No need for anyone to be concerned about what Dizerner said about me. I am not offended. I understand Dizerner's beliefs that there are those who proclaim the truth versus those who proclaim error. I, myself, used to take great pleasure in exposing those I regarded as false teachers. Now I am no longer so cock sure of what I regard to be true and what I regard to be false. I have my beliefs, but now in my older age, I allow for the possibility that I may be wrong. Or maybe even the probablity. But I do not allow for the
certainty that my beliefs are wrong. Those who do affirm such certainty think they can do so because "the Bible says so." But in many cases, it is not the Bible that says so, but their interpretation of the Bible that says so.
Dizerner wrote:It has to have been clear to Cain what exactly was wrong with his offering or the Lord would not say "Why are you angry?" because it's very obvious that if Cain's offering was arbitrarily rejected he had a right to be angry, don't you think? You can rewrite the text out of a desire to make it say something else, but I don't think you could insist the first meaning was "the poor condition of his heart." It's only when Cain "does not do well" that sin lies at the door. I see no indication that the Lord was saying "Take your veggies and come back with a good attitude this time." Sin only lied at the door if he "did not do well" with his offering
Dizerner, it is not at all obvious that it was because of the nature of Cain's offering that he was rejected. Look at the text in
Genesis 4( to which you partially referred).
2 Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3 And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD.
4a Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat.
Clearly each of them offered what they had to offer. Do you think Cain should have known that the LORD required only animal offerings? That he should have asked Abel for one of his sheep to offer? How would Cain know this?
4b 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.
Why does it say tht the LORD repected Abel AND his offering, and did not respect Cain AND his offering? If your view is correct that the issue was only about whether meat or vegetables were offered, one would expect the LORD to say, "And the LORD respected Abel's offering, but He did not respect Cain's offering." The way I see it, is that He didn't respect Cain and his offering, because Cain had sin in his life and had not repented of it. The LORD'S next words bring this out.
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."
The LORD does not say, "If you bring the right offering, will you not be accepted?" Rather He says, "If you do well, will you not be accepted." Cain had to live righteously before the LORD. Then he would be accepted. That's why sin was lying in wait for Cain, to overpower him. But he had to master it (some translations put it that way). It had nothing to do with the kind of offering. It was all about living righteously and mastering sin. Cain proved that he had not repented of his way of living, by killing his brother.
John's words support the view I have expressed:
For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous. (1 John 3: 11,12 )
The evil works of Cain and the righteous works of Abel were not about what kind of offering they made, but about the way they lived their lives.
Sin only lied at the door if he "did not do well" with his offering
It doesn't say that sin lay at the door for this reason. It doesn't say that "if you do not do well with your offering." It simply says, "if you do not do well." Doing well nor not doing well would include all of his life's works, and not merely his offering.
Clearly offerings other than meat were acceptable to the LORD according to Leviticus 2. For it seems that the LORD gave specific instructions as to how to prepare a grain offering. If the LORD had insisted on only meat offerings, surely He would not have given the following instructions:
1 “When anyone brings a grain offering as an offering to the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour. He shall pour oil on it and put frankincense on it
2 and bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests. And he shall take from it a handful of the fine flour and oil, with all of its frankincense, and the priest shall burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
3 But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings.
4 “When you bring a grain offering baked in the oven as an offering, it shall be unleavened loaves of fine flour mixed with oil or unleavened wafers smeared with oil.
5 And if your offering is a grain offering baked on a griddle, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mixed with oil.
6 You shall break it in pieces and pour oil on it; it is a grain offering.
7 And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.
8 And you shall bring the grain offering that is made of these things to the LORD, and when it is presented to the priest, he shall bring it to the altar.
9 And the priest shall take from the grain offering its memorial portion and burn this on the altar, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD.
10 But the rest of the grain offering shall be for Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the LORD’s food offerings.
11 “No grain offering that you bring to the LORD shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the LORD.
12 As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the LORD, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma.
13 You shall season all your grain offerings with salt. You shall not let the salt of the covenant with your God be missing from your grain offering; with all your offerings you shall offer salt.
14 “If you offer a grain offering of firstfruits to the LORD, you shall offer for the grain offering of your firstfruits fresh ears, roasted with fire, crushed new grain.
15 And you shall put oil on it and lay frankincense on it; it is a grain offering.
16 And the priest shall burn as its memorial portion some of the crushed grain and some of the oil with all of its frankincense; it is a food offering to the LORD.
Now I realize that if one is persuaded of your view that offerings had to be meat, I can see how such a one would interpet the following verse in Hebrews:
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks. (Hebrews 11:4)
Yes, such a one would suppose that this passage indicates that Abel's "more excellent sacrifice" was his offering of meat, which was more excellent than Cain's offering of vegetables. But I don't see it that way at all. First it refers to the SACRIFICES of Cain and Abel. In Genesis, Moses didn't refer to them as "sacrifices" but as "offerings." God didn't require offerings from Cain and Abel. It was their own idea to try to please God with offerings, and God would have accepted both, if both brother had been "doing well" in their lives.
I think the verse in Hebrews refer to the sacrifice of their lives. I am reminded of this verse in Romans:
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. (Romans 12:1)
Abel had given his whole being in submission to God and was living accordingly. Cain was living basically for himself, but doing a few outward religious things, perhaps as few as he thought he could get away with, but even these few took a measure of sacrifice on his part. But Abel's complete sacrifice of himself, being submitted to God in mind and body, was more excellent than Cain's limited sacrifice.
