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 infallibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label infallibility. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
GENESIS 3:11 - Why the Tree? Can God Tempt?
And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”
Why the Tree? Does God Tempt?
Why did God even bother making the tree of knowledge? In a perfect world such as Eden, it seems to serve no purpose except to actually tempt Adam & Eve to disobey which doesn't seem like something a righteous God would/should do.
Free will: The majority of the answer's that I read talk about how the tree needed to be there in order to give Adam & Eve a choice to obey God rather than do things their own way. And if you look at the significance of the name of the tree, it's not the "tree of knowledge" or "tree of good and evil", but the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Were Adam & Eve incapable of distinguishing between good and evil before the tree incident? This statement seems like it would fall in line with my previous post about how they gained this level of consciousness following the fall.
So while God placing the tree there seems initially to me like a rather devious sort of thing to do, upon further examination it's ironically a very loving thing to do as it gave us the possibility of free will (that we screwed it up is besides the point I think). This makes sense to me although it's still an answer I'm admittedly somewhat uneasy with and it led to ponder the broader question of...
Can God Tempt?
If you're working with a perfect loving God, the answer obviously has to be an emphatic 'no': "for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (James 1:13) OK, but then how do you explain verses like the one where God tells Abraham to kill Isaac in Genesis 22:1? Heck, many of the translations themselves use the phrase "God tempted Abraham...". Is this a contradiction?
Thankfully, I found an article entitled Does God Tempt Man or Not? Which helped to explain that much of the confusion has to do with the interpretation of the word used for "tempt".
"The original terms, rendered “tempt” in the KJV, are from nasah (Hebrew) [...] The Hebrew nasah can denote putting something to the test, proving it. Observe, for instance, that David refused to use Saul’s armor in his conflict with Goliath since he had not “proved” those implements (1 Samuel 17:39). Again, note how those Hebrew lads in Babylonian captivity challenged Nebuchadnezzar to “prove” them with a ten-day diet test [...] It is in this sense that Moses employed nasah of Jehovah’s action towards Abraham. The Lord put Abraham to the test in order to develop trust in the patriarch, and to demonstrate that Heaven’s promise concerning the Messianic seed was unfailing (cf. Hebrews 11:17-19). [...]
James suggests that the Christian ought to rejoice when he falls into manifold “temptations” (James 1:2). Clearly, “enticement to evil” is not in view here. Rather, the inspired writer speaks of “various trials” (NKJV ), i.e., the tests that come to the Christian as a consequence of his godly living. In these one is to rejoice, knowing that the “proving” (dokimion) of his faith works patience (James 1:3). When properly understood, there is no conflict between Genesis 22:1 and James 1:3.
I like how this initially negative thought of mine can still be positively spun. Having had a rough few months myself lately and find myself quite often angry at God, it would be helpful for me to remember such things: that God is more glorified by you praising and obeying Him in hard times than when everything is going gloriously in your life, that any suspected spiritual attack you might be experiencing can be a reason for rejoicing as it's a consequence of improving, of living a more Godly lifestyle, after all, Satan has no reason to bug the person who's happily living in immorality.
(back to Genesis 3)
Why the Tree? Does God Tempt?
Why did God even bother making the tree of knowledge? In a perfect world such as Eden, it seems to serve no purpose except to actually tempt Adam & Eve to disobey which doesn't seem like something a righteous God would/should do.
Free will: The majority of the answer's that I read talk about how the tree needed to be there in order to give Adam & Eve a choice to obey God rather than do things their own way. And if you look at the significance of the name of the tree, it's not the "tree of knowledge" or "tree of good and evil", but the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil". Were Adam & Eve incapable of distinguishing between good and evil before the tree incident? This statement seems like it would fall in line with my previous post about how they gained this level of consciousness following the fall.
So while God placing the tree there seems initially to me like a rather devious sort of thing to do, upon further examination it's ironically a very loving thing to do as it gave us the possibility of free will (that we screwed it up is besides the point I think). This makes sense to me although it's still an answer I'm admittedly somewhat uneasy with and it led to ponder the broader question of...
Can God Tempt?
If you're working with a perfect loving God, the answer obviously has to be an emphatic 'no': "for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone." (James 1:13) OK, but then how do you explain verses like the one where God tells Abraham to kill Isaac in Genesis 22:1? Heck, many of the translations themselves use the phrase "God tempted Abraham...". Is this a contradiction?
Thankfully, I found an article entitled Does God Tempt Man or Not? Which helped to explain that much of the confusion has to do with the interpretation of the word used for "tempt".
"The original terms, rendered “tempt” in the KJV, are from nasah (Hebrew) [...] The Hebrew nasah can denote putting something to the test, proving it. Observe, for instance, that David refused to use Saul’s armor in his conflict with Goliath since he had not “proved” those implements (1 Samuel 17:39). Again, note how those Hebrew lads in Babylonian captivity challenged Nebuchadnezzar to “prove” them with a ten-day diet test [...] It is in this sense that Moses employed nasah of Jehovah’s action towards Abraham. The Lord put Abraham to the test in order to develop trust in the patriarch, and to demonstrate that Heaven’s promise concerning the Messianic seed was unfailing (cf. Hebrews 11:17-19). [...]
