The group was going through the story of Cain and Abel in
Genesis 4. As the story goes, Abel and Cain each brought their respective
offerings to God, and God looked with favour on Abel and his offering but not
on Cain and his offering.
The first discussion question for the session was “how to
respond to someone who feels that God isn’t present”. I am not sure or can’t
remember how this discussion question tie in with the Cain and Abel story.
Perhaps it was about the way Cain was feeling, or maybe it was a separate
discussion of its own altogether.
The answer that was provided on that was that we shouldn’t
trust out emotions, but that we should believe and know with certainty based on reading the word of God from the bible, and gain faith from the partaking of
the sacrament at Holy Communion, and to continue to go to church. A group member brought out the
point that Pastors might also feel the same way at certain points in their life,
but he admires that Pastors continue to be able to keep going and ministering,
and we should be inspired to do the same.
The next question of the discussion was “What does it mean to say God has “found favour with someone?” The passage which was read in relation to that was Luke 1:30-31 where Mary, the mother of Jesus was told by an angel that she has found favour with God and will give conceive and give birth to Jesus. The commentary that was provided on this was that favour is unmerited grace from God. What is the reason that God found favour with Abel and his offering and not Cain and his offering? The passage referred to in relation to this question was Hebrew 11:4 – “By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings.”
Does the notion that God found favour with Abel due to his faith contradict the notion that favour is unmerited grace? A cell group member asked that question, and the discussion leader added futher commentary which he had initially intended not to go into about how there are two types of favour, one merited and the other unmerited. The merited ones include the likes of those mentioned in Psalms 147:11 where the psalmist writes, "The Lord favours those who fear Him, those who wait for His lovingkindess", Proverbs 3:3-4 where the author, presumably King Solomon states "Do not let kindness and truth leave you: bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favour and good repute in the sight of God and man", and Proverbs 8:32-35 - "Blessed is the man who listens to me [wisdom], watching daily at my gates, waiting at my doorposts. For he who finds me finds life and obtains favour from the Lord." The unmerited kind of favour typically involves those of the salvific kind where Jesus died on the cross to redeem us of our sins, as in Ephesians 2:5-9. So apparently, the favour that Abel received from God was of the merited kind.
The commentary that was delivered by the discussion leader
from the pastor was that “we receive faith as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Abel
believed in God and in the promise of the Messiah, so he was righteous by
faith. Cain clearly did not trust in God, so we can conclude that he had
rejected God’s gift of faith. Abel brought his offering in faith, knowing God
would be pleased with it. Cain did not approach God in faith. Perhaps he even
thought his offering would please God in and of itself. The story of Cain and
Abel helps us see clearly that God desires us to trust in Him and bring our
offerings in faith rather than trusting in our own works to please God.”
I brought up a point which seemed to annoy one of the older
members there. I asked whether we as Christians might be too quick to pour
judgment upon Cain for his shortcomings when God might not have judged Cain as
harshly as we would. Just because Cain might not have offered his offering with
faith or as much faith as his brother doesn’t necessarily mean he did not trust
in God or rejected God’s gift of faith etc. After all, in the passage, God’s
response to Cain thereafter was not one of condemnation, but a warning, or even
a word of counsel to Cain to struggle against the temptation to sin. So it seems
to suggest that there was a possibility that Cain could have very well stayed
off the wrong path, though in retrospect and from what we know further down the
story, he failed. Moreover, wouldn't the fact that Cain was angry that God had not shown favour to him or his offering suggest that he took his offering seriously, or had hoped to please God with his offering? Borrowing from my own work experience in the legal industry, I know how disappointing it can be to do my best at my work and submit it to the Boss, only to be told that I had done a slipshod job or not put in due effort into the task.
The older member said that it can be taken as given that
Cain had these offending thoughts or attitudes towards God given that he killed
his brother which we all know later in the story.
I said that if indeed Cain was guilty of thinking of his offering
being pleasing to God in and of itself, many of us Christians would probably be
guilty of such thinking too. Yet it seemed like the characterization of Cain that
was being imputed to him based on the commentary of the bible study session was
rather harsh as to be denunciatory of him. I could have perhaps have made my
point a lot more tactfully or diplomatically, but I asked, perhaps somewhat rhetorically,
whether we as Christians sometimes are overly quick to come up a whole list of
crimes to indict someone for a relatively minor infraction in our perceived
need to justify God’s disapproval of that person. God may very well not have
judged that person as harshly as we have. In the instance of Cain, Cain might
have fallen short of the required standards for making a desirable offering,
but had he committed such a transgression as to be tantamount of rejecting God’s
gift of faith and perhaps God altogether? I don’t think it is clear from the
passage that he did, which was why God cautioned Cain that sin was crouching at
his door and desired to have him, but he must rule over it. It implies that
Cain had not gone too far down the road yet in his error as to be beyond
salvation.
Another cell group member asked whether Cain could have been
forgiven for his sin of murdering Abel? That group member felt that Cain did
show remorse in what Cain said in Genesis 4:13-14 – “My punishment is more than
I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from
your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
will kill me.” I drew parallels of this with Judas Iscariot, who in Matthew 27 expressed
remorse after betraying Jesus, yet did not take the critical step of asking for
forgiveness. The cell group member who had gotten annoyed with me earlier felt
that there was no actual remorse or contrition on the part of Cain. He cited
the passage of 2 Samuel 12 where David said “I have sinned against the Lord” as
being exemplary of what a remorseful attitude that merits forgiveness entails.
I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion here by asking how David’s remarks was
in any way different from that of Achan's in Joshua 7:20, who despite making the
same remark as David, was nevertheless stoned to death. What I am more
interested in is the point that Cain showed at least remorse, which even though
it may not have measured up to some required standard required for forgiveness,
is nevertheless present. Shouldn't that at least count for something? A cell group member pointed out that Cain may not
have been able to ask God for forgiveness then since Jesus had not yet done his
salvific work on earth by dying on the cross, but could Cain have at least done
some of the sacrificial rituals prescribed in the old testament to achieve the
same? Perhaps he did so, but we can never know. Then again, the animal sacrificial
rituals for penance of sins was probably not even existent during the time of
Cain and Abel.
