Cain and Abel and their sacrifices (for the umpteenth time)

[Tis_Bearself]

Genesis 4:4-7 seems to be a little helpful here:

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry and dejected. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? 7 If you act rightly, you will be accepted;[d] but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.

It’s clear that God gave Abel a gold star, but he didn’t give Cain one and suggests that instead of Cain being angry and dejected, he should “act rightly” and then he will be accepted. The implication I always took from that is that Cain was somehow not acting properly, like God saw in his heart he was not sincere or maybe in his actions he didn’t bring the best offering or he was proud or unkind or whatever.

I suppose it could also mean that God withheld his approval for some other reason, but then wouldn’t he have told Cain the reason so Cain could fix it? Such as, " You didn’t make a blood sacrifice of an animal." Given that this was the first time anyone ever sacrificed to the Lord, they might not have known God’s preference if he had one.

Or I suppose God might have withheld approval to test Cain. Although that seems a bit like God playing games; then again he tests others in the OT.

 

[Dan_Defender]

To me, it is not about the offering itself, but the state of the heart. Cain did not have a clean heart, this is why God says: If you do well, will you not be accepted? God is omniscient.

Side note: what bothers me is the background of the story. Because it is a stone-age agricultural society that is depicted, and not the hunting-gathering nomadic group you’d expect for the second generation of humanity.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In general, the produce/grain symbolizing sin is something I had not heard of, but it is interesting. Jesus “became sin” and so the pure lamb becoming bread and wine would symbolize that. Hmmmm.

It’s interesting you brought this up. Something that I can’t figure out is if Jesus eluded to something like that in the gospel of Matthew when he says:

Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

And then later in the same gospel it says:

At that time Jesus was going through a field of grain on the sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “See, your disciples are doing what is unlawful to do on the sabbath.” He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry, how he went into the house of God and ate the bread of offering, which neither he nor his companions but only the priests could lawfully eat? Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests serving in the temple violate the sabbath and are innocent? I say to you, something greater than the temple is here. If you knew what this meant, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned these innocent men. For the Son of Man is Lord of the sabbath.”

There is a connection there between grain, shewbread, sinners, and the OT scripture from Hosea which Jesus interprets as saying “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

Cain obviously didn’t have a merciful reaction. In addition to God telling Cain to “act rightly”, this suggests that Cain was not a merciful person.

Is Jesus suggesting in Mt that He has come to call the Cains of the world?

 

[Vico]

…

Hebrews 9
22 According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

Leviticus 17
11 since the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement on the altar for yourselves, because it is the blood as life that makes atonement.

God covered the sin of Adam and Eve with animal sacrifice, he gave them skins to wear. (Gen. 3:21)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

According to the Dominican priest, bread in Scripture prior to the Last Supper = sin.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So I suppose you could say that God associated produce with sin because that was His command after the fall, that man should work the soil because of his sin. And it didn’t matter to God that Cain was (possibly) unaware of that fact?? Because God was willing to have mercy on Cain so long as Cain was a merciful person himself?? But what did end up mattering was Cain’s reaction.

It just begs the question of whether or not Cain knew that produce wasn’t a good choice for a sacrifice. The scripture seems to suggest he didn’t know.

 

[fide]

Hello Ray -

The phrase “full of devotion” (from the DR Bible notes) is not specific enough, IMHO. “Devotion” can be based upon many things that are not important to the matter of eternal life. For that matter, the word “faith” also leaves questions - “faith” in what? In whom? In Whom?

Abel’s offering, to be more specific, was in supernatural faith, which is salvific. There exists natural faith, which is not salvific - and every believer needs to know the difference: this IS a matter of eternal life. As James wrote:

James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

The demons have natural faith - acquired through their own angelic nature - not supernatural faith which is the gift of God.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—
Eph 2:9 not because of works, lest any man should boast.

Abel was given this supernatural grace, and the faith that accompanies it, and he - Abel - began to live in that [supernatural] faith, acting upon it [in his offering to God], and was saved. Hebrews 11 may help to clarify this beautiful mystery.

 

[fide]

The key is [supernatural, saving, holy] faith. What is done in the name of the Lord - which is the same as saying “in holy faith” - is good and beautiful, and holy before God. Hebrews 11 lists many in the OT [saints!] who were given this gift, and witnessed to Him in this gift:

Heb 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received what was promised, but having seen it and greeted it from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.
Heb 11:14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland.
Heb 11:15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.
Heb 11:16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

According to the Dominican priest, bread in Scripture prior to the Last Supper = sin.

Just an interesting observation: The Loaves that were offered with the sacrifices were unleavened. But on Shavuot (Pentecost), two loaves of Leavened Bread were offered to the Lord. (not burnt on the altar, but waved before Him.) We normally associate Leaven with sin, but in Jesus’ Parable about the woman who kneaded the bread until it was fully leavened, leaven becomes connected with the kingdom of God multiplying until it is completed. Pentecost, as we know, is when the Holy Spirit was given, which would enable God’s Kingdom to multiply throughout the earth. When leaven is associated with God’s work its symbolism is multiplication in a good way. When left in the hands of men without God, leaven is a symbol of sin increasing.

 

[Vico]

…

Also:

Gen 4

6 Then the Lord said to Cain: Why are you angry? Why are you dejected? 7 If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it.

