Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected by God?

[quietthinker]

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 ...

It was God who instituted the sacrificial practice. 'without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin'. It was to bring to the consciousness the horrific nature and the consequences of sin. It also prefigured the lamb of God, Jesus. They looked forward in faith, we look backwards.
Cains sacrifice lacked all these elements and was also symbolic of a man presenting his own works as if these are sufficient for forgiveness.

Cain was warned. Pride didn't allow him to take heed. It resulted in being antagonistic.

 

[Harvest 1874]

Oh wow, some good answers, the whole subject of Cain and Abel came up in a private discussion between me, Nancy, and Helen- I had read a study in the afternoon that suggested that Cain should have also brought a lamb - I had never heard that before. I was always taught,and encouraged to teach that Cain offering was not his best from what he had grown, where as Abel was the best from his flock.
I will have to catch up on all the responses after work tomorrow as I am just so tired tonight. Thanks for setting the thread up for me while I was at work Nancy xxx
Rita

"I was always taught,and encouraged to teach that Cain offering was not his best from what he had grown."

This is just a question and is not meant to be taken as an affront to what you believe or teach.

Where precisely does it say that the offering which Cain brought was not the best of his crops? This appears to be purely conjecture.

It was not that Cain brought a half hearted offering, he most likely brought the best of his crops, unfortunately he did not bring an acceptable offering, one which typified the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

 

[Harvest 1874]

Really? Amazingly negative response to Gospel truth. Well take a minute to digest this:

CHRIST SEEN ON THE CROSS BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you (1 Pet 1:18-30)

CHRIST REVEALED ON THE CROSS TO ADAM, EVE, AND SATAN
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15)

CHRIST DEPICTED ON THE CROSS FROM ABEL TO MOSES
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 4:4)

You really think that Cain and Abel had been taught Gospel truth by God, but Adam and Eve had not? Or would it be more reasonable to believe that Adam and Eve were taught by God, and then they taught their sons that their sins could be atoned for only through a sacrificial lamb?

None of these text quoted imply that Adam and Eve must come to Him through a sacrificial lamb. Understand I am not talking about the antitypical lamb Christ Jesus which we understand to be our only hope of approach, of atonement with God, no what I'm saying is there is nothing said to Adam and Eve that they must sacrifice an actual lamb itself.

The indication in our Lord's having providing skins for Adam and Eve to cover their sin, typifying the shedding of life to atone for sin in no way specified what the shed life was to be, i.e a lamb, a goat, a donkey or what have you, merely that blood (life) was required.

It was not until Abel offered his sacrifice of a lamb and its acceptance by the Lord that this practice of offering a lamb began.

Of course we concede that it is not stated what particular animal the skins came from, only that God provided them (thus typifying that it is God who provides atonement). God provided the covering at the cost of another life.

 

[Nancy]

"I was always taught,and encouraged to teach that Cain offering was not his best from what he had grown."

This is just a question and is not meant to be taken as an affront to what you believe or teach.

Where precisely does it say that the offering which Cain brought was not the best of his crops? This appears to be purely conjecture.

It was not that Cain brought a half hearted offering, he most likely brought the best of his crops, unfortunately he did not bring an acceptable offering, one which typified the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Yes, good question on Cain's "first fruits"
I could see if this was a sacrifice for "sin" but, how do we even know that?
Hebrews 11:4-6:
By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks….And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
I tend to believe it was Cains lack of true faith in his heart.

 

[FHII]

My answer is along the lines of others... Yes I believe a blood sacrifice vs. the labor of Cain's hands may have had something to do with it. But also the quality of each sacrifice.

Genesis 4:3-4 KJV
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:

It doesn't say Cain brought the worst quality or something inferior to his best. But it does say that Abel brought the firstlings AND the fat there of. So he brought both the first fruits and the best (not necessarily the same thing, but perhaps it was).

Because there is a contrast between the two, it is reasonable to say Cain didn't bring the first or the best tomatoes, pumpkins, figs or whatever he was growing.

