Why did GOD respect Abel's offering of a lamb but HE didnt respect Cain's offering of the fruit of the ground?
Cain and Abel
- Thread starter seed_time_harvest
- 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.
The fruit of the ground doesn't bleed.
I don't think anybody can prove that there was already an established principle of blood sacrifice with the scriptures- but that is the assumption. It certainly can't be arbitrary; God isn't like that.
The Lord's response to Cain, to me, implies that Cain knew- or should have known- what what an acceptable offering to God. But he got creative and wanted to offer God something the HE produced HIMSELF (essentially, "works"). He should have traded some of his fruit to Abel for one of his flock, and sacrificed that instead. It's sad, because, like Esau- the older brother- would have had the superior inheritance if he just would have been faithful to God.
I don't think anybody can prove that there was already an established principle of blood sacrifice with the scriptures- but that is the assumption. It certainly can't be arbitrary; God isn't like that.
The Lord's response to Cain, to me, implies that Cain knew- or should have known- what what an acceptable offering to God. But he got creative and wanted to offer God something the HE produced HIMSELF (essentially, "works"). He should have traded some of his fruit to Abel for one of his flock, and sacrificed that instead. It's sad, because, like Esau- the older brother- would have had the superior inheritance if he just would have been faithful to God.
.
The brothers' offerings are defined by the Hebrew word minchah (min
khaw') which are usually bloodless and voluntary, e.g. gifts and tributes.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "firstfruits" kind of
oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce
was the appropriate offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal
husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
offering.
This incident isn't said to be the very first time the men brought gifts to God.
The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing
gifts for many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point,
apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much
pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
NOTE: Firstfruits offerings eventually became law in something like nine
locations within the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But seeing as how the
covenant isn't retroactive (Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, Gal 3;17) then
we probably shouldn't assume the brothers' minchahs were mandatory.
_
The brothers' offerings are defined by the Hebrew word minchah (min
khaw') which are usually bloodless and voluntary, e.g. gifts and tributes.
Ancient rabbis understood the brothers' offerings to be a "firstfruits" kind of
oblation.
T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)
Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce
was the appropriate offering, and seeing as how Abel was an animal
husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
offering.
This incident isn't said to be the very first time the men brought gifts to God.
The brothers (and very likely their parents too), probably had been bringing
gifts for many years; ever since they were kids. And up to this point,
apparently both men were doing everything right and God was just as much
pleased with Cain and his gifts as He was with Abel and his gifts.
NOTE: Firstfruits offerings eventually became law in something like nine
locations within the covenant that Moses' people agreed upon with God per
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. But seeing as how the
covenant isn't retroactive (Deut 5:2-4, Rom 4:15, Rom 5:13, Gal 3;17) then
we probably shouldn't assume the brothers' minchahs were mandatory.
_
.
The Lord rejected Cain too; not only his offering. (Gen 4:5)
The verse below is deliberately misquoted. Watch for the revision.
"If you do what is right, will not your offering be accepted?"
No; Gen 4:7 doesn't say that. It really says:
"If you do what is right, will not you be accepted?"
It appears to me that God's gripe with Cain wasn't about his offering, rather,
about his conduct; and I think we can probably guess what it was.
• Matt 5:23-24 . .When are offering your gift at the altar and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then
come and offer your gift.
_
The Lord rejected Cain too; not only his offering. (Gen 4:5)
The verse below is deliberately misquoted. Watch for the revision.
"If you do what is right, will not your offering be accepted?"
No; Gen 4:7 doesn't say that. It really says:
"If you do what is right, will not you be accepted?"
It appears to me that God's gripe with Cain wasn't about his offering, rather,
about his conduct; and I think we can probably guess what it was.
• Matt 5:23-24 . .When are offering your gift at the altar and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then
come and offer your gift.
_
O
Omegatime
Guest
Possible that what Cain offered was inferior, or jealousy, or wrong attitude while Able brought forth the first of the season's produce.
I wish it would say why cos we really dont know from scripture...was the fruit off? or unripe?
It also takes a lot of work to harvest and pick.
