Can Someone Explain To Me The Significance Of Cain And Abel?

There was nothing simple about it Fish and denying your obvious motivation just heaps coals on your own head.

"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes?There is more hope for a fool than for them" (Prov 26:12)

It appears quite simple to me. A person who believes they are always right, and values their own opinion above what the Word of God actually teaches is quite foolish. My "motivation" is that I prefer to see posts backed by Scripture, than posts that declare someone is wrong based solely on the opinion of that person posting. You do this quite a bit--but we're all guilty of it from time to time. It's wise to listen to Proverbs 26:12--it's in the Bible for a purpose, and a reason.
 
Again clothing is NOT the same as shedding blood for the remission of sin, and you are assuming the death of an innocent was required when Genesis does NOT state or show this. I can't assume.

OK, LOL, I read it s l o w l y! Some goods points but the author says "beyond reasoned explanation", and I have a problem with that.
Also he assumes God commanded them on what to do as regards the offering. I see no evidence of this except for the author retroactively inserting the Leviticus law into this scenario. Again no support for that. The commands of God are of course important but we can't just assume they exist and then base our premises on them.
He focuses on v4 but says nothing about v5 where it says; but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. Then in verse 7 God says to Cain; "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Stan brings up a good point and if we go to God's Word, I think we can find the answer.

Genesis 4:2
"And she (Eve) again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground."

Now WHY tend sheep" ??? Man was a vegetarian until after the flood.

Well, the use of a real animal as the source of skins for cloths would certainly explain why in chapter 4 Abel raises sheep – not for eating , but for both clothing and for offering as an animal sacrifice before the LORD; which precedent was set before his father and mother in Eden.

If God had used merely an artificial skin look alike – Adam and Eve had no precedent for finding a source of clothing or sacrifice of any authorisation or need to kill animals for any of these. It is also a plain reading of the text that would make sense to the later people (Mosaic Community) where the skin of an animal was offered to make atonement for sin (Leviticus 7:8).
The alternative would have to be that God made an artificial skin which did not come from an animal, yet it looked and felt like an animal skin. This kind of happening would open the door on the sceptics’ claim of a deceitful God, would it not???

I am not saying you have to agree with me but it is something to think about.
 
Also,

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

On the day that Adam ate, what died?

And the word die -mooth- in the verse is repeated two times and we know when we find a word repeated twice in the Word it carries a very significant meaning/warning (i.e. - verily, verily), so the correct reading is:

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die die.

Gene

Yes sir........it is very much akin to the way Jesus used the double "Varily, Varily" statements in His teaching.

Adam & Eve both died "spiritually" the moment they sinned and needed a Savior/Messiah.
 
Rusty said..........
"The real skins that Christ made from living animals are a symbol of His Life being forfeited (the innocent) for ours, (the guilty) as in the Zechariah verses above. Throughout the Bible, nakedness symbolizes sin, the Fall, the loss of the innocence....Noah naked, David on the steps, etc.
Does this help?

It does not help me Rusty but I hope that is helps Stan.

You are correct and I agree with you. It was Christ who came to the Garden looking for Adam and Eve, And It was Christ who killed the animals and used their skin as a covering. And yes again to the fact that "nakedness" denotes SIN, the Fall and loss of innocence.
 
Oh good...let me know how that goes.

OK, so Gen 3:21 uses the same word in the Greek that Gen 1:1 does. The word is ποιέω / poieō. Now as God had already created the animals, creating or making the animal skins would not be an issue.
The Hebrew words both connote make so I see no inconsistency between the languages.

I don't see the typification you see Rusty. God would give them what was available at hand at that time. NOT woven garments.

Although God's plan for salvation WAS already established in His will and mind, I don't see it represented here. What does it tell us here in Gen 4 was the reason for the offering? Did God tell Cain He didn't accept his offering because it wasn't an animal with blood? No He told him if you "DO the right thing", NOT 'offer' the right thing.

The first mention I see of a sacrifice/burnt offering on an altar, is in Gen 8:20, AFTER the flood.

In order to make sure to those who read posts on this site but do not comment, maybe because they are not members or even fear getting caught up into a confrontation, allow me to give to you what I believe is the correct understanding of why the animals were killed by God, dressed by God and made into "tunics" by God for Adam and Eve.

In the very first book of the Bible, Genesis, with the very first people, a blood sacrifice was offered for them.

WHY?

God did for them what they could not do for themselves.

Ephesians 2:8 tells us clearly that.........
"For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves. It is the gift of God not of works, lest any man should boast".

The only way that the skins could have been made into "tunics" is that someone killed a sacrificial animal. There in the garden was Adam and Eve and they didn't do it. That leaves only the Lord God. If we somehow try to explain this in some other way, then how did the sacrificial lambs in Exodus die???? The parents of each house hold KILLED the lamb for the salvation of their children. The death angel Passed over the blood covered door post which is a vived and real reminder that the blood must also be applied to the doorpost of our hearts today.

