Cain's Offering

[49]

Yes ... only one offered "through faith".

With so little to go on in just a few short verses from their birth to Abel's death, was not able to comprehend. Thank you.

 

[49]

Hi 49, as Dino246 said, a more modern translation would help facilitate one's understanding of the passage.

NIV Genesis 4:1-7 1Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also brought an offering-fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."

I personally understand the passage to state that first, Cain's offering was not the first-fruits or quality, or of the right prescription from God i.e. it was an unsatisfactory or deficient offering to God, showing contempt. Whereas Abel chose the best that he had to offer. (as reneweddaybyday brought up Heb. 11:4, I couldn't agree more).
Secondly, God warned Cain that sin was crouching at his door, meaning due to his downcast face, God could tell what Cain had in mind i.e. take revenge on Abel.
Thirdly, due to God's perception of Cain's intent, he, in a just and fair manner, both warns him of the evil that is eagerly (desires to have you) knocking at his door, and gives him the means to resist i.e, assures him that it is within him to circumvent what he is about to do, that is, kill Abel.

Thank you. Will read other versions. Things just are not clear to me.

 

[garee]

Don’t do it. Stick with the KJV. You know it’s not that difficult.

The Niv offered a few post above would seem to dismiss "him" in the KJ. . . the father of lies and therefore exchange "him" with "it". . . which is the result of the father of lies ruling as the god of this world.

Sort of like did God say you shall not?

 

[49]

You can’t see this in the KJV? Read it again.

Have read several times with no understanding/comprehension, which is what led me to ask the questions asked. Having grown up in a church, was rebellious and missed a lot. Paying for it now though!

Thank you John.

 

[49]

I will address your first question. Genesis 4:7 holds the key

Genesis 4:7 says, “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.

When we read Hebrews 11 account, we are left with concluding that Abel had faith in God while Cain did not. But faith in the context of Genesis 4:7 merely means doing well. It is believing God by bringing the correct sacrifice as God instructed.

Cain had no valid reason for growing very angry. God had rejected his bloodless sacrifice, true, but God had already told him what to bring. Cain deliberately brought what he wanted. Sinful Cain had no justification for frowning, feeling mistreated and acting disappointed. Remember, like his brother Abel, he could have done what God commanded. Cain could have come to God, God’s way, and God would have accepted him as He had Abel.

Thank you! So it was revealed in later scripture that Cain knew what was expected and what to bring! And makes sense. God required blood offerings of His people, and one can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

[49]

Correct. Missed that verse. My mistake.

So how should it be interpreted? The only interpretation according to the Gospel is that Cain (and all humans) are being told that the sin nature desires to dominate you, but you should have dominion over it. But only those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit have this power.

Now that I can understand! So all along, Cain was understood what was expected, but was in sin and "lazy" to bring an acceptable offering?

 

[Guojing]

Thank you! So it was revealed in later scripture that Cain knew what was expected and what to bring! And makes sense. God required blood offerings of His people, and one can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Yes, as Hebrews 11 explained, without faith it was impossible to please God.

Faith in God in every time period is based on believing what God said. It was his grace that he gave us instructions on how to approach him, and we show our faith by following those instructions precisely:

• When God required an animal sacrifice, we show our faith by bringing an animal sacrifice .
• When God required us to follow the Law, we show our faith by following the law.
• When God required physical circumcision, we show our faith by getting circumcised.
• When God required us to be water baptized, we show our faith by getting water baptized.

But now, we show our faith by following what God told Paul to instruct us, by ceasing from all works, and believing in his Son's death burial and resurrection as the sufficient means of salvation. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

 

[DB7]

The Niv offered a few post above would seem to dismiss "him" in the KJ. . . the father of lies and therefore exchange "him" with "it". . . which is the result of the father of lies ruling as the god of this world.

Sort of like did God say you shall not?

Hi 49, I hope that you see how clear the NIV, for example, made the pericope become? Other newer translations will do the same. KJV is a very good translation, but I think that you just recognized some of its shortcomings. I think that Gen 4:1-7 is a prime example of the deficiency in the use of the archaic language.
And more so, I hope that you see the fanaticism and irrationality that it elicits in the KJV onlyists!
I say this as a strong warning 49, there is not a sound argument under the sun that can support the beliefs of the KJV Onlyists. Don't inadvertently mock God by stating that in 1611, the KJV authors were inspired to eventually, and finally, preserve God's Word.
Use the KJV in balance with other translations, that's all I can say.

