Cain & Abel

[Mudcat]

The problem with this belief is that all through Old Testament times and under the Mosaic law, God did in fact demand the sacrifice of fruit and wheat. Shewbread was kept in the temple at all times, a sacrifice of wheat, while Leviticus does specify which fruits and vegetables are to be sacrificed at different times. I do not think there is any scriptural support for the idea that God demanded the sacrifice only of animals.

I had actually put that up as a bit of a joke. But since we are discussing it....Any conclusions I have seen drawn on Cain's sacrifice, by LDS, come from non-Biblical sources. I don't think any case for the thoughts posited by LDS on the matter can be made from the Bible. The distinction Evangelicals tend to draw was that one offering was worthy and one wasn't. With the distinction being substance. Regardless, of the example of shewbread, I would posit that it wouldn't have done a Hebrew a bit of good to have sloshed carrot juice on his doors during the night of the passover in Exodus.

Where do we read this?Lehi

Post #6 on this thread.

[Sevenbak]

Regardless, of the example of shewbread, I would posit that it wouldn't have done a Hebrew a bit of good to have sloshed carrot juice on his doors during the night of the passover in Exodus.

I guess you never saw the Veggie-tales version...

[Ron Beron]

Where do we read this?

Lehi

Mudcat is right when he states that God wants a bloody sacrifice or at least that is what is set down in the Levitical codes, but this is not specific in this story. What is specific is Cain's reluctance to give his best or 'firstfruits'.

[LeSellers]

God wanted blood not brussel [sic] sprouts

Where do we read this?

Post #6 on this thread.

Naturally, you'll pardon me for not taking that source as definitive. Besides, Brussels was not a city c. 3970 bc, and therefore, Brussels sprouts had not been so named nor had they been cultivated, as far as I can tell.

However, I have heard this general attack on the LDS position from a host of others, none of whom can substantiate the claim. There is simply no reason to assume that God rejected Cain's sacrifice based on its substance, nor that Abel's was acceptable solely because it consisted of a lamb. The issue is "sacrifice": what does it mean? It is the making holy of something that one owns. Cain had no sheep, he could not sacrifice one. But the motivation behind a sacrifice is everything. If one makes a sacrifice to God, but does so from any position other than dedication to His Gospel, that sacrifice is vain. And the substance of the sacrifice is immaterial if the desire of one's heart is, as was Cain's, is to aggrandize himself.

Any conclusions I have seen drawn on Cain's sacrifice, by LDS, come from non-Biblical sources. I don't think any case for the thoughts posited by LDS on the matter can be made from the Bible.

Which is, of course, to us, a non-issue. However, the Bible itself cannot disprove our position, either.

Lucifer is for wide Christianity, the father of lies and of deceit. He is also the source of all rebellion against God. Cain's having offered a sacrifice to God at the behest of Satan falls directly in line with his, Satan's, modus operandi.

The distinction Evangelicals tend to draw was that one offering was worthy and one wasn't. With the distinction being substance. Regardless, of the example of shewbread, I would posit that it wouldn't have done a Hebrew a bit of good to have sloshed carrot juice on his doors during the night of the passover in Exodus.

Which is not anything any of us has ever claimed, and the implication that the two cases are parallel certainly has not been made, neither by you, personally, nor by anyone else on your side of the discussion. The fact is, there was an explicit commandment in re the blood of a lamb on the lintels and doorposts of Israel, but there is nothing parallel in Genesis that defines the sacrifice(s) that Adam and his progeny must have made. The mere fact that God makes no reference to a bad sacrificial substance when he speaks with Cain indicates that the sacrifice itself, that of grain (which may or may not have been substandard; again, we have only silence) weakens your claim.

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

One might reasonably ask: to whom do the words "thee" and "him" in v 7 refer? The only antecedent that makes any sense is "Satan". However, just as the old Jew who changed "Rosheit" to "Betrosheit" in Gen 1:1 was motivated by who-knows-what (we assume it was piety for a misinterpretation of the nature of God), another old Jew seems to have excised all references to Satan/Lucifer/the devil from the early books of the Bible. But he left this intriguing hint in. Thank God (and I do), that Joseph Smith had this truth revealed to him as he worked through the Bible.

The issue you all draw of worthiness cannot be substantiated by anything in scripture; hence, you are arguing from silence. The sacrifices noted in the Bible have always included both "bloody" and others. In fact, were we to count the instances of each, I believe we'd be hard-pressed to determine that one or the other was significantly more prevalent than the other.

