Genesis 4:7 Did Yahweh Offer Acceptance to Cain?

[marc4liberty]

Genesis 4:7 Yahweh says to Cain "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?

When Yahweh did not respect the offering of Cain, Yahweh asked Cain why he was wroth (angry?) and why his countenance had fallen. In the next verse, it seems that Yahweh offers the possibility of acceptance to Cain if he does well and does not sin.

This seems to contradict other scriptures that say that no descendants of Cain can ever be accepted because they are of their father the devil. My understanding is that they are the tares that will be burned on Judgement Day.

Did Yahweh offer acceptance to Cain? If so, did Yahweh offer this acceptance only because he knew that it was not possible for Cain to not sin and do well in the eyes of God? If that is the case, why wasn't Yahweh more straight forward and tell Cain he could never be accepted?

Thanks for any advice on this issue.

[Kentucky]

Evidently, it was not just doing a good work, but doing a good work well; going straight to one's heart attitude in serving God, which begs the question: why would both sons be given the opportunity to make an offering if one was not in the faith of the promised seed? Perhaps, it parallels the contrast between Jacob and Esau, where their destinies were foreknown, but both had an equal responsibility (or opportunity) to serve the will of God without envy and strife. Even a heretic is given an admonition twice before being rejected (Titus 3:10). The problem, in principle, is whether anybody is listening to the Word and cheerfully executes its orders. Cain seems to exemplify a distaste for believing the truth; in there being ramifications for disobedience or sin. I just talked about that this last Sunday with a lesson in II Thes. 2:10-11, the one about God sending "strong delusion" - http://kinsmanredeemer.com/energy-error

Mark

[wmfinck]

There is merit to the idea that distinguishes whether in giving we give with sincerity of heart, or whether doing good deeds we do them without improper motives. However I believe there is much more than that going on here, and because we are not given any specifics in Genesis 4 explaining certain things, we must turn to the New Testament in order to find why Cain was not accepted, which is what I have attempted to illustrate in the Pragmatic Genesis programs.

I don't read anything in Genesis 4 that says that Cain and Abel were given the opportunity to sacrifice, but only a statement of fact that they each did make a sacrifice. Jude equates the "way of Cain" with the "gainsaying of Core", and Core, although he was of the tribe of Levi, also tried to establish his own priestly order apart from what God had ordained.

If Cain were the proper birthright holder, and making a presumption that he was rejected for his crime, then Seth would have been a replacement for Cain, and not for Abel. Jude, counting Enoch as "seventh from Adam", we must count either Cain or Abel, but not both, so therefore Seth being a replacement for Abel, it is evident that Cain is not considered.

So the matter of Cain's sacrifice does not establish his right to be sacrificing. (It is evident that Abel was the proper Melchizedek priest, successor to his father.)

It was discussed at length, in Pragmatic Genesis, Part 7, that in several places in Scripture wicked men were challenged to do good - even if it is plainly evident that they cannot possibly do good. For this same reason did John the Baptist challenge the Pharisees and Sadducees who came out to inquire of his baptizing (Matthew 3:7 ff., Luke 7:29-30) to do good, even though he knew they were evil. Therefore he proclaimed that the axe was already laid to the root of the trees, and as Christ told us elsewhere, a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.

Cain was wroth because his sacrifice was rejected. It was not his role to be sacrificing. Nevertheless, he was challenged to do good, and went out immediately and slew Abel. Yet he was told that if he did not do good, "sin lieth at the door": Cain being a bastard could not possibly keep himself from evil. The bad tree could not possibly produce good fruit.

As the Greek adage I quoted for that program states, “the bastard is always an enemy to the true-born” (Euripides, Hippolytus, lines 962-963)

[Kentucky]

I don't read anything in Genesis 4 that says that Cain and Abel were given the opportunity to sacrifice, but only a statement of fact that they each did make a sacrifice.

I was struggling to find the right word, whether it was an opportunity or responsibility or something else; but whatever it was, it was equally given to both, otherwise Cain would not have made the effort.

So the matter of Cain's sacrifice does not establish his right to be sacrificing.

So what do you think would have been the consequences had Cain not offered anything? If he didn't have the right, then he wouldn't have been guilty of not sacrificing?

For this same reason did John the Baptist challenge the Pharisees and Sadducees.... Cain was wroth because his sacrifice was rejected. It was not his role to be sacrificing. Nevertheless, he was challenged to do good

If there was nothing in Gen 4 that says it was an "opportunity", is there anything to suggest Cain and Abel were given a "challenge"? Both words would suggest an outcome to show either good or evil. Would it have made any difference if Abel offered the salad and Cain offered the meat; that it wasn't so much what they offered, but the attitude they had in giving it?

It's difficult to understand why a mixed blood person would be given a chance to show themselves worthy, when the outcome is already understood that they can't. But, I was thinking of Judas as an example as to why Christ would have a racial alien and traitor within His company of Disciples. To prove, time and time again, they cannot be trusted to perform as God's racially pure people. However, the snag in that thought is that we, likewise, have race traitors who are our own kind. The premise then, is not necessarily whether Cain was the same as his brother (racially) or whether he was mixed blood, but how he responded to God. That's the underlying principle of Exodus 23:33, that we should not live among them, because they will make us sin, worshiping their gods. Therefore, Cain should have been purged from the Garden before the challenge ever happened. Who was responsible for him being there?

Mark

[marc4liberty]

I had just listened to Pragmatic Genesis Part 6 when I posted these questions. I have now listened to Pragmatic Genesis Part 7 where Bill gives a reasonable answer to my questions. In retrospect, I would not have posted my questions if I had first listened to Part 7.

Now Kentucky (Mark) has raised other questions on this issue.

Therefore, Cain should have been purged from the Garden before the challenge ever happened. Who was responsible for him being there?

