Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

Abel was an extraordinary believer. His occupation was a "feeder of sheep" (Gen. 4:2, Hebrew). But at his time sheep were not yet used for man's eating. Man was only permitted to eat meat after the flood of Noah. Before the flood man was ordained to be vegatarian (Gen. 1:29). Not until Genesis 9:3 man is ordained to eat meat as well as herbs.Compare Cain's occupation with Abel's. Cain seems more clever and more practical than Abel. Cain was "a server of the ground" (Gen. 4:2 Hebrew). Cain may have wondered why Abel was spending his life raising sheep. Cain may have considered that his occupation was for making a living but Abel's was not that practical.I beleive that Abel was mostly working not for his own living but for God. These two flesh brothers had two occupations. Cain served the ground which produced food for man. Abel raised sheep, possibly for clothing but I think primarily as offerings for God. Cain served the earth and Abel served God.Where would Abel have gotten the idea of raising sheep for offerings to God? He would have obtained this knowledge from his parents Adam and Eve. When Adam and Eve sinned, they were expecting to die immediatly. Instead of them dying they witnessed God kill an animal and use its coat to cover them. The animal died when they were expecting to die. And the animal's coat became the covering clothing of the naked man and woman. Though we are not explicitly told that this was a gospel preaching to Adam and Eve, my opinion is that it was.Adam called his wife's name "the mother of all living." I wonder why he did not call her the mother of all dying. Living was Eve'sd given name n ot Dying. This indicates that Adam believed that there would be a hope, a salvation from God from thier problem. God had promised a deliverer in Genesis 3:15 through the seed of the woman. By the time of Genesis four Adam named his wife "Living" probably in hope of the expected deliverance to come from God.How do we know that some of mankind was expecting a deliverer from God? One reason is that Noah was thought to the promised deliverer:"And Lamech lived a hundred eighty-two years and begot a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, This one will give us rest from our work and from the toil of our hands, which come because of the ground which Jehovah has cursed" (Genesis 5:18,19)By this verse we can ascertain that the people of Lamech's generation were expecting a certain one to be born who would be a deliverer and savior of some kind. It is logical that the promise of the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 was passed down from Adam and Eve to thier successive generations of children. And they passed it down.It is also evident that when Eve had her firstborn son Cain, she may have expected prematurely, that this was the fulfillment of God's promise of a delivering seed of the woman:. She called his name Cain which meant acquired:"And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain and said, I have acquired a man, Jehovah" (Gen. 4:1) The Concordant Version as well as the Recovery Version leave out the supplied words "with the help of Jehovah" to just read the literal "a man, Jehovah". The 1901 American Standard also uses this translation. While I might not insist upon it, but the birth of Cain with this pronouncement from Eve, may have indicated that she thought Cain was the fulfilled promise of God given in Genesis 3:15.Perhaps, the pronouncement doesn't mean she thought that she gave birth to Jehovah but that Jehovah was involved in a salvific way in her giving birth to Cain. At any rate I know that Matthew 1:21 says that the One born was called "Jehovah the Savior". And Mary gave birth to the incarnated God according to Isaiah 9:6. The little child born in Bethlehem was to called "The Mighty God" (Isa. 9:6).But according to Eve's premature concept it could be that Cain, her first son, was the seed of the woman promised by God in Genesis 3:15 as a savior of mankind.What this post is meant to establish is that Adam, Eve, Abel, and Lamech, not to mention Enoch and Noah, believed God's word of promise. So I submit that Abel raised and offered sheep in response to the word of God. We are told once again:"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he has died, he still speaks" (Heb. 11:4).It was pointed out that Abel's offering was the primal example of an offering. I would agree somewhat because Genesis contains all of the initial seeds of truth latter developed in the Scripture. And Genesis also contains the primal example of justication unto righteousness also:"And he [Abraham] believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6) God accounted Abraham's faith towards God as righteousness. And by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice to God than Cain. Faith has as its object the word of God - "So faith comes out of hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17) Christ is God incarnated.Abel's more excellent offering was out of faith with the word of God's promise as its object. And this word of God's promised he probably learned from his fallen yet believing parents.I teach people how to believe the Bible. Now you may expect that Ringo will immediately come after this post to teach you to disbelieve the gospel. I am into teaching people how to believe in Christ. Ringo is into teaching people how to not believe in Christ.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 03:57 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 03:58 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 03:59 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 04:00 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 04:04 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-19-2006 11:18 PM

