Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

  • 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.
Fat isnt necessarily blood...fat can be milkfat.

Am not saying a blood sacrifice is not important but its not explicitly stated that Abel killed some sheep. What is stated is that cain killed his brother and ABELS blood cried from the ground.
 
JohnRH said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

for sure i'm not trying to imply that the offerings Cain & Abel made were specifically made in accordance with a Law that came much later. but the Law gives principles for offerings -- the argument is, if God does not change, and God only accepts blood for any offering whatsoever then why does God give regulations for and accept offerings later that don't have blood?

i'm not sure what connection you're making between the fat of Abel's offering being included and 'unto thee shall be his desire' ?
could you elaborate please?

a plant taken out of the ground is just as dead as any animal can be. both go back to dust. so it's not as though there is no 'death' involved in a sacrifice of vegetable matter -- e.g. John 12:24, "unless a kernel of wheat falls to the earth and dies"
 
Lanolin said:
Am not saying a blood sacrifice is not important but its not explicitly stated that Abel killed some sheep. What is stated is that cain killed his brother and ABELS blood cried from the ground.
Click to expand...

there is a kind of evil antithesis of sin offering here ↑
 
posthuman said:
for sure i'm not trying to imply that the offerings Cain & Abel made were specifically made in accordance with a Law that came much later. but the Law gives principles for offerings -- the argument is, if God does not change, and God only accepts blood for any offering whatsoever then why does God give regulations for and accept offerings later that don't have blood?

i'm not sure what connection you're making between the fat of Abel's offering being included and 'unto thee shall be his desire' ?
could you elaborate please?

a plant taken out of the ground is just as dead as any animal can be. both go back to dust. so it's not as though there is no 'death' involved in a sacrifice of vegetable matter -- e.g. John 12:24, "unless a kernel of wheat falls to the earth and dies"
Click to expand...
The sheep says "ouch", the veggies don't.
 
Am just putting out there that maybe abel was smarter than Cain by keeping sheep, while Cain chose to till the ground that was cursed. But it could have been adam and eve made that choice for them or told them to do those things.

But if Cain was smart he would have realised the ground was cursed with thorns and thistles and nothing good could come of it. After all they were banned from the garden of eden thanks to their parents and couldnt access the tree of life.

God said to Cain if thou doest well shall, thou not be accepted? What is it about keeping sheep that was acceptable...? Note that Jesus talks about being the good shepherd, telling Peter to feed my sheep, feed my lambs. Note too that David was a shepherd boy, proecting his lambs.

Note that jesus was declared the Lamb of God.

Was it anything to do with SHEEP? no other animal was offered...and they had all kinds of animals then too.
 
Lanolin said:
Am just putting out there that maybe abel was smarter than Cain by keeping sheep, while Cain chose to till the ground that was cursed. But it could have been adam and eve made that choice for them or told them to do those things.

But if Cain was smart he would have realised the ground was cursed with thorns and thistles and nothing good could come of it. After all they were banned from the garden of eden thanks to their parents and couldnt access the tree of life.
Click to expand...

if agriculture is contrary to God's will it seems like we'd be able to find at least one place in the Bible where God condemns farming.
but Genesis 2:15 states Adam was placed in the garden to tend it, and Genesis 3:17-19 stipulates that Adam would eat from the ground all the days of his life ((v.17)) food from the ground ((v.18)) by the sweat of his brow ((v.19)) -- strong evidence that working the ground was both instructed and approved.
i read the book of Ruth this morning -- no mention of keeping livestock, lots of mention about farming barley. no condemnation of farming.

if it is the case that Cain's *sin* is that he *farmed* and *failed to raise livestock* then where is that principle in the rest of scripture?
 
JohnRH said:
Did the human race turn into a nudist colony after 3:21? The sheep was killed.
Click to expand...

they used fig leaves previously. obviously animal skins are not the only source of clothing. how much cotton are you personally wearing right now, compared to how much leather & hides?

but yes, fabric & milk? neither of which is strictly a necessity -- if they are 100% vegetarian, Cain is in fact the one working at something that involves their sustenance, isn't he? so by presenting produce vs. an animal that they aren't using for food, Cain's offering is actually the one that's more 'sacrificial' in a certain sense.

if he's offering the best of the harvest / firstfruits. if he's offering second-rate foodstuff, it's not so sacrificial.
 
