Did Cain Know??

[Lockheed]

I don't see from the text of Gen 3 anything to suggest that animal scarifice had been established as the norm.

God slew animals to make the skins for Adam and Eve, this shows to them, and to us, what is requried to cover shame and guilt... blood. As Hebrews states: "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness...". God covered Adam and Eve's guilt with the blood and skin of an animal, just as we now enter into the throne room of God through the torn flesh and blood of Christ.

It is astounding that you disregard the God-breathed commentary of Hebrews 11, which states:

Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

Cain's sacrifice was not given in faith, but in accordance with his own flesh and own desires.

GEL's idea is interesting. I'd never heard that before, the fruit of the ground and the ground being cursed and all. Intriguing, GEL, you've made me want to dig deeper into Scripture. That's always appreciated. But, as for whether God ever accepts that type of offering, Pr 3:9-10 seems to suggest He does.

Even though God did indeed, later, accept grain and fruit offerings in accordance with the Law, no grain or fruit offering had been established at this point, yet there is indication that the sacrifice of animals satisfies wrath. It is also apparent that Adam instructed his offspring that sacrifices to God were to be made since it came about "in the course of time".

I agree that there is not much to go on in the text, as it encompasses a few verses, but the testimony of the rest of Scripture seems to indicate this view. Also note that the terminology "fruit of the ground" is used in other parts of the Pentatuch and not once does it refer to an inferior, cursed, rotting, moldy fruit that fell off a tree. (Deuteronomy 7:13, 11:17). To believe this would require an entirely new view of the text not in accordance with any historical belief.

I am not unique in this view. In his commentary, Matthew Henry writes: "We may believe that God commanded Adam, after the fall, to shed the blood of innocent animals, and after their death to burn part or the whole of their bodies by fire. Thus that punishment which sinners deserve, even the death of the body, and the wrath of God, of which fire is a well-known emblem, and also the sufferings of Christ, were prefigured. Observe that the religious worship of God is no new invention. It was from the beginning; it is the good old way...".

Calvin writes: "But the sacrifice of cattle and the effusion of blood contains something further, namely, that the offerer should have death before his eyes; and should, nevertheless, believe in God as propitious to him. Concerning the sacrifices of Adam no mention is made."

Even the Arminian John Wesley acknowledges this in his commentary: "There was a difference in the offerings they brought. Abel's was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's; Cain's was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat - offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: but Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him." This is also the view of Clarke and others.

Personally, I'm not clear as to whether Cain's offering was the wrong kind (as in not an animal or "of the ground"), or the wrong quality (not his best). Whatever the case, his heart was not right. God does not arbitrarily reject His faithful. We see this throughout Scripture, and throughout history. So, I'd say yes, Cain knew. What exactly he knew, I'm not sure, and I can't be dogmatic for any position.

Yes, this is true, God does not "arbitrarily reject His faithful", but as Hebrews 11 notes... Cain was not faithful.

 

[Lockheed]

"It all belongs to God, the lambs, the herbs, everything. When we give God our best, he accepts it. When we give him our leftovers, he rejects them. We, like Cain, can get mad about it, but God is right, he deserves our best."

Everything man offers is tainted by sin, man is a sinful being. It is only through the lens of Christ's shed blood that any of our offerings are acceptable. It is only by faith in Christ that anything we do is "good".

 

[ZiSunka]

7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

11:17 And then the LORD'S wrath be kindled against you, and he shut up the heaven, that there be no rain, and that the land yield not her fruit; and lest ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.

Neither verse uses the terminology, "fruit of the ground." Those verses have no bearing on Genesis 3. They aren't about an offering of produce or crops, they are about blessings and cursings of the Lord. Entirely different contexts.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Neither verse uses the terminology, "fruit of the ground." Those verses have no bearing on Genesis 3. They aren't about an offering of produce or crops, they are about blessings and cursings of the Lord. Entirely different contexts.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Lamb,
Lockheed is making a very very good point. Able put his FAITH in a blood sacrifice, Cain put his faith in a "work" sacrfice. Whether or not they KNEW what they were doing, God shows us that Cains was not right because it was a work sacrifice, not a blood sacrifice which is pure and clean.
GEL

 

[ZiSunka]

I doubt that God judged them based on laws he had yet to had down, plus work isn't a bad thing. Abel did work in order to raise the lamb he sacrificed, so that theory just doesn't float. God could not arbitrarily accept Abel's work sacrifice but not Cain's work sacrifice. Plus, later when there was the law, not every offering was a blood sacrifice.