Christ is:

• The Lamb of God
  
• The Bread of Life
  
• The Living Waters
  
• et cetera
  
• etc.
  
• &c.
  

Trying to hang your argument on only one of these name/titles does not do your assertion a whole lot of good, for by doing so, you ignore, by necessity, the others.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Mudcat is right when he states that God wants a bloody sacrifice or at least that is what is set down in the Levitical codes, ...

Which codes do not apply here at all. Moreover, even in the Levitical codes, the sacrifices were not uniformly "bloody", and many did not involved blood at all. Meat offerings, for instance, were meal and oil.

but this is not specific in this story. What is specific is Cain's reluctance to give his best or 'firstfruits'.

I haven't seen anything that tells us that Cain did not offer "firstfruits". Only that he offered the "fruit of the ground". If you have more information, it must not be biblical and, hence, suspect.

Lehi

[Nevo]

However, I have heard this general attack on the LDS position from a host of others, none of whom can substantiate the claim. There is simply no reason to assume that God rejected Cain's sacrifice based on its substance, nor that Abel's was acceptable solely because it consisted of a lamb.

"No reason"? What about the quote I posted from Joseph Smith? You seem to accept his teachings in the KFD unreservedly, why don't you accept his teaching on this issue?

[LeSellers]

"No reason"? What about the quote I posted from Joseph Smith? You seem to accept his teachings in the KFD unreservedly, why don't you accept his teaching on this issue?

You misread my statement. I was making the point that non-LDS Christianity cannot explain Cain because their sole scripture on the subject lacks any detail necessary to reach a conclusion. (Yet they do, nonetheless.)

It is precisely because I do accept Joseph's statements on Cain and his Satan-inspired sacrifice that I'm in this discussion at all. His statement is canonized in the book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price.

Lehi

[Nevo]

You misread my statement. I was making the point that non-LDS Christianity cannot explain Cain because their sole scripture on the subject lacks any detail necessary to reach a conclusion. (Yet they do, nonetheless.)

Let me spell out the contradiction then. You wrote: "There is simply no reason to assume that God rejected Cain's sacrifice based on its substance." But Joseph Smith said that Cain's sacrifice was rejected precisely because of its substance: it was not an acceptable sacrifice because it did not involve the shedding of blood, in similitude of the Atonement of Christ, therefore Cain did not exercise saving faith.

By faith in this atonement or plan of redemption, Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith, he could have no faith, or could not exercise faith contrary to the plan of heaven. It must be shedding the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised, because redemption was not purchased in that way, nor the power of atonement instituted after that order; consequently Cain could have no faith; and whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.

â?? Joseph Smith, Jr., TPJS, p. 58.

[Flyonthewall]

I have read Joseph Smith's explaination of why Cain's offering was not respected, and that is the reason I have always believed. Adam and Eve were instructed on the reason of animal sacrifice and it made sense that offerings of crops did not fit the bill.

I must admit that the quality of the offering, and the reason behind the offering also make sense, but Joseph Smith did not outline those reasons, so I still believe the blood offering was the reason.

Although non-animal offerings were allowed under the law of Moses, do we know they were acceptable before then?

[Nevo]

The cereal (grain) offering, mentioned in Leviticus 2, was provided as an alternative sacrifice for those Israelites who were too poor to offer an animal sacrifice. Otherwise, animal sacrifices were the norm.

[LeSellers]

Let me spell out the contradiction then. You wrote: "There is simply no reason to assume that God rejected Cain's sacrifice based on its substance."

And, as I said, you are misreading my position for that specific statement. I was, as I pointed out, making the case that the Bible is, itself, insufficient for reaching any conclusion on the question. Whatever we LDSs believe on the matter is not germane to this part of my argument.

But Joseph Smith said that Cain's sacrifice was rejected precisely because of it issues substance: it was not an acceptable sacrifice because it did not involve the shedding of blood, in similitude of the Atonement of Christ, therefore Cain did not exercise saving faith.

However, this teaching was superseded (or expanded upon) by the later translation of the book of Moses.

I point out that the two positions are not mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, whatever the substance of the sacrifice, the motivation was wholly improper, and that alone was more than sufficient for Cain to have incurred the wrath of an offended God. It would be far from unexpected that Satan would lie to Cain about the nature of his sacrifice.

