Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

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

either way, i believe Genesis is inspired

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

Anothe point to is if Cain couldnt have offered any of his fruit since the ground was cursed so nothing would have been good anyway...that he could have offered himself. He could have said God I have nothing acceptable to offer but will you take me.

This is what us believers who have nothing to offer do, we say God take me as I am. And you know what God accepts that because of Jesus, who did offer himself.

Later in the bible Abraham does offer up Isaac. And God saw his obedience and blessed him, and the angel stopped the sacrifice.

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

JohnRH said:

it doesn't violate the text, but it presumes that what Cain *should have done* is begged, borrowed or stolen one of Abel's flock.
then we have to ask whether it's of any significance that Abel brought a firstborn because what guarantee would Cain have had that there are more than one firstborn?

is the lesson that 'if you do what is right' means 'you should have taken someone else's animal and offered it for yourself' ?

Sketch · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman said:

There's a topic.
I love the unanswered question in Gen.3. "Who told you that you were naked?" (something to that effect)
Indeed. Who did tell Adam that he was naked? At the end of Gen.3 they were naked an unashamed.

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

Its very important to dedicate your firstborn to God you can see where adam and eve failed to do with Cain and he turned out that way. Another thing too is that God did have mercy on Cain after he killed his brother.

The bible does not say anything further about adam and eve after this incident only that they had Seth to replace Abel and he did call on the Lord...perhaps they learned better parenting skills from this.

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman said:

it doesn't violate the text, but it presumes that what Cain *should have done* is begged, borrowed or stolen one of Abel's flock.
then we have to ask whether it's of any significance that Abel brought a firstborn because what guarantee would Cain have had that there are more than one firstborn?

is the lesson that 'if you do what is right' means 'you should have taken someone else's animal and offered it for yourself' ?

No, just that Cain could have kept some sheep too i.e had his own flock.

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

Lanolin said:

so farming is condemned if it's the only thing you do?
but farming is ok as long as you *also* raise livestock?

in Genesis 1 we see both vocations approved:

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
(Genesis 1:26)

tending animals is good

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.
(Genesis 2:15)

tending plants is good

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman said:

so farming is condemned if it's the only thing you do?
but farming is ok as long as you *also* raise livestock?

in Genesis 1 we see both vocations approved:

Then God said, “Let Us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

(Genesis 1:26)

tending animals is good

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

(Genesis 2:15)

tending plants is good

Note that adam and eve did both together.

You are kind of missing the point.

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

Raising crops by themselves with no animal input will actually destroy the soil. You can see when people tried to do that in the dustbowl of america.

crossnote · Jan 21, 2019

Sketch 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.

JohnRH · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman said:

Cain could have bought one from Abel. Or Cain could have rounded up one of his own. The text doesn't say that Abel owned all the sheep on the planet.

posthuman said:

4:3 "And in process of time it came to pass". The earth may have had sheep coming out its ears at the time of the offerings. If there were second-borns & third-borns & fourth-borns running around, there would have to be first-borns - that's simple logic. Otherwise the second wouldn't be the second.

posthuman said:

Don't rule out 'bought' - or 'received as a gift'. Righteous Abel would have wanted his brother to have an offering that pleased the Lord; otherwise Abel wouldn't be righteous. Of course Cain wouldn't have to steal an animal - that's ridiculous.

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

JohnRH said:

Leviticus 2, 6 & 7 all describe acceptable grain offerings, none of which involve sheep or any other animal.
so it's ridiculous IMO to presume that all offerings must be blood.

unless what Cain & Abel were doing was meant to be a sort of sin or guilt offering - and as far as i can tell, you have to assume that it is meant to be an atonement and then eisegetically project the requirements of blood onto the text.

can you prove that this is supposed to be a sin offering? i am not convinced it's an assumption we should make.

Absolutely · Jan 21, 2019

Why was it that Cain tried so hard to please God and failed?

He just wasn't Abel. Lol

Deade · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman said:

I am with you on this posthuman. There have been volumes produced as to why Cain's offering wasn't looked upon favorably. This is typical of overthinking the subject. Just like it was suggested early, Cain must have just gathered some of his grain without picking out the finest. From the Lord's chastisement, we see Cain's heart wasn't into the offering. He probably felt goaded to offer by his brother doing so first. There are times we should look for deeper meanings and times we should just accept what is given.

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

Deade said:

I am with you on this posthuman. There have been volumes produced as to why Cain's offering wasn't looked upon favorably. This is typical of overthinking the subject. Just like it was suggested early, Cain must have just gathered some of his grain without picking out the finest. From the Lord's chastisement, we see Cain's heart wasn't into the offering. He probably felt goaded to offer by his brother doing so first. There are times we should look for deeper meanings and times we should just accept what is given.

Lol but God didnt just accept what Cain gave and some are still trying to figure out why....

JohnRH · Jan 21, 2019

posthuman 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 ...

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

What about anias and saphirra, the apostles gave their land up and possesions to share, but anaias and saphirras said they did but kept some of it back. Their offering was thus no offering at all....

Parallels with cain?

Lanolin · Jan 21, 2019

Hmm dont know about fruit grinning...some people watch way too much veggie tales.

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

i read that Cain's name means a 'possession' or 'spear'
& Abel's name means 'a vapor' or 'vanity'

when Cain was born, Eve said 'with God's help I have gotten a man' ((Genesis 4:1 - a footnote indicates the Hebrew for 'gotten' sounds like the word Cain))
when Abel was born there's no similar record of what she said ((Genesis 4:2))

post's wife points out that what she said about Cain's birth may have a touch of boasting, saying "I have brought forth" - tho she does say "with God's help" perhaps she would better said if she'd made no mention of her own contribution. a subtil point.

why is no similar statement recorded at Abel's birth?
what is the significance of their names?

posthuman · Jan 21, 2019

Lanolin said:

is that even possible

Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Called of God

Well-known member

Junior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member