CAIN, ABEL, and PRIDE

tooldtocare said:

My only question concerning this fable is whether Cain committed this act of murder before Moses presents his Ten Commandments or after?

Click to expand...

Firstly this is not a fable and secondly this happened long before Moses appeared. Why do you bother if the Bible is full of fables?

H. Richard said:

We see that ABEL used a sacrificial animal’s blood as an offering to God as he was told to do.

Click to expand...

Excellent that you included this. We know full well Cain disobeyed a clearly commanded instruction of God for how an offering was to be made, by the words "...brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." This verse means Abel separated the fat from the animal before it was all burned on the altar.

Is it more likely that killing an animal which was God's property - not Abel's - and separating its fat before burning all on an altar, was an idea that Abel adopted himself which God eventually prescribed for the sacrificial system of Israel...or had God specifically commanded to Adam and his family a method then that would later be incorporated in that system? The answer is obvious.

Later on in the Bible when God gives the Law to Moses, He accepts grain, fruits and vegetables as offerings. Farmers work hard sweating in the fields to grow them, and although they may not be important as lambs, bulls and goats, they are a sign of tithing and giving back to the Lord. I have heard this story interpreted that the problem was with Cain's attitude, his pride and selfishness, looking for recognition and giving his left overs, not doing his best, but thinking he can put a little bit in and get a lot out. God warned him sin was crouching at his door. He was jealous when God preferred his brother's sacrifice, because his brother did it correctly, giving his best to the Lord.

Sadly, the scriptures do not provide enough details as to Abel's and Cain's respective sacrifices unto the Lord. Yet people have added to the words of the Genesis passage as if their additional words can be found in the quoted passage.

Here is the scripture that was provided in the OP


Perhaps we need to consider more carefully what we post and not add our opinions on what has been recorded in this portion of scripture.

I think that we all should take heed of God's advice to Cain and follow it.

By Oldhermit

The issue with the offering of Cain was not the type of sacrifice he offered. What made Cain's sacrifice unacceptable the character of the man himself. The Lord even confronts him for his sins that had nothing to do with his offering.

A. “In the course of time.” Literally, “at the end of days.” What is the end of days suggested by the context? What would contextually mark this particular course of time?

1. Popular options

a. The end of a seven-day period.
b. The anniversary of the end of creation. The problem with both of these theories is that they cannot be arrived from the contents of the context.

2. The only temporal indicator offered by the text is that of the time of harvest. Thus, the course of time from one harvest to the next. We know this because of the type of sacrifice both men are offering. “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 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.”
3. Both men are offering the offering of first-fruits, one of the flock and one of the earth. Both are legitimate sacrifices. Cain, being a tiller of the ground naturally offers the first-fruit of his crop. Being a keeper of the flock, Able offers his first-fruit of the flock. What implications can we generalize from Able offering up the fat portions of his sacrifice?

a. That the offering of sacrifice had already been regulated by both time and procedure.

* It was offered at the proper time - “at the end of days.”
* There is no separation of the fat from the sacrifice. It was offered up as a whole sacrifice.

b. That sacrifices were a matter of instruction. How did they know to offer these sacrifices and how these sacrifices were to be offered in such a way that would be acceptable to the Lord? This instruction had to be revealed instruction. Even if they received the practice from their father Adam still had to have received it from the Lord.
c. This is not their first sacrifice.
d. The possibility that other types of sacrifices were also being offered that did not require the separation of the fat portions.

4. No indicators from the text that the sacrifice of Able had any connection to atonement or even contrition. In other words, this is not a sin sacrifice.

a. There is no sprinkling of blood mentioned.
b. There is no removal of the intestines or the refuse mentioned.
This is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Cain offered his first-fruits as a matter of thanksgiving. This is the nature of any first-fruit offering. The text says that Able ALSO offered of his first. Both men are offering the same sacrifice. Why then was Cain's sacrifice not accepted? This rejection seems to stem from Cain's relationship with his brother.

Stranger said:

So is marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.

