Posted on 11/26/2012 3:40:44 PM PST by pastorbillrandles
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.(Genesis 4:3)
Cain believed in God. Furthermore he worshipped him. The account of the first murder in human history, took place in the context of worship.
We would do well to consider the theology of Cain, for we are warned in the book of Jude that in the last days many within the church and outside of it would”go in the way of Cain”, plunging on into everlasting destruction.
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; (Jude 11-12)
What exactly did Cain believe?
As stated earlier, Cain definitely believed in God. Furthermore, he was monotheistic, and understood the duty to worship God. I have no doubt that Cain acknowledged God as his Creator, and as sustainer of all life, as evidenced by the nature of his sacrifice, the fruit of the ground blessed by God.
But Cain refused to acknowledge that he was a sinner, nor did he offer the appropriate God ordained sacrifice, an innocent life as a substitute. He refused to bring a bloody sacrifice to God. He simply balked at bringing this offering as a contrite and broken-hearted supplicant, seeking salvation.
Abel did, but not Cain.
Cain’s approach to worship has a technical name, it is called “Will Worship”. After his own will and preference, he presumed to come to the Holy God, and that on his own terms. His was a defiant religion of the flesh, a works righteousness. He didn’t like to be considered a sinner, and worthy of eternal destruction, he saw no need for a substitute, he would rely on himself, thus idealizing his own power and ‘goodness’.
He would own God as Creator, but not as Redeemer, .
Cain’s insubordinate self-redemption, and self-justification would become the prefered ‘respectable’ religion of millions who would follow him. Those on the “way of Cain” are ever willing to acknowledge the Creator, and even to extol his benevolence or His other favorable attributes, but they would adamantly balk at any suggestion of their own sinful condition, or any reference to the need of Divine redemption, substitution or the certainty of wrath and judgment!
This is the religion of the first murderer. It is a self-exalting Will worship, self-justification, salvation by works, Knowing God as Creator indeed, admitting his benevolent gift of life, but denying the fall, redemption, and the certainty of Hell.
It’s origin is Cain but its thread is a constant of human history, leading all the way through to its final and fullest expression in the Anti-Christ, the ultimate “will worshipper”, the man of sin, the son of perdition, “who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or is worshipped as God….” confessing ultimately that he himself is god!
The so called “mainstream” Protestant churches have long since gone the way of Cain, for the most part, offering only a “social gospel” of good works, and “social justice”. Abandoning the gospel they were brought into existence to bear witness to, what other use could justify the church, other than a social serves organization?
They have abandoned the gospel revelation of the sin of man, and the need for repentance and personal rebirth. The idea of a God of Holy Wrath is an embarrassment to them, it is considered a barbaric throwback, to primitive, unenlightened times. There will be no trembling hands bringing a bloody sacrifice to a Holy God in these churches now, only Cain’s fruit.
But alas, within evangelicalism also , Cain’s teaching can has taken hold. Pastors, teachers, authors, and theologians have now emerged to deny the doctrine of propitiation, and also the concept which underlies and presupposes it, ie the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.
Popular books are being published which deny the doctrine of eternal punishment(hell) in the name of the only attribute they will ever allow in God, Love. An evangelical church is “emerging” which emphasizes ritual, sensual religious experience, psychology, and humanistic love, but which adamantly opposes the idea of a Holy God of Wrath and Justice, as well as of Mercy and Grace.
But the most high God rejected the offering of Cain.
If there is a “way of Cain” as the Apostles warned us, surely there is a contrasting way of Abel, As Erich Sauer points out in his “Dawn of World Redemption”-
It is ,“the humble acknowledgement that sin demands death,the reliance of the guilty on the sacrifice appointed by God himself,the enduring of persecution for the sake of the eternal goal,the expectation of the triumph of the Divine Redemption through the woman’s seed “.(Sauer,”Dawn of World Redemption,Pater Noster press, pg 64)
Cain’s way will soon perish, it leads to the AntiChrist and to judgment and hell itself, for it is ever rejected of God. But Abel, though like the ultimate Abel, the Messiah, who also was persecuted and even slain, attains eternal life!
The key to what is driving this is to see the Torah through the eyes of a nomadic herding culture already thousands of years old at the time the Torah was written. Remember: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David were all herdsman. They see the world very differently than we do. There are many of what I consider to be interpretive errors on the part of Ezra et al when Israel returned from Bavel. It was my familiarity with habitat restoration in xeric and Mediterranean mesic landscapes that helped me discern the themes behind what was actually being said and not any special talent as regards Hebrew. Ezra was a priest, not a herdsman and warrior, and he saw what he was reading in a mystical fashion. Not that he altered the text, but that what went into the Talmud that so heavily influenced our latter day understanding is where that influence was most felt. In a way, these distinctions do much to confirm that the original stories (which some believe were transcribed from tablets) are as old as it says they are. I can't go into that right now.