As the Old Test. foretold and illustrated the doctrine of Redemption is a figurative, the New Test. boldly tells us clearly of the ONE who purchased our redemption for us.

WHY?????
God did for us what we could not do for ourselves!

John 1:29 tells us............
"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him and saith, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world".

The meaning then of Redemption is two Hebrew roots that designate a process by which something alienated may be recovered for its original owner by paying a sum of money. This alluded more to slaves being redeamed by money. Lets read 1 Peter 1:18 for context...............

1 Peter 1:18 says
"For as much as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers".

Silver and gold could not redeem us. We were alienated from God, although He was our original owner, so He paid for the ransom. That leads to the next question which is......WHY was a ransom necessary?????????

Throughout church history, several views have been taught. One is that Christ was the ransom paid to the devil to redeem people who had become slaves to Satan. This view has always been met with strong opposition and has never been accepted as doctrine.

To counteract this teaching, that God owed Satan a ransom, an opponent of this view came up
with a different view. Abelard (1141 A.D. taught that there could be nothing in the divine essence that required satisfaction". He wrote that the Cross was only an exhibition of divine love and its effects was only a moral one---that the Cross would merely serve to woo sinners.

The truth is that God owes Satan nothing!!!!! The ransom for sin was not paid to Satan!!!!
Redemption was a necessary act but the necessity was not imposed from without. If that was true, then God would not be God. The necessity for redemption was imposed from WITHIN by virture of God's just nature. A Holy God not only required a ransom, He paid that ransom. God paid what God demanded.

What is it that God demanded?????

Genesis 2:17..........
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalyt surely die. "

That was God's just command......."Obedience". In the dispensation of Innosence, Adam and Eve failed. They disobeyed God and that is the sin that God demanded be judged. The judgment was DEATH.

"Thou shalt surely die". Not "maybe"....but SURELY. They both died spiritually the moment they ate the fruit and needed a Savior.

It was then that Christ killed the animal, cleaned it and made a tunic and gave it to Adam and Eve to cover their sin.

It was in the plan of God that a Messiah would come to redeem all humanity from its sin by the shedding of His blood to die for all men. But because that Messiah who is Christ was 100% God, He could not stay dead thus He rose from the grave 3 days later having provided all humanity the redeemtive act where by "all men might be saved".

God provided to man what man could not provide for himself!!!!!!!
 
Redemption was a necessary act

Also, I would like to add my two cents to what major said.

Redemption, the word redemption in the New Testament is used in several different ways,

a. redemption can mean or be used, for example, to describe the act of a wealthy farmer buying (that's our word redemption) a slave to use to harvest his crops, when the harvest is finished he would sell the slave back to the slave block be sold (redeemed) again and again, this could go on for all of the slave's life.

b. redemption can also mean someone buys a slave and then sets the slave free, never to be bought or sold again for the rest of their lives.

...that's the word used, the signification in the New Testament of the act of redemption that Jesus Christ did for us on the Cross, He bought us, paid for us with His own inestimable/priceless blood, and then set us free (from the bondage of or slavery to sin) to worship and serve Him, ... now here's the mind blower, ...if we chose to do so, ...He will never force us.

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me!

Now unto Him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our Savior, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Blessings,

Gene
 
Again clothing is NOT the same as shedding blood for the remission of sin, and you are assuming the death of an innocent was required when Genesis does NOT state or show this. I can't assume.

OK, LOL, I read it s l o w l y! Some goods points but the author says "beyond reasoned explanation", and I have a problem with that.
Also he assumes God commanded them on what to do as regards the offering. I see no evidence of this except for the author retroactively inserting the Leviticus law into this scenario. Again no support for that. The commands of God are of course important but we can't just assume they exist and then base our premises on them.
He focuses on v4 but says nothing about v5 where it says; but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. Then in verse 7 God says to Cain; "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

Stan says...............
"and you are assuming the death of an innocent was required when Genesis does NOT state or show this. I can't assume."

Can't assume????

The obvious question then must be..............Did God make tunics of animals while they were still alive.??

Silly thought isn't it? It is sure silly to me!

So then, how did the animals die? Heart attack? Snake bite? Old age?

Or could it be that God killed them (It) in order to make the covering for Adam and Eve. What a thought that is!!!!

I am pretty sure we will not hear an answer from Stan on this as there is only one answer and Rusty has already given it.

Rusty said.........
"The real skins that Christ made from living animals are a symbol of His Life being forfeited (the innocent) for ours, (the guilty) as in the Zechariah verses above. Throughout the Bible, nakedness symbolizes sin, the Fall, the loss of the innocence....Noah naked, David on the steps." :)!!!
 
No disrespect to Stan is meant here, but in my mind I'm picturing Adam and Eve wearing live animals (skins),
...boy, that congers up so many wild images and questions, ...I'd pay money to see that. LOL

Blessings,

Gene
 
Back
Top