"And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 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." (Genesis 4:6-7)
What I find to be some of the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture are those where the Lord reaches out even to those who are utterly opposed to Him. What a truly amazing demonstration of God’s Grace! I find it very comforting to know that God would reach out His hand in mercy to someone like Cain, because it reminds me how He reached out His hand in mercy to someone like me, even when I was utterly opposed to Him. And it reminds me that He will reach out His hand in mercy to anyone else who will take it, regardless of the sin that fills their heart.
Genesis 4:6-7 tells us how God approached Cain after Cain’s offering was rejected. We see a similar method throughout the Bible as God approaches even the vilest of sinners and offers them mercy. The very first thing that we should take note of is the fact that God is not angry with Cain. We are told that Cain is angry, but we can see that God is not. Next, we should also note that God does not stand aloof from Cain, waiting to see if he will do the right thing. Some people like to talk about man’s search for God, but man is not seeking God; God is the One Who seeks us (Luke 19:10). Cain was not left on his own to try to work through his rebellion and, perhaps, eventually do the right thing. God came to Him.
It Starts With A Simple Question
“Why art thou wroth?” God asks Cain. Why is it that you are angry? God knew very well the answer to this question. Socrates was not really the inventor of what we call the “Socratic method”- wherein we teach others by asking questions that cause them to ponder and ask their own questions, leading them to discovering the answers for themselves- God used this method from the very beginning. He will ask us why we do or feel certain things when we have never even seriously considered the reasons why ourselves. Saul of Tarsus had made it his mission in life to destroy the early Church and wipe the name of Jesus Christ from the face of the Earth. When the Lord stopped him on the road to Damascus, He didn’t annihilate him, He approached with a simple question: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4) Why are you doing what you are doing?
If Thou Doest Well
God knew why Cain was angry and He knew what Cain was contemplating in his heart. Cain’s anger was manifesting itself toward his brother, Abel. Sadly, Cain’s anger and frustration wasn’t that he had failed to please God by doing what He had asked him to, he seemed more worried that his disobedience might cost him his position in his family. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?” The word for accepted is not translated as such anywhere else in the Old Testament. In other verses, it is rendered as “excellency”, or “dignity”, or it refers to a rising up of something; an “exaltation.” When Jacob is pronouncing his blessings on his sons before he dies, he uses the same term in relation to Reuben, his first-born (Gen. 49:3). Reuben is the “excellency of [his] dignity.”
Cain’s motive was not to be accepted by God, it was to be exalted over his brother, the second-born. His fear was not that God would disapprove of him, but that Abel would take his place in the family and usurp the birthrights of the first-born. Isn’t that so often the reason for sorrow over sinful behavior? It isn’t a concern over offending God’s holiness, but rather a grieving over the loss that it might cost the sinner. Cain’s concern seemed to be more with how other people might view him as a result of his disobedience, not how God would look upon him. Nevertheless, if Cain did what was right and what God expected of him, he needn’t fear the collapse of his position within his family.
The word order of verse 7 has caused many different interpretations concerning exactly what God is referring to, but I think that if we bear in mind the context thus far, we see that the God’s final statement in the verse refers to this brotherly relationship: “And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” The phrase is nearly identical to the one that God tells Eve in Gen. 3:16 (” and thy desire shall be to thy husband…:”). In both instances, God is establishing or upholding an authority structure within the natural family. If Cain submits himself to God, he need not worry about Abel submitting himself to Cain.
Since nowhere in the Bible is the promise given to any person that they shall “rule over sin“, it is inconceivable that God would be making such a promise to Cain. Jesus Christ is the only One Who rules over sin (Romans 7:25). No, God is merely assuring Cain that he will in no way lose his position of “dignity” and “excellency” within the family if he will but hearken to the voice of the Lord and obey Him.
Sin Lieth At The Door
Some have interpreted this passage with the idea of sin crouching at the door, ready to pounce on Cain. The word for “lieth”, however, seems more to refer to lying down; as in rest. Several times throughout the Old Testament it is used to to show sheep lying down, relaxed in safety (e.g., Psalm 23:2 use this term about how God is our Shepherd and makes us to lie down in green pastures). The idea is not that sin is crouching behind the bushes, waiting to make its move. No, the sin is there, “relaxed” and waiting at the threshold of the door for Cain to come walking through. If Cain does not determine to heed God’s call to him now, then when he goes out through the “door” from this place where God has met him, he is going to walk right into the sin waiting for him. The sin isn’t going to “pounce” on him from behind, he is going to head right into it.
