Cain and Abel

[David_McQueen]

Didn't want to stop the flow of the previous blood covenant thread but had to highlight this section

[:"brown"]Now let's look at Cain & Abel. Why was Abel's sacrifice from the flock accepted & Cain's offering of fruit rejected? I believe Trumbull was correct in his application of the ancient meaning that the blood shed in Abel's sacrifice was a proxy sacrifice of himself to God, or a proxy sacrifice for himself to God. Remember #7, that "the giving of blood represents the giving of life; that the receiving of blood represents the receiving of life,...and that a divine-human inter-union" was symbolized in that sacrifice. Cain showed some respect in bringing an offering, but did not show either submission to God or accepting the life that comes from God. His sacrifice represents a way to God based on human devising. [/]

Where does scripture suggest that it was because Cain's offering was fruit?

[David_McQueen]

As such what do you make of the following

Quote:

---

NIV Commentary wrote:

The narrative of Cain and Abel teaches a lesson on the kind of worship that is pleasing to God—that which springs from a pure heart. How does the narrative teach a lesson about a pure heart? The difference between the two offerings is not explicitly drawn out by the author.

Contrary to the popular opinion that Cain’s offering was not accepted because it was not a blood sacrifice, it seems clear from the narrative that both offerings, in themselves, were acceptable—they are both described as “offerings” (GK H4966) and not “sacrifices.” Furthermore, they were both “firstfruits” offerings; thus Cain’s offering of “fruits of the soil” was as appropriate for a farmer as Abel’s “firstborn of his flock” was for a shepherd.

---

Quote:

---

IVP -- OT Commentary wrote:

The sacrifices of Cain and Abel are not depicted as addressing sin or seeking atonement. The word used designates them very generally as “gifts”—a word that is most closely associated with the grain offering later in Leviticus 2. They appear to be intended to express gratitude to God for his bounty. Therefore it is appropriate that Cain should bring an offering from the produce that he grew, for blood would not be mandatory in such an offering. It should be noted that Genesis does not preserve any record of God requesting such offerings, though he approved of it as a means of expressing thanks. Gratitude is not expressed, however, when the gift is grudgingly given, as is likely the case with Cain.

---

[Robert]

This is simple....Why make it complicated?

"Abel,... brought of the firstlings of his flock"

What does the Lamb represent? Right...Christ! So Cain, though ceremonially, was putting his trust in Christ's future doing and dying! In other words His faith was in Christ's righteousness....

"Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD."

Cain presented before the Lord the fruit of his own making! He rejected the ceremony of "the Lamb" and thereby became the world's first legalist! Cain wasn't depending on Christ's sacrifice for his "ticket"...he was depending on his own fruit!

BTW...Cain killed Abel....

Now look at what Paul states in Gal 4:28

"You brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise."

What is Paul talking about?

Go back to Gal 3:16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Those, who like Abel, are children of promise! They are depending on God's promise of salvation to all who believe....

Gal 4:29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also.

Cain [the legalist] persecuted Abel....

Paul the Pharisee [the legalist] persecuted the early Christians....

The Pharisees [legalists] persecuted Christ....

Traditional Adventists [subtle legalists] persecute....?

[archierieus]

Indeed, the sacrifice of an animal was a proxy in place of the sinner being slain. That is clear from Leviticus ch. 1 - 6. The shedding of blood was needed, because "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." With regard to Cain and Abel, I had understood that both brought gifts to God. However, Abel brought, with the thank offering, a sacrifice. I had understood this to point to the fact that, without the sacrifice and merits of Jesus Christ, our service, our best efforts, are not meritorious in the sight of God. Cain defied that, and was essentially saying that his efforts were good enough, that he didn't need a sacrifice, didn't need a Savior, because he was good enough.

Regards, Dave

[David_McQueen]

Am sorry?? Cain was a farmer, why would he offer a lamb?

