? Why would Able's spirit need to cry out to God before God would know what had happened? Why would Abel's Spirit be in "the ground"? It sounds as if nearly every portion of this is a figurative idiom.
We still use similar idioms today in poetic or dramatic writing. Some authors use prose like, "The blood of the killer's victims crys for justice". They're not suggesting that the blood is literally crying or demanding something. They're just saying that by virtue of blood being shed, justice is required.
"The Voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground" is a very dramatic way of emphsizing that Cain has done a heinous thing in the shedding of blood and that God is fully of aware of what Cain has done.
I think we're on shaky ground if we try to prove doctrinal points from this text other than those that are inherrent in it.
Chris |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 08, 2005 - 12:08 am: | |
I agree with you, Chris. Life was consdered the font of and symbol of life. For it to be crying from the groung suggested that someone's life had spilled from him. And God is saying that Cain can't hide; God knew what had happened.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 232
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 1:47 pm: | |
Chris, I agree, but the SDAs also cannot do as they love to with that verse and say that because of that verse in Genesis, the passage in Revelation 6 where there are souls talking to God doesn't have to be literal. They say that the souls crying out to God is just figurative like in Genesis. But Revelation actually quotes what the souls say! The KJV has them "crying with a loud voice" and speaking 22 words! That would be kind of hard to do while unconscious. Also, God talks to them.
Jeremy |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 161
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 3:26 pm: | |
Jeremy,
While I happen to agree with what you are saying, I think there is plenty of danger in trying to base doctrines in the symbolic language of prophetic books. I put forth the sanctuary doctrine/IJ as my first piece of evidence! |
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris
Post Number: 536
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 3:41 pm: | |
I agree that the Rev. 6:9-11 passage dealing with the souls of those who had been slain is not analogous to God's statement about Abel's blood in Gen. 4:10. I do see Rev. 6 as lending support to the doctrine of believers being with Christ consciously at death.
Having said this, I still would stress the hermeneutical prinicple of using didactic scripture as our primary reference in formulating doctrine. Narrative literature, wisdom literature, and apocalyptic literature are all valuable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training, however they are not always primarily concerned with providing a systematic theology for the church. These forms of literature often make use of figurative language and symbols. If read as the author intended, they are highly instructive, but if pressed beyond the author's intent they can easily be misunderstood.
That is why we first turn to didactic literature for Christian doctrine. In didactic passages, the author is intentionally teaching about a given topic. NT didactic passages carry the greatest weight as we know that many things were mysteries in OT times. Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God and His apostles expanded upon His teaching, through His Spirit, as they built the Church.
When it comes to topics like the state of the dead, we have very clear NT didactic passages where we are told quite clearly what the destination at death is for believers (see Philipians 1:21-24 & II Cor. 5:6-8).
In researching a systematic theology we start with these clear passages and let them explain other passages that our less clear. Using this hermeneutic we can then see that Rev. 6 is consistent with the didactic teaching given to the church so there is no reason to assume it is merely symbolic.
Chris
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 09, 2005 - 10:56 pm: | |
Great explanation, Chris! |
Pw
Registered user
Username: Pw
Post Number: 250
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 10, 2005 - 10:28 am: | |
I never meant to say Abel's blood actually spoke, just the fact that there is a voice calling to God even after the point of death. |
|