The Choice Is Ours
“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19)
God made His expectations clear to Cain. Now, it was up to Cain to decide if he would obey or not. His options were simple: obey God and choose life and blessing, or disobey God and choose death and cursing. What he could not do was get God to lower the standard, or change His mind, or let Cain come to God some other way. He would never be able to plead ignorance or accuse God of not giving him ample opportunity. God came to him now giving him the chance to repent and be reconciled. God came to him now as Savior. If he disregarded God at this point, the next time God would come as his Judge.
Obey what God has said, or disobey what God has said. We all face the same decision.
Re. Saul of Tarsus…
I was struck by your use of the phase: “…and wipe out the name of Jesus Christ from the face of the earth.”
Indeed, Saul of Tarsus -aka the Apostle and eventual Saint ‘Paul’, -the actual creator and founder (along with his cohorts: Mark and Luke), did manage to succeed in “wiping out the name of ‘the descendant of David and Jewish messiah’ from the face of the earth or from our (latter-day) consciousness and awareness.
Who prays to Judas the Galilean or, for his glorious and triumphant return?
http://jesusbarabbas.blogspot.com/
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
Roland,
Thanks for visiting and commenting on Answersfromthebook.org
That Jesus Christ descended from David is evidenced in two of the Gospel records (Matthew and Luke). Even in His own day, nobody disputed this. If Jesus were not of the prophesied Messianic lineage, His enemies certainly would have used this against Him. That He was and is indeed the prophesied Christ, the Messiah, is evidenced by His miracles, His Resurrection, and the testimony of those who were witnesses of His glory (2 Peter 1:16). Additionally, we have the witness of God the Father and the Holy Spirit; both of Whom attest to His identity (e.g., Mark 1:10-11).
That Paul, or Mark, or Luke were the actual “founders” of Christianity, I would disagree. They were certainly used by God and were instrumental in the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the early days of the Church. They were all used by the Holy Spirit in the writing of the New Testament, as well. But I would contend that none other than the Lord Jesus Himself is the actual “Founder” of Christianity and the Church itself (Matthew 16:18). Unlike any other faith or “religion”, Christianity is about an Individual. It is about Christ.
In regards to whose name has or has not been “wiped out”, well, history itself bears witness to this. Who indeed DOES pray to Judas the Galilean? As for the name of Jesus Christ, there never has been nor will there ever be a name like it! It truly is the name above all names (Phil. 2:9-10).
Thanks again for visiting and sharing your thoughts. I welcome you to come back and visit anytime.
In Christ,
Loren
Dear Loren,
My previous comments centered around ‘Saul of Tarsus’ and the ‘interesting phase’ concerning his endeavor to “…wipe out the name of Jesus Christ from the face of the earth.”
You, on the other hand, proceed to inform me where the name Jesus Christ is written… nevertheless, you miss my point entirely and, ironically at the very same time, make my point exactly.
Please allow me to explain… -for the purposes of this argument, it must first be clearly known and absolutely understood that: ‘not a single word (or ‘document’) was written concerning “Jesus Christ” until AFTER Saul of Tarsus’ epiphany or apparition of (the deceased or ghost of) the ‘descendant of David and Jewish messiah’ (sometime around 40 c.e., -but the exact date is in great depute). This ‘historically document fact’ (of the first appearance of ‘documentation’) cannot be disputed. Some have posited that Mark was the first ‘Gospel’ to have been written, -even though Matthew’s Gospel is placed in front of Mark’s.
In any event, is stands to reason, logic and good sense that, nearly ten years earlier (during the time of the infamous ‘trial’, presided over by Pontius Pilate), no Jew, -not even Pontius Pilate himself, knew or saw or even heard of “Christ”. Why or How could they? “Christ” (or, more accurately, ‘Kristos’), did not ‘literally’ appear until AFTER the so called ‘Holy Gospels’ were written (40 c.e.?).