There is nothing in this passage that would indicate that either Cain or Abel was doing more than offering a gift to God.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

I doubt that God judged them based on laws he had yet to had down, plus work isn't a bad thing. Abel did work in order to raise the lamb he sacrificed, so that theory just doesn't float. God could not arbitrarily accept Abel's work sacrifice but not Cain's work sacrifice. Plus, later when there was the law, not every offering was a blood sacrifice.

There is nothing in this passage that would indicate that either Cain or Abel was doing more than offering a gift to God.

If your theory was correct God would not have said....
Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

God rejected Cain's offering for a reason, not because God was just being picky. The fact the God rejected Cains offering is proof that it was not rightous.
GEL

 

[Lockheed]

Gel,

Thanks for your support. It is by faith, and faith only that anyone has ever been viewed as righetous before God, from Adam until now.

 

[Lockheed]

From NASB - similar is found in the KJV.

Genesis 4:3
So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.

Deuteronomy 7:13
"He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.

In 11:17, the "ground" is yielding "fruit".

Psalm 105:35
And ate up all vegetation in their land,And ate up the fruit of their ground.

Malachi 3:11
"Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it will not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes," says the LORD of hosts.

Now this is all posted to detract from the idea that the 'fruit of the ground' equates with modly, rotten, or otherwise blemished fruit. Now, pardon me for trodding on your idea GEL...

God bless...

 

[2Timothy2]

Please note this is not meant in any hostile manner. If I were speaking to you it would be in a calm, reasoned voice. This medium hides so much of our communication it is easy to misinterpret things.

God slew animals to make the skins for Adam and Eve, this shows to them, and to us, what is requried to cover shame and guilt... blood. As Hebrews states: "...without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness...". God covered Adam and Eve's guilt with the blood and skin of an animal, just as we now enter into the throne room of God through the torn flesh and blood of Christ.

"God slew animals to make the skins for Adam and Eve...", absolutely. "...this shows to them, and us...", that is an assumption. I think it is a fair assumption, but it is still an assumption. That is why I said I was not dogmatic about this. We find no passages that tell us God here set up animal sacrifice, we have to assume this, and so shouldn't be dogmatic about it.

It is astounding that you disregard the God-breathed commentary of Hebrews 11, which states:

That's just uncalled for.

Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

Cain's sacrifice was not given in faith, but in accordance with his own flesh and own desires.

This is basically what I said in my earlier post.

Even though God did indeed, later, accept grain and fruit offerings in accordance with the Law, no grain or fruit offering had been established at this point, yet there is indication that the sacrifice of animals satisfies wrath. It is also apparent that Adam instructed his offspring that sacrifices to God were to be made since it came about "in the course of time".

I did not state grain and fruit offering had been established in Gen 3 or 4.

I agree that there is not much to go on in the text, as it encompasses a few verses, but the testimony of the rest of Scripture seems to indicate this view. Also note that the terminology "fruit of the ground" is used in other parts of the Pentatuch and not once does it refer to an inferior, cursed, rotting, moldy fruit that fell off a tree. (Deuteronomy 7:13, 11:17). To believe this would require an entirely new view of the text not in accordance with any historical belief.

The fact that this text does not contain details is why I say we should not be dogmatic. And, the fact that in the rest of Scripture animal sacrifices are the norm, replaced by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, in no way establishes that God set up animal sacrifice in Gen 3, this also leads us to be cautious about being dogmatic here. At some point He did, and this is the most likely point that He did. We just can't be 100% certain because the text is not detailed.

I am not unique in this view. In his commentary, Matthew Henry writes: "We may believe that God commanded Adam, after the fall, to shed the blood of innocent animals, and after their death to burn part or the whole of their bodies by fire. Thus that punishment which sinners deserve, even the death of the body, and the wrath of God, of which fire is a well-known emblem, and also the sufferings of Christ, were prefigured. Observe that the religious worship of God is no new invention. It was from the beginning; it is the good old way...".

Calvin writes: "But the sacrifice of cattle and the effusion of blood contains something further, namely, that the offerer should have death before his eyes; and should, nevertheless, believe in God as propitious to him. Concerning the sacrifices of Adam no mention is made."

Even the Arminian John Wesley acknowledges this in his commentary: "There was a difference in the offerings they brought. Abel's was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain's; Cain's was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat - offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more: but Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. But the great difference was, Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not. Abel offered with an eye to God's will as his rule, and in dependence upon the promise of a Redeemer. But Cain did not offer in faith, and so it turned into sin to him." This is also the view of Clarke and others.

I am not in disagreement with any of these. Henry says "We may believe", Calvin says "Concerning the sacrifices of Adam no mention is made.", and Wesley is speaking of Abel's and Cain's offering. None of them says or gives proof that God set up animal sacrifices in Gen 3.

