I
was in a fellowship meeting, and was sharing about we need to love God back
(and we need to absolutely love Him back), even as He first loved us and has
continued to love us; a brethren then said that he had a question to ask. Because I deferred to the “speaker” of the
meeting, I did NOT answer this brother, as I was only sharing in connection to
the message shared by the speaker which was centered on “God knows” as in He is
omniscience.
I
shared about love, because there is the “God knows” as in He knows everything
(omniscience), and there is the “God knows” as in He ginosko-knows (If you want
to gain greater understanding of the different “know” words used in NT Scripture,
go read this: “I don’t know you – Part I”).
I quoted 2 scriptures on the importance of the “God knowing us grounded
from personal experience (with us)”; that is what ginosko (a Greek word for
“know”) means. They are John 10:14 – I
am the good shepherd; I ginosko (know) my sheep, and my sheep ginosko (know)
me; and 1 Cor 8:3 – And he who loves God is ginosko (known) by God.
This
brother had the issue as spelt out in the title of this entry, bothering him,
and so, took the chance to ask if there is an answer to the question posed –
Why Cain’s offering was rejected, and Abel’s accepted; purportedly he was
asking how does God love, and so, how are we to love Him back? In other words, at the back of his mind, he
was puzzled by how come, the love of God manifested forth as rejecting one and
accepting the other. It was indeed
serious, for, subsequent to that rejection, Cain ended up killing Abel, and
Cain got banished by God.
So,
here, I would like to put down my thoughts.
Now, why did I say it as such (my thoughts); it is because there are
different ideas expressed by interpreters of this Cain and Abel’s account, a
very brief account. Brief account
generally poses difficulty to exegesis, for the lack of details mentioned; and
some filling in the gaps and assumptions often become necessary. The cautions are these: 1. Whatever filling
in, of the gaps, and assumptions, they must be reasonable AND they must NOT in
any way contradict what was plainly stated already in the account; 2.
Interpretation must NOT be inconsistent with other scriptures and the overall
counsel of the Word. 3. Don’t manipulate to fit self-made doctrines/theology
of the faith.
These
are the relevant texts, from Scripture:
Genesis
4:1-10 (NIV) - 1 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and
she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of
the LORD I have brought forth a man." 2a Later she gave birth to his
brother Abel.
2b Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.3 In the
course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to
the LORD.4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and
his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face
was downcast.
6 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is
your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if
you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have
you, but you must master it."
8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the
field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel
and killed him.
9 Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother
Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's
keeper?" 10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your
brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
Heb
11:4 (KJV) - By faith Abel offered unto God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was
righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
1
John 3:12 (NIV) - Do not be like Cain, who belonged
to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because
his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.
Jude
1:10-11 - 10 Yet these men speak abusively
against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand
by instinct, like unreasoning animals--these are the very things that destroy
them. 11 Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed
for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion.
Is it plainly just
the sovereignty of God at work? Now, this is one
proposition. The proponents argued that
God accepted one and rejected another; no reason needed to be given, and it is
NOT fruitful to try to find out the reason.
Is it really solely due to the sovereignty of God? Is the sovereignty of God quite correctly
portrayed, when we attribute this case to reason of sovereignty? Is there NOT another or other key attributes
of God working together?
No
doubt the key personhood attribute of God is “God is God”, and that
means sovereignty is His and His alone, but at the same time, God is God
firstly, also means He is the most wise or Wisdom, and so, things aren’t
expected to be haphazard or decisions made for no realm or reason. Furthermore, the key nature-hood attribute
of God is Holiness; this definitely defines how God would make decisions and
act. We have to be careful if we too
easily assign sovereignty as in there is no reason for a thing done, to explain
issues. God has reasons, it is just we do NOT know; and when it is so, that we
do NOT know, we have to accept that or pursue revelation, and NOT to be too
presumptuous. I, of course, hope I am
NOT being too presumptuous here, for, later on, we will see, another
proposition for the rejection, is that Cain was being presumptuous!
A
little analogy: Suppose I am the King,
and I want to eat papaya, and I don’t want to eat durian, the king of
fruits. I want my papaya, and you are to
give me papaya; I am exercising my sovereignty, for I am the King.
