Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

[Sketch]

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 attached man...and man killed animals; both for protection and for food.

This brings up more interesting points.
At the fall the serpent spoke to Eve. And she didn't say, "Now you are talking? What's going on here?" It was the norm.

After the Flood Noah was making sacrifices, if I remember correctly. Anyone else prior? Not that I recall.
The passage in question is far removed even from the Flood. How many generations before Abram?

 

[GodsGrace101]

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.”

Genesis 4:7
4Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering;
5but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen?
7“If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Cain became angry, verse 5
God wanted to know why he was so angry and why his countenance had fallen. verse 6

COUNTENANCE

koun'-te-nans:

(1) The noun (see also under the word \FACE\) is the translation of a variety of Hebrew and Greek expressions, panim; prosopon, being the most frequent. Besides these there are found mar'eh, "appearance," "shape," "comeliness," "visage," `ayin, "the eye," to'ar, "appearance," "figure," etc., and Aramaic ziw. To the Oriental the countenance mirrors, even more than to us, the character and feelings of the heart. The countenance (mar'eh) is"fair" (1 Samuel 17:42; 2 Samuel 14:27; Daniel 1:15); in 1 Samuel 16:12, literally, "fair of eyes"; "comely" (Song of Solomon 2:14); "beautiful" (~to'ar, 1 Samuel 25:3); "cheerful" (panim, Proverbs 15:13); "angry" (Proverbs 15:23); "fierce" (Daniel 8:23); "troubled" (Ezekiel 27:35); "sad" (1 Samuel 1:18; Nehemiah 2:2,3; Ecclesiastes 7:3). The countenance is "sharpened" i.e. made keen (Proverbs 27:17); it "falls," i.e. looks despondent, disappointed (Genesis 4:5,6); is "cast down" (Job 29:24); "changed" (Job 14:20; compare "altered" into glory, Luke 9:29; Daniel 5:6,9,10; 7:28, Aramaic ziw). To settle one's countenance stedfastly upon a person (2 Kings 8:11) is synonymous with staring or gazing at a person. Not infrequently we find compound expressions such as "light of countenance," i.e. favor (Job 29:24; Psalms 4:6; 44:3; 89:15; 90:8); "health of countenance" (Psalms 41:11; 43:5); "help of countenance" (Psalms 42:5); "rebuke of countenance" (Psalms 80:16); "pride of countenance" (Hebrew 'aph, literally, "haughty," "lofty nose," Psalms 10:4).

(2) As verb (Hebrew hadhar, "to countenance") we find the word in the King James Version of Exodus 23:3, where the Revisers translate "Neither shalt thou favor (the King James Version "countenance") a poor man in his cause." Here the meaning seems to be that no distinction of persons shall be made by the judge. See Leviticus 19:15, where, however, a different word is used. There is therefore no need of the emendation proposed by Knobel and accepted by Kautzsch, who would read gadhol, "great," for wedhal, "and the poor" of the text. The Septuagint has penes, "poor."

H. L. E. Luering

So Cain was visibly upset which means he was very angry.

verse 7 IF YOU DO WELL...
This might mean doing well in the sense of being God-minded, doing the good deeds of God minded persons....
or
it could mean bringing the correct sacrifice, if indeed sacrifices were even offered at this time.
God is telling Cain that if he would behave in the right manner (either meaning) God would still help him.

And why?
Because sin was CROUCHING at the door....
IOW, sin was waiting to conquer Cain and devour him...likening sin to a wild animal ...crouching, waiting to pounce.

And that sin would eventually devour him (satan searches for whom he will devour) in a tragic way...
which indeed, it did. Satan's desire is to conquer our soul....we must master (have authority over) sin and master IT, not let IT master us.

 

[JohnRH]

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?

Well there goes your whole thread then. Is it not conjecture for you to insist that Cain could only offer the fruit of the ground just because he was a tiller of the ground?

 

[GodsGrace101]

This brings up more interesting points.
At the fall the serpent spoke to Eve. And she didn't say, "Now you are talking? What's going on here?" It was the norm.

After the Flood Noah was making sacrifices, if I remember correctly. Anyone else prior? Not that I recall.
The passage in question is far removed even from the Flood. How many generations before Abram?

The serpent was a representation of satan.
Can we really know if it was a serpent? Serpents, at that time, represented evil.
He could have appeared in any way, but the writer chose a method that would be easily understood.
I might get flack for this...but before Abraham the bible was not 100% literal...it was written so that biblical concepts could be understood using the ways of that time. Abraham was 4,000 years ago!