1 John 3

12 unlike Cain who belonged to the evil one and slaughtered his brother. Why did he slaughter him? Because his own works were evil, and those of his brother righteous.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It looks like the consensus on the thread is that Cain lacked faith and had an unclean heart/ inclinations to sin which God recognized when rejecting the sacrifice.

This more or less jives with what I was taught.

It’s possible that the Dominican didn’t mean to suggest otherwise and simply barged to the bread point so fast that he skipped over the part about what was in Cain’s heart when he made the sacrifice. The preacher was going a mile a minute trying to cover a large amount of ground in an hour. I can’t imagine the preacher wouldn’t be aware of all the scripture references that we have all been posting here and there are more besides. But I thought maybe I’d missed something all these years, since I’m not the type who sits around reading Scott Hahn and I pick up most of my Bible analysis knowledge on the fly from a radio program here, a homily there, a thread discussion some other place. I feel better now reading everyone’s responses as it seems Theory 1 (Cain’s interior disposition was lacking) is the main reason God rejected the sacrifice, causing produce/bread to take on additional sinful association going forward on top of that already imposed by the Fall.

Good discussion everyone, thanks!

 

[C.Ray]

There exists natural faith, which is not salvific - and every believer needs to know the difference: this IS a matter of eternal life.

How is ‘natural’ faith even possible for mortal men? I am thinking you’d have to have some kind of profound private revelation of heaven and hell, like in the film ‘Consatantine’ or something. It sounds completely alien to me.

 

[fide]

Natural faith is far more common, and prevalent, than most would imagine. Most Christians, I suspect, never heard of any kind of faith but “faith.” But there is natural faith, and there is supernatural faith. The major - essential - difference is this: one is given: a gift from God; the other is acquired, a work of man.

1. Supernatural faith is one of the theological virtues (faith, hope and charity) that is infused by God into the soul - a gift - with sanctifying grace.
2. Natural faith is acquired by the efforts/work of man: using reason, human logic, deductions, reading about faith, hearing a convincing preacher, emotional attraction to religious music, beautiful church buildings, art, statues, etc.

Supernatural faith leads one to act as God wills - according to divine, eternal, Truth; natural faith leads one to act as the man’s own reasoning, prudence, sense of right and wrong, popular opinions, friends, what seems good at the moment, opinions, etc might lead him to.

These two very different “voices” in a man are often so intermingled, that he doesn’t know the difference between one and the other. This is why it is so very important to strive with all one’s powers and grace to know Him truly, rightly, and His holy will!

 

[BartholomewB]

But there is natural faith, and there is supernatural faith.

Thank you, @fide. I had never heard of this distinction until now. It’s interesting. What is the historical origin? Does it come from one of the early Church Fathers?

 

[fide]

The earliest Church father to have this pointed out to him, by Jesus, was Peter. Peter was the first to demonstrate - to Jesus - supernatural faith, given to him by the Father:

Mat 16:15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

If Peter came to this as a “conclusion” based on his human experience with Jesus, it would have been of “flesh and blood” - natural, not supernatural. But no, this knowledge was a supernatural gift from God the Father - thus, Jesus proclaimed that Peter was indeed “blessed”.

Note, however, how quickly Peter reverted to his own thinking - his own human, natural faith in what ought to be true for the Messiah of Israel:

Mat 16:21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
Mat 16:22 And Peter took him and began to rebuke him, saying, “God forbid, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
Mat 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."

Here is a recent essay on HPR on the subject - a very important matter, because it is so inadequately known, recognized, or understood:

Natural and Supernatural Faith - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

 

[C.Ray]

is so very important to strive with all one’s powers and grace to know Him truly

Would that not qualify as a work of man (natural faith) then? How does one know the difference?

 

[fide]

That would be a work of man if it is with all one’s powers, being taught by a man (even a good man) but without His grace. Such would be the “normal” and natural way of education. But with His grace it is different. When God sheds His light upon a truth - even one previously held as true because it was received as a teaching of the Church, HIs Church - when that truth is illuminated by His light, or breathed upon by His Spirit, then it is radiant in the splendor of His Life.

Unless a man is truly present to God, with earnest zeal and openness, I doubt that God would so bless him with His light, His grace. God could, of course: He is God! He can bless us when we do not deserve it at all. But He seeks disciples, to make them become more useful in His Kingdom.

This Presence of God is infused contemplation - an unmistakable grace.

 

[HarryStotle]

According to the Dominican priest, bread in Scripture prior to the Last Supper = sin.

I wouldn’t put too much stock in that.

• Melchizedek blessed Abraham with bread and wine.
• Manna was bread from heaven.
• Manna was kept in the Tabernacle through Exodus.
• The bread of presence, aka show bread, (but literally לחם הפנים lehem ha-panim or bread of the face) was set out in the Tabernacle from Sinai to the second Temple, to signify the presence of God, as represented in the heavenly feast to be provided by God (Cf. Ex 24:9-11)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

His point was that bread was always representative of Man’s fall wherever it occurred.

 

[mythbuster1]

That assessment is inaccurate: with each holocaust, a grain offering was made, of which at least a portion had to be burned with the holocaust, and a libation was poured out. A portion of the first sheaf wave offering was also burned.