The Curse of Cain Reversed?

[bookslover]

I read somewhere recently (I don't recall where) that the curse of Cain is reversed, after Christ's death, in Communion because God accepts the fruit of the ground (the bread and the wine). I'd never heard that before. Is this a thing people believe? Is it not true and the people who believe this are confused?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I read somewhere recently (I don't recall where) that the curse of Cain is reversed, after Christ's death, in Communion because God accepts the fruit of the ground (the bread and the wine). I'd never heard that before. Is this a thing people believe? Is it not true and the people who believe this are confused?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Sounds a little confused to me. The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are not an offering to God (at least not in the sacrificial sense of Cain's offering), and God does not accept them as such. They are sacramental signs and seals of the covenant of grace. There is no connection to Cain.

Again, Cain's offering of the fruits of the ground was sinful principally because this was not the worship God commanded - an early demonstration of the RPW. The institution of the Lord's Supper does not change this at all.

Also, it seems to me that the curse came on Cain primarily for his murder of Abel rather than for his will worship.

Anyway, the curse of Cain was on Cain - it doesn't seem to me to be some generic curse at large in the earth needing to be "undone" but maybe I'm missing something important in that regard?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Whaaaat? I call this sort of "interpretation" of the text P.S., pure speculation. It's a game where the Bible contains so many thousands of verses that are jigsaw puzzle pieces, and people are out there (minus the box with the picture) taking the parts that seem to have something in common, and just asserting: "here's the connection."

What exactly is "the curse of Cain?" Is it God's judgment against him, a portion of which (Gen.4:12) reads, "When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you." Or, is this somehow related to the curse of the ground, which God declares to ADAM in Gen.3:17-19? Because Cain isn't born until Gen.4:1, and his sacrifice occurs in Gen.4:3.

What is the precise speculation? That the sacrifice of the produce was generally acceptable, except Cain was not (v5)? Or was the "fruit of the ground" acceptable at all? After the murder (and the judgment) such offerings were no longer OK, because of being connected to the murderer? Whatever the claims and connections are, they are so tenuous, arbitrary. The least scrap of "plausibility," if offered with sufficient confidence, is regarded as Most True.

None of this is reliable, none of it is good exegesis, none of it is other than confused. For those of us who understand worship of God is rightly instituted by God, and nothing else is acceptable, the sacrifices of Adam's two sons are properly viewed in that light. Abel's offering was acceptable because God regarded his faith (and I believe he offered not just a portion of his skill, but that which I infer was alone authorized, viz. a bloody substitute). And with Cain, God did not accept him (nor his offering, which I infer was also not authorized); and all of it had to with his heart of faith sorely lacking.

There is or was no mysterious "curse of Cain," impacting what God might accept as worship. This could be some vegetarian philosophy looking to hitch a ride on a preacher's rhetoric.

 

[RobertPGH1981]

The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are not an offering to God (at least not in the sacrificial sense of Cain's offering), and God does not accept them as such. They are sacramental signs and seals of the covenant of grace. There is no connection to Cain.

I read recently in Victor Hamiltons handbook on the Pentateuch that adds Leviticus 2 and Lev 5:11-13 to reasons why a blood sacrifice wasn't the issue. These passage offer room for non-blood sacrifices. I think the main issue was Cain's heart attitude (1 John 3:12; Jude 1:11). Some commentators say that the issue was that the offering was from cursed ground (Gen 3:17) like the OP mentions. This doesn't fit with Lev 2 and Lev 5:11-13.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I read recently in Victor Hamiltons handbook on the Pentateuch that adds Leviticus 2 and Lev 5:11-13 to reasons why a blood sacrifice wasn't the issue. These passage offer room for non-blood sacrifices. I think the main issue was Cain's heart attitude (1 John 3:12; Jude 1:11). Some commentators say that the issue was that the offering was from cursed ground (Gen 3:17) like the OP mentions. This doesn't fit with Lev 2 and Lev 5:11-13.

In Hebrews 11:4 we read: "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."