And, yes, you're right, no one really knows how much time passed from A and E to Noah.
I also cannot think of any sacrifice being offered during this time period.
This doesn't mean they weren't ---
But we can't be dogmatic about it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well there goes your whole thread then. Is it not conjecture for you to insist that Cain could only offer the fruit of the ground just because he was a tiller of the ground?

Scripture CLEARLY states that Abel offered a lamb
and Cain offered "fruit of the ground".

You can't change what the bible says.
What are fruit of the ground to you?

 

[GodsGrace101]

This brings up more interesting points.
At the fall the serpent spoke to Eve. And she didn't say, "Now you are talking? What's going on here?" It was the norm.

After the Flood Noah was making sacrifices, if I remember correctly. Anyone else prior? Not that I recall.
The passage in question is far removed even from the Flood. How many generations before Abram?

I just thought of something.

I see what you mean.
Man was on good terms with animals...
Who can know if they did not talk to each other!
Yes, or Eve would have been surprised....
Good catch.

 

[Sketch]

So Cain was visibly upset which means he was very angry.

I see this as the earliest example on mental illness. Cain showed the symptoms of depression.
Best described as a fallen countenance. An anger fueled sadness.

We should try to put ourselves in his shoes.
That will require a bit of conjecture, so this will be in and out of the text. A reading into it.

Cain led the way. He brought an offering in time from the fruit of his labor. His brother followed his lead.
But as usual (here's the conjecture) big brother always had to outdo him.

Whereas Cain laid his produce before the Lord, Abel had to make a big deal of it.
Abel slaughtered some choice animals and burned the fatty portions before the Lord on an altar.
That wonderful barbecued meat aroma was pleasing to God. So, the Lord showed his approval.

Cain was once again was left in the dust by big brother.
There he was with his cold plate of wilting vegies while Abel put on a big show with fire and smoke and wonderful aromas.

His countenance fell. Cain was angry and depressed.
God could see this, so he stepped in to get him on the right track. But it was tough love.
Perhaps not what Cain wanted at that moment. But he was in the danger zone and God knew it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I see this as the earliest example on mental illness. Cain showed the symptoms of depression.
Best described as a fallen countenance. An anger fueled sadness.

We should try to put ourselves in his shoes.
That will require a bit of conjecture, so this will be in and out of the text. A reading into it.

Cain led the way. He brought an offering in time from the fruit of his labor. His brother followed his lead.
But as usual (here's the conjecture) big brother always had to outdo him.

Whereas Cain laid his produce before the Lord, Abel had to make a big deal of it.
Abel slaughtered some choice animals and burned the fatty portions before the Lord on an altar.
That wonderful barbecued meat aroma was pleasing to God. So, the Lord showed his approval.

Cain was once again was left in the dust by big brother.
There he was with his cold plate of wilting vegies while Abel put on a big show with fire and smoke and wonderful aromas.

His countenance fell. Cain was angry and depressed.
God could see this, so he stepped in to get him on the right track. But it was tough love.
Perhaps not what Cain wanted at that moment. But he was in the danger zone and God knew it.

I agree.
And wasn't Jesus the best psychologist of them all !

Anger, depression, self-righteousness, pride.
I did this...why didn't I get compensated.
Yeah. That sounds right.
Instead of finding out what God wanted...he became angry, which kind of means he wasn't a very Godly fellow anyway..... God was willing to help him; so it means he NEEDED the help. Abel doesn't seem to have needed any help in this regard.

Also, it always seems to be the older brother:
Cain was older.
The Prodigal Son was older.
Isau was older.
Who else?
This would also be an interesting study....

 

[Sketch]

Well there goes your whole thread then. Is it not conjecture for you to insist that Cain could only offer the fruit of the ground just because he was a tiller of the ground?

I didn't say that he couldn't.

I'm basing my analysis on what the text does say, not what it doesn't.
The text says that, "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord." - Gen.4:3
Cain worked the soul. It was an offering of what he had done.
Abel followed with the same. It was an offering of what he had done.
This is what the text supports.

In order to make your point, you need to move away from the text.
Why can't you make your point from the text?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I see this as the earliest example on mental illness. Cain showed the symptoms of depression.
Best described as a fallen countenance. An anger fueled sadness.

We should try to put ourselves in his shoes.
That will require a bit of conjecture, so this will be in and out of the text. A reading into it.

Cain led the way. He brought an offering in time from the fruit of his labor. His brother followed his lead.
But as usual (here's the conjecture) big brother always had to outdo him.