Stranger

Click to expand...

...and poison ivy..lol.

Enoch111 said:

Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. (1 John 3:12).

Click to expand...

I am glad you brought this verse up because I have been thinking about it for a few weeks. Why did Cain slay his brother? Answer: because HIS OWN works were evil. Abel's were righteous. Its implied that Abel had "his own" works, but it is not said directly. In other words, Abel's works were not his own. Yes, I agree... It implied. But in reality, Abel tended God's created while Cain grew his own sacrifice. So there is something to what H. Richard is saying. Furthermore, Abel brought the fistlings. That is, the first fruits and put God first. It does not say Cain brought his first fruits, though he might have.

I don't want to make a bold statement on this because I am still exploring it... But I find it interesting that Cain's works are described as "his own" while Abel's are just called righteous.

FHII said:

But I find it interesting that Cain's works are described as "his own" while Abel's are just called righteous.

Click to expand...

Cain must have worked hard in bringing his crops (*the fruit of the ground*) to fruition. After all Adam had been told that he (and by extension all humans) would have to earn their bread with the sweat of their brows. And he must have also believed that his diligent hard work would impress God more than his faith in something which required no *work* on his part (making an animal sacrifice). Furthermore it would appear that his produce might have been *prize winning* in human terms and that again would be impressive. But the man was devoid of faith and controlled by Satan. Thus nothing was accepted by God. So Cain was the first man to believe in a *works based* salvation, and this is what every religion teaches other than the Gospel of Christ.

Indeed God had already taught Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, that the only acceptable sin offering was a burnt offering of a lamb without spot or blemish, whose blood had been shed before the sacrifice was made. Had this not been the case, Abel would not have known what was acceptable to God.

Some has gone so far as to invent the false *Serpent Seed* doctrine of the Kenites. That Cain was the offspring of a union of Satan with Eve, and that the Kenites (his descendants) are from the seed of the Serpent. However, we know from Scripture that this is sheer nonsense, since God was the one who gave this first child to Adam and Eve: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Gen 4:1)

Enoch111 said:

Cain must have worked hard in bringing his crops (*the fruit of the ground*) to fruition. After all Adam had been told that he (and by extension all humans) would have to earn their bread with the sweat of their brows. And he must have also believed that his diligent hard work would impress God more than his faith in something which required no *work* on his part (making an animal sacrifice). Furthermore it would appear that his produce might have been *prize winning* in human terms and that again would be impressive. But the man was devoid of faith and controlled by Satan. Thus nothing was accepted by God. So Cain was the first man to believe in a *works based* salvation, and this is what every religion teaches other than the Gospel of Christ.

Indeed God had already taught Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, that the only acceptable sin offering was a burnt offering of a lamb without spot or blemish, whose blood had been shed before the sacrifice was made. Had this not been the case, Abel would not have known what was acceptable to God.

Some has gone so far as to invent the false *Serpent Seed* doctrine of the Kenites. That Cain was the offspring of a union of Satan with Eve, and that the Kenites (his descendants) are from the seed of the Serpent. However, we know from Scripture that this is sheer nonsense, since God was the one who gave this first child to Adam and Eve: And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Gen 4:1)

Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the 'Serpent Seed' doctrine of the Kenites, but will look into it. I will say this, I am not sure that it is 'sheer nonsense' as it does have a Scriptural base.

For example, as you noted, Eve said "I have gotten a man from the LORD". (Gen. 4:1) But was Cain from the LORD? That he was born from the union of Adam and Eve, yes. But was he from God? He certainly was not of God. (1 John 3:12) "Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one...."

And that there is a 'seed of satan' is clear. (Gen. 3:15) "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head,and thou shalt bruise his heel."

And Christ, in speaking to some of the Pharisees, said in (John 8:44-47), "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do...He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."

So, it appears to me, though I do not know how, that in some way, another seed line was introduced into the human race at the fall. That it would be spiritually produced rather than physically produced at the fall would make sense to me. But it would also have physical manifestations when one is born. It is interesting.

Stranger