This is a real-world understanding, with little to no mysticism involved. Hence, the metaphors work backward from those to which we are used, with the story mapping onto everyday technical military, social, economic, and environmental reality. To get a taste for that, take a look at the Shemitta web site. BTW, although it says there is a CD I'm not selling them any more because so many of the recent findings have me focused upon an update, particularly as regards how we might apply these laws today. As it is, I may just put most of this up on the web for free, but for those "picture books" for which I would have to request specific permission. We have simply got to get people DOING what the book teaches or we stand to lose everything.
Carry_Okie, please include me on any future updates and of how I can purchase from the fruits of your efforts. I thank you, in advance.
Pastor Bill, thank you, too, for the wonderful words you continue to offer.
Not saying I believe or disbelieve what you are saying, just that I agree with you that most of the time we read things primarily in the limitations of English, ignorant of the fact that the other languages may have other meanings.
err... are you saying 10s of 1000s or 1000s?
Yes, I do understand the Biblical chronology, having translated the names in a couple of genealogies. I know how hard this can be. I really do know how upsetting discussion of this kind can be, yet I also feel a responsibility to share with you a little of why I have taken the position I have, if only out of respect for a brother.
According to the archaeological record, at the time the Torah was put into writing, people had been herding in that area and across the Sahel for 14,000 years. Yes, that means I don't think the Creation of Bereshit was a literal story but a metaphor teaching a pattern of specific roots by which to learn about the cyclical nature of the relationship between the Lord and humankind. It is effectivley an overview of a cycle first described in the teachings from Gen. 2:4-Chapter 8. There are very good scriptural reasons for that observation I will not discuss here but suffice it to say that the hypothesis has been independently reviewed and I am pursuing it further.
That doesn't mean I don't think we have an all powerful G_d. It does mean that I think we don't know Him very well. I cannot imagine the kind of love it takes to tolerate so much ignorance flying off in all directions while He lets us work it out and truly learn how little we know and how much we need His direction.
I know, it can be very upsetting, but allow me to offer you an example as to what I mean as to translation problems. Consider this: A transliteration for the first two words in the Hebrew Torah would be "Bereshit bara," the standard translation to which is "In THE beginning." Yes, we are only two words into the Bible and we already have a problem: There is no definite article for "the" in "bereshit." If in fact it meant "In THE beginning," the Hebrew would read "b'hareshit" (the Hebrew definite article for "the" is "ha"). So a more accurate translation of what is on the scroll would be "in beginning," or "in A beginning" which would suggest a cycle and not THE beginning of all things. The second word for "created" is transliterated as "bara." Yet any Hebrew linguist will tell you that the root for "bara" as originally understood DOES NOT mean "created" as in 'something from nothing,' but indicates a shaping process involving a pre-existing workpiece (be sure to read the Genesius' lexicon entry within the page). Virtually all the references within the lexicon entry to 'something from nothing' come from our existing understanding of the passage and not from the language itself. That's how bad it is. In short, we're stuck in a tautological understanding of way too many words in the Torah to have a very good understanding of what was originally intended, for which there is a very good reason.
Remember: Until the last 120 years, Hebrew was virtually a dead language. In fact, the primary Christian source for the "old Testament" is the Septuagint. It was written in Greek in 235 BC for the purpose of making the Torah available to the vast majority of Jews who only spoke Greek. Over the next millennium, the Jewish people studied Torah and especially the Talmud almost exclusively in Greek up until the modern era. Virtually all the scholarship of Rashi, Maimonides, and Nachmanides, was written in Greek. Modern Hebrew was reconstructed from their 19th century modern Jewish understanding of the Bible built primarily on the writings of those three great rabbis.
Over the last several decades and especially since Israel was resettled by European Jews, archaeology has found numerous tablets by which to improve our understanding of the ancient language. One can read business orders, grocery lists, contracts... by which to refine our understanding of the language and its idioms at that time.
Unfortunately, the churches of this world haven't kept up with that explosion in knowledge (at least insofar as informing their parishioners). This is partly because many of the researchers were so hell bent on destroying religion but it is also because the parishioners would freak if they understood how little the priests really know. It would be very bad for business. In other words, the scholarship of the attackers was pretty bad but so was that of the defenders.
I don't pretend to be a scholar, although I do know a few and have contributed work they respect. I have a computer that doesn't care. Over time, the resources available on the Internet have become VERY powerful, allowing anyone willing to dig access to what was available only to academics 20 years ago with the addition of very powerful search tools. What I have that they don't have is a the combined understanding hands-on of land management, economics, political corruption, and history. I was brought up going to a Catholic school, going to an Episcopalian church, and attending the Jewish Community Center thereafter and over summer. I learned everybody's schtick.
As to Cain and Abel, it is probably a shepherd's polemic that is Sumerian in origin. That is certainly in no way in conflict with the Torah, but is at odds to our understanding of it.
interesting. I don’t know hebrew, so can’t debate it. A shepherd’s polemic you say. hmmm... I look forward to your future posts, please can you add me to any ping list you have.
As in a Sumerian oral history later told among "the children of Shet" (see Num. 24:17) which has the same spelling as "Seth." The key to the point of the "polemic" is expressed in the contrasts between the names of Abel and Seth. There's your hint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.