If
it were the other way round, I have been demanding for durians, and have been
having durians for a while now, and NOT papaya; and now Mr Can and Mr Able come
to me, and Mr Can gives me durians (that which I have been eating), and Mr Able, papaya, can I just say to Mr
Can (durians), “you evildoer”, and Mr Able (papaya), “you done well”, and throw
Mr Can into the dungeon and throw away the key!
Mr Can did wrong?! This is NOT God’s kinda of sovereignty, as far as I
know. It is more of tyranny! So, don’t make God out to be the evil
tyrant. Or God faulting people out of
whims and fancy!
Is it Cain’s offer was
from cursed ground, and Abel, NOT? Now, this too, is a common proposition,
but is it quite acceptable? In my view,
no! What is meant by the secondary
punishment that God cursed the ground that men would have to toil much to meet
their needs? No, it does NOT mean just
the ground, as in the ground where we grow crops on! If it were, if you go fishing, you need to
toil NOT, and you would get loads of fish easily? Today, if you are an agent taking booking for
seats of spacecraft to go to the moon, for example, you are NOT doing anything
that get to do with the ground, and you are NOT under the curse? Or you are a stockbroker, buying and selling
stocks and shares on the stock exchanges for your clients, you are
excluded? No. And so, too, one who breeds livestock is NOT
excluded from it. For one thing, what do
sheep and cattle feed on? Grass of the ground!
So, it is NOT Cain brought something from the ground, and Abel, NOT, per
se, the reason for one being rejected and the other, accepted.
Is it one was a
gardener, Cain, and the other, a flock keeper, Abel; occupation the issue? Yes, it is written
in Gen 4:2 that Cain worked the soil, and Abel, kept flocks, but there weren't
others in the first family, apart from the parents, Adam and Eve; someone got
to be working on the ground, to grow something for the vegetable side of the
diet. God, we know, did NOT ostracise or
gave farmers a miss; Gideon was believed to be a wheat farmer before he was
raised by God to be a Judge (Judges 6:11).
Good and honest occupations were (and are) never a problem to God –
Moses was a shepherd (flock keeper); Gideon, a farmer; a few of the disciple-apostles
of Jesus, fishermen.
Is it quality of
the offerings, the problem?
Now, if we mean Cain brought in, NOT the best of the fruits, maybe there
was a case to talk about, but if we are comparing fruits with fats portion in
terms of quality, I think that is comparing apple with orange, so to speak.
So,
did Cain bring in, NOT the best of the fruits, and Abel, brought in the best of
the flocks? What was said there, was that
Cain brought in some fruits as the offering, and Abel, the fats portion from
some of his firstborns of the flocks. It
is possible to say, Cain just took some fruits, NOT carefully picking the best
of the fruits, to include in his offering.
Abel, could be argued to have taken the trouble to select the
firstborns, and took the fats portion thereof.
One
question to ask would be, “Had Abel also just brought in fats portion of some
other borns (borns other than firstborns) and offered it up, would it make the
2 offerings, Cain and Abel’s equivalent?”
The point is that “firstborn” was recorded for us, for a reason, even if
we may or may NOT know the reason. Otherwise, it
could have been recorded for us, as simply, Abel brought in some fats portion or
fats portion from the flocks. Perhaps,
there was even significance to the “fats portion”; otherwise, it could have
just said, Abel brought in some meat or brought in a sheep or a goat as
offering. The reasonable deduction is
that Cain missed something, maybe more than one, while Abel got enough thing(s)
right.
If
quality was the issue, I submit to you, it would be best if we define quality; and it
should be: “a quality offering is one that would meet the requirement”. We will talk about requirement, in our next
section.
Is it one meeting
requirement and the other, NOT? I
have already hinted before, above, and I will say it again, I do NOT believe
God is whimsical or our God is a capricious God. When the person is whimsical or capricious,
and He is God, that would be a formula for a very evil tyrant! I don’t believe my God is such; if you do,
your God, then what’s the point of following after such a god! “Boy, you will NOT even know how or when, you
would get hacked to death!” goes a colloquial saying, here, over this part of
the world.
