Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected by God?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Excellent point. Which brings up the possibility that the skin was from his sacrifice.

But that was OUTSIDE Eden...and not at the time of Adam's fall in Eden.
 

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Since I believe in Pre-Adamic I believe that brought death into the physical world.

When Adam and Eve sinned that brought spiritual.

Which makes sense of the purpose of the tree of life. It only meant something if physical death already existed.

You may be right.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I don't think so. The verse doesn't say he brought the firstlings of his flock, and the fat and the meat and the bones and the organs.

But ok... As Bygrace's dad would say, you might be right.

I suppose it's a petty issue really.
 

VictoryinJesus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,581
7,857
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Could it be that it was not offered in faith or because the fruits of the ground had no blood?
Anybody out there who might clarify this? @"ByGrace" @Butterfly @Pearl ...


Abel was a keeper of the sheep...
But Cain a tiller of the ground.
...in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. (Genesis 4:1-3)

only an opinion but consider what had happened in the garden and then Cain.
Romans 8:20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

Only God knows the heart; could it be Cain’s offering was out of pride of doing well by his own hands (Vanity) See what follows how cain covets, envy’s his brother then murders him. (Bondage of corruption).

Genesis 4:9-13
[9] And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?

Abel kept the sheep and brought an more excellent offering...the more excellent offering being love, right? Not Abel’s more excellent offering but Hebrews 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

As in Genesis 8:21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake...

The sweet savour the Lord smelled being Christ. Also the more excellent offering of Abel being Christ which speaks better things. (Fruit of the Spirit...not fruit of the ground as Cain)

John 21:15-17
[15] So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. [16] He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. [17] He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.


Why was Cain’s sacrifice rejected by God? ...Vanity (the bondage of corruption)?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,184
2,534
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The context of the verse.

Genesis 4:4 KJV
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:

He brought the firstlings of his flock. He also brought the fat there of. The "there of" is talking about the flock. It's talking about what he brought, not how he offered it.
It's 10th grade grammar. We know that "of the flock" is a prepositional phrase, and when identifying "subject" and "predicate" parts of speech in a sentence, the rule of thumb is to ELIMINATE prepositional phrases because they are not the cake, just the icing.

Therefore, if we remove the prepositional phrase, we see that the two subjects "firstlings" and "fat" are the objects of the predicate "brought" (or vise-versa, I been outta high school since '86):

"And Abel, he also brought the firstlings...and the fat thereof", which clearly means he separated the fat.

(Yeah, I know commas go inside the quotation marks in "Murica but I refuse to put em there when the quote is mid-sentence - looks dumb. I didn't choose the Thug Life, it chose me.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy and Butterfly
B

Butterfly

Guest
...with all this back and forth about "skins, animals or no skins" ( which has been fun...my post #150 obviously being the true answer :) )

I guess we should get back ON TOPIC being...Cain and Abel.
Unless @Butterfly is happy with the answers we all gave her...(If she's not totally confused by them. :D )

Wonderful day in the garden working...it has made me feel 10 years younger tonight!!
Well I proberbly have answers, but also confusion - which is where I was in the first place , now I am just confused about lots of other things !!!!lol

Pleased you had a lovely day in the garden , I always feels older when I do gardening, my back can o lay take so much !!
Unless you are just pottering about, then it's nice kind of gardening and it's lovely xx
Rita
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Nancy
B

brakelite

Guest
Haven't read through the thread, so maybe someone has suggested this before, but the reason I think Cain's offering was not accepted was because as it says in Hebrews, "only by the shedding of blood is there remission of sin".
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,509
12,925
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Could it be that it was not offered in faith or because the fruits of the ground had no blood?
Anybody out there who might clarify this? @"ByGrace" @Butterfly @Pearl ...[/QU

Why was Cain's sacrifice rejected?

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.
[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:

I believe...
It is a combination of Knowledge that was already revealed...

Seeds were upon the earth, growing Fruit and Herbs.

Fruit and Herbs were for the purpose of Feeding Men and Animals, to sustain their lives....ie (Strengthen them.)

Fruit and Herbs were never offered to the Lord as a Sacrifice.

Fruit and Herbs have no LIFE in them.

Life was clearly TAUGHT, is the LIFE of man, and of Animals.

IOW, what Cain Offered, was NOT a LIFE Sacrifice.

Abel's Offering, was NOT, "ONLY" A "LIFE" Offering.....BUT rather a Paticular "LIFE" offering...

Abel's Offering was FROM "his' FLOCK.
Which tells us, That Offering was NOT from some random Wild roaming "impure" Animal.

Impure meaning ~ two things;
1) an "unclean" animal
2) an animal that had been "mated" with another animal.

That is indicated; by Abel's Offering being;
A "firstling".

Additionally, it is revealed Abel's Offering was; "fattened".
That indicates, Abel's Offering was grazed on grasses to sustain it and strengthen it.

The Big Picture being ~
Cain's Offering could have easily been him picking fruit that he did not plant, or tend, or otherwise require ANY effort on his part...

Whereas Abel's Offering required him to care for the "firstling" from it's birth, Keep it from mating, move it around to healthy grasses so it would be strengthen, and then Offer the Whole of that LIVING things LIFE, unto the Lord.

