Self-Determinism In The Dock

Is there not a point at which we must stop making excuses for ignoring God and no longer blame the other person for our behavior?  When Sarah lashed out at her husband Abraham for merely doing what she told him to do, God took the matter out of her hands and put things squarely in Abraham's grip.  The son Ishmael was conceived because Sarah demanded it; then when he was there Sarah hated Abraham for the part he played in the boy's presence.  Why is it that God spoke directly to Abraham and bypassed Sarah altogether in the sacrifice of Isaac?  Why did Abraham not take Sarah with him on the terrible duty up the mountain?  Perhaps it is because Sarah lost her way in not accepting the part she played in the denial of the Lord's providential leadership with regard to the building of her family?  In the end it was Abraham that had to get the job done, who had to wield the knife and raise it in faith.  One might wonder which was the worst, bringing the boy or having to watch him leave.  Yet in the end, each of them, at the previous point of rebellion, had to believe God all the way out to where self-ambition faded into complete faith in God and His way.  Sarah had to trust in Abraham to hear from God clearly and Abraham had to trust what he heard from the Lord and not slide out from under it.  No more passing the buck, no more waffling when God spoke.  It is allegiance to God only that we all must eventually determine for ourselves.         Then Sarai said to Abram, "You are responsible for the wrong I am suffering, I put my servant in your arms, and now that she knows she is pregnant, she despises me.  May the Lord judge between you and me."  Genesis 16: 5

A Tale Of Two Minkahs Concluded

Continued From Yesterday's Blog

The internal response of Cain to God’s reaction to his minkah is most telling. Remember we are peering in on the infancy of mankind when sin has not worked its way through every fabric of life yet, when bloodthirsty men and adulterous women were not making sin seem such a small and commonplace thing. The psychology of man was still simple too. Horrible experiences had not yet marred his way of thinking and interacting so we see in this microcosm of being a very telling thing about how life really is. The way Cain responds to God’s feelings about his sacrifice honestly feels rather childish. Why did he become so furious just because YHWH thought much of Abel’s minkah but was not happy with Cain’s? The reaction of Cain isn’t the result of immaturity; it is the way things look when sin hasn’t saturated your life and you are careless in your devotion to God.

One of the most important strategies of science is to eliminate every single variable from an experiment so that all you have left is a clear result. You want to test for how beneficial drinking lots of water is on health, you compare two groups of people with similar physical characteristics and give them the same diet and same exercise regimen and have them live in the same sort of environment and you might be able to find out how helpful it is to drink lots of water…or not helpful. In our account is the same sort of study. What you have here is the elimination of every other source of discouragement, every other difficulty, every other problem with friends and family and you are left with just the pure outcome of giving a bit to God and no more. We are so accustomed to lackadaisical, lukewarm, tepid faith that we are desensitized to its real effect. We see in Genesis four that it makes us miserable human beings. It is easy to just slough off this example as merely reflective of Cain’s socio-pathic personality. He had bad genes. Did he though? So far all we have about mankind in the early parts of Genesis is the wormy, pathogenic work of sin on the human race. In Genesis four is sin played out in offerings to the Lord. God clearly wanted us to know by showing us Cain’s response how a degenerate view of sacrifice could erode the human personality.

Jesus warns against lukewarm faith in Revelation. He continually chided the disciples about their own commitment to Him. One of the more painful rebukes of Christ was His refusal to go out and meet with His mother and brothers when they demanded He see them. He completely disavowed Himself of them when He asked the rhetorical question, “"Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother." Matthew 12:48-50 NIV What does it mean when Jesus says He spits out of His mouth lukewarm believers? Could it be that it looks more like we see in Cain than we care to consider?

Honestly, we are nothing more than what we find within. If lukewarm faith, lukewarm sacrifices, lukewarm morals tear up the world inside us, make our inner self polluted like we find in Cain, then wouldn’t it make sense to begin acting like Abel? What three things could we do today that would pull us out of this Cain world? Maybe we could make a commitment to read our Bible each day. That could be a firstfruits sacrifice. Maybe we could get up ten minutes earlier each day just so we could pray fervently. Maybe we could tithe…give ten percent of our income to this church each week. Maybe we could join a cell group and do it to please God and stop being only interest in your own preferences. Maybe you could donate some free time to clean up some of the projects needed to spruce up this property. Maybe you could go out of your way to invite at least two people to our church this week.

Abel was a normal person like you and me. But then so was Cain. We live like one or the other. Does it matter which one we look most like? It really is a matter of your minkah.

