Yea, we are back up and running after a long overdue hiatus. Things are a little crazy around the Osborne household lately; however, we had a very interesting conversation last week at church surrounding Cain and Abel. The question being this: why did God accept Abel's sacrifice over Cain's? There are several 'legitimate' options that have been proposed.
(1) It was a blood sacrifice. This is the most anachronistic of all the answers. There are several problems with this. First, where does it say a blood sacrifice was required? Was it a sin offering? Second, there is nothing in the text that merits any such conclusion.
(2) The ground was cursed. Interestingly five times in Gen 1-11 the word 'cursed' is used and one of the instances refers to the ground (3:17). So obviously since the ground was cursed, so was Cain's sacrifice, right?
(3) The Sovereignty answer. God just chose Abel's. This is in the same vein in Genesis in which God just chose Jacob over Esau. The Expositor's states that God chose Abel's in order for Cain to learn and see how he would deal with God choosing Abel's. Just a far stretch for me.
(4) It was based on character. Obviously Hebrews tells us that Abel's sacrifice was offered in faith, which implies that Cain's was not. Also, 1 John declares that Cain was wicked and Abel righteous.
So I have listed them in descending order in my mind, but the bigger question to ask here is how the narrative fits in Genesis. Obviously Moses did not consider it of great importance to tell us why, but he was concerned with what the story taught about humanity. After the 'good' creation in Genesis 1, of which man was crowned the climax to rule as God's viceregents over this good creation, Moses moves to what life looked like while man was still fulfilling his responsibility in Genesis 2. Genesis 3 declared man's inability to continue this task because of their sinful choice. So now man must die. Sin is crouching at the door ready to destroy them (4:7). Therefore, in chapter 4 Moses is concerned with declaring what sin has done to creation. It is so pervasive in humanity that God's highest creation are murdering their own brothers. So chapter 4 is showing the wicked effects of sin upon God' creation.
About Me
- Scott Osborne
- Married to my beautiful wife Chelle, Father of two crazy girls--Madelyn, Elanna and a boy--Owen. Pastoring a small yet growing church in Chesapeake, while teaching full time at a Christian School and finishing a Th.M in OT.
11 comments:
Scott, I think the second answer is the most intriguing, and, while maybe (probably?) true, I think the first answer may the correct one, anachronistic or not. Consider that the Torah was composed/edited by one person at any one time, and that person was out to paint a cohesive picture of the state of Israel at their juncture, whether it was Joshua tidying up Moses' collection of Oral Tradition, or Ezra patching things up further. They were out to vindicate what God had done with Israel, and give history to the traditions and laws that were to govern their lives. If we posit this sort of authorial intent, then we don't necessarily need an immediate reason to be stated for why God accepted Able's sacrifice over Cains, because there's a good chance that either, 1. the people would have immediately understood why, or 2. the compiler/editor would explain later. It could be either of these, and we'd arrive at the same conclusion, for the people being written to had an elaborate system of blood sacrifices given to them from God, and the later books of the Torah do explain that blood sacrifices were what the Lord required. I think it would have been obvious to the original audience why God accepted Able's sacrifice; and if not, then leviticus and deuteronomy would have cleared things up.
But I think, regarding your final comments, you're right about the purpose of chapter 4: to show how deeply corrupt the curse made humanity.
David, I'm with you. The author of Hebrews said that Abel's sacrifice was accepted because of faith -- but throughout the chapter he makes clear what true faith is, namely, looking ahead to the Messiah and his benefits. Abel had faith, i.e., he saw the gospel truth of the Messiah's sacrifice in the symbolic act of offering up a lamb. Remember that these all (including Abel) saw the promises afar off, by faith (Heb. 11:13).
Just my two cents' worth, but in order to make the charge of anachronism, we have to give definite reasons to limit any understanding of the realities in question to a later period. And not only do I see no reason to do that, but when I see the NT make observations about the level of Messianic knowledge that the OT saints had, it seems unexceptionally to be more than we might have supposed from a naturalistic reading of the OT text (remember, "Abraham saw my day"?).
I also like your point about Lev. clearing things up -- Moses did write the whole Pentateuch as an entire, self-interpretive volume.
So that's my take...
While I have to agree with the previous two post in part, I would like to further specify my opinion on this discussion.
