Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected by God?

[1stCenturyLady]

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

Yes, another one of those sayings that Satan loves to use: "Did God really say..." Then in presumption Cain would have wanted only his works recognized, not in combination with Abel's.

 

[Waiting on him]

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’s because what he offered was the works of his flesh rooted in pride.

 

[Stranger]

I do hold to the bloodless sacrifice of Cain being a reason God did not accept his sacrifice. That blood was shed when God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins is undeniable. And that revealed to Adam and Eve that their covering of plants from the earth was not accepted. Though we assume they taught this to their children, I believe it is a good assumption. They must have told the story of their fall hundreds if not thousands of times to their children.

But in reading the account in (Gen. 4) I'm inclined to believe God may not have accepted any offering from Cain, and perhaps that is why the absence of blood, as a reason, is not mentioned. We are simply told, (4:5), "But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect."

It could have been Cain's whole life that displeased the Lord. And perhaps this is why the Lord said, (4:7) "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Not just his offering but Cain himself was not accepted of God.

Abel's life was one of faith and trust toward God. Cain's was not. And isn't it interesting that it is never a question of 'do you believe God exists' as Cain talked with God one on one. So goes the lame excuse of atheists that if God just appeared before me I would believe. It is never a question of God's existence. It is a question of do you want to be right with God. Abel wanted God. Cain did not.

An example of King Saul seems to apply here. But it fails in one point in that I believe Saul was a man of God and Cain was not. Saul had defeated the Amalekites but was disobedient in keeping many flocks and the King of the Amakekites alive when he was told to destroy them all. (1 Sam. 15:9-11) As an excuse to the prophet Samuel, Saul said he kept the flocks mainly for to give sacrifice to God. (15:15) But to that Samuel replied, "And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt-offering and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than than the fat of rams." (15:22)

Stranger

 

[Waiting on him]

When did Abel become born again, scripture please?

When he acknowledged he was looking to the sacrifice of Christ to cover his sin. Same with Abraham and all Saints

 

[Dave L]

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



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

Great point. Here's how it works. Cain believed with the flesh as most who think they believe in Christ do. But Abel believed with the Holy Spirit through the new birth and understood the spiritual component of the matter.

 

[Dave L]

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.

Think of it this way. Both Cain and Abel were sinners by nature. But God had mercy on Abel and not on Cain. Both would have been lost if God didn't have mercy on one of them. And God's mercy was glorified in showing mercy to Abel. And his justice was glorified in withholding mercy from Cain. It's all about God's glory.

 

[Dave L]

Sorry but the scriptures are quite clear, NO ONE was begotten of the spirit until after Pentecost. Our Lord is the Head of the Body, the Church, the first born of the new creation that in all things he might have preeminence. (Col 1:18)

It is the church nominal which teaches that as soon as an individual professes faith in Christ they are born again and are assured a heavenly inheritance. The Scriptures however do not support such a belief and imply that there is much more to it than this.

As we had stated elsewhere many there are who shall awaken in the kingdom with great disappointment when they find themselves in the earthly phase of the kingdom rather than the heavenly phase, all because they never took the time to learn just how true entrance into the spiritual phase of the kingdom was to be obtained.

These will be among those standing outside saying, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

And the Lord will declare to them, ‘I never knew you...’ (Matt 7:22)

You who made a profession of being my people, but who refused to enter by the straight gate, but rather in consulting the blind guides of Christendom, attempted to enter by another way. ‘I never knew you (that is I never knew you as a part of THIS special heavenly class of called out ones, begotten of my Father's spirit, the elect, the "little flock", the consecrated saints of God )...’

This of course does not imply that they are cast out of the kingdom altogether merely that they won't be sharing in the heavenly phase of the kingdom, but instead will take their share in the earthly phase of the kingdom.

Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. So all of the faithful in Hebrews 11 had the Holy Spirit.

 

[Nancy]

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

This thread WAS your idea Rita, lol...see how it's taken off?? ♥

 

[Nancy]

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.

Yes Q.T. this is very interesting stuff. I saw a special on the tabernacle not long ago that showed us a replica of the real one and pointed out what you said above about the furnishing of the whole tabernacle in the shape of a cross, good and very interesting subject. :)

 

[bbyrd009]

Cain was plowing his own ground, but Abel was a shepherd. And they aren't exactly portrayed as twins but I guess the ancient twin story is just being revised there, according to many sources anyway

 

[bbyrd009]

It’s because what he offered was the works of his flesh rooted in pride.

yes, so a redux of the twins, even the thieves at the cross prolly

 

[Harvest 1874]

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. :)

You are on the right track my sister.