That said, I am still of the conviction that since sacrifices of grains, etc., were acceptable (witness the biblical references to sacrifices of meal and oil, etc.). And I am also convinced that whatever Cain would have offered under the direction of Satan, would have been rejected, even had it been a lamb or one year, without spot or blemish. The issue in this case seems to revolve around what manner of sacrifice we are dealing with. As there were many, we must pick one, because if it was the pre-mosaic version of the meat offering, or another, similar to it, then we can apply both arguments. However, neither the Bible, nor the book of Moses has that information. Given this lack, we are perhaps justified in assuming that it was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of the Savior, and that only a "bloody" sacrifice would suffice.

In that case, we are somewhat confused by the standard Christianity that Adam was without the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And that only a strange, non-Christian theology existed among the ancients, and that did not appear until Abraham. Nor even then fully fledged until Moses.

Lehi

[Mudcat]

The issue you all draw of worthiness cannot be substantiated by anything in scripture; hence, you are arguing from silence. The sacrifices noted in the Bible have always included both "bloody" and others. In fact, were we to count the instances of each, I believe we'd be hard-pressed to determine that one or the other was significantly more prevalent than the other.

Lehi,

Look, I am just going to disagree with you. I am not arguing the point with you anymore.

As you have stated to Nevo, its not that the point I made has any validity in regards to your belief. You are arguing from a point that it can't have any validity in my belief. Even though this particular belief on Cain's sacrifice has been accepted by the Protestant community for a long time. If you feel the argument from silence, among other things, isn't enough for you to say that we have enough evidence for a reason for such a belief. That is your concern not mine.

[Ron Beron]

'LeSellers' writes,

Which codes do not apply here at all. Moreover, even in the Levitical codes, the sacrifices were not uniformly "bloody", and many did not involved blood at all. Meat offerings, for instance, were meal and oil.

I agree. Blood sacrifice doesn't apply here as I stated.

I haven't seen anything that tells us that Cain did not offer "firstfruits". Only that he offered the "fruit of the ground". If you have more information, it must not be biblical and, hence, suspect.

Actually, the Bible does say that an 'offering' or minkhah was given. The same word is used in Lev. 2. It was acceptable to offer vegetables. Here, however, it is not the type but the attitude of the giver.

The next passages are used to qualify the kind of sacrifice offered. Abel brings â??from the firstbornâ? and â??from the fattest of them.â? As the NET Bible interprets

These also could be interpreted as a hendiadys: â??from the fattest of the firstborn of the flock.â? Another option is to understand the second prepositional phrase as referring to the fat portions of the sacrificial sheep. In this case one may translate, â??some of the firstborn of his flock, even some of their fat portionsâ? (cf. NEB, NIV, NRSV). Here are two types of worshipers â?? one (Cain) merely discharges a duty at the proper time, while the other (Abel) goes out of his way to please God with the first and the best.

[Nevo]

However, this teaching was superseded (or expanded upon) by the later translation of the book of Moses.

Actually, the statement I quoted is dated January 22, 1834â??approximately three years after Joseph worked on Moses 5. But having done a little more digging, I'm not sure that Joseph Smith was even the author of the statement. The source is a letter entitled "The Elders of the Church in Kirtland to their Brethren Abroad" that was published in the March 1834 issue of the Evening and Morning Star. Although the Church seems to regard Joseph as the authorâ??the same excerpt is quoted in the current Priesthood/Relief Society manual here)â??I'm not sure how they arrived at that determination.

In any case, I agree that the scriptural accounts can accommodate a variety of explanations. Gordon Wenham, a British evangelical scholar, has noted at least five types of explanations put forward by (non-LDS) commentators, most of which are represented on this thread.

1. God prefers shepherds to gardners (Gunkel).
   
2. Animal sacrifice is more acceptable than vegetable offerings (Skinner, Jacob).
   
3. God's motives are inscrutable: his preference for Abel's sacrifice reflects the mystery of divine election (von Rad, Vawter, Golka, Westermann).
   
4. It was the different motives of the two brothers, known only to God, that accounts for their different treatment (Calvin, Dillman, Driver, Konig). See Hebrews 11:4.
   
5. It was the different approach to worship reflected in the quality of the gifts offered.
   

See Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1â??15 (Word Biblical Commentary 1; Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 104