First, although the full context of the Torah supports the acceptance of Abel's sacrifice over Cain's, the immediate context as painted by the redactor is supplies sufficient evidence to understand the YHWH's acceptance of one sacrifice over another. As has already been stated, the "earth" was cursed b/c of the fall, so now what was sourced in it would be cursed also. Also, YHWH already had supplied a blood sacrifice to provide a covering for humanities nakedness (a symbol for their fallen state, cf. Noah narrative). It would seem then reasonable to understand the redactor already foreshadowing a conflict in sacrifice from the ground versus from blood.
With this understanding, the natural reading of the story has already painted the scene of God's way, i.e. blood sacrifice, versus Man's way, i.e. the cursed earth of our father Adam. So, contra David, we have an immediate contextual support for why YHWH accepted one sacrifice over another. Furthermore, the subsequent context merely re-inforces this postulation by demonstrating the line of faith, i.e. the line of Abraham, can be traced back via the narration to Abel. I do concur with David though that the coherent unit of the Torah adds reciprical support to this theory.
Second, and briefly, the canonical reading of the text, viz. the fuller reading with the NT passages, devulges the inner knowledge and understanding of the OT saints, per Pitchford. Although this was implicit in the Torah, e.g. proto-evangelicum, necessity of a telic-sacrifice in Lev., etc., the NT solidifies and elaborates our suspision about their understanding.
I hope this added to the dialogue.
In Christ, God speed.
Alright boys, let me set you both straight! Number three is the correct answer. Both Cain and Abel brought a worthy offering to their Lord. God sovereignly looked at both worthy offerings and choose one and not the other. "He was apparently less concerned about Cain's offering than He was Cain's response to the Lord's rejection of His offering. Whatever the cause of God's rejection of Cain's offering, the narrative itself focuses our attention to Cain's response." (Sailhamer)
God is teaching mankind that He is the sovereign One and they will need to learn to respond to His sovereign choices appropriately. God follows this same "choosing throughout the Bible to continue to show us His control and what our response to it should be. This story seems to be the earliest showing if it.
Hey Guys, great discussion so far, and we have an advocate for all the views. I guess I want to elaborate more on my view--#4.
(1) I agree that Moses can add more understanding to this event later in his writings, in fact, I think he does. Just not in the way that the blood sacrifice theory proposes.
(2) I agree with Josh, never thought I would say that, that the focus in on Cain's response. However, Moses is focused on the fact that Cain's offering was not accepted because of the inner-reality of Cain's wicked heart. For the Hebrews just entering the promised land, Moses wants his audience to understand that not every sacrifice is acceptable to God. In fact, only those offered with a broken and contrite heart are those which are accepted. So inherently nothing was wrong with Cain's sacrifice. Moses wanted his fellow Israelites to know that God wants faith and trust above mere sacrifices.
(2) The whole blood sacrifice needs to be abandoned. There are other sacrifices in the Pentateuch that were offered to God and accepted by Him that were not blood related. For example, the grain offering. So what if God accepted Cain's and not Abel's would we propose it was because Abel's was not grain and food and crops? Also, there is nothing in the text, or NT text that speaks of an illegitimate sacrifice. In fact, for one the word 'offering' is used not sacrifice and, two, Moses declares that both brought their best. The NT also only alludes to the character of the two brothers and never on the sacrifice.
All in all, you're all wrong! Repent, especially you Rusty!! Just kidding. You all let me know my great methodological errors.
Wow, something for everyone!
I'm troubled, however, with the fact that if the reason for God's acceptance of Able's sacrifice was based on either, the cursed earth used to make Cain's veggies, or what He foresaw of Cain's bad attitude, then why don't we hear anything more of those themes later in the texts? Foreseen bad responses? Cursed fruit of the ground? I just don't see them as major themes throughout the rest of the Torah, whereas my humble, anachronistic reading, of the blood sacrifice theme, reappears all over the place. I still think that when an OT Jew read the cain-able story, it was self-evident to him why God accepted Able's: the blood. They lived in a blood-sacrifice world, grains and such notwithstanding.
Wow! Where to start? I will attempt to keep my responses in brevity.
