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.
Anothe point to is if Cain couldnt have offered any of his fruit since the ground was cursed so nothing would have been good anyway...that he could have offered himself. He could have said God I have nothing acceptable to offer but will you take me.
This is what us believers who have nothing to offer do, we say God take me as I am. And you know what God accepts that because of Jesus, who did offer himself.
Later in the bible Abraham does offer up Isaac. And God saw his obedience and blessed him, and the angel stopped the sacrifice.
This is what us believers who have nothing to offer do, we say God take me as I am. And you know what God accepts that because of Jesus, who did offer himself.
Later in the bible Abraham does offer up Isaac. And God saw his obedience and blessed him, and the angel stopped the sacrifice.
it doesn't violate the text, but it presumes that what Cain *should have done* is begged, borrowed or stolen one of Abel's flock.
then we have to ask whether it's of any significance that Abel brought a firstborn because what guarantee would Cain have had that there are more than one firstborn?
is the lesson that 'if you do what is right' means 'you should have taken someone else's animal and offered it for yourself' ?
then we have to ask whether it's of any significance that Abel brought a firstborn because what guarantee would Cain have had that there are more than one firstborn?
is the lesson that 'if you do what is right' means 'you should have taken someone else's animal and offered it for yourself' ?
what about Adam & Woman hiding from God in the garden?
schizoid avoidance?
schizoid avoidance?
I love the unanswered question in Gen.3. "Who told you that you were naked?" (something to that effect)
Indeed. Who did tell Adam that he was naked? At the end of Gen.3 they were naked an unashamed.
-
1
- Show all
Its very important to dedicate your firstborn to God you can see where adam and eve failed to do with Cain and he turned out that way. Another thing too is that God did have mercy on Cain after he killed his brother.
The bible does not say anything further about adam and eve after this incident only that they had Seth to replace Abel and he did call on the Lord...perhaps they learned better parenting skills from this.
The bible does not say anything further about adam and eve after this incident only that they had Seth to replace Abel and he did call on the Lord...perhaps they learned better parenting skills from this.
so farming is condemned if it's the only thing you do?
but farming is ok as long as you *also* raise livestock?
in Genesis 1 we see both vocations approved:
tending animals is good
tending plants is good
but farming is ok as long as you *also* raise livestock?
in Genesis 1 we see both vocations approved:
Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
(Genesis 1:26)
(Genesis 1:26)
tending animals is good
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
(Genesis 2:15)
(Genesis 2:15)
tending plants is good
-
1
- Show all
I really don't need juvenile quips if we are having an adult conversation.
I have given you my insight on the matter.
Questions can be endless to the proofs provided...all proving nothing. Often because...
1 Corinthians 2:13-14 NKJV
[13] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
I have given you my insight on the matter.
Questions can be endless to the proofs provided...all proving nothing. Often because...
1 Corinthians 2:13-14 NKJV
[13] These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Cain could have bought one from Abel. Or Cain could have rounded up one of his own. The text doesn't say that Abel owned all the sheep on the planet.
4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass". The earth may have had sheep coming out its ears at the time of the offerings. If there were second-borns & third-borns & fourth-borns running around, there would have to be first-borns - that's simple logic. Otherwise the second wouldn't be the second.
Don't rule out 'bought' - or 'received as a gift'. Righteous Abel would have wanted his brother to have an offering that pleased the Lord; otherwise Abel wouldn't be righteous. Of course Cain wouldn't have to steal an animal - that's ridiculous.
-
1
- Show all
Leviticus 2, 6 & 7 all describe acceptable grain offerings, none of which involve sheep or any other animal.
so it's ridiculous IMO to presume that all offerings must be blood.
unless what Cain & Abel were doing was meant to be a sort of sin or guilt offering - and as far as i can tell, you have to assume that it is meant to be an atonement and then eisegetically project the requirements of blood onto the text.
can you prove that this is supposed to be a sin offering? i am not convinced it's an assumption we should make.
so it's ridiculous IMO to presume that all offerings must be blood.
unless what Cain & Abel were doing was meant to be a sort of sin or guilt offering - and as far as i can tell, you have to assume that it is meant to be an atonement and then eisegetically project the requirements of blood onto the text.
can you prove that this is supposed to be a sin offering? i am not convinced it's an assumption we should make.
-
2
- Show all
I am with you on this posthuman. There have been volumes produced as to why Cain's offering wasn't looked upon favorably. This is typical of overthinking the subject. Just like it was suggested early, Cain must have just gathered some of his grain without picking out the finest. From the Lord's chastisement, we see Cain's heart wasn't into the offering. He probably felt goaded to offer by his brother doing so first. There are times we should look for deeper meanings and times we should just accept what is given.
I am with you on this posthuman. There have been volumes produced as to why Cain's offering wasn't looked upon favorably. This is typical of overthinking the subject. Just like it was suggested early, Cain must have just gathered some of his grain without picking out the finest. From the Lord's chastisement, we see Cain's heart wasn't into the offering. He probably felt goaded to offer by his brother doing so first. There are times we should look for deeper meanings and times we should just accept what is given.
Levitical offerings were hundreds of years in the future. I'm not assuming or presuming any of that.
Did you miss the part where it says, "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering"? That innocent lamb wasn't having a good day.
Cain's fruit of the ground, on the other hand, grinned and said, "I didn't feel a thing - so keep on sinning". ... and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire ...
Did you miss the part where it says, "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering"? That innocent lamb wasn't having a good day.
Cain's fruit of the ground, on the other hand, grinned and said, "I didn't feel a thing - so keep on sinning". ... and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire ...
-
1
- Show all
i read that Cain's name means a 'possession' or 'spear'
& Abel's name means 'a vapor' or 'vanity'
when Cain was born, Eve said 'with God's help I have gotten a man' ((Genesis 4:1 - a footnote indicates the Hebrew for 'gotten' sounds like the word Cain))
when Abel was born there's no similar record of what she said ((Genesis 4:2))
post's wife points out that what she said about Cain's birth may have a touch of boasting, saying "I have brought forth" - tho she does say "with God's help" perhaps she would better said if she'd made no mention of her own contribution. a subtil point.
why is no similar statement recorded at Abel's birth?
what is the significance of their names?
& Abel's name means 'a vapor' or 'vanity'
when Cain was born, Eve said 'with God's help I have gotten a man' ((Genesis 4:1 - a footnote indicates the Hebrew for 'gotten' sounds like the word Cain))
when Abel was born there's no similar record of what she said ((Genesis 4:2))
post's wife points out that what she said about Cain's birth may have a touch of boasting, saying "I have brought forth" - tho she does say "with God's help" perhaps she would better said if she'd made no mention of her own contribution. a subtil point.
why is no similar statement recorded at Abel's birth?
what is the significance of their names?