Why would the Jews refer to one of the own and, in their own legal proceeding, as “Christ” and not as the ‘expected’, perfectly known and clearly understood Hebrew ‘messiah’? There is no etymological basis or foundation for the invented Greek word ‘Kristos’ in the Greek language or customs. There is no such thing as a ‘Kristos’, -except as a ‘supposed translation’ of the Hebrew word ‘messiah’.
Seems to me that Saul of Tarsus succeeded quiet well in “wiping out” the Jewish ‘messiah’ by ‘translation’ (read interpretation), -replacing the Jewish ‘messiah’ with the converted Greek philosphical notion of “Kristos” or “Christ”. No longer do people clammer for the Jewish ‘messiah’. (We love and adore “Christ” instead… moreover, we, the ‘believers in “Christ” are right and everybody else is wrong.)
Perhaps I was a tad to subtle, when I asked: “Who prays to Judas the Galilean or, for his glorious and triumphant return?”
In that Saul of Tarsus, as I have demonstrated above, succeeded in “wiping out the Jewish ‘messiah’ from our interests and/or concerns, -so too, the name of the actual ‘descendant of David’, -that is to say: “Judas the Galilean”… and, like the substitution of the Jewish ‘messiah’ with that of the Greek “Christ”, so too also was the commandeering of the (truly holy) name of “Jesus”… and, not without very good reason(s).
Amazingly, there really was a man named “Jesus”, -He was called (the) ‘Son of God’ (and perhaps, in fact and indeed, He really was sent, by God, to dwell among His ‘flock’, so to speak)… but He was not a ‘descendant of David’, -neither was He the Jewish ‘messiah’, -neither even did He die for ‘our’ or anybody else’s ‘sins’. He came, instead, to initiate wayward souls onto the mysterious path that leads ‘homeward’.
Fortunately for some, very unfortunately for others, “Jesus Barabbas”, -written in the original Greek Gospel according or attributed to Matthew (27:17) but that His name was removed or omitted from the Latin translation of the same text (around 390 c.e.) and most of the subsequent translations thereafter. Moreover, ‘Barabbas’ is not a sur or proper name per se’ (any more so than is “Christ”), -it is what He, Jesus, was called, -it is, rather, an Aramaic appellation, the meaning of which is: Bar = Son + Abba = Father (as in ‘the Father of us all’ or ‘God’).
He was not ‘crucified’… but He might just as well have been.
Who prays for the forgiveness of ‘our’ denial of Jesus Barabbas (the ‘Son of God’)?
Kant, very wisely said: “… it is not the falsehood, but the intention behind it.”
Saul of Tarsus, Loren, had a life-time of reasons ‘to wipe out the name of the ‘descendant(s) of David’ and the Jewish ‘messiah’ as well as to render Jesus Barabbas anathema.
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
‘Teach love, use words only when necessary’.
Roland,
Thanks for sharing your comments.
That I have missed your point entirely is quite possible. After carefully reading through your last comments, I am still not absolutely certain what you are trying to say. From what I can tell, it seems that you are taking issue with the title, “Christ” (GK.- Χριστός) being assigned to Jesus of Nazareth. “Christ” is certainly a Greek word and, yes, until the writing of the New Testament documents this Greek term was probably not applied to Him. The word does, however, have the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah.” They both mean the “consecrated” or “anointed” One. The word “Messiah” was most assuredly applied to Him (the instances in the Gospels where “Christ” appears.)
The name “Barabbas” is an Aramaic word meaning, “Son of the father” or “Son of the master.” “Abba” does not always refer to God, it was originally just a term of endearment for one’s father (like “daddy” or “papa”). Jesus called the Father Abba (Mark 14:36), so did Paul (Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6), but this is not to infer that “Abba” was a proper noun for God nor that it applied exclusively to Him. Even with this aside, “Barabbas” is not given as a title of a man, but as the name of a man. He is identified as a “robber” (John 18:40) and “notorious prisoner” (Matt. 27:16). Mark identifies him as a murderer (Mark 15:7).
“But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you;” (Acts 3:14)
It seems that Peter, Matthew, John, Mark, and Paul have all rendered the name of Barabbas “anathema.” The people of Jerusalem at the Lord’s trial chose Barabbas, a murderer and a thief, over Jesus Christ, the Holy and Just One. They were mistaken in doing so. It would still be a grave mistake for anyone else to do so.
In Christ,
Loren
Dear Loren,
I am in receipt of your reply and have noted its contents.
