Genesis chapter 4 records the story of the first sons of Adam, Cain and Abel, and the crossroad of conscience to which they came. The story has solemn implications for our age and our church in these last days.
The sacrificial system was instituted by Christ after the Fall in Eden. An animal, a lamb, was slain, typifying the great sacrificial offering of Jesus for the sins of humanity (see Genesis 3:21; Revelation 13:8). The skins of the animal were used as the covering of the nakedness of Adam and Eve, our first parents, a symbol of Christ’s life and blood pledged on behalf of guilty mankind from the beginning.
Humanity was thereafter commanded to bring a lamb from their flocks as an offering of sin, typifying faith in the atonement of the Redeemer Lamb of God, “who taketh away the sins of the world” (John 1:29).
It is doubtless the case that Cain and Abel were raised with personal experience of this sacrificial system, and its meaning (see PP 71.2). It is highly probable that both Cain and Abel repeatedly stood by the family altar as Adam offered the sacrifice for the trespasses of his household.
When Abel was a man himself, in the process of time he brought a lamb from his flocks as a sacrifice for his sins (Genesis 4:4). “And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.”
Abel’s personal will and conscience was, as each of ours is, engaged in the process of repentance for sin. It is an act of the individual conscious will to repent of sin, to come to the Lord in acknowledgement of guilt, to ask for forgiveness, and to have faith in the Atonement that God has made.
Cain, in contrast, refused to bring a lamb as a sacrifice. Though he built an altar, and though he brought an offering, Cain determined to bring the fruit of the ground as an offering of atonement, contrary to the express directions of God. The fruits of the earth were acceptable as a thank offering but not as a sacrifice for sin. “Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin” (Hebrews 9:22); the sacrifice typified faith in the blood of Christ.
Cain’s refusal to bring a lamb as a sacrifice was a refusal of the Lamb, Jesus the Messiah, who would die for his sins. Cain determined to make an offering to God of his own merits for his sins. His act of rebellion was a declaration that no Redeemer was required to pay redemption for him. He had made atonement for himself with his works, with the fruit that he had grown.
When God did not respect Cain’s offering, he became enraged.
Cain “angrily reproached his brother and attempted to draw him into controversy concerning God’s dealings with them” (PP 74.1). Abel responded by pointing to the instructions of God and his faith in them. Abel indicated that if Cain made an offering with the typified lamb he also would be accepted (PP 74.1). Abel’s faith and firmness only made Cain angrier.
“And 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 slew him.” Genesis 4:8.
We are told by the pen of inspiration that the story of Cain and Abel is typologically significant. “Cain and Abel represent two classes that will exist in the world till the close of time.” PP 72.5. We note that the class of Cain is much larger than that of Abel - PP 73.1. The voice of this class and its prominence and power is greater than that of the smaller class typified by Abel.
It is impossible to miss the fact that the animus in the story is all one-directional. Cain was angry with Abel. Cain entered into controversy with Abel. Cain killed Abel. There is no record in the Scriptures or the Spirit of Prophecy that Abel had animus toward Cain.
“Cain hated and killed his brother, not for any wrong that Abel had done, but ‘because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.’ John 3:12”; PP 74.2.
Both Cain and Abel had free will. Both Cain and Abel made a choice, as was their right to do. But Cain was not content to make his choice, live with the consequences, and afford his brother the same right.
God marked Cain as a murderer, and the pen of inspiration states:
The same spirit is waiting an opportunity to force its hideous, satanic principles into every church. Pride, ambition, selfishness give birth to envy, evil-surmising, the desire to compel men to bow to human ideas. This spirit feeds upon that which gives it life and existence. Introduced in any degree into our churches, it will bring spiritual death. Any man, by he minister or layman, who seeks to compel or control the reason of any other man becomes an agent of Satan to do his work; and in the sight of the heavenly universe, he bears the mark of Cain. 25 LtMs, Ms 29, 2911, par 60. [emphasis added]
The spirit of compulsion and coercion which seeks to force the will of a fellow human being is antithetical to the nature and principles of the kingdom of Christ.
The right not to be coerced in matters of conscience extends to the decision to take one of the rushed-into-production Covid shots, as found by a number of recent US Court decisions upholding the right to refuse the Covid shots on the basis of, inter alia, their use of aborted foetal tissue.