I am looking at the texts in Gen 4:3-7, in fact let me paste the NKJV text.

[:"brown"]And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. 4 Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, 5 but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

6 So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” [/]

There is nothing in here to suggest that it was anything more than an offering. The Hebrew word here minchah is actually defined as a gift, offering or a non bloody sacrifice. So where do we read into this text that the bloodless lamb (is ther blood in fat) offering was representative of Christ? Which other texts directly support that notion?

Even in Heb 11:4 where the greek word is transalated sacrifice the text qualifies that God accepted Abel's gift.

So could we be reading into scripture this element of the sacrifice being like Christ when scripture does not expressly or implicity suggest that?

Also the text says God respected Abel AND his offering and did not respect Cain AND his offering so does that suggest that the phrase "if you do well", was showing the focus is more about the offeror than the the actual sacrifice?

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

Am sorry?? Cain was a farmer, why would he offer a lamb?

I am looking at the texts in Gen 4:3-7, in fact let me paste the NKJV text.

[:"brown"]And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an

offering

of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. 4 Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his

offering

, 5 but He did not respect Cain and his

offering

. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.

6 So the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7

If you do well, will you not be accepted?

And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” [/]

There is nothing in here to suggest that it was anything more than an offering. The Hebrew word here minchah is actually defined as a gift, offering or a

non bloody sacrifice.

So where do we read into this text that the bloodless lamb (is ther blood in fat) offering was representative of Christ? Which other texts directly support that notion?

Even in Heb 11:4 where the greek word is transalated sacrifice the text qualifies that God accepted Abel's gift.

So could we be reading into scripture this element of the sacrifice being like Christ when scripture does not expressly or implicity suggest that?

Also the text says God

respected Abel AND his offering

and did not

respect Cain AND his offering

so does that suggest that the phrase

"if you do well"

, was showing the focus is more about the offeror than the the actual sacrifice?

---

Along the lines of your reasoning, permit me to quote from NIDOTTE (I have excerpted from the lengthy article, rather than post the whole thing.)

"3. A completely different line of argument assumes that there was no problem with the fact that Cain offered vegetable offerings anymore than that Abel offered animal offerings. The distinction simply reflects their respective occupations, which had already been highlighted in the context (Gen 4:2). They each naturally and properly presented offerings from that which they had to offer.

Following this basic line of reasoning, some scholars argue that the reason God rejected Cain's offering was the underlying (and somewhat hidden) motives and attitudes that are betrayed in one way or another within the context of the passage. Among these scholars there are those who see Cain's hidden motives and attitudes first becoming apparent in the following context where Cain becomes angry (vv. 5-7). Others, including the present writer, perceive that the quality of the offerings themselves betrays a superiority of Abel and his offering over Cain and his offering (cf. Heb 11:4 a).

The subtleties of this narrative are most intriguing. First, the Heb. term trans. "look with favor" (sha`ah, H9120, 12x in q.; lit., gazed at) in Gen 4:4-5 seems to imply that God was particularly impressed with (i.e., paid special attention to) Abel and his offering as opposed to Cain and his offering (cf. the same vb. in Exod 5:9; Job 7:19; Isa 17:7-8; 31:1). God was "taken with" or enthusiastic about the one but not the other. It implies a relative rejection of Cain as compared to Abel, not an absolute rejection. Not only does the vb. suggest this understanding, but also the following context. God's remarks to Cain in vv. 6-7 might indicate that it was not that Cain had sinned by bringing his vegetable offering but, instead, he was in danger of sinning when he responded angrily to God's less than enthusiastic response to him and his offering (Spina, 321-23).