[Loren] “I am still not absolutely certain what you are ‘trying’ to say. From what I can tell, it seems that your are taking issue with the title, “Christ” being assigned to Jesus of Nazareth.”
‘Taking issue with the (replaced) ‘title’ of “Christ” (as opposed to the proper title or appellation of ‘messiah’ (…being assigned to ‘Jesus of Nazareth’), is only partially correct… made all the more complicated by your addition of : “Jesus of Nazareth”.
That you already admit: “… yes, until the writing of the New Testament documents this Greek term was ‘probably’ not applied to Him.” Nevertheless, you (continue to) ‘apply’ it… whereas, -it is ‘putting the cart before the horse’, so to speak. But while you insist upon enlightening me re. “Christ” (that came long after the demise of (the) ‘descendant of David’ and Jewish ‘messiah’), let us go to the beginning…
Was your [Jesus Christ] ‘Savior’ born “…in the days of Herod the king” as is posited in Matthew (prior to 4 B.C.) or, “… in the days of the taxation or census when Quirinus or Cyrenius was governor of Syria” (6 A.D.) as is according to Luke? Either one or the other may be correct, -obviously not both… actually, both may very well be incorrect. Take Your pick, Loren, let me know exactly how successful Saul of Tarsus (and his cohorts) was and is in obfuscating the historical ‘truth’ as it concerns his (latter-day) ‘epiphany’.
That you attempt to enlighten me re. “The name ‘Barabbas’… Abba does not always refer to God, it was originally just a term of ‘endearment’ for one’s father (like ‘daddy’ or ‘papa’). “Originally”? Where? You Are saying, of course, that as applied to Jesus [Barabbas], He was called (the) ‘Son of daddy’??? and/or as applied to [Jesus] “Christ”, he was referring to his ‘daddy’? Do you honestly ‘believe’ that Pontius Pilate referred to Jesus Barabbas as: “Jesus, the Son of daddy”??? Whoa.
All in all, you do not address my contributions herein, indeed you ignore them…
-giving me instead: all that I already know, weighed (against what you obviously don’t know and seem not ready to learn about… as it Is truly embarrassing, to say the very least, to discover one’s own previous foolishness), and proffer to you and others.
Would that I posit a brief ‘history’ of Saul of Tarsus and his ancestry… -particularly as it relates to the ‘descendant(s) of David’ and the Jewish ‘messiah’ and, Why the Jewish ‘multitude’ chose Jesus Barabbas over [Jesus] the ‘messiah’. Perhaps when you put the Kool-ade down…
In the meantime, please know that it was not easy for me to revise my own ‘Christian’ indoctrination, education and (to) exercise my own God-given thinking ability (for myself) as opposed, if need be, to merely accept(ing) that which is spoon-fed to me. Indeed, it was traumatic… I know and appreciate your insistence and obstinacy well, -I can gauge it by my own.
Love indeed conquers all, -including my own love for my former teachers.
Even your own title page… ‘Answers From The Book’ reveals a germ of (hidden) truth… however, ‘answers’ only come from out of the mind and heart of men and, may or may not even be put into a Book. Sometimes, the ‘truth’ might not even be expressed in or by the written word or, that it is given by mouth only (from out of the mouth of the Master or Lord to His disciple)… ‘others’ may read only what has been written (more often than not, redacted, ‘translated’, ‘interpreted’ and made ‘politically’ and ‘religiously’ correct (usually accomplished by someone not even present at or during the time of the original ‘utterance’).
No, Loren, ‘answers’ do not come from a ‘Book’… only ‘questions’ do. “Jesus Christ” did not say this… or that… Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and ‘Paul’ wrote what “Jesus Christ” supposedly said he said… and, in ‘Paul’s case, After “Jesus” was dead… and rose again ‘alive’ just to talk to ‘Paul’ (privately, of course). Lol.
Loren, I do not doubt that you are intelligent and good-hearted… only that you have not demonstrated very much ‘intelligence’ in your assessment, mainly of ‘Saul of Tarsus’, in your proselytizing.
Yours in His name of Jesus [Barabbas] (the) ‘Son of God’,
Roland, -a reluctant iconoclast.
Roland,
Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts and comments. I invite you to come back and visit “Answers From The Book” anytime.
In Christ,
Loren