THE WORSHIP OF FAITH

Bob Myhan

n Genesis chapter 4, we have the account of two men, each of whom “brought an offering…to the Lord.”  Notice the development: “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.’ “Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him” (Genesis 4:3-8).

hat is the key to God’s respect for Abel and his offering, and His lack of respect for Cain and his offering? Is God a respecter of persons? That is, does He show favoritism and partiality? Did Cain even have a chance to gain God’s respect? The answers to these questions are “faith,” “no” and “yes,” respectively.

      “By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks” (Hebrews 11:4).

bel’s sacrifice was “by faith,” and “faith comes by hearing…the word of God” (Romans 10:17). Thus, Abel heard the word of God concerning sacrifices, or offerings, believed it, and acted upon it.

      “For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one, and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous” (1 John 3:11,12).

ain’s works were evil. Why? They were evil because he heard the word of God concerning sacrifice, as did Abel, but simply chose not to comply with it. Rather, he offered what he wanted to offer (which was different from what God wanted) and thought God ought to accept it.

reaching in the home of a Gentile named Cornelius, “Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘in truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him’” (Acts 10:34,35).

his certainly agrees with what God told Cain when He said, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” The plural “gifts” (Hebrews 11:4) and the plural “works” (1 John 3:12) tell us that the sacrifices in Genesis 4 were not merely one-time offerings, but sacrifices offered over time. These two were worshipping the same God, but by two different standards—Abel by faith, and Cain by opinion. By which standard do you worship God?

WHATEVER IS NOBLE

Bob Myhan

f there is to be any virtue and any praise, we must also think on “Whatever things are noble.”  Among the major translations, the King James Version alone uses “honest” to translate the original Greek word that occurs here. Most translations use “honorable;” a few use “noble” (the NKJV among them). It is translated “grave” (KJV) and “reverend” (NKJV) in connection with the qualifications of deacons and their wives (1 Timothy 3:8,11). Surely, a word that can be translated with such variety must have a wide range in meaning.

ine’s Expository Dictionary says, “august, venerable, is rendered ‘honest’ in Phil. 4:8...Matthew Arnold suggests ‘nobly serious’” (p.569); that which “inspires reverence and awe...’points to seriousness of purpose and to self-respect in conduct’ (Moule)” (p.513). Thayer says, “august, venerable, reverend; to be venerated for character, honorable” (p.573). Lenski writes, “All true things...may show their face anywhere at any time and be ‘respected’, honored and ‘revered’ as true. The opposite of ‘things revered’ are ‘things worthy of scorn’...the word denotes what is divinely august and thus worthy of worshipful reverence” (p.882). Gerald F. Hawthorne, in Word Biblical Commentary (Vol.43), says this word “includes ideas of majesty, dignity and awe...refers to lofty things, majestic things, things that lift the mind from the cheap and tawdry to that which is noble and good and of moral worth” (p.188).

bviously, those things which are most highly esteemed are under consideration. Nothing meets these criteria like the word of God. And the man who is blessed is the man whose “delight is in the law of the Lord, and in His law he meditates day and night” (Psalm 1:1-3).

IS TRUTH RELATIVE?

Guest Writer: Gary Henry

ime was when folks might have disagreed over what was true, but they did not doubt there existed such a thing as truth. They were confident truth could be dis­covered and understood by the human mind, given sufficient evidence and careful reasoning. The assumption on which nearly everybody operated was that truth was there to be found by those who would make the effort. Sometimes people did not behave courteously in searching for truth, or even possessing it, but few doubted that truth was real and that it mattered.

he present age has seen another kind of thinking become popular. This thinking denies the reality of any such thing as truth, and disdains the importance of being very concerned about it. We have come to see “truth” frequently put in quotation marks, as if it were some quaint, outdated concept. We hear people who see themselves as being in step with the times make snide, condescending references to fundamentalists, for example, who are so silly as to think they have the “truth.” The notion seems to be that any claim to have such a thing as “truth” is to be disregarded automatically. Modern man smiles in enlightened amusement at the whole idea of “truth.”

ut modern man needs to be careful be does not saw off the limb on which he sits. To deny the existence of truth, the ability of the mind to know truth, or the importance of knowing truth is to invalidate even the skeptic’s own denial. If “truth” is a meaningless word, what difference does it make what the skeptic says? He cannot be sure he himself is telling the “truth” when he says there is no “truth.” The concept of truth is not silly—and the person who says it is must be prepared to quit thinking rationally about anything.

hose quotation marks around “truth,” though, are probably just meant to be a sarcastic dig at religious folks. Scientific truth is okay—it is just religious “truth” that has to be designated by quotation marks. But religious people ought not to let themselves be intimidated by such tactics. Quotation marks or not, religious truth is a matter of vital concern, and its issues must be settled on the same basis as other important matters. Name-calling, insinuations, and the use of pejorative buzzwords will never substitute for the serious work involved in answering: what is the evidence?