Fruit if the ground suggest something like potatoes. God didnt like potatoes?
Im thinking cos it wasnt the firstfruits like Abels was the firstborn of his flocks.
so maybe Cain just gave God seconds and kept the firstfruits for himself to eat. God wouldnt have been happy with that.
It also takes a lot of work to harvest and pick.
Fruit if the ground suggest something like potatoes. God didnt like potatoes?
Im thinking cos it wasnt the firstfruits like Abels was the firstborn of his flocks.
so maybe Cain just gave God seconds and kept the firstfruits for himself to eat. God wouldnt have been happy with that.
Why did the Lord in yahwist genesis accept? Too much to look into in this small section. Add me on Instagram love_conquers_darkness and I’ll elaborate more.
“In the course of time.” Literally, “at the end of days.” What is the end of days suggested by the context? What would contextually mark this particular course of time?
1. The serpent too will possess a limited lifespan.
Popular options
a. The end of a seven-day period.
b. The anniversary of the end of creation. The problem with both of these theories is that they cannot be arrived from the contents of the context.
2. The only temporal indicator offered by the text is that of the time of harvest. Thus, the course of time from one harvest to the next. We know this because of the type of sacrifice both men are offering. “And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he ALSO brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.”
3. Both men are offering the offering the same sacrifice – the offering of first-fruits, one of the flock, and one of the earth. Both are legitimate sacrifices. Cain, being a tiller of the ground naturally offers the first-fruit of his crop. Being a keeper of the flock, Able offers his first-fruit of the flock. What implications can we generalize from Able offering up the fat portions of his sacrifice?
a. That the offering of sacrifice had already been regulated by both time and procedure.
It was offered at the proper time – “at the end of days.”
There is no separation of the fat from the sacrifice. It was offered up as a whole sacrifice.
b. These sacrifices were a matter of instruction. How did they know to offer these sacrifices and how these sacrifices were to be offered in such a way that would be acceptable to the Lord? This instruction had to be revealed instruction. Even if they received the practice from their father, Adam still had to have received it from the Lord.
c. Clearly, this was not their first sacrifice.
d. This also offers the possibility that other types of animal sacrifices were also being offered that did not require the separation of the fat portions.
4. There are no indicators from the text that the sacrifice of Able had any connection to atonement or even contrition. In other words, this is not a sin sacrifice.
a. There is no sprinkling of blood mentioned.
b. There is no removal of the intestines or the refuse mentioned.
This is a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Cain offered his first-fruits as a matter of thanksgiving. This is the nature if any first-fruit offering. The text says that Able ALSO of his first. Both men are offering the same sacrifice. Why then was Cain's sacrifice not accepted? This rejection seems to stem from Cain's relationship with his brother.
Genesis 1 mankind was already created - both male and female in equal images of God. Yahwist starts in genesis 2. Cain was acquired from The lord? Able was replaced with Seth through God?
Did Jesus say go learn the meaning of this scripture: I desire mercy not sacrifice - he also told his disciples wishing to call for fire from heaven that they didn’t know what spirit they were from. Jesus isn’t representing the same lord from the start if he doesn’t require sacrifice?
They were probably small potatoes
I can picture it...Abel give the fattest of the firstborn lambs. God was really looking forward to a shepherds pie with Cains potatoes but Cain harvested the best for himself and gave God the leftovers, the most shrivelled and smallest of them and thought that was ok.
I can picture it...Abel give the fattest of the firstborn lambs. God was really looking forward to a shepherds pie with Cains potatoes but Cain harvested the best for himself and gave God the leftovers, the most shrivelled and smallest of them and thought that was ok.
We can depend on our God to be eternal and all his ways to be the same always. An eternal principle of God is that blood was given on the altar for the forgiveness of our sins. It has never been that forgiveness has happened except through Christ----either literal Christ or the prophecy of Christ as the sacrificial system was. God shed the blood of an animal to use its skin to cover Adam and Eve.
To know God is to know this about God.
What do you think when God provided animal skins to Adam and Eve? Did those animals shed their blood? So God had already taught Adam and Eve a lesson, and presumably they had also taught Cain and Abel the necessity of the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins.