I'll draw my conclusions from here:

Ringo, If there was no need for the shedding of the lamb's blood in Genesis then explain Revelation 13:8" ... the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world"Does the phrase "from the foundation of the world" imply the time of Genesis?If not, what reason do you give to interpret "from the foundation of the world" excludes Genesis?This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-20-2006 08:48 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-20-2006 08:49 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-20-2006 08:50 PM

Yes, we probably have. For a long time my responses to you have been for the benefit of others reading along the discussions here.I have no doubt that we have covered and recovered certain matters. You have not quoted "the Lamb SLAIN". You have only quoted "the Lamb". I draw the readers attention to the fact that it was not simply the Lamb incarnated from the foundation of the world. It was the Lamb SLAIN from the foundation of the world. Furthermore, the method of dying is specified. He was SLAIN. It is not simply that He became a man. Nor is it that He merely died, as of say, natural causes. It is not "the Lamb who DIED from the foundation of the world." It is "the Lamb SLAIN...," as in CRUCIFIED, "...from the foundation of the world". It is not merely that the Lamb became mortal from the foundation of the world in this verse. It is that the Lamb who became mortal was SLAIN from the foundation of the world. He came to die. He came to be slain in crucifixion.This does not mean that His life either before resurrection or after resurrection is disregarded here. It is drawing focus on the event of Him being put to death for our redemption that gives us the right to even enjoy the indwelling of His life. His heing slain was necessary for man's redemption that man could receive Christ as the life of God in the new birth of regeneration. None of that suggests that His death was necessary for salvation - only that it was foreknown. [/qs]Even if that were true, which I don't think it is, it would not make any difference. The fact of the matter is that His being slain is the only way that the fallen man who was constituted with sin, could partake of the eternal life of God. On this side of Adam's being alienated from the tree of life, the redemption of Christ is the only way God's righteous requirement is fulfilled that we could have right to the eternal life of God.I might agree that before Adam sinned, the man created very good and nuetral between God and Satan, could partake of the tree of life and have the divine and eternal life of God. But that is not any man's or any woman's situation since the failure of Adam and his wife. That avenue of man partaking of God's life apart from the redemptive blood of Christ was forever gone.On this side of Adam's sin, no one comes to the Father except through the Son. And to come to the Father the Son had to go to the cross and die in order to prepare a place for man in God (John 14)." ... for I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I am coming again and will receive you to Myself, so that where I am you also may be."This verse does not mean that Jesus will go to heaven and prepare a place in heaven to receive His disciples into heaven. That is the mistaken idea of many. This verse means that He will go away in death on His cross and come again in resurrection. In going into death He prepares a place for His disciples in God Himself. And in coming in resurrection He receives His redeemed believers into the Father.Then where He is, in the Father, His believers also may be. And no one comes to the living Person as a living place except through Him and His redemptive work:"Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life, no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6) I told you that that question was too hard for me to answer. So here I agree with you.You said "But WHY?" And I said that that question was probably not possible for me to answer. Whatever answer I could conceivable offer, you will only resort to repeating the question "But WHY?" You can "But WHY? But WHY? But WHY?" us forever.Whatever I answer one could ALWAYS respond "But WHY?"So I admitted that probably I cannot ultimately answer that question. But to meet the requirement of God's law, the justice due us fell upon the Son of God.Perhaps someone else can attempt to answer that infinite "But WHY?" of yours. I think that at the heart of it is a question about God's authority. I think that really your question is concerning the why of the authority of God to establish His procedure. Perhaps your real underlining question is "WHY is salvation according to God's standard of righteousness and not mine?" This is also a question about the Trinity. Inherent in the question of why the Son has to die for our sins is the question of how is the Son both God and man. You may call the redemption of Jesus "idiotic" if it makes you feel good.But to the readers I would point out that the ones who consider the gospel to be foolish are the ones who are in the process of perishing:"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:18)Christ crucified is "foolishness" to those who are perishing according to Paul's word here. So the reaction of some people at the message of Christ's death on the cross is thankfulness and belief. And the reaction of other men is unbelief and the dismissal of "foolishness." In essence that is what you are doing when you discribe Christ's having to die as "idiotic.""But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, But to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