As I see it, Yahweh put Satan in the Garden of Eden for the purpose of testing the free will of Adam and Eve to follow His law, reject evil and chose to love Yahweh willingly. It seems to me that Satan and his descendants also have free will. After all, wasn't Satan one of Yahweh's "good" angels and he freely chose to rebel against the rule of Yahweh?

Since the descendants of Satan are not the creation of Yahweh, they apparently cannot be redeemed. However, it seems to me that they still have free will and can choose to do well in the eyes of Yahweh. They apparently just have no opportunity for eternal salvation.

[wmfinck]

Kentucky considers free will to be an illusion. In one perspective, he is absolutely correct, for Yahweh God knows all of the outcomes and the choices and paths that each one of us are going to take. If He did not, He would not be God. The books of the prophets and foreknowledge of God would not exist.

However I see it from a different perspective, where we do indeed make our own decisions to do right or wrong, but God knows exactly which way we shall go long before we get to the point of decision. So when we choose an action, God already knew we would choose it, but we doing the choosing agree to the action. If the action is sin, we agree to the sin at the point of decision, and therefore the sin is our own.

Mark may or may not agree with this, he has a paper on the topic, but I admittedly only read it in part.

I will answer his post after my program cycle. Gotta do that first, LOL

[Kentucky]

Kentucky considers free will to be an illusion. In one perspective, he is absolutely correct, for Yahweh God knows all of the outcomes and the choices and paths that each one of us are going to take. If He did not, He would not be God. The books of the prophets and foreknowledge of God would not exist.

However I see it from a different perspective, where we do indeed make our own decisions to do right or wrong, but God knows exactly which way we shall go long before we get to the point of decision. So when we choose an action, God already knew we would choose it, but we doing the choosing agree to the action. If the action is sin, we agree to the sin at the point of decision, and therefore the sin is our own.

Mark may or may not agree with this, he has a paper on the topic, but I admittedly only read it in part.

Your assessment isn't that different from mine. In that paper I basically expressed the same perspective:

"In order to understand what free will implies, we must acknowledge the sovereignty of God and predestination. Would you agree that God knows all things past and future and therefore He must have known all about the sins that have ever been and ever will be committed? In other words, events are fixed and inevitable. What Eve did had to happen, right? The point here is that God's omniscience includes foreknowledge and that His foreknowledge is eternal. If it were not, then He must have learned something new at some given time. But that would mean that before the time when He learned it, He was ignorant of something and therefore He would not be omniscient and He would not be God. Acts 15:18 will help secure this idea in your mind, "Known unto God are all of His works from the beginning of the world.

"So God not only foreknew the Fall of Adam and Eve, He purposed it, He planned it, He intended it, He foreordained it, He predestined it. However you want to put it, God was in charge. If we understand and believe that God has a plan for the ages, we must know what it is. What is it? Is it that man would have his own sovereign will to decide what is right or wrong? Or is it that only God has a sovereign will and the only option for man is to have the same will or purpose as his Creator? If God merely wanted robots or some kind of dysfunctional creature, would it not be logical that that creature could not possess the ability to know God's will, because there would be no need for any law from God? They would just be programmed machines. On the other hand, I think you'll agree that God did create Adam and Eve and did provide a law for them. The Lord chose them to fulfill a certain role and they failed and He knew they would fail. What possible purpose would God have in doing such a thing? Well, we know throughout Scripture that others have been chosen also; Esau and Pharaoh and the Pharisees were all chosen vessels... vessels of dishonor, that God might show forth His power and glory. God raised them up to play the role of the antagonist or adversary to God. But God had foreknowledge that He would have a race of people who would play the part of His protagonist or be in concord with His law, His will."

From: http://kinsmanredeemer.com/FreeWill.htm

Mark

[Kentucky]

As I see it, Yahweh put Satan in the Garden of Eden for the purpose of testing the free will of Adam and Eve to follow His law, reject evil and chose to love Yahweh willingly. It seems to me that Satan and his descendants also have free will. After all, wasn't Satan one of Yahweh's "good" angels and he freely chose to rebel against the rule of Yahweh?

Since the descendants of Satan are not the creation of Yahweh, they apparently cannot be redeemed. However, it seems to me that they still have free will and can choose to do well in the eyes of Yahweh. They apparently just have no opportunity for eternal salvation.

This is where I have a different perspective from some of my Identity Christian brethren, insofar as the enemy of God and our race, which is any agency of an adversary. I don't believe that our race has a so called "free will." However you bring up a good point that our adversaries do have free will. This may be truer than you think, because free will claims sovereignty i.e. man is in charge, not God. If anyone puts themselves before or above the Creator, it is impossible for them "to do well."

So yes, the non-Israelite may be infused with a free will, whereas we are not, to keep them in delusion. The axiom is found in II Thes. 2:10-11 where He sends not only congenital liars a "strong delusion," but our own race as well "because they received not the love of the truth," which was probably through the bad choice of "learning the ways of the heathen," as opposed to "the way, the truth and the life." The only difference between the two entities of Gen. 3:15 (the White race vs mongrels) is that we have the infusion of His Spirit to be in agreement with His will.

This is His plan for the ages, that His people will be in complete agreement with his Word, and thus "All of Israel shall be saved," not mongrel adversaries. In essence, congenital adversaries have not a chance in hell of ever doing anything that is pleasing to the God of Israel. "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" Romans 9:13. All mongrels are under the wings of jewry. A non-White may at times commit to a random act of kindness towards us, but that is only because God is in charge of all things.

Mark

[MARKIII]

Free will or our own decisions? Here is your answer below.

2 Enoch 30:14 Yahweh told Adam about good and bad, so Yahweh could learn whether Adam has love towards him or hatred and who in his race loves him.