Abel's sacrifice was one of atonement, involving the shedding of blood, and an offering, it would appear, of the goodliest of his flock. Thus his sacrifice typified Christ: the perfect sacrifice. Cain's sacrifice had none of this in it. Abel and Cain had already been taught by Adam what was an acceptable sacrifice. There is a difference in the persons to be sure- Abel had faith, Cain didn't- and this was manifested in the sacrifices they offered. But it is the sacrifices themselves which are at issue regarding which was accepted and which wasn't and it is the sacrifice Abel offered which Paul cites in Hebrews 11 as the evidence of Abel's faith. It should also be noted that Cain went from breaking the second commandment to breaking the sixth. That is very significant.

 

[iainduguid]

In Hebrews 11:4 we read: "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."

Abel's sacrifice was one of atonement, involving the shedding of blood, and an offering, it would appear, of the goodliest of his flock. Thus his sacrifice typified Christ: the perfect sacrifice. Cain's sacrifice had none of this in it. Abel and Cain had already been taught by Adam what was an acceptable sacrifice. There is a difference in the persons to be sure- Abel had faith, Cain didn't- and this was manifested in the sacrifices they offered. But it is the sacrifices themselves which are at issue regarding which was accepted and which wasn't and it is the sacrifice Abel offered which Paul cites in Hebrews 11 as the evidence of Abel's faith. It should also be noted that Cain went from breaking the second commandment to breaking the sixth. That is very significant.

The opening statement is incorrect, though much of the rest is right. It is an easy mistake to make if you are only working from an English translation. Both sacrifices are called minchah, that is, a tribute offering. It is about acknowledging someone as your overlord, not atonement. See 1 Samuel 10:27, where the people in question failed to bring Samuel "presents" (minchot). The Levitical laws surrounding minchot are in Leviticus 2, where it is clear that this is normally a grain offering. Atonement is generally associated with 'olot, whole burnt offerings (or more precisely, ascending offerings).

Abel's sacrifice was more excellent for the reasons given in Genesis 4: he offered "the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof" while Cain only brought "some of the fruit of the ground". In other words, Abel gave the very best of what he as a shepherd produced, while Cain only gave whatever came to hand. That certainly violated the first commandment, shortly followed by the tenth commandment, before the sixth commandment. But the problem wasn't that he didn't bring a blood sacrifice.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

The opening statement is incorrect, though much of the rest is right. It is an easy mistake to make if you are only working from an English translation. Both sacrifices are called minchah, that is, a tribute offering. It is about acknowledging someone as your overlord, not atonement. See 1 Samuel 10:27, where the people in question failed to bring Samuel "presents" (minchot). The Levitical laws surrounding minchot are in Leviticus 2, where it is clear that this is normally a grain offering. Atonement is generally associated with 'olot, whole burnt offerings (or more precisely, ascending offerings).

Abel's sacrifice was more excellent for the reasons given in Genesis 4: he offered "the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof" while Cain only brought "some of the fruit of the ground". In other words, Abel gave the very best of what he as a shepherd produced, while Cain only gave whatever came to hand. That certainly violated the first commandment, shortly followed by the tenth commandment, before the sixth commandment. But the problem wasn't that he didn't bring a blood sacrifice.

Cain and Abel were not under the levitical law though, so it's not very clear why the rules set down in Leviticus would apply to them, since God had not even revealed that yet.

The only hint we have at sacrifice of any kind prior to the offering of Cain and Abel was the Lord making coats of skin for Adam and Eve, suggesting that an animal was killed. Of course it's making a step to say that God taught them this was a sacrifice, but not a huge one and arguably a smaller one than assuming otherwise, since then we would have to assume Cain and Abel were offering to God without any revelation from God as to how that was to be done.

 

[iainduguid]

Cain and Abel were not under the levitical law though, so it's not very clear why the rules set down in Leviticus would apply to them, since God had not even revealed that yet.

The only hint we have at sacrifice of any kind prior to the offering of Cain and Abel was the Lord making coats of skin for Adam and Eve, suggesting that an animal was killed. Of course it's making a step to say that God taught them this was a sacrifice, but not a huge one and arguably a smaller one than assuming otherwise, since then we would have to assume Cain and Abel were offering to God without any revelation from God as to how that was to be done.

