How do you qualify that claim? Nothing in the Gen.4 text says anything about that.
Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?
- Thread starter Sketch
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ummm your post is a bit confusing. And I might disagree with your assertion because God did tell adam also to name all the animals and look after them as well as till the soil. He had said to have dominion over every creeping thing (which includes sheep I guess)
The text is clear. Focus on that.
… Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. - Gen.4:2
Got it?
You said electricians dont do electrical work.
Huh???
My kjv words genesis 4:3
And abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Interesting use of the word BUT.
Reading genesis 3 we know the ground was cursed. And that thorns and thistles grew from it.
Huh???
My kjv words genesis 4:3
And abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
Interesting use of the word BUT.
Reading genesis 3 we know the ground was cursed. And that thorns and thistles grew from it.
In order for there to be skins, do you think there was a bloodless sacrifice?
No, it was an illustration of the innocent dying for the guilty through the shedding of blood.
Genesis 3:21 NKJV
[21] Also for Adam and his wife the LORD God made tunics of skin, and clothed them.
... As well as a covering for their sin.
How did Noah know that there was such a thing a *clean animals* versus *unclean animals* if God had not already revealed these things to those who preceded Noah? And what was the purpose of clean animals other than to offer sacrifices to God?
Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. (Gen 7:2)
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Gen 8:20)
Well, had you read the narrative carefully, you would have realized that you are seriously mistaken.
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen 4:7)
What does "sin lieth at the door" mean?
JAMIESON, FAUSSET, BROWN COMMENTARY
sin lieth at the door—sin, that is, a sin offering—a common meaning of the word in Scripture (as in Ho 4:8; 2Co 5:21; Heb 9:28). The purport of the divine rebuke to Cain was this, "Why art thou angry, as if unjustly treated? If thou doest well (that is, wert innocent and sinless) a thank offering would have been accepted as a token of thy dependence as a creature. But as thou doest not well (that is, art a sinner), a sin offering is necessary, by bringing which thou wouldest have met with acceptance and retained the honors of thy birthright." This language implies that previous instructions had been given as to the mode of worship; Abel offered through faith (Heb 11:4).
JOHN GILL'S COMMENTARY
...if thou doest thine offering well, or rightly offereth, as the Septuagint; or offers not only what is materially good and proper to be offered, but in a right way, in obedience to the divine will, from love to God, and with true devotion to him, in the faith of the promised seed, and with a view to his sacrifice for atonement and acceptance; then thine offering would be well pleasing and acceptable. Some render the latter part of the clause, which is but one word in the original text, "there will be a lifting up" (k); either of the countenance of the offerer, and so, if Cain had done well, his countenance would not have fallen, but have been lifted up, and cheerful as before; or of sin, which is the pardon of it, and is often expressed by taking and lifting it up, and bearing it away, and so of easing a man of it as of a burden; and in this sense all the Targums take it; which paraphrase it,"it or thy sin shall be forgiven thee:"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cain's was not 'first fruits' ...in simple form.....he didn't give the best of his sacrifice. the best was only good enough for Cain not anyone else. he was selfish, thought of only himself is what I see.
But but but ... the plumber baked some cookies to share at work, the electrician plunged the sink drain, and the butcher reset the circuit breaker. We all do lots of things we don't get paid to do.
M
Miri
Guest
Good thread.
I’m thinking someone had to grow crops. Otherwise instead of
man shall not live on bread alone, we would have have man shall not
live on lamb chops alone!
Oh and I found another verse, not sure if anyone has posted this already.
1 John 3:10-12 NKJV
[10] In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest:
Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who
does not love his brother. [11] For this is the message that you heard
from the beginning, that we should love one another, [12] 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.
Maybe cains issues ran a lot deeper. He definately didn’t love his brother.
He presumably lacked faith. The above suggests his works were evil and he was
not righteous. I think the issues Cain had, were far more deeper than that
single event. They seemed to have been ongoing for some time.
Interestingly God Still loved Cain and was willing to give him more chances.
