Poster | Thread | lyndon Member
Joined: 2003/12/8 Posts: 65 Manitoba, Canada
| Re: | | Quote:
I was just sharing what the Lord showed me - because I had wanted to know why Cain's sacrifice had been unacceptable to Him.
Someone was once reading this story to their children and then asked me why God would accept Abel's sacrifice and not Cain's. And thats what the Lord gave me at the time is that verse out of Hebrews. Which I took to mean that the main difference between the two sacrifices was faith.
Quote:
I believe it was a service of worship, and that's another reason Cain's was unacceptable and his attitude wrong at a deep level (as later is shown). In a way, offering the fruit of the field in those circumstances, was way over-the-line-cheeky of Cain.
Thats kind of my question is there a scripture that shows that the reason God didn't accept Cain's sacrifice is because of what he offered. I Think you're right on with 'his attitude wrong at a deep level'. I guess I'm thinking that both of them offered up the fruits of their labours, if Cain had sacrificed a lamb would he then not have been sacrificing something of Abel's? What would the true signifigance of such a sacrifice have been? Also had God given them specific commands as to what should be offered?
Lyndon |
| 2006/7/5 23:18 | Profile |
| Re: Pleading the blood? | | Hi Lyndon,
Here is Young's rendering of those verses. I think it helps to show that when God did not accept Cain's offering, it was much more of a big deal to Cain than it was to God, and all the fault was on Cain's side for not being willing to receive correction from Him. God even warned Cain that if he didn't do better, sin was waiting to leap on him.
I think the Young's use of the phrase 'sin-offering' is interesting, in that it may be Abel offered his best, partly in acknowledgement of an awareness of personal sin. Abel set out to please God in the first place.
Then we see that even when Cain [i]knows[/i] he hasn't 'pleased' God, he is [u]un[/u]willing to put things right. If this was the case with his opportunity to maintain a peace with God over that single instance and other sins, then what was he like the rest of the year?
(Young) Genesis 4 1 And the man knew Eve his wife, and she conceiveth and beareth Cain, and saith, `I have gotten a man by Jehovah;'
2 and she addeth to bear his brother, even Abel. And Abel is feeding a flock, and Cain hath been servant of the ground.
3 And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jehovah;
4 and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of his flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present,
5 and unto Cain and unto his present He hath not looked; and it is very displeasing to Cain, and his countenance is fallen.
6 And Jehovah saith unto Cain, `Why hast thou displeasure? and why hath thy countenance fallen?
7 Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'
I think this last phrase 'and thou rulest over it' shows clearly that Cain did not have to settle for his offering having not been acceptable to God. He could have taken the offensive and made another, better offering.
|
| 2006/7/6 0:47 | | Christinyou Member
Joined: 2005/11/2 Posts: 3710 Ca.
| Re: | | Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Since Able was the younger, and if Cain would do what is right, Able would be in submission unto Cain. It would also be Able's desire to do so, since God already new Able's heart by his sacrifice. This was also said so Cain could in his own heart realize that God was still for Cain, and all would be well if Cain would would do well and not get hot tempered by what he was already feeling about the whole thing being Able's fault.
Cain went to talk to Able with none of the desire in his heart to do what God said, Cain went with the things that he had already seen and had been warned him about. Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? Cain went to Able, jealous and burning in anger. (wroth) Cain's face had been set like flint and he was going to overthrow and overwhelm what he believed, his countenance set against what his brother Able had done to him. The same lie to all who blame others, surly God knows you will be just like Him and you can make your own decisions and take things into your own hands.
Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.
Cain charged and challenged his brother with these deceptive wrong feelings not coming from God, which God had already given, Cain used in his heart the deceptive feelings that were being enraged and burned into his own feelings and disregarding God completely, just like his father had fallen to the lie.
Cain continued and endured the lie of the enemy of his soul and killed his brother. This is a picture of what man is and what he would always be, killing and blaming his innocent brother because of his own evil thoughts and his own evil heart which is the heart of Satan who was his spiritual father chosen by his own father Adam. A perfect picture of even the first son of Adam and Eve, what happened when they disobeyed God and ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The only thing related to the shedding of Blood is the crying out from the ground to God the innocent blood that was shed, the same blood that cries out to God now, that is the Blood shed at the bottom of the Cross on the last altar, the earth that Christ died for to cleanse the sin of the world. All we have to do is believe it.