A second subtlety in the narrative is the lack of any indication regarding how they knew that God looked with favor on one man and his offering but not the other. Unlike the standard LXX, which uses the G vb. «e)pei=don» (G2078), look upon (used esp. for the gods looking upon human affairs; H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1968, 614a), Th. trans. Heb. sha`ah with the G vb. «puro/w» (G4792), burn, suggesting that the Lord literally sent fire to consume Abel's offering upon the altar, but not Cain's (Wenham, 103; cf. e.g., Lev 9:24; Judg 6:21; 1 Kgs 18:38). This is possible. However, in this context it is just as likely that we have the Lord himself (or an angel of the Lord, as in Judg 6:11-24 and 13:2-23) actually visibly present and giving an observable response by turning to look at (i.e., gaze steadily at) one offering but not the other (cf. the expression, Num 16:15). After all, in this immediate context Gen 3:8 suggests that God habitually walked and talked with the man and woman in the garden before the Fall.

The third major subtlety of the passage has to do with the reason for God's less than enthusiastic response to Cain's offering. It is hinted at when the text states that, "Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock" (Gen 4:3 b- 4 a). The lack of descriptive terms such as "firstfruits" for Cain's offering is conspicuous for its absence in light of the description of Abel's offering as "fat portions" and "firstborn." Apparently, Cain did not take care to bring the special portions of the fruit of the ground. As noted above, his later response may reflect that he had an attitude problem from the start. In fact, Cain's response only made matters progressively worse. First, the Lord warned him about the danger that lurked in his angry jealousy (vv. 5 b- 7). Then, the Lord placed Cain under a curse for murdering his own brother (vv. 8-12 a). Third, since Cain had been a tiller of the ground and the Lord's curse now made it infertile under Cain's hand, therefore, Cain was reduced to being vulnerable as a vagrant and wanderer (vv. 12 b- 16). Finally, all this led to the building of a city, ever expanding technology, and the wickedness that came with it (vv. 17-24).

A final subtlety is found in the last verse of Gen 4, where the writer comes back to the issue of altar worship by stating that it was with the birth of Enosh, the son of Seth, that "men began to call on the name of the LORD" (v. 26 . The same expression occurs later in Gen 12:8; 13:4; 26:24 in association with altar building and worship (cf. also 1 Kgs 18:24-25, 36-38; Ps 99:6; 116:17). It seems to signify word in worship (i.e., the calling of God by name, etc.) alongside action in worship (i.e., various kinds of offerings, etc.; Westermann, 2:156-57; Wenham, 115-16, mizebeach, altar, H4640, OT sec. 6.)."

I take a different view, based on my study of the book of Leviticus. I seem to recall (without looking it up) that even the grain offerings were to be accompanied by a blood sacrifice. This principle seems consistent throughout the Testaments, and I understand the reason for it: that it is the merits of Christ's sacrifice, that make our service, and our gifts to God, acceptable.

In regard to Cain's being a farmer, as I recall, the patriarchs were farmers. Even today, typically, farmers also have livestock. Particularly in Bible times, and most particularly in the time recorded in Gen. 4, the family would need to be self-sufficient. The family was all together, there was zero trade, there was zero commerce. So, Cain, as well as Adam, being farmers, would be expected to have livestock around as well.

Even in the later, ANE period, many if not most of the Israelites were farmers, but God expected them to bring animal sacrifices as well. There was no exception made for those who were truck farmers and had no livestock.

As for 'minechah', it is used in a variety of ways. I did not want to become tedious in my excerpt from NIDOTTE, so did not include the etymology and general usage of the word. Regardless of its particular usage in this occurrence, I think that the principle earlier stated, is overriding.

Regards, Dave

[David_McQueen]

Thanks for that exhaustive reply Dave (that Nidotte is expensive isnt it?)

My position still remains the same that within the context of that scripture in Genesis and the reflection of it in Hebrews it remain to me nothing more than a literal reading of an offering from both of the guys and the underlying qualificatiton is that of Cain's attitude. Hence God's warning! I dont read into this any references from Leviticus as the demands then were thousands of years later and scripture does not infer that such a concept existed before then. But if it does I am more than willing to learn.