Whereas Cain laid his produce before the Lord, Abel had to make a big deal of it.
Abel slaughtered some choice animals and burned the fatty portions before the Lord on an altar.
That wonderful barbecued meat aroma was pleasing to God. So, the Lord showed his approval.

Cain was once again was left in the dust by big brother.
There he was with his cold plate of wilting vegies while Abel put on a big show with fire and smoke and wonderful aromas.

His countenance fell. Cain was angry and depressed.
God could see this, so he stepped in to get him on the right track. But it was tough love.
Perhaps not what Cain wanted at that moment. But he was in the danger zone and God knew it.

Conjecture but based on what is written...

 

[Sketch]

And, yes, you're right, no one really knows how much time passed from A and E to Noah.
I also cannot think of any sacrifice being offered during this time period.
This doesn't mean they weren't ---
But we can't be dogmatic about it.

We have genealogies that tell exactly how much time passed.

 

[Sketch]

The serpent was a representation of satan.
Can we really know if it was a serpent? Serpents, at that time, represented evil.
He could have appeared in any way, but the writer chose a method that would be easily understood.
I might get flack for this...but before Abraham the bible was not 100% literal...it was written so that biblical concepts could be understood using the ways of that time. Abraham was 4,000 years ago!

All sorts of problems with this. I'll limit my response.

If Satan approached Eve, why would the biblical narrative replace him with a serpent?
If Eve didn't know who he was, why would she not question him? Why the displayed level of trust?
And what about the consequesnces for what the serpent did? Do snakes have four legs?

 

[Sketch]

Also, it always seems to be the older brother:
Cain was older.
The Prodigal Son was older.
Isau was older.
Who else?
This would also be an interesting study....

Yes, we need a topic about biblical family dysfunction. lol

 

[GodsGrace101]

We have genealogies that tell exactly how much time passed.

I don't trust that...do you?

I mean, there was a city hall that kept records?

In the geneology of Mathew we know for sure that he left out a lot and only included special persons.

 

[Sketch]

Conjecture but based on what is written...

Yes. I think if we want to expand on the text, this is the way to go. Rather than imposing the law of Moses on the situation. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes, we need a topic about biblical family dysfunction. lol

Of course.
We all have one and can relate !

 

[GodsGrace101]

All sorts of problems with this. I'll limit my response.

If Satan approached Eve, why would the biblical narrative replace him with a serpent?
If Eve didn't know who he was, why would she not question him? Why the displayed level of trust?
And what about the consequesnces for what the serpent did? Do snakes have four legs?

Yes, well, I knew it would.
Some Hebrew beliefs in here.
I'm not Jewish but I have read some of their writings. (which make sense)
I'm not willing to speak dogmatically to this.

 

[Sketch]

I don't trust that...do you?

I mean, there was a city hall that kept records?

In the geneology of Mathew we know for sure that he left out a lot and only included special persons.

These things were of great importance to these peoples. Who they were and where they came from. The stories of what had happened. They didn't just sit around playing video games. (with no concerns for the past or future) There were important things to consider. Knowing who your allies were and who your enemies were was a matter of survival.

This oral tradition had been passed down to each new generation. Moses probably learned this while in in his formative years prior to living in the palace of Pharaoh. Remember that?

Do you think Moses just made up a bunch of numbers to invent a history? That he cooked the books?

 

[Sketch]

Yes, well, I knew it would.
Some Hebrew beliefs in here.
I'm not Jewish but I have read some of their writings. (which make sense)
I'm not willing to speak dogmatically to this.

The Jews are guilty of liberal theology too. Reader beware.

Anyone who claims, or infers, that the Bible is a book of myths, or full of inaccuracies, is not to be taken seriously, or trusted. Whether Christian, Jew, or agnostic.

 

[GodsGrace101]

These things were of great importance to these peoples. Who they were and where they came from. The stories of what had happened. They didn't just sit around playing video games. (with no concerns for the past or future) There were important things to consider. Knowing who your allies were and who your enemies were was a matter of survival.

This oral tradition had been passed down to each new generation. Moses probably learned this while in in his formative years prior to living in the palace of Pharaoh. Remember that?

Do you think Moses just made up a bunch of numbers to invent a history? That he cooked the books?

No. I think what Moses wrote is all 100% what he wrote.
Did he write Genesis? Did he put together the oral stories that were told?
BTW, I often thought that God picked the Hebrews specifically because they were so good at memorizing stories and history. There was no written history back then.

Did you know about Mathew's geneology?
Find out about it....it's not inerrant...it's just not complete.
This could be true for other "stories" as well.