I don't know if trading a lamb for produce would've cut it with God. It wouldn't have been Cain's other than by purchase. Furthermore it stands to reason that whatever he bought wasn't going to be the best or first, because Abel had decided that portion was God's.

Let's also note that this is the first time offerings were offered. There was no presidance to go by and God as far as we know never asked for it or gave instruction on how or what to give.

So to sum it up, I don't deny that a blood sacrifice was what made the difference, but I lean more towards the notion that it wasn't the first fruits or the best.

These are just some brainstorming thinking points to consider...

 

[Helen]

It was God who instituted the sacrificial practice. 'without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin'. It was to bring to the consciousness the horrific nature and the consequences of sin. It also prefigured the lamb of God, Jesus. They looked forward in faith, we look backwards.
Cains sacrifice lacked all these elements and was also symbolic of a man presenting his own works as if these are sufficient for forgiveness.

Cain was warned. Pride didn't allow him to take heed. It resulted in being antagonistic.

So are you saying that Cain and Abel had to offer sacrifices for sin?

It reads they they brought an offering.
The Feast of First Fruit's , was not for sin. Once a year they brought a sin offering on the Feast Of Atonement.

Other than - A & E being forbidden to eat of the tree..there was no command re sin!

What say you?

 

[Nancy]

My answer is along the lines of others... Yes I believe a blood sacrifice vs. the labor of Cain's hands may have had something to do with it. But also the quality of each sacrifice.

Genesis 4:3-4 KJV
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:

It doesn't say Cain brought the worst quality or something inferior to his best. But it does say that Abel brought the firstlings AND the fat there of. So he brought both the first fruits and the best (not necessarily the same thing, but perhaps it was).

Because there is a contrast between the two, it is reasonable to say Cain didn't bring the first or the best tomatoes, pumpkins, figs or whatever he was growing.

I don't know if trading a lamb for produce would've cut it with God. It wouldn't have been Cain's other than by purchase. Furthermore it stands to reason that whatever he bought wasn't going to be the best or first, because Abel had decided that portion was God's.

Let's also note that this is the first time offerings were offered. There was no presidance to go by and God as far as we know never asked for it or gave instruction on how or what to give.

So to sum it up, I don't deny that a blood sacrifice was what made the difference, but I lean more towards the notion that it wasn't the first fruits or the best.

These are just some brainstorming thinking points to consider...

I have heard said that the very first sacrificial offering was when God made clothes from animal skins for Adam and Eve to cover themselves with. So, could that not have been a sacrifice for their sin? So, it could be the manner of Cain's offering, his heart/attitude or a combo of all??

 

[Nancy]

So are you saying that Cain and Abel had to offer sacrifices for sin?

It reads they they brought an offering.
The Feast of First Fruit's , was not for sin. Once a year they brought a sin offering on the Feast Of Atonement.

Other than - A & E being forbidden to eat of the tree..there was no command re sin!

What say you?

Good catch there Helen...they have so many feasts!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[FHII]

I have heard said that the very first sacrificial offering was when God made clothes from animal skins for Adam and Eve to cover themselves with. So, could that not have been a sacrifice for their sin?

I've heard that too, but I disagree. It's a pretty deep subject as to why, so I am not going to go into it. But let me say that if it is true, humans didn't do it. God did, and thus, Cain and Abel were still the first men to do it.

So, it could be the manner of Cain's offering, his heart/attitude or a combo of all?

I certainly think so. I think it has alot to do with it. Let us not forget that God gave council to Cain.

Genesis 4:6-7 KJV
And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? [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.

I don't know if this is God saying, "hang in there buddy... Give it another shot and get it right!". It sure seems like it though... Cain didn't though... A reasonable man or woman would've went out to grow the biggest and best crop he could and grabbed the first red tomato and the biggest one after that. Or at least would've asked advice from God what to do...

Naw... He set out to kill his brother.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Cain could not have true faith apart from the Holy Spirit.