From John Wesley's Explanitory Notes: " And probably 'tis supposed they were slain for sacrifice"

From Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible: "some have been led to conjecture that they were offered in sacrifice - slain in prefiguration of that subsequent availing sacrifice which was to take away sin. It is the safer course, however, to leave the origin of sacrifice an open question."

The others I've looked at pretty much say something like Henry, Wesley (my quote ), and Barnes, "seems", "may" etc. In other words, no reason for dogmatism here as to whether or not animal sacrifice had been established at this point.

Yes, this is true, God does not "arbitrarily reject His faithful", but as Hebrews 11 notes... Cain was not faithful.

And that was my point in that last part of my post. "Whatever the case, his heart was not right." Since we know God does not arbitrarily reject His faithful, we can know, for certain, that Cain was not faithful in the offering he made. This lines up perfectly with Heb. 11. The "position" to which I was referring was whether God had set up animal sacrifices in Gen 3 or not.

I don't disagree that Gen 3 probably is where God set up the sacrifice of animals. I just don't think we can be dogmatic about it. Hopefully that clears up what I tried to say earlier. And to reiterate, yes, I think Cain knew he was wrong with his offering, mainly because of the witness of Heb 11 and the nature of our God.

 

[ZiSunka]

If your theory was correct God would not have said....
Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

God rejected Cain's offering for a reason, not because God was just being picky. The fact the God rejected Cains offering is proof that it was not rightous.
GEL

Of course God rejected Cain's offering for a reason, and you are right that it was rejected because it wasn't righteous. Not because it was cursed or because it wasn't blood, but because God wants our best, he doesn't accept our leftovers and then praise us for them.

The reason Cain's countenance was fallen and he was wroth is because God rejected it. If God rejected your offering, wouldn't your countenance be fallen? I know mine would.

 

[Lockheed]

"God slew animals to make the skins for Adam and Eve...", absolutely. "...this shows to them, and us...", that is an assumption. I think it is a fair assumption, but it is still an assumption. That is why I said I was not dogmatic about this. We find no passages that tell us God here set up animal sacrifice, we have to assume this, and so shouldn't be dogmatic about it.

Agreed, and I am not, however I am specifically challenging the notion that God rejected Cain's offering because it was somehow rotten or moldy and the idea that we can tell that because of the terminology "fruit of the ground". I will certainly defend my position from Scripture and I think Hebrews 11 expresses part of what I was saying, however, but I do recognize that the 'blood sacrifice' position is not clearly declared in Scripture.

The fact that this text does not contain details is why I say we should not be dogmatic.

Woof.

And, the fact that in the rest of Scripture animal sacrifices are the norm, replaced by Christ's sacrifice on the cross, in no way establishes that God set up animal sacrifice in Gen 3, this also leads us to be cautious about being dogmatic here. At some point He did, and this is the most likely point that He did. We just can't be 100% certain because the text is not detailed.

Genesis 3 is all about Christ, from the declaration that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head to the covering of sin. Man's sinfulness requires Christ's intervention and mediation. Genesis 3 is often referred in the NT when the state of man and the need for a Savior is mentioned, especially Romans 5 et al.

I cannot see how one can not see that therein. That said, we cannot be certain that God was requiring blood sacrifice, but since it is blood alone that covers sin as revealed in the garden it is one logical conclusion.

I did not state grain and fruit offering had been established in Gen 3 or 4.

I did not say you did, however others were making the case that since those kind of sacrifices were acceptable, I was noting that it was long after this event occured.

I am not in disagreement with any of these. Henry says "We may believe", Calvin says "Concerning the sacrifices of Adam no mention is made.", and Wesley is speaking of Abel's and Cain's offering. None of them says or gives proof that God set up animal sacrifices in Gen 3.

But Wesley writes "but Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God's wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator", I find this to be a most inciteful comment from the usually vapid Wesley.

 

[Lockheed]

Of course God rejected Cain's offering for a reason, and you are right that it was rejected because it wasn't righteous. Not because it was cursed or because it wasn't blood, but because God wants our best, he doesn't accept our leftovers and then praise us for them.

No, not because it "wasn't the best"... but because it wasn't offered in faith. I must stress this here, I think this is the major error in viewing this verse, that some how Abel was better, or offered something of higher value to God, in reality all people are equally deserving of wrath in the eyes of God and it is only grace that turns that wrath away. Abel's obedience was by faith whereas Cain's was from the flesh.