A Tale Of Two Minkahs Continued

First let us consider why God didn’t approve of Cain and his minkah. Abel’s minkah is described as the first born of his flock. The first born in other parts of scripture is called the Lord’s. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal (Exodus 13:2 NIV) It is the sign of God’s provision and provided hope for His ongoing care. The firstborn was what the rancher depended on to reassure him that his ewe or cow would keep his flock going. Even if no others were born by the mother, at least the one was there. To give that lamb or calf away was a show of faith that God would eventually replace the firstborn. Firstfruits followed the same principle. The first of the harvest was the most precious. It was what you could count on to feed your family. It was there. Who could say what might happen with the later part of the harvest? Plagues might wipe it out or locusts might shred it. The weather could turn hot and whither the crops. To give away your firstfruits was giving away your security. Yet it was the firstfruits God wanted. Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. Ex 34:26 It took faith to bring the firstfruits to God and only a believer could muscle up the gumption to do it. "We also assume responsibility for bringing to the house of the LORD each year the firstfruits of our crops and of every fruit tree. Nehemiah 10:35 NIV

Not only did Abel bring the firstborn, he also presented the fat of His firstborn. The Fat was the choicest part, the richest of it. When Pharaoh promised Joseph that his family would be able to enjoy the best part of the land of Egypt, he referred to it as the “fat of the land”, the exact same Hebrew word used to describe what Abel brought God. (See Genesis 45: 18) Again, the same word is used to describe the finest olive oil and finest wine of the harvest that God would give Aaron and his descendants. It was the “fat” or the olive oil and the “fat” of the wine his family would get. Now we don’t think so much of fat anymore because of our concern with calories and cholesterol and clogged arteries but the “fat” was the best, the finest you had. The offering of Abel was the most glorious he could offer; it was the fat.

Now turn back to Cain and his minkah. He gave some fruit he had. It was not the fat of the fruit. It was not the firstfruits. It was just something he had lying around his house. Ponder this. The ground had not been stained very deeply by sin yet and the world still was a relative paradise and it must not have been too difficult to find some sort of wheat or grape or apple to offer up to God. The implication is that Cain’s offering required nothing much of faith, nothing much of deliberation, (trying hard to choose the very best he had), nothing much of pleasure in the giving. His minkah was the plainness of obligatory religion. There are times when my children do their chores with all the enthusiasm of a corpse. There is no sense of rightness to it, no sense of pleasure in doing your best, no sense of giving a gift back to those who love you most in the world. It is pure drudgery and when the work is yanked out of them, it feels like a fingernail dragged across a chalk board rather than any sort of minkah. And yes, I am that same way. My minkahs can be just as thoughtlessly offered, just as carelessly given, just as free of affection as seemingly possible for one who is lifeless dust without Jesus.

We now must return to the original question. What separated Cain from Abel? Certainly is was the quality of their minkahs. One minkah was full of faith and extravagant pleasure in giving to a beloved God. The other minkah was an afterthought, a hand me down, a toss away gift. Several years ago a rather wealthy woman gave my family a used pot as a gift. It hadn’t even been washed. Now from someone who was impoverished, it would have been a most lovely thing to receive but from someone well off, it had the feel of flippancy.

A Tale Of Two Minkahs Concludes Tomorrow

A Tale of Two Minkahs Part One

Gen 4:9 NIV
Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?


What separates good people from bad? Is it what they do, how they think, or their passions that mark one from another? Are some people totally bad…others totally good? Were Cain and Abel opposites or do we have too little information to accurately judge them? Several years ago I was discussing with a good Mormon friend his theology of the three levels of heaven and asked him who it was, if even non-Mormons like me get to go to the 1st level of heaven, goes to Hell. “Well, I guess someone like Hitler!” Now that was reassuring because I as far as I know don’t have Hitler in my family tree or anyone as bad as Hitler lurking there. As poorly behaved as my kids sometimes are, none of them seem to have Hitler tendencies in them. I don’t have genocide in my background either so that seems to make it pretty safe for me. Now here is a good question! If Cain never killed Abel, would we think differently of him? Would he still stand out as one of the all-time bad guys of history along with the Boston Strangler and Joseph Stalin?

One of the most erroneous interpretations of Genesis 4 is the criticism of Cain for bringing a grain offering rather than a blood sacrifice to God. The rationale behind this is the idea that a blood sacrifice was desired by God and the grain offering of Cain was a sign on his part that he did not acknowledge his need for atonement and without the blood failed to trust in a coming Messiah. Of course none of that is indicated in the passage. God makes no complaint of lacking blood: in a sense the offerings are identical. Both brought what in Hebrew is called a minkah. But what is a “minkah”?

Minkahs are found all through the Old Testament. In some places such as in Isaiah 66: 20 and Jeremiah 41: 5 and Nehemiah 10: 33, the minkah is a grain offering, many times (Numbers 16: 15) it can be either and in other scriptures it refers to a meat offering (1 Samuel 2: 17 and here). Since both Cain and Abel brought minkahs and minkahs that are grain offerings are perfectly acceptable (Leviticus 7) and even commanded in the Law (consider Leviticus 6: 20), what separated one man’s minkah from another’s?

If there is one point that can be made which none can refute here, it is that God loved Abel’s minkah but didn’t think much of Cain’s. The text reads literally that the Lord gazed with interest upon Abel’s minkah but in verse 5 he had no such affection for Cain’s. Literally the Lord did not look at all at what Cain gave Him. I have been at social gatherings where I was completely ignored and felt the shame of it. Nothing I have experienced though drove me to murder and that is the most pressing issue in this passage and by far the most interesting. What happened here that led to such a fall?