No juvenile pleading of the blood here, but the true heart of God being presented in the further revelation of what Jesus Christ would do when God, choosing the fullness of time to give Him Birth through His own Seed placed in Mary by the Holy Spirit, that we might have Him in our believing the Jesus is the Son, that we would be born again unto a new Life Spirit, Jesus Christ with Satan defeated and cast out and Christ birthed in us.
In Christ: Phillip _________________ Phillip
|
| 2006/7/6 1:06 | Profile |
| Re: The Burnt Offering | | Most Christians today have no understanding of the sacrifices that took place in the Old Testament, and in the purpose for them. We all study the New Testament, and leave the Old Testament alone. There are nuggets of gold found in the Old Testament. Like the saying goes: "The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed". The problem is, unless we study (not read) the Old, as well as the New, we cannot see the beauty of God's sacrificial system that was set up in the Old Testament in "type", and "fulfilled" in the New Testament with the actual "blood sacrifice" of His Son on Calvary.
There is only one sacrifice in the sacrificial system set up by God at Mt. Sinai that provides for the SKIN OF THE ANIMAL to be given to the PRIEST for his personal use.
In all of the sacrifices that occur in the Old Testament, PRIOR to the sacrificial system set up by God in Leviticus, ALL are referred to as burnt offerings. See Noah 8:20; Job 1:5; 42:8
The complete understanding of the Burnt Offering can be found in Leviticus chapter 1 (all of chapter 1); Leviticus 6:8-13; Leviticus 8:18-28. Reference to the allocation of the skin of the sacrifice to the priest is found in Leviticus 7:8
The Burnt offering represents complete surrender unto God, and represents the person of Christ. The entire sacrifice was burned to ashes upon the altar and portrays our Lord's perfect submission to the Father. He was obedient unto death. The sacrifice was always an unblemished male firstborn Bull, Lamb, goat, dove or pigeonrepresenting the final sacrifice of Jesus Christ as our unblemished, perfect first born sacrifice. His blood was sprinkled on the altar and he was cut in pieces and wholly burned. The skin was given to the Priest.
The Burnt offering was a "Voluntary" sacrifice. Those that gave this sacrifice wanted a deeper, more personal walk with God. The Husband (father) would bring the sacrifice to the Tabernacle and bring it up to the altar. He would lay his hands on the head of the animal, to become one with the animal, thus symbolically transferring his sin and that of his family as well, into the substitute, and would then slit the animals throat. The Priest would then put the blood on the altar. The sinner would cut the animal up into small pieces, and the Priest would place them on the altar to burn to ashes. The Priest was allowed to keep the skin (Lev 7:8)
Before Leviticus, the husband was the "Family Priest", and until the Jewish sacrificial system was established by God in Leviticus that established a formal "Priesthood", the husband WAS THE PRIEST. All of the early sacrifices mentioned in the Genesis & Job were BURNT OFFERINGS (Check out Noah, and Job). Until the time that God formally set up the sacrificial system, the husband assumed all of the duties of "Priest".
Hence, when Adam & Eve received the skin of the animals, we can see that this was the point in time where God showed them WHAT HE REQUIRED OF THEM. The fact that God gave them animal skins to wear should reveal to us that the skins were part of the BURNT OFFERING, that HE required to cover sin until Messiah.
When we see in Genesis 4:4 that Abel brought the firstlings (first born) of his flock, AND THE FAT THEREOF as an OFFERING.
4. 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:
If we understand our Old Testament, and the sacrifices demanded by God in Leviticus, we can see that God always considers "THE FAT" part of the offering to be a SWEET SAVOR to the Lord. GOD'S PORTION in ALL of the sacrifices is the FAT OF THE INNER PARTS, KIDNEYS & LIVER. This part was always placed on the altar and burned to ashes, and was ALWAYS GOD'S PORTION.
Therefore, since Abel brought the firstborn and the fat as a sacrifice, we know that he can only be OFFERING A BURNT OFFERING since this is the only sacrifice where the animal, as well as the fat were offered on the altar!
In the Burnt offering, the entire animal, including the fat, was burned to ashes, and thus the entire animal, other than the skin, was offered to God.
By this understanding we can clearly see that God had prophesized to Adam and Eve in the Garden about a coming redeemer. We can see that God provided (gave to) Adam and Eve skins to cover themselves. These skins were the result of the burnt offering that God instructed them to perform.
We can see from Genesis 4 that Abel believed his parents when they told him of their encounter with God in the Garden, and in the fall of mankind, and what was required of all believers. Cain did not believe God, and cared not about what was required. The New Testament gives us more understanding of the sacrifice Abel made to God, in comparison to that of Cain.