The reason Cain's countenance was fallen and he was wroth is because God rejected it. If God rejected your offering, wouldn't your countenance be fallen? I know mine would.

But in this account, and others in Scripture, the believer can learn a lot about God's nature. God takes worship very seriously, and one cannot approach God on his own terms, they must have covering for sin.

 

[2Timothy2]

Lockheed, our wires seem to be crossed here. Let me try this one more time, since I have no desire to argue about this.

What I'm saying is not about the efficacy of blood, it's only about the timing of the institution of animal sacrifice. Period. We seem to agree on that point, by the way. I agree it is a good assumption to make.

As for the bread/fruit offerings, I commented on that because your comments immediately followed your quoting me. If that's not how you meant it, it's not an issue, since moldy fruit is not my position.

And I most definitely see Christ in Gen 3.

btw, what does "Woof" mean?

 

[MbiaJc]

Show me where in the Bible it says that Cain was aware that God would require blood for a sin offering, or that Cain and Abel were making a sin offering.

You are merely making a persumption on the something the Bible doesn't say, and that is very, very dangerous ground. It is not okay to make a presumption.

And every farmer doesn't have animals for milk and meat. I know many row crop farmers who keep no animals at all. That would seem to be the case for Cain, since it is said he was a tiller of the soil but Abel was a keeper of sheep. Again, you are merely making a presumption of something the Bible doesn't report.

The most obvious answer is usually correct, and if you have to make a whole bunch of presumptions to make an idea make sense, it probably is the wrong answer.

Cain knew. He gave God the "fruit of the ground," you know, the moldy apples that fall off the tree because they are overripe or full of bugs. Nice gift to give someone you love, huh?

But Abel took the very best of his flock, the firstlings, and gave those to God.

Why wouldn't God tell Cain his offering wasn't good enough? Which offering would you love more--a beautiful, perfect puppy or a basket of rotten tomatoes?

Oh and your statment is not presumption???????????????????????????????

Are you denying that by God killing the animal and making a coverint for Adam and Eve, He was showing what He required for sin?

How do you know cain and Abel was not making an offering for sin?

"a beautiful, perfect puppy or a basket of rotten tomatoes" talk about presumptions and you dont think a farmer would have any animals. What do you think he had to till the ground a pright new green John Deer?

Show me in the Bible where cain or his parents knew anything about "first frout offerings"?

The farmers you know that has no animals also go to the local Supermarket to by their meat and milk.

When you give bible references for your answers, then we will talk about my presumptions. It looks bad for you to critcise someone for something you are doing yourself.

 

[MbiaJc]

=Lockheed]No, not because it "wasn't the best"... but because it wasn't offered in faith. I must stress this here, I think this is the major error in viewing this verse, that some how Abel was better, or offered something of higher value to God, in reality all people are equally deserving of wrath in the eyes of God and it is only grace that turns that wrath away. Abel's obedience was by faith whereas Cain's was from the flesh.

No it was because Cain is like so many today. Knowing what God says they think they can please God on their terms and God will bless them above others.

But in this account, and others in Scripture, the believer can learn a lot about God's nature. God takes worship very seriously, and one cannot approach God on his own terms, they must have covering for sin.

Exactly these are the lessons God is teaching Cain. It appears that Abel learned his the easy way, Cain the hard way if he learned at all.

 

[Lockheed]

2 Tim - We're trackin' just fine now. BTW "Woof" means I'm being DOGmatic. (Dumb dog-owner joke.)

MbiaJc - I think we agree fully in our first paragraphs, not sure why you start with "no". One can only please God by grace through faith in His Son.

Otherwise... RIGHT ON!

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

Sorry this seemed like a post and run, But thing have been crazy, I want to thank you all for your comments I will try to read the whole thread over the week-end.

Thanks again.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Agreed, and I am not, however I am specifically challenging the notion that God rejected Cain's offering because it was somehow rotten or moldy and the idea that we can tell that because of the terminology "fruit of the ground". I will certainly defend my position from Scripture and I think Hebrews 11 expresses part of what I was saying, however, but I do recognize that the 'blood sacrifice' position is not clearly declared in Scripture

Amen!.

Woof.

Meow

Genesis 3 is all about Christ, from the declaration that the seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head to the covering of sin. Man's sinfulness requires Christ's intervention and mediation. Genesis 3 is often referred in the NT when the state of man and the need for a Savior is mentioned, especially Romans 5 et al.

Amen Gen 3:15 is the plan of salvation!



I

 

[ZiSunka]

Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." What does that have to do with Cain and Abel?

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." What does that have to do with Cain and Abel?

I doesn't.
Its about Christ.
GEL