​

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (1 Cor. 1:24,25)I will most gladly except the label of IDIOT or FOOL for believing in the death and resurrection of Christ for my eternal salvation. If anyone wants to say that what I believe is "idiotic" I gladly accept that charge.From my perspective Christ demonstrates God's love and to refuse His offer and assume that I have a better plan than God is "idiotic". Whose life demonstrates the greater trustworthiness, the greater veracity, the greater honesty, the greater integrity, the greater power, the greater rightness, the greater holiness?The life of Jesus has the intrinsic approvedness that compels me to trust His teaching. And He taught that the new covenant is established in His blood for the forgivness of sins. And in this the prophets concur.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 05:05 AM

Cain probably considered what Abel did as foolish compared to his offering. Maybe he even thought it was idiotic. I don't know.I do know that Cain found out that it was not a matter of Cain's opinion about things. It was a matter of what God approved or dispproved.The fact that God told Cain that if he would do well he also would be accepted left the door opened to Cain. It was not a personal matter of favoritism. It was a matter of what and what not God would approve.If God approves of what man considers "idiotic" who should we listen to, God or the fault finder?This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 04:43 AM

The more I debate this particular subject the more it really becomes clear to me of why the Cain and Abel story is conveyed as it is.This embryonic record of God's approval and disapproval is foundational to the whole rest of the Bible. It is not a matter of Abel's opinion or Cain's opinion. It is absolutely a matter of what God will accept or not in the manner in which we approach Him.If someone wants to say that they could believe that God accepts Abel because in English his name comes first in the alphabet before Cain's name, maybe they could. One could argue that it had nothing to do with blood at all.But where does the wieght of the rest of the Scripture stand?And if Christ was slain "from the foundation of the world" as Ringo (almost) concedes, then why would God not hint so during "the foundation of the world" in the Cain and Abel record?I think one has to work harder to steer the symbolism AWAY from Christ's death rather than towards it.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 04:51 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 04:52 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 05:03 AM

You know it appears that Cain brought his offering to God first and then Abel brought his:"And in the coarse of time Cain brought an offering to Jehovah from the fruit of the ground.

​

And Abel ALSO brought [an offering] from the firstlings of his flock, that is, from their fat portions. And Jehovah had reagrd for Abel and for his offering.

​

But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. And Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell" (Gen.4:3-5)Cain, the first to offer, probably thought that what Abel was doing was not necessary. He probably thought "Nothing I know suggests that the death of a lamb is necessary for me to come to God in worship."Cain really was the inventor of the first religion of man. What Abel did I would not call a religion. I would call it reality.But when I see this kind of statement: I see a somewhat modified version of Cain's theology. "The crucifixion of Christ was not really necessary for salvation. It was only foreknown."Actually, this is a like the original call to doubt that man would die for partaking of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil - "And the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, ... etc" (Gen. 3:5)The serpent was the initiator of "another way" besides God's way. And the same source enticed Cain to take "another way" besides the way of offering the slain lamb. And I fear that the same serpent injects the idea into man that "the death of Christ is not necessary for salvation. At best it was merely foreknown."This is not meant to be offensive. It is meant to expose the subtleness inherent in the contradiction of what the New Testament teaches. It says that the death of Christ is necessary. The suggestion of disbelief is that it was only foreknown and not really necessary.Compare the subtleness of the two concepts:1.) When the serpent said that God knew that man's eyes would be opened, that part was indeed true. Still, man was to die for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.2.) When someone suggests that it was only foreknown that Christ would die and not made necessary that He die, even if the first part is true, it is not true that His death is not necessary.In the first case a true statement is used to convey an error.In the second case an at least arguable statement is also used to convey an error.In the first case the deceived person is in danger of taking in the thought that he will not die because God knows that something will happen. In the second case the deceived person is in danger of accepting the thought that Christ's death for her sins is not necessary. Afterall, it was only "foreknown" that He would die from the foundation of the world.Can you see the subtlety?Whether Christ's death on the cross and resurrection were only foreknown or foreordained the fact is that His act is necessary for salvation.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 05:47 AM