But Cain was "of the Wicked One". So instead of doing what God expected, he decided to rebel against God, and through self-will offer the fruit of the ground, instead of a lamb without spot or blemish. In order to offer a lamb, he would have had to humble himself, go to his younger brother, and ask for a lamb. Instead he decided to murder him, and paid for it.
Cain's sacrifice was rejected because he lacked the faith to offer the best of what he had. He lacked the faith of knowing that God would take care of him despite his loosing the best of what he had worked for. His offerings were low quality and he kept the best for himself unlike Abel. The answer is Cain had a lack of faith, offered a non-acceptable quality and/or amount of proper offerings.
Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
Gen 4:4 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:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 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. says he didn't "do well" regarding his offering. Add that Hebrews says he lacked faith, the picture becomes clearer especially contrasted to the obviously good quality his brother offered. Abel's offering deserved respect. Cain's offering did not deserve respect.
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
"more excellent"
G4119
pleio¯n pleion pleon
pli'-own, pli'-on, pleh'-on
Comparative of G4183; more in quantity, number, or quality; also (in plural) the major portion: - X above, + exceed, more excellent, further, (very) great (-er), long (-er), (very) many, greater (more) part, + yet but.
Cain's offering was not of the same quality as his brother Abel's was. A lack of faith is the reason why Cain did not give as good of a sacrifice. Keep in mind the meaning of sacrifice. No one is really sacrificing much when you give away the worst but to give away the best that you have and have faith that it will be ok, that is true faith and a true sacrifice.
There's nothing better about meat from someone raising animals and veges from a farmer. Both are two give the best of what they have to God. Cain was greedy and kept the best for himself and gave God a sub par offering.
cain was a bad guy in deed so his offering brought no respect from God
“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.”
Genesis 4:7 KJV
Abel was a good guy so his offering was accepted with respect
“That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”
Matthew 23:35 KJV
“Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him?
Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.”
1 John 3:12 KJV
God wasn’t concerned with what the sacrifice was he was concerned with the person offering it and their deeds and countenance and attitude.
if the persons heart is right with God tbier sacrifice is going to always be clean and acceptable.
I am not sure that is accurate. First fruits are used in scriptures to reflect just that...the first/best, etc...fruits/items.
There is no scripture to back this idea up, it is from your own mind. In fact, Cain gave of the results of his labor.
Scripture tells us that it is a principle of the Lord that blood is required for salvation. It is also a principle of the Lord that we cannot save ourselves through our own labor, as Cain was trying to do.
No, scripture is clear on this:
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
"more excellent"
G4119
pleio¯n pleion pleon
pli'-own, pli'-on, pleh'-on
Comparative of G4183; more in quantity, number, or quality; also (in plural) the major portion: - X above, + exceed, more excellent, further, (very) great (-er), long (-er), (very) many, greater (more) part, + yet but.
These sacrifices had NOTHING to do with a requirement of blood. This is the first concept of tithing but these gifts to God were supposed to be of best one had. A person raising animals would give best of that and a farmer growing vegetables would have to give best of that.
Cain clearly gave a poor offering. Had he given best of what he grew, it would have been accepted.
Cain refused to understand that salvation is not of works, but based upon the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. He could have given all the fruits of his labor for his entire lifetime, and God would have rejected them all. The Bible plainly tells us that "his own works were evil" (1 John 3:12).
What did God require? The sacrifice of a lamb without spot or blemish, and the shedding of that lamb's blood. This would prefigure the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Why does the Bible say that Cain was "of that Wicked One"? Because he was under the influence of Satan all along -- (a) in his pride for refusing to go and ask Abel for a lamb, (b) in his faulty sacrifice, and (c) in his wicked murder of his innocent brother because God accepted Abel's sacrifice.
I unerstand that Abel's faith in God was faith in all of God, and to have faith in all of God meant faith in that blood was required for forgiveness. Cain did not have faith in this. Scripture is clear about this, it clearly states that there is no forgiveness apart from Christ, and it was through the blood sacrifice. See Lev. 17:11. "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life."