No,
God is NOT like that; He is God, first of all; He is Holiness, first of all,
also! And, He is Wisdom, and He is
righteousness. Scripture, in Ps 89:14a
and Ps 97:2, said that the foundation of God throne or rule is justice and
righteousness. It is NOT anyhow, and
without order, for God is order. Our
God, as portrayed in Scripture, is a God of demand and order. How can God have no demand; how can Holiness
have no demand; how can Wisdom have no demand; and how can it be righteousness,
if there is no demand. I think people
are engaging in self-deluding fantasy in painting to us, God is without demand
and order. Chaos is what you will get if
God is chaotic!
Remember
the durian-guy (Mr Can) and the papaya-guy (Mr Able), I talked about
above. In the example above, had the King
NOT given any clue as to what He wanted, durians or papaya or whatever fruit,
how in the world are these 2 fellows to know what to bring before the
King. If the King left them no choice,
Mr Can and Mr Able would look for clue(s) to bet their lives on. Despite the absence of mention, it is
therefore reasonable to assume some clues had been given, as to what God would be
happy with, as offerings, the children of the first family could bring to Him.
Perhaps,
Adam and Eve had had on occasions brought offerings to God, and the children
were aware, or even witnessed them. Or
perhaps, the parents had told them about such things as offerings to be made to
God. Or perhaps, God Himself revealed
certain hints or clues to the children directly or indirectly. Or maybe, even, God had been specific and
laid down some requirements, in the past.
The Word of God, His communications (NOT just words, but included
others, like signs and wonders, signals, etc.) and testimonies of Him, they are
knowledge of Him that we are to take note of.
These are what I meant as “clues” given.
Before
I bring an important key from the Book of Hosea to bear on this account, let me
say that, some revelation was available; but what exactly, was the
revelation, was beside the point! In
other words, it matters NOT, if for Cain, it was pointing to the best pulp from
the “firstborn” fruits (or firstfruits), and for Abel, fats portion from the
firstborn flocks, or it was a case of a one “type” of offering for both, like
it was to be fats portion, or blood sacrifice, as some have suggested (In my
view, there was nothing to suggest the offering MUST be blood sacrifice. The
Hebrew used for the offering word was NOT indicative of such, also).
What
is this important key from the Book of Hosea?
This is what we read in Hosea 4:6 and 6:6 –
Hosea 4:6 (KJV) - My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject
thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of
thy God, I will also forget thy children.
Hosea 6:6 (KJV) - For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the
knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
We
can see (from Hosea 6:6), the knowledge of Hosea 4:6 is in fact referring more,
to the knowledge of God (or the faith), and NOT any knowledge. God’s people can get destroyed for lack of
knowledge of God or the faith. And
often, it is that people have rejected such knowledge, or they could have been NOT bothered with such.
I
submit to you, both Cain and Abel were surrounded by the same presence of
knowledge of God; there were only 4 persons in the first household then – Adam
and Eve, and these 2 sons, Cain and Abel.
It is reasonable to assume both Cain and Abel had equal access
opportunities as to the knowledge of God; the sources of which, I had
elaborated above, including the lives of their parents, Adam and Eve.
Hosea
4:6 said if you reject knowledge, which could mean you could NOT be bothered
with it, God could reject you, saying “thou shall
be no priest to me”. What is one
of the things that priests do? Make
offerings. What happened at the Genesis
4 account? Cain was rejected of his
offering.
I
want to draw our attention to the author of the Book of Hebrew’s mention of the
account, in Heb 11:4 (KJV) - By faith Abel
offered unto God a more excellent
sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous,
God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
It
said “By faith Abel offered”;
it means that Abel exercised faith in his offering to God. Faith is NOT spelt “F A C T S”, it is “F A I
T H” (or you have seen it said – “R I S K”).
People give various opposites to faith; but I have NOT seen one putting
it as facts. When it is a fact, there is
no faith involved. It is just like, it is
either you SEE or you are BLIND, “see” and “blind” don’t go together. So, if it is a fact, no more question of
exercising faith, and if it is faith, it is NOT yet a fact. And so, for faith there is theoretically an
element of risk; that is why some say, faith is spelt as “risk”.