Even after he killed Abel, God showed mercy and instead of destroying him, God
banished Him. That suggests they all previously were still under God’s protection,
provision and presence to some degree. Although the close intimacy of the garden
was lost.
Incidentally does anyone have any thoughts about the mark of Cain?
I’m thinking someone had to grow crops. Otherwise instead of
man shall not live on bread alone, we would have have man shall not
live on lamb chops alone!
Oh and I found another verse, not sure if anyone has posted this already.
1 John 3:10-12 NKJV
[10] In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest:
Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who
does not love his brother. [11] For this is the message that you heard
from the beginning, that we should love one another, [12] 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.
Maybe cains issues ran a lot deeper. He definately didn’t love his brother.
He presumably lacked faith. The above suggests his works were evil and he was
not righteous. I think the issues Cain had, were far more deeper than that
single event. They seemed to have been ongoing for some time.
Interestingly God Still loved Cain and was willing to give him more chances.
Even after he killed Abel, God showed mercy and instead of destroying him, God
banished Him. That suggests they all previously were still under God’s protection,
provision and presence to some degree. Although the close intimacy of the garden
was lost.
Incidentally does anyone have any thoughts about the mark of Cain?
I'm no expert in the sacrificial system, but I do believe that first-born and first-fruits is the same idea.
First born refers to a living animal/human, and first fruits refers to agricultural products...fruit/vegetables etc.
I do think FIRST FRUITS is important because the O.T. does say to give God the FIRST fruits. Maybe because we're supposed to thank Him for the harvest and/or maybe always think of Him first as a means of respect? Not sure, but it sounds good to me. Biblically speaking, of course.
I've never heard this idea of getting something from Abel to offer it to God.
That sounds wrong.
And yes, maybe Cain did keep the best for himself?
Like I said before....there's no real way to know.
We make these observations in retrospect.
I thnk there was a lot that Adam and Eve did not understand.
If they really understood the consequences of eating the forbidden fruit, they would not have done it.
And even the text you provided does not indicate that Adam and Eve understood the price that was paid.
They may have, but there is no indication of such in the text.
More to the point, the text about Cain and Abel does not indicate a sin offering.
Your first paragraph is funny,,,,but, of course, it's right.
In fact, God had given Adam the land and made him the steward of it.
The killing of animals came AFTER the fall when God was giving out the curses.
Man had a good relationship with the animals...after the fall, they became enemies.
I very much agree with you that Cain had deep problems....perhaps he was jealous like the younger brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son. Perhaps he was not serving God and God held this against him?
Very good verses. We'd have to pay attention to what John said since he spent time with Jesus and it's possible this came up in their discussions.
That is some terrible commentary.
Is a sin offering crouching at the door wanting to have Cain? (pounce on him)
Genesis 4:7
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”
Yes, of course. But what does the text tells us? (about Cain and Abel)
… Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. - Gen.4:2
Right. That's a leap well away from the text. (unsupportable)
The passage is about offerings from ones occupation, not a sin offering.
Have not read everything --- this is moving too fast; great thread.
But I do respect your opinions and agree with them.
First of all, we're not supposed to add to scripture and should only rely on what we read.
We can understand it by other scripture or by the custom of those days, but when we add we always get into trouble with making mistakes. So I agree with you here.
Re Adam and Eve,,,,right again. It's pretty much like it is today. Do we really understand the consequences of what we do that may be wrong? If so, I think we'd all become monks! And even monks (that I know) feel that they are sinners...
We can't know if the sacrificial system was in place at the time we're discussing. At the cursing time...
Genesis 3:14-19 (20-24) God did not mention making any type of sacrifice as in the historical books of the O.T. --- Abraham and newer.
I also refer to God having to kill animals and shed blood in order to make coverings for Adam and Eve...but, of course, this is hind sight. It could be that after the fall man became enemies with the animals they lived with in peace before. After the fall animals attacked man...and man killed animals; both for protection and for food.
The text doesn't tell us a lot of things. I suggest we stick what it does tell us.
What do we know for sure without entering into conjecture?
I might add that if anyone here knows about shepherding...it's almost impossible to do both shepherding AND farming.
They're both full time jobs.