[Hebrews 11:4] 4. By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent [b][color=990000]SACRIFICE[/color][/b] than Cain, by which he OBTAINED WITNESS THAT HE WAS RIGHTEOUS, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Strongs tells us that the meaning of the word sacrifice, as found here in the New Testament means [b][color=990000]BLOOD SACRIFICE:
Strong's Number: 2378 Transliterated: thusia Phonetic: thoo-see'-ah
Text: from 2380; sacrifice (the act or the victim, literally or figuratively): --sacrifice. [/color][/b]
This tells us that Abel was judged to be righteous by God because of his BLOOD SACRIFICE, HIS BURNT OFFERING.
The New Testament further tells us that Cain was of the wicked one, but Abel was considered righteous before God because of the sacrifice that he offered. This tells me that Abel believed God, and Cain believed in himself. Abel was looking to Messiah as the author and finisher of his faith, while Cain was looking to himself. Cain, like Sinatra, did it his way, and not Gods way. [ I can picture in my mind Cain offering his vegetables on the altar to the Lord as being an abomination to Him (the Lord)]
[1 John 3:12] 12. 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cains "works" referred to here is the sacrifice that he made---a sacrifice of the fruit of the ground. God required a blood sacrifice, a burnt offering. "Without the shedding of blood is no remission of sin."
Abels "works" were considered "righteous" before the Lord. Abels sacrifice WAS A [b][color=990000]BLOOD SACRIFICE= A BURNT OFFERING[/color][/b]. Based upon the fact that he offered the FIRSTBORN AND THE FAT, we can see that it was a BURNT OFFERING! Cains "sacrifice" was "the fruit of the ground."
"there is no remission without the shedding of blood!"
God bless,
Stever :-D
P.S. [b][color=990000]The New Testament tells us that the offering involved a VICTIM:
Strong's Number: 2378 Transliterated: thusia Phonetic: thoo-see'-ah
Text: from 2380; sacrifice (the act or the VICTIM, literally or figuratively): --sacrifice. [/color][/b]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Quote:
dorcas wrote: lyndon said
Quote:
It is my understanding that the reason Abel's sacrifice was better than Cain's is that Abel offered in faith where it seems Cain did not. eg. Hbr 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.
Hi Lyndon,
I'm not disputing the verse in Hebrews about Abel's sacrifice, I was just sharing what the Lord showed me - because I had wanted to know why Cain's sacrifice had been unacceptable to Him.
Picking up on Stever's suggestion that Abel's was a sacrifice for sin, I disagree. I believe it was a service of worship, and that's another reason Cain's was unacceptable and his attitude wrong at a deep level (as later is shown). In a way, offering the fruit of the field in those circumstances, was way over-the-line-cheeky of Cain. His other mistake was to think he could get away with it.
Considering God could have been far harder on him, he was also foolish to miss the opportunity to capitulate and offer a lamb after all. Instead, he acted as if Abel was responsible for his misdemeanour. Later he tried to lie his way out of answering God's question about his brother, and lastly, he did not really lament Abel's death.... the only thing he was worried about subsequently, was his own personal safety.... which was a bit rich under the circumstances.... By then, he had begun to understand something about God's justice, but it was all too late. The grace of God in that situation is amazing, and only makes sense in the light of The Lamb.
|
| 2006/7/6 2:11 | | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Quote:
The church was purchased with the blood of a man who was God. God is Spirit and until he became man He could have no blood.
I asked what did Christ receive from Mary. Your answer seems to be that she was simply a surrogate womb. If so, how can Christ come from Judah? Your view of the incarnation begins to sound like something from 'Alien'.
Stever, perhaps you missed this post? _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2006/7/6 5:38 | Profile | philologos Member
Joined: 2003/7/18 Posts: 6566 Reading, UK
| Re: | | Stevers' Quote:
Abels "works" were considered "righteous" before the Lord. Abels sacrifice WAS A BLOOD SACRIFICE= A BURNT OFFERING. Based upon the fact that he offered the FIRSTBORN AND THE FAT, we can see that it was a BURNT OFFERING! Cains "sacrifice" was "the fruit of the ground."
In fact the word used for 'offering' inQuote:
Gen. 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. Gen. 4:4 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:
is (Strongs 4503).[b] מִנְחָה[/b] [i]minchah[/i] which is actually a 'gift' or 'donation' offering. It would seem plain that this was a 'voluntary' offering and not the 'mandatory' sin or trespass offering. The later Meal Offering of Lev 2 was also a 'voluntary' offering. Although many evangelical expositors have held differently, I do not think we have any 'sin offerings' or 'trespass offerings' in the OT before the giving of the Law at Sinai.
