God created all things and declared them to be good.

1Review: Some Raised Questions

• Did animals have a “soul”?

• Yes and No. It depends on how you use the word “soul”.
• Yes: Animals have a soul in that it is the same word used in Genesis to describe the “soul” of man and the “soul” of a beast.
• No: The word “soul” is used differently even though it is the same word. It is actually used 10 different ways in Hebrew.

2(Brown, Driver, & Briggs – Hebrew and English Lex.)

• Animals have a nephesh (χπν) like man, but are void of what our typical modern-day spiritual understanding of “soul” means (IE: Everlasting beings, spiritual awareness [the part of us that can be redeemed], ability to image God on the earth, Creation Ordinances, moral determination, James Brown, etc.). Animals simply have nephesh as it relates to them being: 1. “Living beings”, 2. “Breathing”, or 3. “Having life in the blood”. These are the only definitions of nephesh as the Bible uses the term for animals. These are the only things that they share in common with the nephesh of man. The part of man’s soul which is spiritual is not available to the animal.

• Can animals “sin”? Are animals “sinless”?

• Sin is “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). More specifically sin is: “Any failure to conform to the moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature.” (Grudem, Systematic Theo.)
• The typical definition of “sin” is “missing the mark”. Questions: Who sets the mark? (God) Who is the mark set for? (Image Bearers) Why is the mark set? (To image God in the world)
• Were animals ever required to live morally pure lives? If so, did they thereby image God in the world by meeting God’s lawful requirements? No. (Remember, animals are not spiritual beings)
• Therefore, animals cannot sin and cannot be described as “sinless”. They simply never were required to meet the mark of righteousness that God set. It is for Image Bearers only.
• Animals are only “sinless” semantically. Actually, they could never sin to begin with. They cannot be tempted and they cannot sin. Sin has nothing to do with the animal kingdom. Animals are simply morally neutral, not “sinless” in that they had the ability to sin and chose not to.
• The Literary Value of the Cain & Abel Narrative:
• Similarities between the Fall of Man and the Cain and Abel narrative are very evident:
  • The focus of the narrative is the murder of Abel

3Genesis 4:2b-5-NarrativeCain, Abel main actors; Yahweh passive

4Genesis 4:6-7-DialogueYahweh questioning Cain

5Genesis 4:8-NarrativeCain & Abel alone

6Genesis 4:9-14-DialogueYahweh & Cain

7Genesis 4:15-16-NarrativeYahweh active, Cain passive

• The narrative mirrors the Fall of Man narrative
• “Where is your brother” // “Where are you?”
• “You are cursed from the land” // “The land is cursed because of you” (4:11; 3:14, 17)
• The marking of Cain parallels the clothing of Adam & Eve
• Both stories end with the transgressors leaving the presence of God and going to live east of Eden (4:16; 3:24)
• The Lord drove out Adam & Eve // Cain responded, “You have driven me from the surface of the land” (3:24; 4:14)
• The narrative of Cain and Abel is a paradigm of human sin.
• Eve was persuaded by the serpent; Cain is not dissuaded from his murderous intention by his creator’s appeal 4:6-7
  • When God pronounces judgment on Adam, Eve, and the sperpent, they accept it; when Cain is judged, he protests that he is being treated too harshly.
  • The Point: The similarities in writing but differences in reactions point out that at this point in time, sin is more firmly entrenched and humanity is further alienated from God.
• The Unaccepted Sacrifice of Cain: 4:1-5
• “Offerings” background in Genesis:
• Offerings were to be “firstfruits”. Exodus 22:28-30
  • The firstborn by right belonged to God
  • Genesis is more interested in the fact of divine approval than in how it was shown.
  • The offering of Cain corresponded to his profession as a tiller of the ground
• The offering was acceptable in the future Levitical law. Leviticus 2
  • Nothing was apparently wrong with the offering itself according to the text.
  • Some possible occasions of contention
  • The second son brought first-born animals.
  • The fat represented the best part of the best animal (first-born).
  • Cain, the older son offered neither firstlings nor first fruits as listed in the text (not told whether it was his best).
• The Accepted Sacrifice of Abel:
  • The offering of Abel corresponded to his profession as a shepherd
  • The text makes a point to let the reader know that this was Abel’s first fruits

  • Question: How did Cain and Abel know which offering was accepted and which was not?

  • Church history has viewed it as God divinely burning up Abel’s offering but not Cain’s.
• The Bible seems to back up the fact that God intervened in some miraculous way to burn up the offering. Leviticus 9:24
• A Closer Look at the Offerings:
  • Five traditional explanations are offered to solve the question as to why Abel’s sacrifice was accepted while Cain’s was not.

8ExplanationProblem with Explanation

• God prefers shepherds to gardeners
• Adam was appointed to till the soil
• Animal sacrifice is more acceptable than vegetable offerings
• Grain offerings were necessary according to the Law
• God’s motives are a mystery (like election)
• This explanation is a last resort. God’s choice of a younger brother is not a frequent pattern
• It was the hidden motives of the brothers
• The writer does not give the reader a view into the hidden motives
• The sacrifices represented different approaches to worship represented in the quality of the gifts
• The reader must assume that the writer included “first-fruits” in reference to Abel for this reason
• What
• Who
• Sin Identified, Personified, and Magnified: 4:5-7
  • Identified: The sin is in the reaction of Cain to the acceptance of God.
  • Personified: “Sin crouches at your door”
  • Sin is seen as a person
  • Sin is pictured as a guard at a door
  • Sin is viewed with emotions: it’s “desire” is for you…

9Magnified: Taking rage out on Abel

• The First Murder: 4:8-12

  • hich of these statements is true?