Ringo writes: However the Apostle Peter's first gospel message states: Christ's death on the cross at the hands of murders, and His resurrection were not only foreknown but according to the determined counsel of God.This counsel of God was "PREDESTINED" by God to occur: End of debate over whether Christ's blood shedding death was predestined and foreknown or just foreknown.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:20 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:25 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:26 AM

Jar, if you don't care for throws to first base in a ball game a good thing to do is to stay clear of Yankee Stadium.And if you don't like Bible quote mining, maybe its kind of silly for you to hang around a "Bible Study".This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:51 AM

Ringo,Elaborate that bit you wrote about the priests and Leviticus and eating portions of the sacrifices.Let's tie that into the Cain and Abel discussion. Elaborate on what your point in that was.

No it isn't really. The crux of the matter is whether we believe God or not." ... these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)This is why God is much more broad then you Ringo. You are much more exclusive and narrow. You would not grant the divine life to anyone who believes but cannot explain. No the Bible does more than give us a communication from God. The Bible communicates God Himself. If one goes away from the Bible and has not touched God Himself within, the purpose of God giving the Bible has not been reached no matter how much you understand of think you can explain.The Bible is not intended to only communicate things about God for objective knowledge regardless of how clearly understood. The Bible is given to convey God's Spirit into the reader.Of course to understand is desireable. And I only claimed that I could not fully explain something. But life grows. Life matures. Perhaps the day will come when I have matured more in this divine life that I will be able to explain some more things.I cannot explain gravity. Oh, I can recite that gravity is the effect of the curvature of space around mass, in Einstienian fashion. But I really can't explain how space curved around mass causes the effect we see as gravity.In my daily practical life I do benefit from the belief that I must be careful of the law of gravity.I also know that I have sinned against the God of this universe. I also believe that if I believe in Christ God looks upon me as if I had never sinned at all. My sins and my lawlessness He will by no means remember any more. In His eyes, because I have believed in His Son, the problem of my record of sins has been totally dealt with.You ask "But WHY?" I think it is a good question. And I am exploring some things on it right now for my own sake. But I am glad that I didn't wait until I was able to explain it, and that to a argumentative opposer of the gospel such as yourself, in order to have my sins forgiven.So I think the crux of the issue is that we are commanded by God to believe the good news. If you make the ability to explain the most crucial thing, I think you constrict and make more narrow the door of salvation. In an attempt to replace God's way with your own devices you make the way of salvation more exclusive and more narrow, not less so. I would not say that in every instance in all matters I understand the Bible. The Apostle said that the peace of God surpasses every man's understanding: "And the peace of God, which surpasses every [man's] understanding, will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4:7)I do understand the unspeakable peace in my heart that occurs when I pray God's promise back to Him:"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness ... And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world" (See 1 John 1:9,2:2)I notice that this verse does not say that He is faithful and merciful. Nor does it say that He is faithful and kind. Nor does it say that He is faithful and understanding. Now God is merciful, kind, and understanding. But this verse says that God is faithful and RIGHTEOUS to forgive us of our sins.In truth of the gospel, because we believe in Christ, it is the "righteous" thing to do for God to forgive us. Even if He doesn't like us He is righteous to forgive us. It is a matter of what is righteous for God to do if we have believed in the crucified and resurrected Son of God.You may say, "But you cannot explain this. And therefore you don't understand this!"Somewhat, I agree that it is deeper than I am able at this time to fully explain. But I derive the everlasting peace of BELIEVING the message of the gospel and confessing Jesus as my Lord. I have peace towards God. THAT I do understand. If we could somehow allow your thoughts during the day to be displayed as a movie on this screen what would the world see? I think that we would see that your mind is damaged and to a certain degree corrupted.Our minds are damaged by sin. Our minds have been effected negatively by the fall of man into sin. It is therefore no wonder that certain aspects of the will of God are difficult for us to understand.God communicates marvelously well with the sin damaged and sin corrupted darkened mind of the sinners of this world. And He calls us firstly to believe, even though we cannot explain. Understanding deepens as His salvation renews and heals our sin damaged minds. I have none. This is why I "quote mine" to the Bible. But you are welcomed to point out what I concocted which is not taught in the Bible.Please quote me where I introduced my creation and did not indentify where I derive such a thought from God's procedure as recorded in the teaching of the New Testament. I expect you to point out my "original" ideas on a procedure of salvation.I expect you to back up your false accusation with concret examples in quote. And if I identify from where in Scripture I derive that such in such is the procedure taught in the Bible, I expect you to retract your accusation. On what bases then did the apostle John witness that some whose names were not recorded in the Book of Life were cast into eternal perdition?" ... and they were judged, each of them, according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:13b-15)On what basis were those forgiven by God not found written in the book of life? And on what basis were those forgiven by God cast into the second death?And if all were forgiven on what basis does Jesus tell the opposing religionists that they will die in their sin?"He said therefore again to them, I am going away, and you will seek Me and will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come" (John 8:21).Why will some die in thier sin? And if there is no way of salvation then why did Jesus say that those who do not come through Him as the door are as theives not taking the appropiate entrance?"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and go out and shall find pasture." (John 10:9)Being saved in this passage is conditioned upon entering through the proper door which is Christ Himself."Truly, truly, I say to you, He who does not enter through the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up from somewhere else, he is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)If anyone enters through Christ, the appropriate "door" he shall be saved. To climb up another way is the illegal way of a thief or a robber. How then is there no procedure? If there is no procedure then Christ would not have said that He is the appropriate door, would He have? If there were no proper way of salvation then to climb up another way or any way would not be counted as the way of illegality. This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:29 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:31 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:32 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:35 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:37 PM