It is true that Cain and Abel were not under the Levitical law; for example, there's no evidence that they were offering the daily required burnt offerings etc of that. There is no mention of peace offerings, sin offerings, reparation offerings and so on prior to the Levitical law. But the point I am making is that the Book of Genesis (which is authored by Moses, after the giving of the Levitical law, to a people who have now received that law) distinguishes clearly two kinds of sacrifices in line with the later terminology. There are whole burnt offerings ('olot; Gen. 8:20; 22:2, 13): these are blood sacrifices that have as their primary (though not exclusive) significance "atonement". And there are minchot, "gifts" that are given to a superior from whom you are seeking favor (see Gen. 32:14, 19; 33:10; 43:11; etc). Under the inspiration of God, Moses chooses to designate Cain and Abel's offerings as minchot, not 'olot, which is significant in understanding their intent. The problem was not what was offered; each brought what their profession produced. The problem was with the heart attitude with which it was offered: Abel brought the very best, Cain brought whatever came to hand. That's why the Lord's response is not just to Cain and Abel's offerings, but to them as well ("The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering"; Gen. 4:4). He was doing precisely what the Lord critiques the people of Malachi's day for doing - bringing a second rate minchah (see Mal. 1:13)

The question of how Cain and Abel knew what to offer (and where and how) is one on which the Scripture is silent, so it is probably best not to rest an argument upon it. We may presume that God revealed something to Adam, which he passed on to Cain and Abel, though precisely what was revealed is speculation. There is no reason he couldn't have revealed to them the appropriateness of farmers offering the best of their newly harvested crops to him as a mark of their submission to his Lordship, as well as the need for atonement. But worship in the immediate post-Fall period seems to have been generally simple and rather unregulated, more like family devotions than the later practices. There is calling on the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26), an occasional burnt offering (8:20), and Abraham offers unspecified sacrifices (see Gen 12:7-8). He is clearly aware of burnt offerings, since he knows what to do in Genesis 22. But overall our evidence is rather thin for this time period.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It is true that Cain and Abel were not under the Levitical law; for example, there's no evidence that they were offering the daily required burnt offerings etc of that. There is no mention of peace offerings, sin offerings, reparation offerings and so on prior to the Levitical law. But the point I am making is that the Book of Genesis (which is authored by Moses, after the giving of the Levitical law, to a people who have now received that law) distinguishes clearly two kinds of sacrifices in line with the later terminology. There are whole burnt offerings ('olot; Gen. 8:20; 22:2, 13): these are blood sacrifices that have as their primary (though not exclusive) significance "atonement". And there are minchot, "gifts" that are given to a superior from whom you are seeking favor (see Gen. 32:14, 19; 33:10; 43:11; etc). Under the inspiration of God, Moses chooses to designate Cain and Abel's offerings as minchot, not 'olot, which is significant in understanding their intent. The problem was not what was offered; each brought what their profession produced. The problem was with the heart attitude with which it was offered: Abel brought the very best, Cain brought whatever came to hand. That's why the Lord's response is not just to Cain and Abel's offerings, but to them as well ("The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering"; Gen. 4:4). He was doing precisely what the Lord critiques the people of Malachi's day for doing - bringing a second rate minchah (see Mal. 1:13)

The question of how Cain and Abel knew what to offer (and where and how) is one on which the Scripture is silent, so it is probably best not to rest an argument upon it. We may presume that God revealed something to Adam, which he passed on to Cain and Abel, though precisely what was revealed is speculation. There is no reason he couldn't have revealed to them the appropriateness of farmers offering the best of their newly harvested crops to him as a mark of their submission to his Lordship, as well as the need for atonement. But worship in the immediate post-Fall period seems to have been generally simple and rather unregulated, more like family devotions than the later practices. There is calling on the name of the Lord (Gen 4:26), an occasional burnt offering (8:20), and Abraham offers unspecified sacrifices (see Gen 12:7-8). He is clearly aware of burnt offerings, since he knows what to do in Genesis 22. But overall our evidence is rather thin for this time period.

I am greatly edified by Dr. Duguid's observations here, even to the point of feeling like my own sermonic treatment of Gen.4 is lacking these insights, and in the future I will want to apply some of these.