Josh: Not to overstate my case here, but I believe you to be wrong in part. I do concur that God's sovereign choice was involved, yet this occured far before the time of sacrifice. Actually, I would posit that this was the formal cause of their actions. This is a simple extrapolation from the NT doctrines of both faith as a gift from God and Able had faith. Ergo, God gave Able faith so that he could please Him. So, the sovereign choice was to grant one the faith to respond in a way pleasing to Him, i.e. making the right offering.
Scott: First, you repent that you agreed with Josh. Second, your point is well taken, viz. that the character of the two players was the cause behind God's apporval of one and disapproval of another. I believe that you have the causations confussed though. The character of the two players was the instrument whereby they demonstrated a right response to YHWH's example, Able brought the best of the fat of an animal (just like YHWH had slain an animal) and Cain brought the best of his veggies (thank's Dave - which came out of the ground YHWH just cursed). Faith and works are so conjoined that to seperate the two would seem impossible in this case. So, Able's sacrifice was accepted b/c he not only made it in faith (Final Causation) but also b/c it was the right sacrifice that came out of a right character (Intrumental Causation). The author was demonstrating that right character will result in right actions. So in short, Rusty is right!
David: I believe that I am in agreement concerning the blood-sacrifice bit, i.e. the theme throughout the patriarchs was always a sacrifice of an animal (Abe's Covenant). Although I do not believe that the ground is inherently evil, the immediate context does demonstrate the insufficency of the plant-world due to such things as 1)the flora utilized to cover Adam's "giblets" 2) the cursing of the "earth." While I do concede then to the overwhelming evidence of the "blood-sacrifice theme," this is merely enhanced by the "cursed - earth" motif in this brief story-arc.
I hope this made sense. I apologize in advance for any sp or grammar errors. I have loved this dialogue. Finally, some guys who are really, "Sharpening Iron!"
Russell,
Good call on the whole causality/dependence thing.
What I'm coming to see is that trying to limit the reason of acceptance/non-acceptance to one of the above may be the wrong approach. Perhaps there are multiple valid answers, and the real question is, how do those options which have some degree of legitimacy relate to each other.
Thanks for the thoughts everyone -- they're bringing to my attention things I hadn't thought of before.
Scott, Is it really possible that all of this came from the first time I preached His word ?
The message was titled "Improper Heart For God" I have no real Bible education to speak of so I had solely to rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit in the birth of this message. There lies my credentials. Later my oldest son Josh helped me to see that I had up to five messages rolled into one and helped me to better focus on the original thoughts and original scripture that "He" had placed in my head. How sweet to have my oldest son help me and be apart of this first, this blessing. The message began with a brief explanation of the possibilities why Cain's offering was not accepted and then clearly stated that I did not know, could be one or more of these reasons. What was important was "not" the reason but rather Cain's improper heart for God which in itself could be the reason. I then compared to a time in my own life working for years with two bus kids that up and moved away without warning or trace. I "responded" improperly by questioning our Lord in this. Why have you done this ? Don't I at least get to know where they are ?The comparison between myself and Cain was "our" improper responses to Gods ways that originated from improper hearts. I then challenged my audience's questioning of His ways as rooted in their hearts. Most of the church came forward and cried and got on their knees before a Holy God and allowed Him to deal with their hearts. In this first message His Spirit led me to divide His word in simplicity based on my sharp limitations but delivered from my repentive heart. He used this to draw His creation closer to Himself. So, in the message that potentially began all this great discussion, He did not lead me to "the reason" but rather had me compare and point to their hearts. Greg Jones
Grace and peace to you all in the name of the Lord. This text about Abel and Cain should teach us believers that God in eternity past Chose the elect and predestined them unto life and the result of this throughout history, is that the elect show the fruits of faith accordingly to the will of God. Here this demonstration of Faith was the blood sacrifice with Isreal in Egypt was blood on the door and so on. Equally the reprobate never display true Faith but half hearted response to God if non at all. How surprising to note that God showed Isreal how to avoid death but the Egyptians were slaughtered. It seems to me God is never obligated to show the reprobate the way of life. Ultimately anyway the reprobate are never given the spirit that they may believe and still God holds them accountable for their sinfull lives. We however like Abel Christ is held accountable for our sins. Whether God showed Cain the way of life or not he does not pass the test but obviously this must have been taught to Abel.
Post a Comment