With regards to the concept of the blood sacrifice, which incidentally I agree with, my study on this topic came up with the term zebhah or zebach. How do you understand this?

Oh and also, do you think it was the offering, the offeror or both that mattered?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

My position still remains the same that within the context of that scripture in Genesis...

---

Gen 3:21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.

Where did God get these "skins"?

This might be a clue! Perhaps these "skins" were the byproduct of some sacrificial system God had instituted after the fall?

For what it’s worth, EGW:

Cain came before God with murmuring and infidelity in his heart in regard to the promised sacrifice and the necessity of the sacrificial offerings. His gift expressed no penitence for sin. He felt, as many now feel, that it would be an acknowledgment of weakness to follow the exact plan marked out by God, of trusting his salvation wholly to the atonement of the promised Saviour. He chose the course of self-dependence. He would come in his own merits. He would not bring the lamb, and mingle its blood with his offering, but would present his fruits, the products of his labor….

Cain and Abel represent two classes that will exist in the world till the close of time. One class avail themselves of the appointed sacrifice for sin; the other venture to depend upon their own Merits; theirs is a sacrifice without the virtue of divine mediation, and thus it is not able to bring man into favor with God. It is only through the merits of Jesus that our transgressions can be pardoned. Those who feel no need of the blood of Christ, who feel that without divine grace they can by their own works secure the approval of God, are making the same mistake as did Cain. [PP, 72, 73]

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

With regards to the concept of the blood sacrifice, which incidentally I agree with, my study on this topic came up with the term zebhah or zebach. How do you understand this?

---

zabach and zebach1 were, indeed, among the words translated as 'sacrifice.' Permit me to excerpt NIDOTTE as to their use in the OT. I have not included the well-researched etymological survey, or their usage in the ANE, or post-OT, for purposes of brevity:

"OT 1. The zebach1 was "a sacrifice of slaughtered sheep, goat or cattle to create communion between the god to whom the sacrifice is made and the partners of the sacrifice, and communion between the partners themselves" (HALOT 262). Much of the ANE cognate literature as well as internal OT usage supports this understanding of the term and the ritual institution to which it refers.

Canonically, the root zabach occurs first as a means of concluding or ratifying the covenant commitment between Jacob and Laban in Gen 31:54 a, "He (Jacob) offered (zabach) a sacrifice (nom. zebach1) there in the hill country and invited his relatives (Laban, etc.) to a meal." The only other occurrence in Gen is 46:1, "So Israel set out with all that was his, and when he reached Beersheba, he offered (zabach) sacrifices (nom. zebach1) to the God of his father Isaac," possibly as a means of dream incubation: "And God spoke to Israel in a vision at night and said, 'Jacob! Jacob!' 'Here I am,' he replied" (46:2; see also 1 Kgs 3:4-5, where the vb. zabach is used but the action is to offer up burnt offerings, not zebach1, cf. 2 Chron 1:6 and possibly also 1 Kgs 9:1-3). Before Sinai this root continues to be used in general for sacrifices to the Lord (Exod 3:18; 5:3, 8, 17; 8:8 [4], 26-29 [22-25]; 10:25) and, specifically, for the "Passover sacrifice" (Heb. zebach1 pesach, Exod 12:27).

At Sinai, before and/or during the construction of the tabernacle and its altar, such sacrifices were offered for the celebration with Jethro, Moses' father-in-law (Exod 18:12), and for the illegitimate calf festival in 32:8 (cf. 34:15). The law, in fact, included regulations for such sacrifices to continue at solitary altars even after the tabernacle had been constructed (20:24, "Make an altar of earth for me and sacrifice [zabach] on it your burnt offerings [`olah1, H6592] and fellowship offerings [shelem, H8968]"; see the full discussion under mizebeach, H4640, in contrast to, e.g., TDOT 4:21-29). Numerous references to this practice can be found in the historical books referring to legitimate sacrifices to the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam 6:15; 9:12-13; 16:2-5; 20:6, 29), illegitimate sacrifices to the Lord (e.g., 1 Sam 15:15, 21-22; 2 Kgs 16:15), and sacrifices to other gods (e.g., Judg 16:23; 2 Kgs 10:19, 24).