I want to offer a little extra support to Neil, due to the fact I think there is a bit (perhaps moreso than Dr.Duguid seems to think) more value to at least one near-contextual clue--besides the formal OT-terminology facts, and the missing notation of any good quality in Cain's "fruit of the ground" tribute. This item is that a mere 10vv prior to noting (Gen.4:3) the source of Cain's offering, that source was explicitly cursed, Gen.3:17. That term is repeated 3X in the interim before the 5th mention in Gen.4:3. Abel's blood then cries out from the ground, Gen.4:10; then 3X more is the ground referenced in the midst of Cain's judgment. Gen.5:29 follows with a fresh reminder of the curse on the ground. Gen.8:21 offers an abatement (somewhat) of the curse on the ground after the Flood.

God curses the ground; then Cain brings an offering/tribute of the fruit of it. I'm far far far from dishonoring the terminological distinction identifying the specific type of offering; but as such tribute could take a variety of forms (see Mal.1:13 for one clear reference to animals as minchah), while we should not ignore Moses' choice of words here, contextually I'm led to doubt any suitability of Cain's fruit that happens to be tied so immediately to the divine curse.

That, to me, when coupled with an application of the RPW (which, in spite of the primitive and simple expression of worship still falls under some elementary regulation) calls for a judgment against even the content of Cain's tribute. I think Moses implies a comprehensive judgment of Cain's presentation: that it was given from a bad motive, that it may have lacked attention to quality (compared to Abel's attention that is noted), and that he brought what he saw fit according to his works.

God had cursed the ground; and Cain "by the sweat of his brow" had borne his load under that curse, and had wrested product from the ground. The text is spare, and tells us not much explicitly; but my tendency is to think Cain was proud of his tribute, and felt as much slighted by God's disregard, as he was envious of his brother's favor. Perhaps he did not deliberately cull "the best," inasmuch as he could have been inordinately proud of every piece. The thought might not have occurred to his faithless mind (assuming the case this fruit was acceptable) that a "firstfruits" or "fat" offering was most fit.

I suspect proud Cain would rather present nothing to God, before giving honor to his brother's labors by trading Abel his fruit-of-the-ground in exchange for an acceptable tribute/offering. Such an act would instantly reduce the worth of his own works as sufficient answer to the curse that was laid--a curse on his father that subjected him, possibly leading to a common complaint of "injustice!" I may be wrong about this as well, but I tend to think the admonition God gave Cain (v.7) to "do well" is not a call to improve his works or public attitude, but to submit to the form of an acceptable offering. I just don't think here is a first-taste of moralism.

All this said, I'm immovably critical and dismissive of the idea that the Lord's Supper is any sign of an overthrow of the original curse on the ground or the direct judgment on Cain for murdering his brother. At some point, far enough removed in time/context from the curse upon the ground, and on the other side of the Great Flood, God clearly accepts and even calls for Israel to acknowledge him (pay him tribute) by fruit-of-the-ground from the new Eden (in Canaan) where he settles them. Such presentations from his people were the beginning of their support of the priesthood, who took their part after putting the memorial (fat) on the altar; cf. Lev.6:14ff with 1Sam.2:12-17.

Is the original curse wholly undone? Do men no more wrest crop (so to speak) from the ground? Was Cain's particular judgment reversed? Did his children even inherit that peculiar curse? Is this world subdued? Is famine forgotten? Is blight a memory? Is it God's plan to bring Eden back into view before the Eschaton? The covenant of works is still a fact, and therefore so is the curse on the ground. Yet God accepts our various tributes (including from our gardens) on account of the covenant of grace, and especially because of Christ. But he was doing that already long before the first Communion meal was celebrated. I doubt there was an "evolution" of man's discovery of what God might accept as tribute, as by trial and error. I'm sure he taught them.

 

[bookslover]

Regarding my OP - yeah, it sounded pretty nuts to me. ("Nuts" being a very sophisticated theological term.)