 

[DB7]

Don’t do it. Stick with the KJV. You know it’s not that difficult.

Do it 49, don't stick with KJV only!
You just saw how difficult that it was. It was almost impossible to render the same interpretation that the NIV offered (amongst many other newer translations that use the older and more reliable manuscripts).
Just to emphasize the irrationality that the KJVO use in supporting their beliefs, is that even when there's a discrepancy in the Greek manuscript vs the KJV, which the KJV was derived from, they allow the KJV to take precedence. Need I say anymore (trust me, I can if necessary)? I believe that it was Dr. James White that stated this, but I forget where (if need be, i'll try and find it)
There is absolutely no English translation that is inspired, even the 40 authors of the KJV would've told you that. Only the original Greek manuscripts were inspired i.e. the autographs, that which left the inspired writers hand, which was before 100 ad.
Do it 49, don't stick with KJV only, there is no scholarly argument to justify it!

 

[49]

Yes, as Hebrews 11 explained, without faith it was impossible to please God.

Faith in God in every time period is based on believing what God said. It was his grace that he gave us instructions on how to approach him, and we show our faith by following those instructions precisely:

• When God required an animal sacrifice, we show our faith by bringing an animal sacrifice .
• When God required us to follow the Law, we show our faith by following the law.
• When God required physical circumcision, we show our faith by getting circumcised.
• When God required us to be water baptized, we show our faith by getting water baptized.

But now, we show our faith by following what God told Paul to instruct us, by ceasing from all works, and believing in his Son's death burial and resurrection as the sufficient means of salvation. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

And this I can live with!
Was just so sure that I was taking something out of context, but it was just the way it was translated?

 

[49]

Hi 49, I hope that you see how clear the NIV, for example, made the pericope become? Other newer translations will do the same. KJV is a very good translation, but I think that you just recognized some of its shortcomings. I think that Gen 4:1-7 is a prime example of the deficiency in the use of the archaic language.
And more so, I hope that you see the fanaticism and irrationality that it elicits in the KJV onlyists!
I say this as a strong warning 49, there is not a sound argument under the sun that can support the beliefs of the KJV Onlyists. Don't inadvertently mock God by stating that in 1611, the KJV authors were inspired to eventually, and finally, preserve God's Word.
Use the KJV in balance with other translations, that's all I can say.

As a mater of fact, it did make it clearer! Thank you again.

 

[49]

Do it 49, don't stick with KJV only!
You just saw how difficult that it was. It was almost impossible to render the same interpretation that the NIV offered (amongst many other newer translations that use the older and more reliable manuscripts).
Just to emphasize the irrationality that the KJVO use in supporting their beliefs, is that even when there's a discrepancy in the Greek manuscript vs the KJV, which the KJV was derived from, they allow the KJV to take precedence. Need I say anymore (trust me, I can if necessary)? I believe that it was Dr. James White that stated this, but I forget where (if need be, i'll try and find it)
There is absolutely no English translation that is inspired, even the 40 authors of the KJV would've told you that. Only the original Greek manuscripts were inspired i.e. the autographs, that which left the inspired writers hand, which was before 100 ad.
Do it 49, don't stick with KJV only, there is no scholarly argument to justify it!

And believe I will!
Grew up in a fundamental Baptist church, and the KJV 1611 was the only accepted source of God's Word. Was confusing to say the least! However, being taught that other versions were 'misleading', and other denominations 'false', with the corruption and hypocrisy prevalent in that church, at 17 I joined the military and did not look back. Now at 53, am more confused than ever.

Thank you all for your input, and God bless!

 

[DB7]

And believe I will!
Grew up in a fundamental Baptist church, and the KJV 1611 was the only accepted source of God's Word. Was confusing to say the least! However, being taught that other versions were 'misleading', and other denominations 'false', with the corruption and hypocrisy prevalent in that church, at 17 I joined the military and did not look back. Now at 53, am more confused than ever.

Thank you all for your input, and God bless!

Absolute pleasure 49, ...glad to see that instinctively, you saw it for yourself!
Hopefully you're now on your way to enlightenment, just as we are all trying to become less confused about the profundity of God's Word.
Best of luck, God bless!

 

[garee]

Yes, as Hebrews 11 explained, without faith it was impossible to please God.

Faith in God in every time period is based on believing what God said. It was his grace that he gave us instructions on how to approach him, and we show our faith by following those instructions precisely:

• When God required an animal sacrifice, we show our faith by bringing an animal sacrifice .
• When God required us to follow the Law, we show our faith by following the law.
• When God required physical circumcision, we show our faith by getting circumcised.
• When God required us to be water baptized, we show our faith by getting water baptized.