JohnRH said:
Did the human race turn into a nudist colony after 3:21? The sheep was killed.
Click to expand...

another tangent here --

did Adam & Eve need an extra set of duds? God made them clothing - what kind of quality level are we talking about here? did they wear out? did they keep them in a closet and only wear them for special occasions? were they discarded? were they passed down to Cain & Abel ((or Seth))? if they were passed down how long did they keep being passed down? were these special at all or really very temporary?

so what did Cain & Abel clothe themselves with?
fig leaves ((as their parents first-best-attempt at clothing themselves?))
animal skins of their own?
cloth woven from hair/wool?
did God make clothes for them as well?
 
Lanolin said:
God said to Cain if thou doest well shall, thou not be accepted? What is it about keeping sheep that was acceptable...?
Click to expand...

When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.
(Genesis 4:12) ​

God doesn't instruct Cain to stop farming or to start keeping livestock. He presumes Cain's vocation will remain his vocation, but pronounces that it will no longer be fruitful. He doesn't give Cain the alternative, 'you will become an animal-tender' but that he will be a restless wanderer.

that's kind of significant if i have the idea that Cain's error was not keeping sheep/cows/etc -- why doesn't God instruct him to do so? doesn't God normally instruct people He disciplines to repent, and to take the right path? it's implicit that Cain should not commit any more murder, but there's no language here indicating he should take up being a shepherd.
 
posthuman said:
he was 3 months old when his mother put him in his little ark ((Exodus 2:2))
but he was raised at least in part by his sister until he "was older" ((Exodus 2:8-10)) -- it's not clear whether this was in his own household or in the royal court, but it's possible Miriam passed down lore as she raised him, or his own parents if he was reared in their house before being brought to Pharaoh's daughter
Click to expand...
Yes, we really don't know how all that worked.
It seems to me that Moses may have written the first five books in somewhat reverse order.
Recording events he was wirness too first and the law God was giving to the Israelites through him.
Then Exodus and finally Genesis as the last to be written. Or the end of Deuteronomy. (after Genesis)
He would have had the counsel of all the elders of Israel to help compile the books.
Then the books were ordered chronologically for reading order purposes. Not sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
posthuman said:
that's kind of significant if i have the idea that Cain's error was not keeping sheep/cows/etc -- why doesn't God instruct him to do so? doesn't God normally instruct people He disciplines to repent, and to take the right path? it's implicit that Cain should not commit any more murder, but there's no language here indicating he should take up being a shepherd.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's a terrific observation. Thanks.
 
crossnote said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nor do we need you over-spiritualizing what is plain as day.
 
Lanolin said:
Shepherding IS farming, in my country. We have a department store called FARMERS and it does not even sell grain, seeds, sheep or farmers equipment. It sells everything else! Oringial name was farmers trading company and the farmers needed everything else to live on.

In america the division of labour is so industrialised and weird that they dont even know how to farm organically. One has grazing stock fenced off and also has garden / crops. The grassland and pasture is for the sheep and cattle, the stock manure the land and prepare it for crops its called land rotation. Most people who steward the land will do both its not a monoculture.
Click to expand...
At the time of Jesus sheep/goats were not kept fenced in like we do today.

They roamed freely and had to have a shepherd to care for them.
He also assisted in the birthing and in cases of illness.

Farmers had to do everything manually.
A person could not do both.

Things were different!


Shepherd-prepares-table-for-sheep.jpg
 
Sketch said:
It was a selected geneology. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm more interested in who WAS included. That is truly worth study.
Why study things that tear down the Bible and erode our confidence in it?
Except to understand where the teachers of error are saying.
Click to expand...
Mathew purposefully did this....he did not do it to erode our trust in scripture.
For instance, he purposefully included women, non-Hebrews, sinners, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sketch
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back