 

[alexandermsmith]

The opening statement is incorrect, though much of the rest is right. It is an easy mistake to make if you are only working from an English translation. Both sacrifices are called minchah, that is, a tribute offering. It is about acknowledging someone as your overlord, not atonement. See 1 Samuel 10:27, where the people in question failed to bring Samuel "presents" (minchot). The Levitical laws surrounding minchot are in Leviticus 2, where it is clear that this is normally a grain offering. Atonement is generally associated with 'olot, whole burnt offerings (or more precisely, ascending offerings).

Abel's sacrifice was more excellent for the reasons given in Genesis 4: he offered "the firstlings of the flock and the fat thereof" while Cain only brought "some of the fruit of the ground". In other words, Abel gave the very best of what he as a shepherd produced, while Cain only gave whatever came to hand. That certainly violated the first commandment, shortly followed by the tenth commandment, before the sixth commandment. But the problem wasn't that he didn't bring a blood sacrifice.

Certainly the point you make about Abel bringing the best, whereas Cain only brought whatever was at hand, is true and is brought out by the commentators. But the best commentators also see the significance in what was brought: Abel offered an animal sacrifice, because only by the shedding of blood can sins be forgiven; Cain offered an empty and vain sacrifice. There is a parallel between Abel and Cain and the Publican and the Pharisee in Luke 18. The Publican saw the need for the shedding of blood ("God be merciful [be propitiated by the blood of the sacrifice] to me a sinner") whereas the Pharisee offered only his own works and righteousnesses, which are as filthy rags to God, seeing no personal need for atonement. The offering of the fat by Abel proves this as the fat was a necessary part of the sacrifices which would be formally instituted later on, but of course would have been part of the sacrifice offered by Adam immediately after the Fall when God clothed him and Eve in the skin of the animal.

Calvin places the emphasis here on the persons offering the sacrifice, or more specifically what distinguished them. He notes that the names are first mentioned before their respective sacrifices because Abel was a man of faith, Cain a hypocrite. And only worship offered in faith is acceptable to God and because Abel was a man of faith, and offered a sacrifice in faith, he offered a sacrifice which had in view the necessity of atonement for the forgiveness of sins.

Matthew Henry:

"There was a difference in the offerings they brought. It is expressly said (Heb. 11:4), Abel’s was a more excellent sacrifice than Cain’s: either (1.) In the nature of it. Cain’s was only a sacrifice of acknowledgment offered to the Creator; the meat-offerings of the fruit of the ground were no more, and, for aught I know, they might be offered in innocency. But Abel brought a sacrifice of atonement, the blood whereof was shed in order to remission, thereby owning himself a sinner, deprecating God’s wrath, and imploring his favour in a Mediator. Or, (2.) In the qualities of the offering. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, any thing that came next to hand, what he had not occasion for himself or what was not marketable. But Abel was curious in the choice of his offering: not the lame, nor the lean, nor the refuse, but the firstlings of the flock—the best he had, and the fat thereof—the best of those best."

Matthew Poole:

"The fat thereof was either,

1. Properly, the fat being properly now required by God, as afterwards was expressed, Exodus 29:13, Exodus 29:22, Leviticus 3:3. Or,

2. The best of them, as the word fat is often used, as Genesis 45:18, Genesis 49:20, Numbers 18:12 Nehemiah 8:10 Psalm 147:14."

 

[alexandermsmith]

Cain and Abel were not under the levitical law though, so it's not very clear why the rules set down in Leviticus would apply to them, since God had not even revealed that yet.

The only hint we have at sacrifice of any kind prior to the offering of Cain and Abel was the Lord making coats of skin for Adam and Eve, suggesting that an animal was killed. Of course it's making a step to say that God taught them this was a sacrifice, but not a huge one and arguably a smaller one than assuming otherwise, since then we would have to assume Cain and Abel were offering to God without any revelation from God as to how that was to be done.

Exactly. True worship always contains, and must contain, a view of the necessity of the sacrifice of the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins. Any worship which lacks this quality is not true worship, but is mere will worship. God revealed to Adam and Eve the way of salvation in the promise of the Messiah who would come and make atonement for the sins of his people. To suggest this was not an aspect of the sacrifice of Abel is to suggest that Abel was indulging in some sort of nature worship where all he did was offer up the fruits of his labour, albeit of a better quality than Cain's. Without the essential element of shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins there is no true worship of the true God.