The question whether or not to take a Covid shot is a personal matter and for many human beings, Christian and non-Christian alike, it is a matter of conscience and religious liberty. The spotty history of illegal and fraudulent activity of some of the companies who manufacture the shots, the coercive nature of the mandates globally and their association with economic sanctions reminiscent of Revelation 13, the repressive air of authoritarianism from employers and government generally, and the suppression of free speech on the subject of lockdowns and Covid shots, are all an alarm to millions who watch the steady tread of events.
It is now well-known that the Covid shots do not stop infection or transmission, and did not do so even for the original virus, but what of potential harm?
One pre-print study shows that the Covid-vaccinated are more susceptible to the omicron variant than the unvaccinated.
A recently released study links Covid shots to hepatitis
A recent decision of an Italian court states that even if fatalities resulting from the Covid shots are rare, a single death is enough to render the mandate unconstitutional. The ruling further states that the experimental mRNA treatments have been shown to cause “serious or fatal adverse effects”, including the following:
The data which have been collected by the European database reveal that by the end of January 2022, 570 million Pfizer doses had been administered within the EU, so far. In relation to them, 582,000 cases of adverse effects were reported, 7000 of which had a fatal outcome.
In case anyone missed that, “a fatal outcome” means thousands of people who got the Pfizer shot died from it. The decision goes on to state that there were 1,447 recorded deaths from the Astra Zeneca shot and 834 recorded deaths from the Moderna shot. The court catalogues many other side effects from the shots that falls short of death.
Pfizer attempted to delay the release of its test results for 75 years, or in other words long after the current generation is dead from either natural causes or its own “medicine”, when some new iteration of its megacorporation will be called to pay for the sins of its predecessor. Pfizer’s releases show that it was aware that its “vaccine” had horrible side effects, including death.
The sixth commandment forbids the taking of innocent human life, including the taking of life by pharmaceutical companies who know that people will die if their products are used as directed.
This brings us to the recent article published in the Adventist Review by James D. Standish, a Georgetown University-educated lawyer and former representative of the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the United Nations. His comments have been endorsed by another prominent “religious liberty” Seventh-day Adventist church lawyer, Nicholas Miller.
In his article, Mr. Standish strongly implies that:
- people who refuse to be injected with Covid shots should be disfellowshipped and not baptized into the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the first place – in other words, Covid shots are to be a test of fellowship (and probably righteousness);
- people who refuse the jabs are extremist murderers; and
- that the health message given to the Seventh-day Adventist Church requires conformity to Covid shots.
Mr. Standish proceeds in his article to equate people who do not want one of the (ineffective and dangerous) Covid shots with medicine men. Medicine men are typically witch doctors who act in consort with Satan.
Mr. Standish also falsely conflates all who refuse the vaccination as being “anti-vaxxers”, when in fact many are pro-liberty-of-conscience and not anti-vax per se. This false conflation of the “nay” camp under the catch-all designation as being anti-vaxxers is disingenuous, inaccurate and willfully misleading.
Mr. Standish’s article and the Adventist Review’s publication of them, are a threat to the unity and fellowship of the body of believers. If Mr. Standish holds the door, only those who bend the knee to the Pfizer god may enter.
The heavenly court with which we all have to do is watching and weighing. It is a solemn thing to call for the removal of men and women from church fellowship who have taken a stand based on their personal and studied conviction of the Word of God. They are accountable to God, not to Mr. Standish and not to Mr. Miller. If Mr. Standish and Mr. Miller wish to inject themselves with Pfizer or AstraZeneca or Moderna’s creations and their endless boosters, that is up to them.
But it is contrary to the principles of the Gospel for them to vilify and denigrate those who choose not to, and through threat of force, expulsion and exclusion compel them to bend their knee.
One final point.
The Adventist Review is the flagship publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, its editorial board has published an article strongly implying that a Covid vaccine ought to be a prerequisite for church membership. In doing so, the Adventist Review has lent its weight to Standish’s condemnation of both Adventists and non-Adventists alike who have refused the Covid shots.
50% of the world, at least, has not taken the Covid shot. That’s the same world that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is attempting to reach with the 3 Angels Messages.
Neither Mr. Standish nor the Adventist Review have any authority to make Covid vaccination a test of fellowship, righteousness, or salvation, and their condemnation of free human beings who refuse these treatments is contrary to the principles of Christianity, and an act of treason to the cause of civil and religious liberty.
****
