why did God reject cains offering?

[cardboardpunk]

Gen - 4:3

?????????

[EventHorizon]

Maybe because there was no shedding of blood? That is how I reasoned it.

[Ponderin]

Quick Notes:

"The condition of the heart also matters in our relationship with God. Cain and Abel each gave an offering to the Lord, but God accepted only one man and his offering. Why didn't He accept both? The condition of the heart made the difference.
Hebrews 11:4 states "By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead." Abel brought his offering with faith. Cain did not. God sees not only the gift but the heart of the giver. It is the thought that counts."

Whats Life all about, Foundations for the Biblical Worldview p.42

NIV Study Notes

See Ge 4:2-5 commended as a righteous man Both brothers brought an offering to the Lord. Cain from the fruits of the soil, Abel from the first born flock. The chief reason for acceptance of Abel's sacrifice is that he offered it by faith." It is implied Cains sacrifice was rejected because he offered it without faith, as a mere formality.

[dusty]

The offering from Cain was from his own work -- it seems to be another early picture of mans own works not being acceptable before God. Abel's was the work of another -- the innocent lamb's.

Cain's lack of faith seems to be brought to light thru his attempt to have God accept his own works as sufficient. Faith does not come into play when man is attempting to be acceptable to God by his own works.



:)

[Ponderin]

Dusty,

Thank you for expounding on that! You said that better than My Quick notes from both sources! Cool!

So

The fruits of the soil represents mans own works

Abel's sacrifice from the first born flock represents the Innocent Lamb.

[Patty T]

Cain's offering was also from the ground that God had earlier "cursed" and thus the offering was cursed.

Patty

[Mrs. Hoppes]

I always understood it as Able brought the "first" of his flocks.
The bible is very specific in mentioning it for Able and not mentioning it for Cain, so Cain's offerings were most likely not "firsts" and therefore was giving God what was left over and not what was prime, so he put God second.

I may be wrong, but that is the way I always understood it.

[cardboardpunk]

thank you for clearing that up somewhat..

cause when i was reading that part, it seemed to me that cain was being humble in his offering.

[B A N E]

The detail in the passage explains why God rejected Cain's offering.

It is NOT because it wasn't blood.
It is NOT because it is from the ground.
(The Grain offerings detailed in the Law refute these ideas)

The difference is this:
Abel's gift was from the best of his flock.
Cain's gift was from some of his harvest.

Later in the OT, it is detailed what God thinks of "second class" offerings.

Obviously Cain's heart was not right with God because he gave leftovers rather than first/best.

[cardboardpunk]

hello bane. that makes perfect sense.
thank you for your input.

cain brought 'an offering of the fruit'.....but not the "first and best".

Gen 4:3 - And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering.(nkjv)




Later in the OT, it is detailed what God thinks of "second class" offerings.
can you show me where that's at? thanks :)

[snowbird]

I see a lot of different explanations.

Regardless, it seems God and Cain had an understanding what the problem was, and Cain responded inappropriately.

There are many excellant lessons here -

God councils us personally
anything other than God's way is unacceptable
satan wants and waits to destroy us
God's punishment (on earth) is for our good
the control of emotions can make or break us
be your brother's keeper (the last 6 commandments)
God doesn't foresake his own when they sin (though they maybe punished severely)

I am sure there is more.

[B A N E]

The OT Law shows:

#1: for the animal offerings:
without blemish or defect.
1st borns.

#2: for grain offerings:
"first fruits"

Examples of displeasure:
Eli's sons were robbing the offering at the tabernacle and disgracing the entire endeavor. In Samuel, IIRC.
Eli's line was removed from the High Priesthood and his sons were killed in the battle where the Philistines took the Ark.

After the return from the Babylonian exile, the animals being sacrificed to God were of "less than stellar" quality and God, in Malachi IIRC, explains that this is the reason that their harvests and yields were so abyssmal.

I'll try to get back to get the source verses.
(I'm having withdrawals from my uninstalled PcStudybible...)

:/

[Patty T]

In Genesis 3:17 God told Adam that "cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life.

Abel was a "shepherd"; a keeper of the sheep (symbolism of Jesus being The Shepherd of His sheep) - Cain was a "tiller of the ground (a worker toiling the ground that the Lord had cursed before).

I believe the Lord knew the hearts of both these boys and the "offering" brought by Cain was not accepted because because when God cursed the ground, the offering became cursed as well.

Patty

[dusty]

A couple of other scriptures for consideration...

Hebrews 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.

What he offered was not of his labor. How was Abel shown to be faithful/righteous by what it was that he offered?

1 John 3:11-12
For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 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.

Does the inability of Adam to adequately cover his sin, God having to provide Himself for it, and the resulting death and blood of an innocent in the garden -- Cain and Abel surely having been told of this event -- play into what would have possibly been Cain and Abel's knowledge of what would be an acceptable offering?

If this was knowledge they both had, yet Cain chose to offer the works of his own labor, could it explain what was deemed lack of faith, the lack of believing God, by Cain?

Also, it's interesting to me that it seems a lamb (an acceptable offering) would have been readily available to Cain as well if he had desired it, but the works of his own hands were offered instead.


:)

[cardboardpunk]

thank you dusty :)
those were exactly the verses i was looking for

[pilgrimian]

Originally posted by EventHorizon
Maybe because there was no shedding of blood? That is how I reasoned it.

He didn't approach God in the right way. Likewise, anyone these days trying to get to God without Jesus...no can do.

Godspeed,
Matthew

[mephib]

This has always been difficult to understand because of the lack of an express Biblical explanation.

But I believe Dusty has it right. Cain was the of the same spirit of the Pharisees, really the progenitor. Their righteousness is of themselves, of their own effort, but we know that all of our efforts, stemming from a corrupt nature, are unacceptable to the Lord, as they are spawned from a desire to elevate and glorify ourselves.

Cain killed Abel. The Pharisees killed Christ. That murderous relationship has been existent from time immemorial.

See Christ's own words in Matthew 23:35. Christ blames the Pharisees for the death of "righteous Abel"!

[John6:63]

Originally posted by Mrs. Hoppes
I always understood it as Able brought the "first" of his flocks.
The bible is very specific in mentioning it for Able and not mentioning it for Cain, so Cain's offerings were most likely not "firsts" and therefore was giving God what was left over and not what was prime, so he put God second.

This is how I always understand it to be. It was also presented to me this way during my disciple class recently.

[mephib]

It's hard to understand how the first of the flocks has anything to do with Jesus's reference in Mt. 23:35, but maybe I'm just missing it. Besides, the first of the flocks concept seems to me at least to have little correlation to fundamentals of the Gospel message.

The battle of the ages, beginning with Cain and Abel, the Pharisees and Christ, has always been between religion and God Himself. Religion knows that Christ came to destroy religion, so it seeks first to destroy Christ, even today.

That's why Christ generally avoided the cities where the religionists (Pharisees) held sway completely. He wanted to get His message out before they killed Him.