Jesus Saves Series

Do I need A Savior?

Patriarchs and Prophets (Chapter 5—Cain and Abel Tested)

Cain came before God with murmuring and infidelity in his heart in regard to the promised sacrifice and the necessity of the sacrificial offerings. His gift expressed no penitence for sin. He felt, as many now feel, that it would be an acknowledgment of weakness to follow the exact plan marked out by God, of trusting his salvation wholly to the atonement of the promised Saviour. He chose the course of self-dependence. He would come in his own merits. He would not bring the lamb, and mingle its blood with his offering, but would present his fruits, the products of his labor. He presented his offering as a favor done to God, through which he expected to secure the divine approval. Cain obeyed in building an altar, obeyed in bringing a sacrifice; but he rendered only a partial obedience. The essential part, the recognition of the need of a Redeemer, was left out (p. 72).

Patriarchs and Prophets (Chapter 5—Cain and Abel Tested)

Without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin; and they were to show their faith in the blood of Christ as the promised atonement by offering the firstlings of the flock in sacrifice. Besides this, the first fruits of the earth were to be presented before the Lord as a thank offering (p. 71),

1 John 3:12

Patriarchs and Prophets Chapter 5—Cain and Abel Tested

Says the prophet, “They overcame him [“that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan”] by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Revelation 12:11, 9.

Patriarchs and Prophets (Chapter 5—Cain and Abel Tested)

God had given Cain an opportunity to confess his sin (p. 77).

Patriarchs and Prophets Chapter 5—Cain and Abel Tested

Notwithstanding that Cain had by his crimes merited the sentence of death, a merciful Creator still spared his life, and granted him opportunity for repentance. But Cain lived only to harden his heart, to encourage rebellion against the divine authority, and to become the head of a line of bold, abandoned sinners. This one apostate, led on by Satan, became a tempter to others; and his example and influence exerted their demoralizing power, until the earth became so corrupt and filled with violence as to call for its destruction.

“one maintained that man was too great to be in need of divine guidance, and the other maintained that man was too small to be worthy of divine guidance. The first conception came from social science, and the second from natural science” (God in Search of Man, p. 169)

The idea of man's self-sufficiency, man's exaggerated consciousness of himself, was based upon a generalization ; from the fact that technology could solve some problems it was deduced that technology could solve all problems. This proved to be a fallacy. Social reforms, it was thought, would cure all ills and eliminate all evils from our world. Yet we have finally discovered what prophets and saints have always known : bread and power alone will not save humanity. There is a passion and drive for cruel deeds which only the awe and fear of God can soothe ; there is a suffocating selfishness in man which only holiness can ventilate. (Ibid )

“Man is meaningless without God, and any attempt to establish a system of values on the basis of the dogma of man's self-sufficiency is doomed to failure.” (Ibid )

The most serious obstacle which modern men encounter in entering a discussion about revelation does not arise from their doubts as to whether the accounts of the prophets about their experiences are authentic. The most critical vindication of these accounts, even if it were possible, would be of little relevance. The most serious problem is the absence of the problem. An answer to be meaningful presupposes the awareness of a question, but the climate in which we live today is not congenial to the continued growth of questions which have taken centuries to cultivate. The Bible is an answer to the supreme question: what does God demand of us?Yet the question has gone out of the world. God is portrayed as a mass of vagueness behind a veil of enigmas, and His voice has become alien to our minds, to our hearts, to our souls. We have learned to listen to every "I" except the "I" of God. The man of our time may proudly declare nothing animal is alien to me but everything divine is. This is the status of the Bible in modern life: it is a sublime answer, but we do not know the question anymore. Unless we recover the question, there is no hope of understanding the Bible. (Abraham Heschel, God in Search for Man, pp. 168-9)

Notes from Commentaries

"The first woman was so overwhelmed by this wonder that she believed that God Himself had come down and had become the very One she had given birth to: "I have acquired a man, indeed God himself" (4:1)" (Doukhan p.115)

Cain means "to acquire"

Abel means "vapor". It denotes elusiveness, a transient condition. This is the very word that is used in the book of Ecclesiastes (hebel) to express the idea of "vanity".

4:3 - In the process of time - "qets yamim" this means "in the end of day".