We
deal with God always in FAITH, if we choose to. It is NOT, “in FACT”, as a whole, for we have
yet the full mind of God directly (No, the one verse in Scripture, where it
said we have the mind of Christ, it does NOT mean directly we have the mind of
God – I will NOT explain here; it is a separate exposition). We are expected
to deal with God in faith, for Scripture said in Heb 11:6, without faith it
is impossible to please God; in Rom 14:23, it is said that, that which
proceeded NOT from faith, is sin.
Pertaining
to the account of Genesis 4, although NOT mentioned, like I said and elaborated,
it is NOT unreasonable to assume, there was knowledge of God accessible in the
setting, and this is very important, for faith is of two components - a
right belief and a conviction thereof.
What
is a right belief? A right belief is a
belief in the knowledge of God - a truth of God, a word of God, a communication
of God, a will of God or an instruction of God.
A right belief is NOT what you think; it is your believing what God said
or His truths.
Remember,
I said earlier that one of the propositions is that Cain had been presumptuous. Now, when we think or say (and so,
accordingly do), “God doesn’t mind”, and there is no support for that, from the knowledge
of God, we are being presumptuous.
Perhaps, Cain had thought, “God doesn’t mind, I will just give Him some
fruits, any fruits; after all He could just speak the word, and He could get
whatever fruits He wants; I will just
give Him some fruits, that’s it.” If
against the backdrop of the knowledge of God then, there was no support of that,
and I believe there was no such support, then Cain had been presumptuous. We can say Cain was being presumptuous,
but I prefer to say the more sufficient answer is to connect the presumptuousness back to faith.
How
is faith and presumptuousness connected? If want
another opposite of faith, it is being presumptuous. To be with faith, is NOT to be
presumptuous; and to be presumptuous is to be, NOT with faith (or without faith). At the centre of faith is the knowledge of
God; at the centre of presumptuousness is the ignoring of the knowledge of God or
without the knowledge of God. In other
words, Abel was making the offering by faith; Cain, NOT by faith or by
presumption.
King
David understood the peril of presumptuousness.
We read this in Ps 19:13 (KJV) - Keep
back thy servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be
innocent from the great transgression.
We
come back to what I have said as “A right belief is NOT what you think; it is your
believing what God said or His truths.” For
example, you may think all you want, that it is alright to steal; that cannot
be a right belief, for God said, “Thou shall NOT steal” (one of the 10
Commandments).
Faith is right belief
with conviction. If
the conviction is NOT strong, your belief in the matter is NOT strong, and it
is likely you will NOT launch into the action consistent with that belief; we
say the faith is NOT yet operative. When
the conviction has busted the inaction threshold, you go into action, and we
have a faith in action or operative faith or a living faith (and NOT a dead
faith).
When you could easily put off
doing the thing consistent with the right belief, it means the belief
conviction is NOT strong; your faith is weak or you have ineffective faith or
in the extreme, you are in unbelief or without faith in the matter. Many people let a little inconvenience and a
little cost put them off, from doing what faith calls for; their faith in the
matter is just too weak.
Some
may argue that even if Cain, by faith, trusted that God had wanted fats portion
as offering, he could NOT give it, for he was a farmer; the brother, Abel had
the flocks. My answer is that, still
that does NOT mean he could NOT come up with the offering. He could have barter-traded with Abel for the
required animal offering; or he could have offered some form of payment to Abel
for it. It was NOT excuse enough, I
would say. Talking about this, King
David said, “I will not sacrifice to the LORD my God burnt offerings that cost
me nothing”, and had insisted to pay for the Araunah threshing floor (to build
the altar on) and the oxen (for the burnt offering) (2 Sam 24:24).
I
submit to you, Cain did NOT come close to the requirement of the offering
because he had NOT come close to the requirement of “by faith”; Abel did. The issue is the faith of Cain; one or both
components of the faith unit was faulty; it was either the belief was wrong,
because he lacked the knowledge (for example, that fats portion was called for)
or rejected it or couldn’t be bothered with it, or his belief was right, but
the conviction thereof was weak, and he allowed excuses for himself for NOT
doing the right thing. God actually
explained it to Cain, in verse 7 of Genesis 4: - If
you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is
right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must
master it."