The Hebrews comment makes it plain that Cain's offering was not rejected because it was bloodless but because it was not offered in faith. The voluntary offerings of the OT do not portray 'sin-bearing' as much as the life utterly given up to God. The imagery here is not the remitting of sin but the yielding up of the life to God. _________________ Ron Bailey
|
| 2006/7/6 5:48 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Hi Ron,
Quote:
The Hebrews comment makes it plain that Cain's offering was not rejected because it was bloodless but because it was not offered in faith.
I have long believed that the reason the sacrifice was rejected was because Cain brought an offering in opposition to the revealed will of God. This would basically be 'do it yourself' religion. Doing what is right in ones own eyes. It seems that Cain should have known that the offering should have been a lamb, but chose rather to bring what he wanted to bring. This was an offering, in my mind, brought in unbelief because it was brought in willfull disobedience. I know that we are quite limited and have to try to reconstruct as much as possible from the tiny bits we have. I think of one part:
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.(Genesis 4:7)
The passage seems to indicate that Cain did not do what he knew would have been an offering 'done well.' Sin in my thinking is disobedience to the revealed will of God. This, then, seems to be the first case of false religion. I agree that it was not offered in faith. If God had revealed a pattern of bringing an offering to Him and Cain rejected that revelation, it seems that 'rejection of revelation' would have been the controversy God had with Cain. If God had revealed the type of offering that Cain brought and Cain brought it, the bible is strangly silent on why it had not been accepted. We could suppose that Cain's heart was not right towards God or they were not in relationship, etc., but that would hold true for many who brought offerings in Israel also.
Are there other possibilities I could be missing here? _________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2006/7/6 8:11 | Profile | mamaluk Member
Joined: 2006/6/12 Posts: 524
| Re: | | Quoting from EW Bullinger:
With Cain, the LORD at once put the matter on its true ground "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" ( Gen. iv.7). This is rendered in the Septuagint Translation "if thou offer correctly."
This is what it means. " If Cain offered correctly;" i.e. what God had told him, he would have done "well", and his offering would have been accepted.
There was 'no difference" between the two men. All the difference lay in their offerings, which proved that the one believed God, and that the other did not.
Abel did "well" because he believed, and hence, obeyed God. Cain did "not well;" because he did not offer correctly, though a sin-offering lay at the door ready to his hand. (End EWB's Quote)
Like RobertW said, "Cain did not do what he knew". [i]He did his own thing,[/i] so to speak?
mml
|
| 2006/7/6 10:02 | Profile | lyndon Member
Joined: 2003/12/8 Posts: 65 Manitoba, Canada
| Re: | | Quote:
3 And it cometh to pass at the end of days that Cain bringeth from the fruit of the ground a present to Jehovah;4 and Abel, he hath brought, he also, from the female firstlings of his flock, even from their fat ones; and Jehovah looketh unto Abel and unto his present,
I think what we see here is that Cain just brought something from the ground. In other words, walked in picked something up, and offered it to God. Whereas Abel brought from the firstlings of the flock, even from their fat ones. The very best, here we see again the difference in attitude between the two, or, Abel's faith.
Quote:
Then we see that even when Cain knows he hasn't 'pleased' God, he is unwilling to put things right.
The difference between the two brothers coming forth again. I think its safe to say, from what little we know of Abel, that he would have done whatever it took to make his sacrifice acceptable to God. I still see the primary difference as being faith, for it was Abel's faith that enabled him to offer up a better sacrifice. Or it was because of his faith that Abel brought the best that he had to offer.
Lyndon |
| 2006/7/6 10:30 | Profile | RobertW Member
Joined: 2004/2/12 Posts: 4636 St. Joseph, Missouri
| Re: | | Quote:
I still see the primary difference as being faith, for it was Abel's faith that enabled him to offer up a better sacrifice. Or it was because of his faith that Abel brought the best that he had to offer.
This brings our question full circle. What does it mean to express faith? I love Ron's definition of faith as [i]right response to revelation[/i]. This is even deeper than knowledge. It is the Lord quickening something to us that we have opportunity to respond to. Sometimes that response is to 'trust' and therefore 'wait'. Sometimes that response is to 'trust' and 'obey' and that in the here and now. For what Cain did to be sin it had to involve him not responding to what he consciously knew was the Lord's will.
_________________ Robert Wurtz II
|
| 2006/7/6 10:52 | Profile |
|