For a full discussion of legitimate worship at solitary altars in the OT even after the tabernacle and the temple had been established see mizebeach (H4640), and for the historical reality of a system of sacrifice external to the sanctuary as opposed to the one that functioned within the sanctuary (i.e., the tabernacle and the temple), see the general article on "Offerings and Sacrifices." The issue arises primarily in relation to the centralization of the sanctuary in Deut 12 and, in specific, zabach in 12:6, 11, 15, 21, 27. zabach is used in vv. 6, 11, and 27 for sacrifices offered at the central sanctuary, but vv. 15 and 21 use it when referring to profane slaughter, "Nevertheless (i.e., in spite of the concern for centralized worship after there is rest in the land, vv. 9-14), you may slaughter (zabach) your animals in any of your towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean may eat it" (cf. below).

2. The vb. occurs 134x in the OT, 112x in q. and 22x in pi. The basic meaning of the q. vb. is to slaughter. There are a few cases in which it might refer to nonsacral slaughtering of animals (e.g., Num 22:40; Deut 12:15, 21; 1 Sam 28:24; 1 Kgs 19:21; see HALOT 262), but this has been disputed (Milgrom, 1976, 2-3, 13-17; Ezek 34:3 seems to be the only clear instance of nonsacral zabach). Milgrom, in fact, argues that in Deut 12:15 and 21 the point of using the vb. zabach was to clarify the fact that the actual slaughtering of the animal was to be done in the same manner as that performed in the sanctuary (ibid., 14-15; cf. shachat1, slaughter, H8821). In any case, the overwhelming pattern of usage for zabach is undoubtedly sacred slaughter, whether individual or communal sacrifices, and whether legitimate, illegitimate, or idolatrous.

The pi. can refer to multiple legitimate sacrifices (i.e., the iterative pi.; 1 Kgs 8:5; 2 Chron 5:6; 30:22), but is most often used for illegitimate Yahwistic worship (e.g., 1 Kgs 3:2-3), or idolatrous worship (e.g., 11:8; see the discussion in Milgrom, 1976, 2; Snaith, 1975, 243-44. who suggests a privative pi. in such cases, in which case the vb. itself means to slaughter illegitimately).

3. The vb. is, therefore, used almost exclusively of slaughter for a communal sacrificial meal (see above), but it is also used: (a) for sacrificing children to idols (Ps 106:37; Ezek 16:20), ( metaphorically, for slaying idolatrous priests on their own altars (1 Kgs 13:2 with 2 Kgs 23:20), and © metaphorically, for slaughtering the rebellious nations in judgment as a feast for the scavenger birds (Ezek 39:17-19; see also probably Zeph 1:7-8, which seems to include the Day of the Lord judgment on rebellious Judah; cf. also Rev 19:17-21 below; cf. also the nom. in the same way, Isa 34:6; Jer 46:10).

The most frequent objects of the vb. are the animal victims of sacrifice (e.g., Num 22:40; 1 Kgs 8:63) and the cognate nom. zebach1 (e.g., Gen 31:54; 46:1; Lev 17:5; Deut 33:19), but in one case it takes an unusual compound object: "sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and fellowship offerings" (Exod 20:24). Burnt offerings were, by nature, not slaughtered for communal meals (see `olah1, H6592). It is possible that, since the two objects are so close together in this verse, it was felt appropriate to simply let the vb. for one do double service for both. Moreover, there seems to have been a slight tendency to use zebach1 and/or zabach as a general term for offering (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 3:4 and 1 Chron 1:6, OT sec. 1), much like the common present-day lumping together of the various offerings and sacrifices under the heading of "sacrifices."

