Mike,

In your article on the Law, under the definition for Sin, you imply that Cain needed to bring a blood offering. I wanted to know how and why you come to this conclusion. From my study I can see that Cain did not bring the good fruit (from the tree and not of the ground) which underscored the more important point of his attitude toward God was the problem and not what he brought. We see that Abel was selective in his choice from his flock.

Cain was a “Gardener” and Abel a “herdsmen” so each brought forth from their “profession” a portion of what they owned as an offering. Where is it required of someone who does not own livestock to bring a blood sacrifice as an offering especially before the establishment of the law? Should Cain have stolen one of Abel’s flock, and a fat one at that? (kidding)

This is a minor point in what is so far (I’m still reading and studying it) an excellent study on the law, but I was wondering if you could shed more light on why you suggested the reason for God’s lack of respect to be in the type of offering and not the heart that brought it. For we know Abel was a righteous man from Matthew and of faith in Heb 11 so therefore Cain was unrighteous and without faith (in fact being without faith would render him unrighteous).

I would think that if blood had anything to do with the “offering” (not sacrifice, and not sin offering) given here that we would have some reference to that fact somewhere in scripture. Maybe we do, and so I ask, if you know.

Your clarification of “Counted” in the definition of righteousness has helped me a great deal in getting a better understanding and being able to better explain righteousness from God… thank you.

The only reference we have to this offering shows that the issue was faith (Heb 11:4). It doesn’t shed any light as to a requirement for blood for atonement or any other reason. So I now have to understand that a blood sacrifice is required before any other offering will be acceptable in Cain’s (Adam’s) time up til Christ died. I was of the understanding that offerings could and would be made to God of other things apart from sacrificial offering for atonement.

Looks like I have some studying to do…

From the article:

In Rom 2, Paul is calling the Jewish believers to task for judging the Gentile believers who “have not the law, but do by nature[ the “divine nature” of 2Pe 1:4] the things contained in the law” (Rom 2:14). Paul is not talking about the old covenant law because that law required circumcision. Circumcision, among many other laws, is NOT by nature. The Jews thought that because they had the law of Moses, they had the truth. Behold thou art a Jew and restest in the law and makest your boast of God and knowest his will and approvest the things that are more excellent being instructed out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. (Rom 2:17-20) The old covenant, which includes the ten commandments (Deu 4:13), was a “form of knowledge and… truth”.

Part way through the law vs law. Good stuff. I’m in complete agreement and understanding with the overall point and have been since I first read Romans, though I needed confirmation again after hearing teachings on sacrificial vs ceremonial vs moral law. I was confused about the passage above until I read it for the 8th time. Now I understand that you are attempting to correct incorrect thinking that “Gentiles are to keep the Law of Moses”. In fact Paul is talking about the Old Covenant law or more precisely things contained therein (elements of) but is not speaking of Gentiles trying to keep the entire law but of them “creating” a law for themselves in the natural observance of these elements of the Old Covenant Law.

I came up in a tithing church for 10 years and tithing had become my testimony, but I never read the Bible. I would get through Genesis (KJV) up to the begats and always stop there. This year in January my wife and I changed churches to a large teaching church which, while they not only stressed tithing but first fruits as well, they also taught more than told stories. Well, at first I was excited about the stuff I was hearing; later I would find my spirit was not liking what I was hearing and I started reading the Bible (NIV study Bible) for myself. I had struggles with people trying to explain “revelation knowledge” that is outside of context and a bunch of junk I heard on the radio (some of which was good). Finally I ran into an old High School friend who gave me some insight, and I’ve been hungry since for what the Word says and not what people say.

I read the article on context and in general understand what is meant by it, but I also understand that the revelation of Jesus to the Apostles changed or revealed the true context of the Old testament and thus the quotes of OT passages are not out of context.

Thanks for the work you’ve done. I’ll keep reading and would like to read more if you have written more.

Thanks

G____

Dear G____,

Thank you for your perceptive question. If you are reading the law paper, you are indeed interested in the deeper things of God’s word. I have gotten this very question on several occasions, and I have posted a letter answering this question. What is revealed in the scriptures, without the scriptures actually saying so, is that there was much unrecorded instruction. All we are told in the first few chapters of Genesis is that God made clothes for Adam and Eve of the skins of animals. We are not told of any instructions concerning sacrifices at all. Yet we find Cain and Abel making sacrifices. Where did they come up with this idea in the first place? It is obvious from God’s reproof of Cain that God Himself (Christ) had given instructions to Adam and Eve concerning the proper way to sacrifice. We find that men had been told that certain animals were to be considered clean and certain animals were to be considered unclean long before men were even given meat as food. Adam and Eve were never instructed to eat meat. Not even the animals ate meat before the flood of Noah.

Gen 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Yet God tells Cain “If you do well will you not be accepted.” Read this letter and by all means read a book by Andrew Jukes called “The Law of the Offerings” if you can find it for a really in depth study of this subject.. If God has given you a desire to get to know Christ, then you need to come to know Christ as God wants you to know Him. He reveals this to us in the offerings. Knowing Christ as God wants us to see Him is no small thing. I think that is the very message of this story of Cain and Abel.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Seth’s descendants were God’s ‘Israel’ before the flood. That was one of the things that separated Noah from the rest of mankind.

Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

Noah had not intermarried with the line of Cain. All the other ‘sons of God had looked on the daughters of men and had taken whom they desired.’

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Noah had not done this. Though our pre-flood information is sketchy, we are told while Adam and Eve were still in the garden that there would be two lines come of Eve. One line was called ‘the seed of the woman,’ the other line was called ‘the seed of the serpent.’ Just as with Jacob and Esau, after the flood God had His accepted people through Abel replaced by Seth (the name ‘Seth’ means ‘instead of’) and His rejected people, through Cain. God refused to allow Adam and Eve to ‘cover their nakedness with leaves, which just as Cain’s offering, came out of the dust of the ground. Instead He insisted that blood must be sacrificed to cover their nakedness. ‘Nakedness’ is a Biblical type for sin:

Rev 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just like the law of Moses, made Adam and Eve aware of this nakedness.

Adam and Eve were totally unaware of how they had been created, that is naked and sinful, until they had eaten of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before they ever sinned they were already sin and weren’t even aware of it.

Psa 51:5 Behold, I [Adam] was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother [our Creator Christ] conceive me.

Paul agrees with David:

Rom 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

What God hopes for God gets:

Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Paul also saw the knowledge of sin for what it was:

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law [the knowledge of good and evil] sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

While it is clear that there was no law ‘written by the finger of God,’ before Sinai, it is abundantly clear that there was law. It simply wasn’t codified with attendant punishments dictated for offenses. It was this already existing, never changing law of God, to which Moses law was “added.”

Gal 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law [of Moses]? It was added [to the already existing law of God] because of transgressions [against that already existing law], [only un-]till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

So the story of God replacing the leaves with skins tells us that God did not accept the work of our own hands, grown from the ground to cover our nakedness. It is apparent that God had given instructions to this effect to Adam and Eve.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This is the message of all animal sacrifices, animal sacrifices that God had instituted when he replace leaves with animal skins.

I hope this adds to what you have already covered, and I hope you finish reading the law paper. The most revealing part of that paper is near the end in discussing the purpose for the lake of fire.

The by-laws that incorporate a church replace the scriptures as to what defines the true “church of the living God.” Consequently no incorporated church can possibly tell “the plain truth.”

Mike