James suggests that the Christian ought to rejoice when he falls into manifold “temptations” (James 1:2). Clearly, “enticement to evil” is not in view here. Rather, the inspired writer speaks of “various trials” (NKJV ), i.e., the tests that come to the Christian as a consequence of his godly living. In these one is to rejoice, knowing that the “proving” (dokimion) of his faith works patience (James 1:3). When properly understood, there is no conflict between Genesis 22:1 and James 1:3.
I like how this initially negative thought of mine can still be positively spun. Having had a rough few months myself lately and find myself quite often angry at God, it would be helpful for me to remember such things: that God is more glorified by you praising and obeying Him in hard times than when everything is going gloriously in your life, that any suspected spiritual attack you might be experiencing can be a reason for rejoicing as it's a consequence of improving, of living a more Godly lifestyle, after all, Satan has no reason to bug the person who's happily living in immorality.
(back to Genesis 3)
Saturday, February 2, 2008
GENESIS 1:20 - Did God Use Evolution? Contradicting Interpretations?
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
Did God Use Evolution? 1 day = Millions of Years?
The big questions in Genesis - or for many, the whole Bible - deals with "science vs. creationism ". While this applies to plants and geography (mentioned in previous verses), usually the great debate rages around animals and in particular, evolution.
It's no surprise that Christians like myself who on the one hand say they believe in the infallibility of the Bible become squeamish when encountered by the case for evolution. As a result, I often found myself trying to draw connections between the two. One of the arguments and explanations put forth was that maybe God used evolution. Maybe the "one day" stated in the Bible really did mean millions or billions of years.
"The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:29; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, etc.) entered the world." (Answers in Genesis)
I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. There can be no middleground on this issue. Many Christians - including myself - are eager to adopt this view in the name of defending the infallibility of the Bible, but in doing so, it's ironically the very thing we destroy:
"...once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)."
Agreed. And this is definitely something you need to come to grips with before seriously studying the Bible.
Contradicting Interpretations?
That said, I did find it quite disturbing that only four verses earlier in my previous post, Genesis 1:16 (The Moon Only Reflects Light), my answer there seemingly advocated a contradicting view to the one offered here.
I'm not actually troubled by this because it's clear to me how these situations are distinct and as such only give the appearance of a contradiction. That said, I think it's noteworthy because I can also empathize with those who see it as such and by virtue of that, are willing to write off the Bible.
(back to Genesis 1)
Did God Use Evolution? 1 day = Millions of Years?
The big questions in Genesis - or for many, the whole Bible - deals with "science vs. creationism ". While this applies to plants and geography (mentioned in previous verses), usually the great debate rages around animals and in particular, evolution.
It's no surprise that Christians like myself who on the one hand say they believe in the infallibility of the Bible become squeamish when encountered by the case for evolution. As a result, I often found myself trying to draw connections between the two. One of the arguments and explanations put forth was that maybe God used evolution. Maybe the "one day" stated in the Bible really did mean millions or billions of years.
"The book of Genesis teaches that death is the result of Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:29; Romans 5:12, 8:18–22) and that all of God’s creation was “very good” upon its completion (Genesis 1:31). All animals and humans were originally vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30). But if we compromise on the history of Genesis by adding millions of years, we must believe that death and disease were part of the world before Adam sinned. You see, the (alleged) millions of years of earth history in the fossil record shows evidence of animals eating each other, diseases like cancer in their bones, violence, plants with thorns, and so on. All of this supposedly takes place before man appears on the scene, and thus before sin (and its curse of death, disease, thorns, carnivory, etc.) entered the world." (Answers in Genesis)
I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. There can be no middleground on this issue. Many Christians - including myself - are eager to adopt this view in the name of defending the infallibility of the Bible, but in doing so, it's ironically the very thing we destroy:
"...once Christian leaders concede that we shouldn’t interpret the Bible as written in Genesis, why should the world take heed of God’s Word in any area? Because the church has told the world that one can use man’s interpretation of the world, such as billions of years, to reinterpret the Bible, this Book is seen as an outdated, scientifically incorrect holy book not intended to be believed as written.
As each subsequent generation has pushed this door of compromise open farther and farther, they are increasingly not accepting the morality or salvation of the Bible either. After all, if the history in Genesis is not correct, how can one be sure the rest is correct? Jesus said, “If I have told you earthly things, and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12)."
Agreed. And this is definitely something you need to come to grips with before seriously studying the Bible.
Contradicting Interpretations?
That said, I did find it quite disturbing that only four verses earlier in my previous post, Genesis 1:16 (The Moon Only Reflects Light), my answer there seemingly advocated a contradicting view to the one offered here.
I'm not actually troubled by this because it's clear to me how these situations are distinct and as such only give the appearance of a contradiction. That said, I think it's noteworthy because I can also empathize with those who see it as such and by virtue of that, are willing to write off the Bible.
(back to Genesis 1)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)