4. The nom. occurs first in Exod 24:5 in the combination zebachim shelamim, sacrifices, peace (fellowship) offerings, as a category of offerings used to ratify the Mosaic covenant (cf. also 1 Sam 11:15 for the exact same combination). Similarly, there are numerous instances of the sing. or pl. of zebach1 standing in construct to shelamim, apparently meaning sacrifice(s) of peace offering(s) (see, e.g., in the sing. const. Lev 3:1, 3, 6, 9, etc., and in the pl. Exod 29:28; Lev 7:32, 34; etc.). This suggests that the shelamim, peace offering, was a variety of zebach1, sacrifice, (Milgrom, 1991, 218). The actual implications that one derives from this combination depends on how one views the term shelamim as a sacrificial term: Does it refer to personal or communal well-being, communion, fellowship, or peace, or could it mean, for example, concluding offering (shelem, H8968).

5. There was a custom of the pious in ancient Israel to practice regularly "the annual sacrifice to the LORD" (1 Sam 1:21; cf. also 2:19; 20:6, 29) for the "whole clan" (20:6; cf. chs. 1-2, and possibly also 9:12-13; Amos 4:4; TDOT 4:21-22). It seems to have been practiced in other areas of the ANE as well (see above). This was normally a time of both solemn worship and joyous celebration before the Lord. The problems between Hannah and Peninnah regarding Hannah's barrenness spoiled the party in 1 Sam 1 (note that Elkanah was a pious Levite who lived in Ephraim; cf. 1 Sam 1:1 with 1 Chron 6:28, 33-34).

It was important to avoid "a house full of feasting (zebach1), with strife (rib1, H8189 and H8190)" (Prov 17:1 and "sacrifices offered to lifeless gods" (lit., "sacrifices of the dead," Ps 106:28; cf. Deut 26:14), such as those engaged at Baal Peor, which provoked the Lord to anger (Ps 106:29; cf. Num 25). Instead, the people should offer "sacrifices of righteousness" (Deut 33:19; Ps 4:5 [6]; 51:19 [21]). There are four proposed interpretations of this last expression: (a) sacrifices "offered in righteousness by the righteous" (BDB, 257b), ( "correct sacrifices" (HALAT 262b), © "sacrifices of victory" (see the summary of arguments and literature cited in Levine, 1974, 135), and (d) "slain offerings given as a rightful gift" (i.e., that which is rightfully claimed by the Lord from what the Israelites have; ibid., 135-37).

When sacrifices (zebach1) or peace (fellowship) offerings (shelamim) or both together occur as a pair with burnt offerings (`olah1), the combination focuses on two primary and complementary aspects of the overall sacrificial system both in the sanctuary and at solitary altars; namely, gift and communion, respectively ("Offerings and Sacrifices" for a full discussion)."

Quote:

---

Oh and also, do you think it was the offering, the offeror or both that mattered?

---

Ahh, Genesis, the book of beginnings! All of the great issues of salvation, and of the Bible, are found in the first few chapters of Genesis! This story of Cain and Abel is a [true] allegory of two classes of people. The first class, represented by Cain, are those who trust in their own works, as the quote provided by Robert so aptly described them. The second class in the allegory, are those who recognize their need of a Savior. The difference in this allegory, appears in their choice of an offering. Cain trusted in his works, in the fruit of his labor, as being sufficient. Abel acknowledged his need of a Savior. THAT, I submit, is the lesson of the allegory. That is why this account is given space in the few chapters which cover thousands of years of human history. I am reminded of the words of an old hymn:

"Not the labors of my hands can fulfill Thy law's demands; Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, All for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and Thou alone."

Regards, Dave

[David_McQueen]

Robert

I dont place the same emphasis on EGW writings as maybe you or others do, so my position on this is only what scripture reveals. Not anything additional.

With regards to the skins being a by product of a sacrificial system, that is just an assumption, which I chose not to read into scripture.

