Cain and Abel

Way back in Genesis 3---after the sacrifices were made by both men---Abel's sacrifice was of blood, Cain's of the ground----one by faith, the other by reason----there was a conversation between God and Cain and in that conversation God was spelling out for Cain---the preceipts of Romans 3:22-26 the idea that "All have sinned and come short of the Glory of God"----Cain's sacrifice fell "short of the glory"----if you read on in Romans 3:22-26 you will find that righteousness before God comes "through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins."

Able was looking forward by faith to Messiah coming and spilling His blood "a ransom for many!"

Cain fell short of the Glory---doesn't matter if he missed it by a mile or by an inch---he still fell short---anything besides faith in the blood of Jesus to declare ourselves righteous before God is what??? "Short of the Glory!" Doesn't matter if Cain brought Turnips, Mustard Greens, Tomatoes, Corn, Potatoes, Okra, Squash, Asparagus---and all of those passing USDA inspection---he did'nt bring what was required---a bloody sacrifice by faith looking forward to bloody Messiah---Cain fell short of the Glory!

God told Cain that Able's blood was crying out from the ground----nobody knows what Able's blood was saying---but maybe, just maybe it was saying something like this:

Its still the Blood that saves from sin
Its still the Blood that cleanses within
From the highest star in heaven
To the depths of the sea
Its still the Blood of Jesus
that brings victory to me!!

Brother David

 

Gen 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Abel knew what sacrifice pleased God because he knew from his parents what God did from the Beginning. It took an innocent animal, a blood sacrifice. Abel was a good son who learned from his father what pleased God. Cain had his own way. Was God pleased with his own activity, of course! It is only reasonable that Cain should have learned from the same pattern. I appreciate your posts Blackbird. It is still the blood, only the blood.
Thanks -----Bart

 

The reference that Cain’s sacrifice was one of “reason”?

Genesis 4

9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?
10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Where is the precept that ‘all have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ in this passage?

All I see here is that God confronted Cain for the murder of his brother and punished him by making him an exile (although he showed Cain amazing mercy by not taking his life for his crime and marking him so that no one would take revenge on him).

Possibly… but the scripture doesn’t actually say anything like that.

Yep.

And I’ll ask again, where does the scripture record that the sacrifice was require to be a blood sacrifice? I noticed you did not respond to my quotation of the Levitical law that very clearly laid out the method for offering sacrifices of grain. Did God’s eternal precepts suddenly change when the Law was given to Moses, or is there a possibility that the objects of sacrifice that Cain offered were also acceptable?

Pure speculation… All I’ve seem from you on this subject appears to be speculation.

We both agree that the attitude of Cain was as least part of the issue, but you seem very willing to speak where the scripture does not speak and ignore passages that conflict with your perspective.

Please prove me wrong by giving me scriptural evidence that God wanted a blood sacrifice from Cain.

 

Was God not pleased with offerings of grain that he explicitly authorized in Leviticus 2? Was God not pleased by someone who explicitly obeyed his teaching? If produce was acceptable in the Law given to Moses, why do we assume that it was not acceptable for Cain?

Ritual sacrifices had no power in themselves except as acts of obedience to God. It is the sacrifice of Christ, not the blood of animals that is effective for our redemption.

Hebrews 4:10 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.”

 

The op has replied with what she's looking for.

Diane

 

Abels blood crying from the ground can be thought of as the "grave of abel crying out". saying...

it is not enough.. in another sense. abels blood was not righteous to defeat the power of death (grave).
Death (grave) wants all that belongs to it.
All mans (cursed) blood.

Pro 30:15 ... There are three [things that] are never satisfied, [yea], four [things] say not, [It is] enough:
Pro 30:16 ..The grave;....

from the creation of adam. there is two immutable things in this universe.
1.) the soul that sins shall die (law)
2.) one shall die for another (christ=firstborn). Remember the TWO trees. the law and the spirit of life. these are the two immutable things in the garden. (even the two witnesses in revelation)

adam had a rudimentary understanding of these laws. yet when eve eats of the fruit. adam thinks he is the one to die for eve..oops.
able after perceiving the unrighteousness of mankind offers the substitutionary sacrifice of the chosen animals blood (after the example of God towards his parents.)

yet it is Cain who perceives abel as Gods "firstborn" of mankind as he witnesses the approval of God towards abel.
and "helps" God in sacrificing abels blood (firstborn). again oops, Cain thought he was pleasing God by murdering abel.

(remember the pharisees and jesus. they thought they were helping God also by killing his chosen sacrifice.)

this is another failed attempt towards the display of the law of the firstborn. as perceived from cursed mans understanding of this law.

Jesus our head "freely chooses to die for others".
not others killing him because he is supposed to be Gods chosen firstborn.

Just as Jesus Body will learn. It is not the world forcing the body to die for its transgressions. It is the bodys understanding that it must choose freely to die for the worlds transgressions.

as the head chooses to die as the firstborn. so must the body follow the head in the same choice.

its the law of the firstborn. "one shall die for another".

 

I can't find a reference to Abel in Hebrews 13. (Perhaps you intended to type "Hebrews 11" instead of "Hebrews 13"?)