But now, we show our faith by following what God told Paul to instruct us, by ceasing from all works, and believing in his Son's death burial and resurrection as the sufficient means of salvation. (1 Cor 15:1-4)

Faith coming from God is based on believing what God said. With out the faith of Christ working in us it is impossible to please God. It does not come from our own imagination. natural man has no faith not little none. The faith of Christ that works in us. . it alone comes from hearing God not seen .The imaginations of the heart of man is not a source for believing God .But one for believing self.

Animal sacrifices were not a must as a moral law. The same with circumcision or water baptism they are called ceremonial laws as shadows of the things to come used as a parable, hiding the unseen spiritual understanding, the gospel.

 

[49]

Absolute pleasure 49, ...glad to see that instinctively, you saw it for yourself!
Hopefully you're now on your way to enlightenment, just as we are all trying to become less confused about the profundity of God's Word.
Best of luck, God bless!

Amen! Do not believe God intended for His Word to be confusing; do believe that being out of church has not helped, either.
God bless, and thank you.

 

[49]

Faith coming from God is based on believing what God said. With out the faith of Christ working in us it is impossible to please God. It does not come from our own imagination. natural man has no faith not little none. The faith of Christ that works in us. . it alone comes from hearing God not seen .The imaginations of the heart of man is not a source for believing God .

Amen!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Now that I can understand! So all along, Cain was understood what was expected, but was in sin and "lazy" to bring an acceptable offering?

*Lazy* may not be appropriate, but *self-centered* may be more appropriate. Since his agricultural efforts were by the sweat of his brow, he figured that all that hard work would pay off. That is the same as works-based salvation, where so many assumed that they could be justified by the works of the Law. Cain may also have been rationalistic in that he may have questioned the efficacy of bringing animal sacrifices to God.

Abel -- on the other hand -- simply believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. And his faith caused him to bring the firstlings of his flock to God (without spot or blemish), shed their blood, and make them a whole burnt offering (a sin offering).
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. (Heb 11:4).

 

[49]

*Lazy* may not be appropriate, but *self-centered* may be more appropriate. Since his agricultural efforts were by the sweat of his brow, he figured that all that hard work would pay off. That is the same as works-based salvation, where so many assumed that they could be justified by the works of the Law. Cain may also have been rationalistic in that he may have questioned the efficacy of bringing animal sacrifices to God.

Abel -- on the other hand -- simply believed God and it was imputed to him for righteousness. And his faith caused him to bring the firstlings of his flock to God (without spot or blemish), shed their blood, and make them a whole burnt offering (a sin offering).
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. (Heb 11:4).

*Lazy* may not be appropriate, but *self-centered* may be more appropriate. Since his agricultural efforts were by the sweat of his brow, he figured that all that hard work would pay off.

Man, really do like that! Best not to question why.
So much insight from every one, and thank you all!

 

[reneweddaybyday]

So how should it be interpreted? The only interpretation according to the Gospel is that Cain (and all humans) are being told that the sin nature desires to dominate you, but you should have dominion over it. But only those who have the indwelling Holy Spirit have this power.

The word "sin" in Gen 4:7 is the Hebrew word chatta'ath and chatta'ath is translated as both "sin" and "sin offering" (as it is in Ex 29:14, 29:36, 30:10; Lev 4:3, 4:8, 4:21 ... and many more places).

If we interpret the word chatta'ath as "sin" ... then we understand the verse to state:

if you do not well (i.e. sin), then sin lies at the door and you are its desire, and you shall rule over it.​

and yes, what you state above is correct. However, we know that mankind did not have dominion over sin until after the Lord Jesus Christ ascended up into heaven and Day of Pentecost had fully come.


If we interpret the word chatta'ath as "sin offering", we understand the verse to state:

if you do not well (i.e. sin), then the sin offering lies at the door, the sin offering is yielded to your desire, and you shall rule over it.​

I believe that at time of Cain, the correct interpretation for the word chatta'ath is "sin offering" as opposed to "sin".

 

[reneweddaybyday]

by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
Much like when Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him as righteousness?

Yes. And what we see here in the opening verses of Scripture (after the fall) are the two approaches to God contrasted.

Abel - God's way

Cain - man's way

Interesting that God would point that out very early on in our reading of Scripture ...