  • Satan created evil.
  • Eve created evil.
  • Satan distorted the good already created.
  • Man fulfilled his purpose in…
  • Spontaneous worship to the Creator.
  • Working the garden and adding his character (creativity) to it.
  • His relationship to his wife.
  • Imaging God to the world in which he lived.
  • All the above.
  • All of these are because all of these are acts of to the .
• Question #2 Revisited:
  • “If God created all things and Evil exists,
  • Wouldn’t God have to be the creator of Evil?”
  • There can be no without the .
  • God is the complete and ultimate standard for the good.
• God created all things and declared them to be . Gen.1:31

10Problem in Scripture? [Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)]

• 6That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
• Poor translation – notice NASB ( ), NIV ( ).
• Should be translated as term (IE: “light vs. darkness”, “peace” vs. “opposite of ‘peace’”)
• God’s universal rule exists to and human activity in a fallen world bent on .
• Satan cannot – he can only .
• The evil that Satan brings is the of the already created.
• Satan’s power is given to him by God and can only be used within the set by God.
• Satan could not introduce something from nothing, he could only distorted the one path where Adam & Eve could prove their allegiance…he distorted the .
• The purpose of the Tree
• The tree was created – it had to be…it was created by God.
• The tree was not good or bad intrinsically of itself. It could only be used (abstinence) or (partaking).
• The intended purpose of the tree was not for , but rather a where everyday, the Image-Bearer could demonstrate his allegiance.

11The purpose of the Image-Bearer

• The intended purpose of the Image-Bearer was to the Creator in spontaneous worship.
• The challenge from Satan was a valid challenge.
• Adam and Eve were not created perfect: without the to .
• Adam and Eve were not morally . They were created “good”.
• Adam and Eve were not “innocent” meaning that Satan “took of them”.
• Adam and Eve were created as Image-Bearers with the privilege of freely to demonstrate their allegiance to their Creator.
• Adam and Eve failed in their intended .
• “Adam and Eve came to believe that they were to be their own authority, that they had the right to determine for themselves by experimentation what is true and what is false. Of course, the fact that they ‘experimented’ at all makes it clear that at the moment they ate they already believed the serpent’s hypothesis concerning the tree to be true, for had they really believed that their experimentation might lead to their deaths they would hardly have tried it. This shows, as Paul says, that men are never truly autonomous, but rather are walking either in obedience to God or according to the prince of the power of the air (Eph.2:2). But Adam and Eve thought they it was they who were determining the course they would follow, that they were only exercising their autonomous right to determine for them selves the true, the good, and the beautiful. They became, in their understanding, their own authority, and their fallen descendents ever since that time have claimed a similar autonomy from God.” Reymond – NSTCF.
• God gave Adam & Eve the of and held them responsible for their decisions regarding it.
• Every time they , they grew to God.
• It would only take one incident of disobedience to them from God’s presence – Remember: God cannot have any part of sin.
• God gave them the to make right choices
• God taught them the benefits of .
• God taught them how to make the right choices through ethical (It won’t be good for you) and .
• God also taught them to love and serve (solidifying their in doing right).
• God warned them of the dangers of .
• Without something for them to act out their (the tree), they would have never had a chance to their .
• By providing contrary choice for Adam and Eve, God gave them the chance to their loyalty to Him through their choices to obey.
• God held Adam and Eve for their .
• They abused the privilege of .
• They went from with their Maker to from their Maker.
  • ILL: “Was Adam aware of God’s prohibition and warning respecting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil at the moment he ate its fruit?...YES”
• “Did Adam have the capacity and power to do God’s perceptive will respecting the fruit?...YES”
• “Did Adam, for reasons sufficient to him, come to the place cognitively where he wanted to eat the fruity?...YES”
• “Was Adam forced to eat the fruit against his will?...NO”
• “Therefore, because Adam acted knowingly, willingly, spontaneously, for reasons sufficient for him, with no violence being done to his will …he was a free agent in his transgression.”
• “BUT…was Adam totally free from god’s eternal decree?...OF COURSE NOT” - NSTCF
• Conclusion:
  • If the Image-Bearer would have obeyed, the tree was an opportunity for the Image-Bearer to proclaim the Name of the Image even better throughout the earth. It was not an - .
  • Even though Satan seemed to have introduced the ability that the creature had to sin, the Image-Bearer bore responsibility through his to sin.
  • Eve sinned even before she took the fruit – it was simply the action which naturally followed the rebellion in thinking. She sinned as soon as she denied the of God’s .
  • God did not “ ” evil – Satan the good.
  • Man is responsible for his own actions – his is revealed in and through his actions.

12Bibliography (Not Comprehensive)

• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Trans: Henry Beveridge. Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1989 ed.
• Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology, Intervarsity Press/Zondervan Publishing: Grand Rapids; 1994.
• Lewis,Gordon R. & Demarest,Bruce A. Integrative Theology, Zondervan Publishing; Grand Rapids, 1996.
• Reymond, Robert L. New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Thomas Nelson Publishers; Nashville, 1998. (*NSTCF)