I
submit to you, it is reasonable to assume both Cain and Able was able to come
to the faith, NOT fact, that fats portion was called for (or even if, for Cain,
it was something else). Cain did NOT
reach that faith, and it was his fault; Abel did.
It
could even have been
a much earlier and so, more serious fault of Cain of NOT wanting to pay
attention to the matter of knowledge of God, and so, missed or could NOT reach
the belief that fats portion was called for (or the something else, for Cain’s
part). This need to pay attention to
the matter of knowledge of God, in itself is a faith subject matter, and if
Cain or us, did (do) NOT build up our conviction, and allow excuses to prevent
us from paying attention, our disinterested attitude, it too, is subject to the
same warning words of God as in verse 7 of Genesis 4. Abel did come to the “fats portion” called
for, by FAITH (NOT by facts), as said in Heb 11:4.
Actually,
Cain was NOT punished by God for his offering; it was just that God rejected it
(did NOT look upon it with favour). The
stress was NOT the burnt offering (fats offerings were burnt to give the aroma
as incense unto God), per se, for that occasion; that was why no punishment was
meted out except the rejection of the offering, for God was, as in Hosea 6:6
pointed out - more wanting to teach this: “For I
desired ….. the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”
Next,
I feel it is necessary to talk a little more, on the Heb 11:4 text on the
account - By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by
which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his
gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Going
by faith, will any time, leads to more excellent sacrifice or offering or works
for God. You should be able to
understand this, as you have noted how faith is comprised (I explained
above). Knowledge of God is in faith;
action by faith is action with the knowledge of God. Prov 29:18a said to us that without
(vision) revelation from God, the people perish (vision here is NOT necessarily
goal, some people mis-preached this; it is revelation). We
need revelation from God, for revelation from God gives us knowledge of God,
the substance of belief (or what I called right belief), and so, the vital
component of faith; without which we cannot please God (Heb 11:6); and we would
be in sin, quite easily (Gen 4:7; Rom 14:23), which can lead to our
destruction.
The
author of Hebrew, in that Heb 11:4 text ,said that Abel was counted
righteous. What is the simple definition
of righteous? It is this: being right on,
as to what God wants done, and being right on, as to when God wants it
done. Being counted righteous or even
righteousness always goes with operative faith (NOT non-operative faith or dead
faith; faith without works is dead). It
is faith, NOT fact, leading to being counted righteous; when it is fact, it is
already over. To take note is that, it
said there, it was God who was the witness; in other words, righteous or NOT
righteous, is weighed against God’s will and desires (NOT men's or another).
What
about the last bit “and by it he being dead yet
speaketh.” The “it” there was
referring to “he (Abel) being counted as righteous by God”. God does NOT forsake the righteous; and so, the dead righteous Abel "spoke", and God gave ear. The psalmist, King David, said this, in Ps
37:25 – “I was young and now I am old, yet I have
never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread.” Not only does this able to hold true
in our mortal lives, it holds true past death.
God gave ear to Abel’s (spirited) soul, after death (murdered by Cain).
There
is also this 1 John 3:12 text, put up there, at the beginning of this article, that has the account referred to.
1 John 3:12 (NIV) - Do not be like Cain, who
belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him?
Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.
Why
did Cain murder Abel? It said there
because Cain’s own actions were evil, and those of Abel were righteous. The actions of both, included that particular
action of making the offering to God as depicted in Genesis 4 were referred
to. Those of Cain were evil and those of
Abel were righteous.
God said in Genesis
4:7, that if we do not do what is right, sin is crouching at our door; it
desires to have us. That was precisely
what happened, Cain’s NOT doing what were right (probably NOT just that
occasion) made him vulnerable to be had by sin; eventually sin had him and he
became belonging to the evil one, and he ended up murdering Abel who went about
living by faith (leading to righteous actions, and so, as the offering
incident showed, was counted righteous by God).