Since you don't believe in free will, what you are saying is that it was God's fault that Cain offered an unacceptable sacrifice, for failing to send the Holy Spirit to Cain? But, would God then tell Cain that if he did what was right, he would be accepted, warning Cain that, "sin is crouching at your door, eager to control you, but you must subdue it and be its master. " This definitely implies that Cain did indeed have the free will to obey God. Instead, Cain gives in to the temptation to hate his brother and kill him in a pre-meditated attack. Instead of fighting the evil, Cain comes under its control. (Genesis 4:2-16) It seems that Cain inherited more than a little of his father's tendency to rebellion; Adam knew that he was doing wrong--Scripture tells us that he was not beguiled by the Satanic snake, as was Eve. Surely both Cain and Abel understood what was a proper sacrifice but Cain apparently rebelled from making it--testing God.

 

[quietthinker]

So are you saying that Cain and Abel had to offer sacrifices for sin?

It reads they they brought an offering.
The Feast of First Fruit's , was not for sin. Once a year they brought a sin offering on the Feast Of Atonement.

Other than - A & E being forbidden to eat of the tree..there was no command re sin!

What say you?

BG, Yes, Cain and Able brought a offering or a sacrifice for sin.
The greater unfolding of the plan of redemption in types and figures was given to Moses some time later. This included various feasts and offerings, first fruits included.

Once A&E had transgressed the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil a shift occurred in their natures.
Instinctively they sought to hide. What was previously natural to them ie, Gods commandments written on their hearts, now stood opposed to them as their natural inclinations became degraded and twisted. This heritage passed onto all their progeny.

We see in the record that Able submitted to God's instructions but Cain raised himself up. He was jealous, he was recalcitrant, he was proud and became the murderer of his brother.
If his heart would have been right with God as was Able's he would have brought the appropriate offering.

 

[Enoch111]

It was not until Abel offered his sacrifice of a lamb and its acceptance by the Lord that this practice of offering a lamb began.

That is simply an assumption. Many things are not recorded in Scripture, particularly the childhood and early manhood of Christ. Can we make any assumptions on that basis? And who taught Abel to sacrifice in this manner? And if God taught Abel, would He not have taught the whole family? Or does God play favorites?

 

[quietthinker]

I have heard said that the very first sacrificial offering was when God made clothes from animal skins for Adam and Eve to cover themselves with. So, could that not have been a sacrifice for their sin? So, it could be the manner of Cain's offering, his heart/attitude or a combo of all??

A sacrifice for sin was not just once but was repeated at different times. It was to keep the horror of sin constantly before their eyes.....and yes Nancy, A&E were clothed in skins (covering) God provided......another pointer to the Redeemer to come.

Much can be learnt from a study of the ancient tabernacle or sanctuary system. Every element of it points to the promised Saviour and his work.

One element out of interest is this.... the various Hebrew tribes where camped in designated spots around the four sides of the tabernacle. Their numbers determined where they were to camp. Certain ones (three) to the North, others to the East, others to the South and yet others to the West. Three tribes to each point of the compass.
Now, If a chart was to be drawn up proportionately to the numbers at each side of the tabernacle, a birds eye view of the camp would reveal that it was laid out in the shape of a cross.
Also the furnishing lay out of the tabernacle itself was in the shape of a cross.

Like was said, every element was significant.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

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 ...

Under Moses we see offerings of grain and drink and whatever crops they had as firstfruits, but there were also clean animals. It was never without a blood sacrifice for sin. So you are right.

Cain could have sold some of his produce to Abel to buy an animal to complete his offering and sacrifice. Cain committed a presumptuous sin with what he offered. He would have been taught better by his parents.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

It was not until Abel offered his sacrifice of a lamb and its acceptance by the Lord that this practice of offering a lamb began.

No, God sacrificed the first clean animal and shed its blood while Adam and Eve were hiding in the Garden of Eden after eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is where the skins came from. Adam and Eve would have continued the practice from the teaching directly from God, and taught their own children. Do you honestly believe Adam never made sacrifices for his families sins and taught his children?