I would say it HINGES on ones own EFFORT, of PREPARATION of "what is being OFFERED to the Lord".

Same as a PERSON, must first be Prepared, before "they" themselves can Offer themselves TO the Lord.

(Meaning, a person, must BELIEVE, and be willing to seek the Lords forgiveness, give their life (blood life), have their soul restored, have their spirit quickened....as THEIR OWN preparation to be Accepted By the Lord.)

We don't OFFER the Lord fruit, herbs, bread, ie food, designed to strengthen our bodies.
Nor would those things be ACCEPTABLE unto the Lord, any more than it was acceptable for Cain.

Glory to God,
Taken
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy
D

Dave L

Guest
My guess is that the animals had already started dying--possibly even massive die-offs. God could simply have taken the skins of already dead animals to clothe Adam and Eve.
It seems that he killed the innocent animal to give them a permanent covering for their nakedness. Symbolic of course, that would need spiritual enlightenment to understand. Since he instructed Moses along those same lines. And all including Abel did the same.
 
D

Dave L

Guest
That's where it gets just a tiny bit complicated. In the Mediterranean culture of that day, the "heart" was thought to be a combination of the seat of understanding as well as the seat of emotion--potentially informed by reason. At the same time, the "soul" was thought to be the sum total of everything that animated the body--a "place" where all the disparate elements that make up a person, were joined together. Believe it or not, the kidneys were thought to be another source of emotion (the "irrational" gut was also seen as another source). What is translated as "mind" in our English Bibles is more akin to intellectual "power" (often called "might"). It would essentially be: Love the Lord your God with every single part of you.
Heart, soul, mind, seems to parallel spirit, soul, and body which includes mind/flesh in Paul's usage.
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It's 10th grade grammar. We know that "of the flock" is a prepositional phrase, and when identifying "subject" and "predicate" parts of speech in a sentence, the rule of thumb is to ELIMINATE prepositional phrases because they are not the cake, just the icing.

Therefore, if we remove the prepositional phrase, we see that the two subjects "firstlings" and "fat" are the objects of the predicate "brought" (or vise-versa, I been outta high school since '86):
Abel is the subject in the sentence and no, it isn't a rule of thumb in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taken

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Under Mosaic law sacrifice for sin that covered the past years sin was blood.

One quick point here for clarification; the Great Day of Atonement was observed with fasting, mourning (for sin) and prayer, and was esteemed a time for reformation and good resolutions, and a desire for Divine favor for the year in advance.

Its sacrifices and offerings were not in respect to the sins of the preceding year, as some have suggested. Each Atonement Day made reconciliation for the sins of the people for the ensuing year, and under its arrangement they were God's people and treated as though they were free from original sin, the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement being reckoned as covering the Adamic Condemnation. At the close of each year, therefore, the people were reckoned back again under Adamic condemnation, and fresh offerings, sacrifices, were made to bring them again into God's favor for another year.
 

Lady Crosstalk

Well-Known Member
Feb 16, 2019
2,069
1,114
113
49
Ontario
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Heart, soul, mind, seems to parallel spirit, soul, and body which includes mind/flesh in Paul's usage.

It is difficult to make any definitive judgment on that, since "spirit" and "soul" were used interchangeably in the broader Helenistic culture. However, in the Hebraic mindset, the soul and spirit were separate parts of an individual.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dave L

Harvest 1874

Well-Known Member
Apr 1, 2018
1,100
573
113
62
Tampa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I've tried to leave this alone, but I can't. The Bible doesn't say God killed an animal for their hide. It's says God made coats of skin. That's it. It doesn't says any animals were harmed and it doesn't even say they were animals skins.

If they were animal skins, if God made the animals, he certainly can make their skin without the rest of the animal.

Whether or not it was actually animal skins requires a deeper explanation. But I will leave it there for now.

It matters not whether or not he actually sacrificed (killed) an animal (which I believe as you he most likely did not) or that he simply "spoke" the coats of skin into existences, the point is in what it typifies, that it required the life of another to provide these coverings, even as it required the death of our Lord to cover our sin.
 

Nancy

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2018
16,761
25,324
113
Buffalo, Ny
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well I proberbly have answers, but also confusion - which is where I was in the first place , now I am just confused about lots of other things !!!!lol

Pleased you had a lovely day in the garden , I always feels older when I do gardening, my back can o lay take so much !!
Unless you are just pottering about, then it's nice kind of gardening and it's lovely xx
Rita

Oh I can relate to BOTH comments, lol. Sometimes I come away more confused then when I started! I do not think it was a "sin" sacrifice...also, it could be the timing of Cain's offering? Gen. 4:3 "3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord." Maybe it was not timely? Could have been the left over from the first-fruits of his crops? It could be just about anything we could imagine, lol...bottom line is that it was not acceptable to God. ♥
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen
D

Dave L

Guest
I found this interesting;

The story of Cain and Abel is highlighted here. Abel’s sacrifice was accepted not because it was animal rather than vegetable but because it stemmed from genuine trust, a matter of the heart and not just of ritual.

Hacking, P. H. (2006). Opening up Hebrews (p. 71). Leominster: Day One Publications.