So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? ”
Why did God Reject Cain's Offering?
Given how sparse the story is with details, the question seems unavoidable. There's no explicit mention in the verse as to exactly what it was that Cain did wrong. So assuming God is fair and righteous it seems we're only left with two possibilities: 1) there was something physically wrong with Cain's offering or the manner in which he presented it, and/or 2) there was something wrong with Cain's heart.
If you think about the doctrine of atonement, it shifts the focus squarely on the former: regardless of his efforts or sincerity of heart, Cain's offering of fruits would remain hopelessly insufficient due to the fact that atonement can only be achieved via death and sacrifice - hence Christ's need to die for us.
Did Cain Know?
Did Cain know about this prerequisite of atonement? If so, it's a cut-and-dry case of Cain being consciously disobedient, but if not, well, it seems rather unfair to judge Cain for simply being ignorant or dimmer than Abel, or simply having the misfortune of being the farmer. To complicate things, there's definitely no prior-recorded mention in Genesis about the ins-and-outs of atonement to make it clear that God isn't just playing favourites.
Bloody Illustrations, Historical Context
I had spent a lot of time reading various disappointingly unsatisfactory explanations and was ready to mark this one as unresolved when I spoke to Pastor Dan who presented me with two very compelling explanations:
Consider Genesis 3:21 a few short verses earlier: "The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Looking up the word used for "skin" makes it clear that it refers not to fur or wool but to actual animal hide. And how do we get animal hide? By killing animals. So here we have Adam & Eve who have never seen anything die, and have no concept of death whatsoever. God brings them over to these cute little sheep - which Adam named - and... slaughters them before their very eyes, skins them, and drapes the bloody hides on their backs. Do you think that from that point onwards they ever forgot (or forgot to tell their children) that visceral illustration of the effects of sin and sacrifice?
Secondly, there is the historical aspect; Genesis was written by Moses, many generations after the fact, for people whom blood sacrifice was - and had been for centuries - an integral and ingrained part of culture (think Abraham and Isaac). It would have been a given to everyone during Moses' time that Cain's behaviour was foolish and disrespectful regardless of its sincerity, so much so that documenting the 'why' would seem completely unnecessary, in the same way that a sports writer would feel no need to justify calling a hockey playing stupid for picking up the puck with their hands and chucking it into the net - which might likewise bewilder a reader thousands of years in the future if hockey is no longer played (God forbid!).
(This take on the garments is very different from the positive spin I put on it in my previous entry on Genesis 3:21,23-24 - God's Hidden Compassion)
(back to Genesis 4)
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
GENESIS 3:1 - A "Crafty" Serpent? Talking Animals?
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden '?"
A "Crafty" Serpent?
I had always assumed from quick reads that craftiness was supposed to be attributed to Satan, but after inspecting multiple translations, it seems clear to me that the verse maps the trait to the animal itself. But how can an animal be "crafty" unless it possesses a level of intelligence which no animal we know of today does?
"It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been." (John Wesley Commentary) This makes sense, considering the degenerative effects of the fall of man, which would have affected every single thing, including animals. However, this answer leads me to another question...
Talking animals?!
The satisfactory answer above as to why we no longer find crafty talking snakes anymore leads me to another question: does that mean that - at least before the fall of man - animals used to be able to talk?
The most common supportive answer for this was that because Eve didn't seem surprised by the snake speaking to her, logically, animals must have spoken. Rational Christianity shows how you can accept those same two points without coming to the same conclusion: "As for Eve, she didn't necessarily have the same perspective we do on talking animals. We know from history as well as our own experience that animals don't talk. We also grew up with stories of animals talking, and were taught to regard them as imaginary. Adam and Eve didn't have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. They may not even have been alive for very long when the incident occurred. For all they knew, animals did speak from time to time." Inconclusive.
Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Now this verse too could be interpreted as being supportive, but looking at multiple translations and the lexicon for the word 'opened' (pathach: to open wide; specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve) it doesn't seem clear cut. Inconclusive.
A House Church Network Association article adds to the above by asking the - admittedly intriguing - question: "Who did Adam and Eve talk about? [...] there was not only no one else to talk about (except perhaps to talk about God), but there was not yet any sin and gossip [...] So the traditional answer would be there was no one to talk about. Except... Could it be that there were others to talk about?" They go on to mention two other supportive points for talking animals:
1) Genesis 2:18, God himself notes that "it is not good for the man to be alone" and so he makes the animals.
It would seem to make sense that God, recognizing a human's need for companionship and communication would create animals with the ability to speak. But you could then also argue the opposite side saying that 's perhaps one of the reasons why he ended up needing to create Eve. Inconclusive
2) The animals are named by Adam.
Interesting point. If the animals can't speak, why bother having Adam name them? Just for himself and God to appreciate? Maybe, maybe not. Inconclusive.
This issue remains for me... inconclusive.
(back to Genesis 3)
A "Crafty" Serpent?
I had always assumed from quick reads that craftiness was supposed to be attributed to Satan, but after inspecting multiple translations, it seems clear to me that the verse maps the trait to the animal itself. But how can an animal be "crafty" unless it possesses a level of intelligence which no animal we know of today does?
"It is not improbable, that reason and speech were then the known properties of the serpent. And therefore Eve was not surprised at his reasoning and speaking, which otherwise she must have been." (John Wesley Commentary) This makes sense, considering the degenerative effects of the fall of man, which would have affected every single thing, including animals. However, this answer leads me to another question...
Talking animals?!
The satisfactory answer above as to why we no longer find crafty talking snakes anymore leads me to another question: does that mean that - at least before the fall of man - animals used to be able to talk?
The most common supportive answer for this was that because Eve didn't seem surprised by the snake speaking to her, logically, animals must have spoken. Rational Christianity shows how you can accept those same two points without coming to the same conclusion: "As for Eve, she didn't necessarily have the same perspective we do on talking animals. We know from history as well as our own experience that animals don't talk. We also grew up with stories of animals talking, and were taught to regard them as imaginary. Adam and Eve didn't have a childhood, nor did they have other humans to learn from. They may not even have been alive for very long when the incident occurred. For all they knew, animals did speak from time to time." Inconclusive.
Numbers 22:28: And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” Now this verse too could be interpreted as being supportive, but looking at multiple translations and the lexicon for the word 'opened' (pathach: to open wide; specifically, to loosen, begin, plough, carve) it doesn't seem clear cut. Inconclusive.
A House Church Network Association article adds to the above by asking the - admittedly intriguing - question: "Who did Adam and Eve talk about? [...] there was not only no one else to talk about (except perhaps to talk about God), but there was not yet any sin and gossip [...] So the traditional answer would be there was no one to talk about. Except... Could it be that there were others to talk about?" They go on to mention two other supportive points for talking animals:
1) Genesis 2:18, God himself notes that "it is not good for the man to be alone" and so he makes the animals.
It would seem to make sense that God, recognizing a human's need for companionship and communication would create animals with the ability to speak. But you could then also argue the opposite side saying that 's perhaps one of the reasons why he ended up needing to create Eve. Inconclusive
2) The animals are named by Adam.
Interesting point. If the animals can't speak, why bother having Adam name them? Just for himself and God to appreciate? Maybe, maybe not. Inconclusive.
This issue remains for me... inconclusive.
(back to Genesis 3)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)