 

[friend of]

I always thought that it was because Cain did not sacrifice the best of his crops to God.

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit which means he was born again.

Cain had faith in God as well, otherwise he wouldn't have sacrificed anything to Him. According to you, Cain was born again.

 

[Butterfly]

"I was always taught,and encouraged to teach that Cain offering was not his best from what he had grown."

This is just a question and is not meant to be taken as an affront to what you believe or teach.

Where precisely does it say that the offering which Cain brought was not the best of his crops? This appears to be purely conjecture.

It was not that Cain brought a half hearted offering, he most likely brought the best of his crops, unfortunately he did not bring an acceptable offering, one which typified the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

To be honest I think it was presumption, and I never questioned it- and never really delved into it all those years ago. I had heard sermons on it and seen notes on it for Sunday school, and they very much reached the same conclusion that this was why the sacrifice was not right.
Not being funny, but isn't it also presumption to say ' he most likely brought the best of his crop ' the truth is that we don't actually know because there is not enough information about the crops he brought, all we know is that what he brought was not what God wanted. I honestly had not considered the fact that he needed to bring a blood sacrifice too until I read the study the other day !


I haven't caught up with what was posted, so maybe I will find that there is info that I have not considered ......... Although I am not sure I have time to read all the response before I have to go to work , to be honest I didn't think many people would be interesting in discussing it ! Lol
Rita

 

[Butterfly]

No, God sacrificed the first clean animal and shed its blood while Adam and Eve were hiding in the Garden of Eden after eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That is where the skins came from. Adam and Eve would have continued the practice from the teaching directly from God, and taught their own children. Do you honestly believe Adam never made sacrifices for his families sins and taught his children?

Yes, this also came out in the study the other day - the writer mentions that from that moment there was a foundation for ' a life for a life ' within the world - even with crops ect, something had to die In order for something else to have life.
Rita

 

[Butterfly]

Under Moses we see offerings of grain and drink and whatever crops they had as firstfruits, but there were also clean animals. It was never without a blood sacrifice for sin. So you are right.

Cain could have sold some of his produce to Abel to buy an animal to complete his offering and sacrifice. Cain committed a presumptuous sin with what he offered. He would have been taught better by his parents.

The other thing I notice from the conversation Cain has with the Lord afterwards- ' Satan was crouching at his door ' I wondered if this was perhaps part of the message of this account, this was the first generation post fall, Satan did not just disappear. The difference between Cain and Abel represents ( maybe ) the difference experienced when we either listen to the Lord, or listen to Satan- it can impact what we give to God - not sure, it was just a train of thought I had.
Rita

 

[Butterfly]

The answer is quite simple.

God has revealed to Adam and Eve, as well as Cain and Abel, that the only way to show their faith in God was to come to Him through a sacrificial lamb. A lamb without spot or blemish, whose innocent blood would be shed to make atonement for their sins. This principle continued under the Old Covenant until the time that the true Lamb of God (Jesus of Nazareth) shed His blood on the cross at Calvary. Even Noah understood what God meant by clean and unclean animals, and Noah also offered a satisfactory sacrifice after coming out of the Ark.

Abel took this teaching to heart, therefore BY FAITH He offered a sacrifice which was pleasing to God: 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. (Heb 11:4). Abel's faith was imputed to him for righteousness.

Cain, on the other hand (under the influence of Satan "that Wicked One"), rejected the significance of a blood sacrifice, and assumed that the bloodless sacrifice he offered would be accepted. This would represent salvation by works. However it was rejected, Cain was angry, murdered, his brother, and became an outcast. While everything here is not explicitly stated, it is certainly implied in what we read in Scripture.

I see you have also mentioned the influence of Satan, not sure I saw it as a picture of salvation of works verses sacrifice - food for thought, I saw it just as influencing what we give to God.
Rita