In Hebrews 11, the context and thrust of the passage is commendation for the FAITH of those referenced.

The way I understand it, Abel offered a sacrifice with the proper attitude of faith, while Cain did not.

The type of sacrifice was likely irrelevant since the scripture writers didn't feel it was necessary to explain that produce was unacceptable (in fact, it was quite the opposite - see Leviticus 2). One could offer the finest livestock according to all the ritual of the ceremonial law and still be abhorrent to God because the sacrifice was not offered in faith:

Amos 5
21 …"I hate, I reject your festivals,
Nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.
22 "Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
And I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings.
23 "Take away from Me the noise of your songs;
I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.
24 "But let justice roll down like waters
And righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

 

It could be, but most likely God is simply saying to Cain that He knows that Cain has murdered Abel.

Please provide a scripture reference indicating exactly what Abel’s blood said?

Please provide the scripture reference that explains Adam’s rationale for eating the fruit.

Reference?

Reference?

Reference?

 

I am amazed that so many self-proclaimed biblical literalists are allegorizing the scripture. I’ve been led to believe that only “liberals” allegorize Genesis.

I don’t know how many people have alleged that I am a “liberal” (I am not), but it is pretty obvious that I am far more “literalist” than most of you. (No offense intended!)

 

Amen, Blackbird.

It's all through the O.T. everywhere. God was the first one who demonstrated a blood sacrifice was needed because of man's sin.

This is true. Abel's bedience was a picture then for what was to come for everyone wholoved after him till Jesus' death. It is stil a picture for ue today that God had a plan and was showing to man even though they were unable to nderstand until after Jesus. To me it is a picture of His promise to send the ultimate sacrifice.
God gave one way and one way only to approach Him, blood sacrifice. Abel did it God's way, Cain did not. For the chritain the one and only way to approach God is through Jesus. I am acceptable to Him because of Jesus, and never becaue of anything I can ever do. That would be law, legalism, Jesus means grace, grace is unearned. My perfect and accpetable sacrifice is Jesus alone, nothing of me. That alone makes me loved and acceptable to God.


Walls, OP means original poster. Took me a while to catch on too. Leaning computer language can be hard.

 

It's all through the O.T. everywhere.</font>[/QUOTE]If it is "everywhere" it shouldn't be hard to give me a specific reference that points out that Cain should have provided an animal sacrifice. Please give me a reference.

Ultimately the only effective sacrifice was the sacrifice of Christ. All other were simply foreshadowings of His sacrifice - including the grain sacrifices of Leviticus 2.

Will someone please tell me why everyone seems to want to avoid dealing with the explicit teaching of Leviticus 2?

 

First blood shed for sin was by God
Gen.3 21Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them
The whole O.T. is full of blood sacrifices, haven't you ever seen them. IT is a general theme through out the entire O.T. showing a picture of what was needed and what was to come. Are you unfamiliar with this?

This is pretty much what I said.

I'm not really sure what your question is?
Blood sacrifice had been made before Cain and Abel. then Cain offered his vegetation offering, God had not yet given a law or demonstrated that there was to be any grain offering. God wanted them to know that sin had consequences, and those consequences required a death. So far as I can see Lev 2 doesn't have anything to do with Cain and Abel as it is a law not yet given.

 

No, I am familiar with that theme. But I was asking for a scripture reference that demonstrates that Cain was supposed to have offered a blood sacrifice. As far as I know, there isn’t one.

is pretty much what I said.</font>[/QUOTE]Then we agree on that principle.

I'm not really sure what your question is?</font>[/QUOTE]The point is that most people don’t realize that offerings of produce were perfectly acceptable to God. Preachers often perpetuate this idea by alleging (without scriptural backing, in my opinion) that God did not accept Cain’s offering because God only accepts blood offerings. It makes good preaching, but it just isn’t true. The scripture indicates that God accepted produce, drink, and oil offerings.

There was an implied blood sacrifice when God provided animal skins for Adam and Eve, but I am unaware of any sacrifices made by humans before the sacrifices of Abel and Cain.

As far as the scripture goes, we can’t say that God offered any information on what would be an acceptable offering. But when God did provide information (beyond the very specific commands to some of the patriarchs) in Leviticus, God made it clear that non-animal sacrifices were perfectly acceptable.

Are you saying that God required blood sacrifices of individuals at one time and then later did not? That’s mere conjecture without scriptural backing.

What is much more clear is that Cain apparently didn’t offer his sacrifice in faith like his brother Abel. (See Hebrews 11)

 

God demonstrated this to man. Do you think man made up sacrifices? Or that it came for God?

It depends on the purpose of the sacrifice. Those were specific, not general.


Can a man make a sacrifice to God in good faith and yet offer the wrong sacrifice. It appears so in Lev.

 

Walls thanks for sharing this topic. Getting back to the moral of the story.

Cain did not please God.

Cain did not want to obey God.

Cain had a chance to obey God.

Abel pleased God.

Abel obeyed God.

Cain killed Abel because of envy, he had a chance to do right, but instead choose to kill the one who was obedient.

Cain was a murderer of his brother.