Irrelevant. So what? The weight of evidence, if considered fairly, through the rest of the Scriptures, does give us some plausible insight into it.Of course for one who streneously is out to deny any atoning sacrifice in all of Scripture, the evidence is to be swept under the rug and denied. And that behind a showy pretense of liturary objectivity. There is also no "clear indication" that Cain chopped down any plants. Let's just say "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ... " (Hebrews 11:4a) Apparently it did matter. Abel's offering was regarded and Cain's was not.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 06:28 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 06:43 PM

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood ... and I have given it to you to make expiation for your souls on the altar, for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Levitcus 17:11)The assumption and speculation that this was God's thought and expressed desire to Adam and Eve is not a wild one. It is very likely that this is why Abel's fat of slain lambs was regarded by God and Cain's bloodless vegetation was not.The thought should not be easily dismissed as Ringo would like to do and leave us all in the darkest ignorance.

Read the verse yourself Ringo. You are being unbelievably dense here. Take note of these words:"... FOR IT IS THE BLOOD, by reason of the life, that makes expiation"What makes expiation? The BLOOD makes expiation. Why? Because of the life. But a living lamb was not sacrificed. A slain one was. So it was the blood which makes expiation. You are still being extremely dense about this.No they only had the GOD who is the Source of the book of Leviticus with Whom they spoke face to face.Nice try. No, on second thought, lousy try.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-22-2006 08:39 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-22-2006 08:43 AM

Now, all you skeptics who say Leviticus has no possible bearing on what happened in Genesis.What happened to your JEPD theory?