"While Cain chose to take his offering only from the fruit of the ground (4:3), Abel, on the other hand, presented "also" or "in addition to" to the nonanimal offering the firstborn of his flock (4:4). Thus, in contrast to Cain's offering, Abel's offering conformed to the law. This required that, "in addition to a vegetable offering, a sacrificial animal be presented for the burnt offering (Exod 29:39-41)." (p. 117)

"The reason God accepted Abel's offering and rejected Cain's is not explicitly indicated in the text. Yet clues from the text suggest a number of reasons. First, the text says that God’s first attention concerns the person who makes the offering…the reason for God’s rejection or acceptance of the offering lies primarily in the spiritual condition of the person and not in their offering per se (Mic 6:7; Isa 1:11)"

Secondly, a comparison between the two acts of offering reveals a slight nuance between them. While Cain offers “to God,” Abel just offers. The mention “to God” is absent for Abel. This little difference is of significance, as it reflects two fundamentally different views of worship. While Cain thinks of his offering as his gift to God, Abel’s attention essentially concerns the meaning of the sacrifice itself, namely, God’s gift to him. While Cain views his religion as an upward movement to God, Abel experiences it as a downward movement from God. This contrasting mentality may also explain another difference regarding how the offerings have been chosen. Abel’s offering was not, per se, a better offering than Cain’s. In fact, Cain’s fruit may have even been a better product than the sheep provided by Abel. The difference, however, was that Abel chose from the bekhorot, the first fruits, the most precious product of the season, according to the Mosaic legislation (Exod 23:19), whereas Cain took any fruit from the land. Against the background of the preceding chapters, each of the two offerings is reminiscent of something different. The fruit offering from the ground (adamah) points to Genesis 3:19, which is associated with human strength and the perspective of death. The animal offering, on the other hand, points to Genesis 3:21 and is associated with divine protection and the perspective of life. Cain’s offering was the expression of human effort towards God, whereas Abel’s offering was the expression of humanity’s need for God’s salvation. Furthermore, Abel’s offering was related to the promise of the messianic Lamb of 3:15 who would be sacrificed to save the world, whereas Cain’s offering was an empty ritual. Note the same contrast between the human clothing (3:7), which uses the vegetal fig leaf, versus the divine clothing, which uses the animal skin and implies the sacrifice of blood (3:21). (p.118)

A Handbook on Exodus (4) Flies (8:20–32) [8:16–28]

Offerings abominable to the Egyptians, as explained above, probably refers to animals that the people of Egypt thought should not be killed in this way. Will they not stone us is therefore a rhetorical question, and the answer to a rhetorical question must always be obvious. Stone us here means more than just throwing stones; it was a means of execution. So the question may be changed to a clear prediction, “they will stone us to death” (8:26 TEV), or one may say “they will throw stones at us to kill us.”

Faithlife Study Bible (Chapter 8)

8:26 we sacrifice before their eyes the thing detestable to the Egyptians The Hebrew word used here, to'evah (meaning “abomination”), is also used in Gen 43:32 and 46:34 to describe the Egyptians’ revulsion at dining with Hebrews, as well as their distaste for shepherds. The nature of the Egyptians’ revulsion towards the Israelites’ sacrifice is unknown. Egyptian literature and art demonstrate that the Egyptians did not object to the sacrifice of cattle. Pharaoh does not argue with Moses’ concern, suggesting that he knows it to be true.

Exodus—Saved for God's Glory Without Compromise

What was obligatory for the Israelites was objectionable to the Egyptians. The animals they intended to sacrifice—such as bulls and rams—were sacred in Egypt. Bulls were sacred to Apis, cows to Isis, calves to Hathor, rams to Amon, and so forth. Once the Hebrews started sacrificing these representations of Pharaoh’s gods, rioting would break out among the Egyptians, and human blood would also be shed (which perhaps is what Pharaoh secretly hoped). To draw a comparison, sacrificing bulls among the Egyptians would be like holding a pig roast at a synagogue or cooking burgers in front of a Hindu temple. In fact, Alan Cole reports that “The little Jewish colony at Yeb/Elephantine, on the Upper Nile, endured a pogrom at the hands of the Egyptians in the fifth century, for this very reason of animal sacrifice.” Thus Moses was making a pragmatic argument. He was trying to persuade Pharaoh that in addition to violating God’s command, his compromise would be a political disaster.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary 8:25–32

Smarting under the cumulative weight of the judgment of four plagues, Pharaoh was willing to suggest a compromise. The Israelites, he said, could sacrifice to their God, but in Egypt, not in the desert. This compromise was unacceptable to Moses. He explained that their animal sacrifices would be detestable in Egypt. This may have been because the Egyptians considered sacred the bull which represented the god Apis or Re and the cow which represented their goddess Hathor. To the Egyptians this would be blasphemy and would result in rioting.

Patriarchs and Prophets (Chapter 29—Satan’s Enmity against the Law)

On account of the superstitious veneration in which animals were held by the Egyptians, the Hebrews were not permitted, during their bondage, to present the sacrificial offerings. Thus their minds were not directed by this service to the great Sacrifice, and their faith was weakened.

Genesis 46:32–34 NASB95

and the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock; and they have brought their flocks and their herds and all that they have.’ “When Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ that you may live in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is loathsome to the Egyptians.”

Genesis 43:32 NASB95

So they served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians could not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is loathsome to the Egyptians.