As considered in some detail in chapter two of my book, God’s munificent providence has been obscured by a foundational error in traditional western biblical theology – the failure to distinguish between disobedient Adam and his psychopathic eldest son. The latter’s relationship with God radically altered AFTER his extraordinary act of defiance towards His creator and the murder of his brother (vv11-14), the theological consequences of which have been quite eluded. They pertain to an eluded covenant between God and fallen man. The following verse from Genesis is unquestionably covenantal in form, though most theologians for the last two thousand years have chosen not to regard it as such:
“IF THOU (CAIN) 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” (GEN4:7KJV )
The translation of this verse from the Hebrew is admittedly problematical: “Will you not be accepted?” (Hebrew: seeth) could equally be “will your countenance not be lifted?” which is utilised by some versions of the Bible. The KJV quoted above recognises “sin” to be a person (the Sinful One), which makes sense since it or he is lying or crouching (Hebrew: rabats) at the door and “desires” to control Cain. Sin per se could hardly be “at the door” in Cain’s case, it’s already in Cain’s heart and about to wreak havoc. Cain is described elsewhere as “OF the evil one”, confirming that the Sinful One was indeed at the door and was able to master Cain and thereby control and own him (1Jn3:12).
From the human perspective, that would not have been so if Cain had responded differently to the challenge Yahweh presented to him in Gen4:7, so the verse effectively reflects a Universal Covenant for fallen humanity; for Abel was fallen but he was accepted. The purpose of the Cain and Abel story, however literally one might choose to take it, is drawn upon in the New Testament, and it is not to show how Abel “got saved” but how Cain became reprobate (rejected), indicated by the vital yet typically glossed references to “this day” and “now” with regard to the elder brother’s fate. The day he killed his brother he was cursed and entirely alienated from God and NOT BEFORE THAT DAY. When God told Cain to “do well”, He was not seeking perfection but to do what the young man intuitively knew to be right: offer like Abel the first-fruits of his crop and preferably not go on to slaughter his innocent brother in cold blood. For no one is born devoid of at least one “talent” (the light of conscience) but some choose to bury it in the ground and they will be condemned (cf. Mt25:14-29; Jn1:9). Cain, an agricultural farmer (4:2) was not expected to steal from his livestock farmer brother Abel in order to sacrifice an animal in offering for his sin, as some would dissemble (e.g. the Youngs Literal translators). Comparing scripture with scripture we see that Cain and his sacrifice were not accepted because his works were evil whilst his brother’s works were righteous (1Jn3:12). That was because the one exercised faith/faithfulness and the other didn’t, for one was a child of God, the other as confirmed in later scripture was or had become satanic (1Jn3:12).
As third century Irenaeus had expressed the matter precisely in this context: “It is the conscience of the offerer that sanctifies the sacrifice when (the conscience) is pure and thus God is moved to accept the sacrifice as from a friend”. Abel showed by his works and a good conscience that he had “faith” so was justified by that faith with reference to his works (offering the best of his flock), not by achieving a standard of worked merit (justification by works). Why was perfection not required by either of them? – It was in view of the Sacrifice of atonement effectual throughout human history (Rom3:25 cf. Greek). Through the faithfulness of Christ (Greek: ek pisteos christou), which more theologians and the more recent bible translators are recognising needs to be distinguished from cognisant faith in Christ (pisteos en Christo), expiation has been provided for the faults arising from human weakness for those who themselves seek to be faithful to God, i.e. to the light He provides to them through their conscience, by which in Paul’s language (when rightly translated) they become a law FOR themselves and do by nature the things contained within the Law; indeed fulfil the heart of it which is to exercise compassion towards their fellow man – cf. Rom2:14; Gal5:14.
The understanding of some that Cain and Abel were expected to anticipate a future Sacrifice for sin by sacrificing an animal is unsustainable; cultic sacrifices were not clearly established as a religious system until the Law of Moses. Paul, James and the writer to the Hebrews make it quite clear why Abraham had been counted as righteous, being a belief in the God he had encountered evidenced by obedience, in his case that he would be rewarded with a great family (cf. Gen15:1). Abraham, nor indeed anyone in the Old Testament is declared to be justified by means of offering an animal sacrifice. As will be demonstrated from scripture, Old Testament folk and indeed all “people of good will” were and still are accepted by God through the merits of the Atonement achieved through Christ’s faith/faithfulness being applied to those who are deemed to fear God through their positive response to the divine enlightenment they have received (cf. Jn1:9KJV), resulting in humane behaviour towards their fellow man in need (a.k.a. Christ Mt25:40).
[These posts are intended to complement my book** by identifying “glosses” in OT narrative which have impacted upon traditional Christian perspectives on divine providence].
**A free PDF of e-book available HERE