Dave,

Thanks for the NIDOTTE excerpt, I have copied it to the local disk for offline reading. I take it that your answer was the emphasis was about the offeror.

Thanks

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

Robert

I don’t place the same emphasis on EGW writings as maybe you or others do, so my position on this is only what scripture reveals. Not anything additional.

---

No...EGW is not the measuring stick of truth, but I do believe she was gifted. I used her simply to back what I already believed from the Bible....

Quote:

---

With regards to the skins being a by product of a sacrificial system, that is just an assumption, which I chose not to read into scripture.

---

Do you have a better assumption? Look at Gen 12:7....The Lord has just called Abram out from his father's home. Look at what the new convert Abram does:

"So he built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him."

"Alter"?

Now go to Gen 22:1 Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 And He said, “Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.”

Let's skip to my point:

7 And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” And he said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?” 8 And Abraham said, “God will provide for Himself the lamb for the burnt offering, my son.”

As far as I know that's the first time we hear of sacrificing a lamb as a burnt offering! Apparently this had been done before, huh? Common sense tells me that....

Where did they learn of such things? Answer: God!

Just because it wasn't recorded doesn't mean God didn't institute this system.

Rob

[David_McQueen]

Quote:

---

Just because it wasn't recorded doesn't mean God didn't institute this system.

---

On that premise there is a whole lot of things we could read into scripture that aint there. All I am saying in this context I would rather not make that assumption about the skins for Adam and Eve, without something to support it, but if it works for you then....hey!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

Quote:

---

Just because it wasn't recorded doesn't mean God didn't institute this system.

---

On that premise there is a whole lot of things we could read into scripture that aint there. All I am saying in this context I would rather not make that assumption about the skins for Adam and Eve, without something to support it, but if it works for you then....hey!

---

Do you have a better educated assumption? Apparently someone introduced this system! That's just common sense....When? Most likely after the fall....

[David_McQueen]

You are funny!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

You are funny!

---

[Dr. Shane]

The assumption that Able sacrificed a lamb and Cain sacrificed fruit is much like the assumption that Moses died, was resurected and went to heaven. There are several biblical reasons to believe both of these but if someone needs a "thus saith the Lord" it isn't there.

[cricket]

Not theological, not even deep, really: Wouldn't the lamb be considered sacrificed because it was killed? Otherwise, it could have been given as an offering...as in, "Here God, I've got a nice pet for you!"

[Robert]

Good point....My banana doesn't get upset if I eat it, but my dog might!

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

[ I take it that your answer was the emphasis was about the offeror.

---

The offerors' respective attitudes determined their offerings. I would say that both the attitude and the choice of offering were significant.

[David_McQueen]

Shane

There is no need for an assumption to be made about the offerings. Scripture is explicit.

Cricket

The lamb was not a sacrifice, even though it was killed. Scripture says:

[:"brown"]And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering[/]

Robert,

Each offering/sacrifice has its relevance. Whether a banana or a lamb. Surely Nahab and Abihu give testament to that!

Dave

Thanks for that clarity.

[Clio]

There appears to be more than a single lesson to be learned from the story of Cain and Abel.

There are the surface lessons, which we begin teaching to our little ones in Cradle Roll, then there are the stronger lessons of the "meat of the Scripture" after the milk of early lessons has been outgrown.

Abba's word is always multi-faceted. Learn from each facet according to how His Spirit leads.

Clio

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

There is no need for an assumption to be made about the offerings. Scripture is explicit.

---

Many theologens disagree and we can agree to disagree. However we ought not say, "You are wrong and I am right" when Scripture does not speak clearly about an issue.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

[W]e can agree to disagree. However we ought not say, "You are wrong and I am right" when Scripture does not speak clearly about an issue.

---

I agree!

[David_McQueen]

I prefer to bow out of a dialogue before that happens...but are you saying that theologians disagree that it was an offering rather than a sacrifice?