The evil one is Satan; in John 10:10a, it is said Satan came to steal,
kill and destroy. And in 1 Pet 5:8, we
read that Satan is like a roaring lion roaming and seeking to devour whom he
may devour. If we do NOT do what is
right, he can be crouching at our door!
Now,
this account is interesting for the reason that all of these, the offering
incident and the subsequent murdering of Abel by Cain, happened so very early
in the genealogy of Man, in the very first family, between the first natural
children of the Adam and Eve after the Fall. I submit to you, we can be targeted
by the evil one; even as a believer with the imputed righteousness of Christ
Jesus, and so, we are still to live and act righteous.
Genesis 4:7 is a reminder for us all to live righteous for if we don’t,
sin is crouching at our door; it desires to have us, and if we do NOT master
it, it will master us once again.
In 1
John 3:7, the Apostle John reminded us, in this regard: “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does
what is right is righteous, just as he {Jesus} is righteous.” Jesus was (and is) righteous yet
He too had to live righteous (when He walked the earth). We likewise have to do
the same. That is what this 1 John 3:7
is saying.
Now,
instead of heeding God’s warning in Genesis 4:7 to master over sin, sin
mastered Cain, and he ended up murdering his brother, Abel, and he was
unrepentant when confronted by God. God
punished Cain; banished Cain, and put a further curse of hardship on him in
terms of toiling for his needs. The
refusal of Cain to live by faith, which necessitated the pursuing of the knowledge
of God, had led to Cain being banished, and that too, put the descendants of
Cain away from God. Even Hosea 4:6, the
last bit of the verse, had the warning – “I will
also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast
forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” So, let
this be a warning – we have to live by faith.
The righteous shall live by faith, said Heb 10:38.
Since
there is still one last text having mention of Cain - Jude 1:11, I will address
that too, before we end. Jude 1:10-11,
you can re-read it above; Cain’s way is only mentioned as one of the 3, and so,
its link to the preceding verses of Jude 1, is NOT so strong; in other words,
Cain’s way was NOT meant to explain all of what was said, preceding to the
citation of the 3 incidents/happenings (Cain’s way; Balaam’s way; and Korah’s
way). Elements of Cain’s way applying
was that Cain was NOT with knowledge of God (and so, faith), either he
rejected it or couldn’t be bothered with it.
Knowledge
of God needs to be laid hold of, and that means exercised in operative faith,
which Cain failed to do. Absence or
ignoring of the knowledge of God, and so, would NOT be operating in faith, men
(such men as Cain) default to going by knowledge from carnal instinct, that
they would end up being presumptuous, and this very presumptuousness is what would
destroy them.
With
all of the above, what have we said as to why Cain’s offering was rejected,
while Abel’s, accepted? It was due to
Cain NOT living and acting by faith, which necessitated pursuing the knowledge
of God, which is an essential element or component of faith, and
without faith, he could NOT be righteous, and could NOT meet the requirement of the
offering in question. Abel, on the other
hand, by faith, offered the offering that is right on, with what God wanted.
How
does this speak of how God’s love was, in the incident, or is, to us all? Here is NOT the place to expound at length, on
this subject of God’s love, but I will briefly lay it down:
The
love of God for men, is `ahab love, and an important essence of it, is “love unto
righteousness”. It means God cannot
anyhow love you and I; He can only ultimately love us unto righteousness. He can only move to love us in line with His
righteousness; or we say His love can promote only, righteousness in us; if it
does NOT, he moves NOT. Cain was NOT
righteous, and so, God could NOT approve of him and his offering, in love. Abel, on the other hand, was righteous, for
he lived and acted by faith, and so, God could approve of him and his offering,
in love. God is firstly holiness, and His love is subjugated to His holiness.
He cannot love evil and he cannot approve in love, you and I, when we are evil
or doing evil. When we continue in
evil, it is we making ourselves out of range of God’s love, and it is NOT God
does NOT want to love us.
Anthony Chia,
high.expressions
Comments are welcome here. Alternatively, email them to me @: high.expressions@gmail.com Or just email me your email address so that I can put you on my blog (new entry) notification list. To go back to blog main page, click here.