“By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.” (Heb 11:4 NKJV)

“By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.” (Heb 11:4 ESV)

From the foregoing text it is apparent that Abel’s offering was acceptable because of his faith.

Perhaps the following extract from “Studies in the Book of Hebrews” might prove useful.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," Paul tells us. (Rom 10:17)

This would indicate that Abel received information from God concerning the kind of sacrifice he should offer. If it had simply been a case of each of the brothers offering to the LORD what they had on hand to give, Abel's faith would not have entered into the offering any more than Cain's. Seldom does the Bible give all the details of any occurrence and, although no mention is made of it, we think it is quite possible that Abel was informed by the LORD that he wished a flesh and blood offering. His obedience demonstrated his faith, proving that he was righteous.

The text says that Abel was “righteous.” The same Greek word is used here as when Paul wrote, "There is none righteous, no, not one." (Rom 3:10) In this latter statement, however, absolute righteousness, or perfection, is referred to, whereas the righteousness of Abel was merely his heart condition which was demonstrated by his faith and obedience. It is essentially the same thought as that contained in the reference to Abraham's justification by faith.

A close analysis reveals the great importance God attaches to faith in him and in his arrangements and promises. Had Adam possessed true faith and confidence in God he would not have transgressed his law. While Adam's descendants have lost perfection and life because of his sin, those such as Abel, Abraham, and others who, despite their imperfections, did believe God, proved their worthiness of his favor and friendship. Such faith-righteousness is properly and scripturally described as justification.

During the Gospel Age those who possess such a faith, AND demonstrate it (put it in action) by full consecration to the LORD, are justified to life through the merit of the shed blood of Christ.

This is in order that they might present their bodies living and acceptable sacrifices to God (Rom 12:1), and thus share in the sacrificial work of this age. However, during the preceding ages there was no opportunity to share in the "better sacrifices." (Heb 9:23) The imputation of the blood of Christ was not needed to give a standing of life to God's servants; but their faith was no less vital because of this, nor were they less pleasing to God. It is simply that he dealt with them differently than he does with those in this age who possess a justifying faith.

In passing, it is well to give thought as to why God was pleased with the flesh and blood sacrifice offered by Abel.

It was evidently because it pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ, "the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world." (John 1:29) When condemning our first parents to death, God made the statement that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. (Gen 3:15) This was a veiled promise of future deliverance from the result of original sin. But for this to be possible there would need to be remission of sin, so God began to illustrate that this was to be accomplished by the shedding of blood (the first apparent illustration of this being His providing skins to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve, this required the sacrifice of a life). As his plan of redemption unfolds, it comes to light that it was to be through the shed blood of his own beloved Son.”

 

[CoreIssue]

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

He was not born again. No one was until the resurrection.

 

[CoreIssue]

Blood covers sin. Grain does not.

God covered Adam and Eve with the fur of slain animals covering their sin.

 

[Dave L]

He was not born again. No one was until the resurrection.

They called it "Circumcised heart" in the OT. They are the same.

 

[Butterfly]

A slight digression, but wasn't Saul filled with the Holy Spirit, doesn't it mention at one time that the spirit of God left him.( or was that Samson !! Lol ) either way- was that not the same as ' indwelling ?
I am not saying I don't agree with there being a difference after Pentecost, but just wondered if ' at times, if God willed it ' it happened from time to time prior to Pentecost ?
Rita

 

[Harvest 1874]

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?

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?

If you had read our post you would have noted we never said that Abel offered the first animal sacrifice (it was God who sacrificed the first animal), we simply stated that Abel’s offering of a lamb as a sacrifice (in distinction with any other type of animal sacrifice) was the first sacrifice proved acceptable.

Likewise there is nothing in the Genesis narrative which suggests that Adam and Eve witnessed the sacrifice of the animal in whose skins they were covered, nor is it mentioned anywhere what type of animal was sacrificed.

As for the inference that Adam and Eve offered sacrifices prior to Abel, this too is only speculation, there is no evidence to support this.

The fact that the Scriptures note specifically that the LORD accepted Abel’s sacrifice of a lamb as an acceptable offering suggest that it was the first such acceptable sacrifice.

Nevertheless there is no need to be dogmatic on this issue as regardless of what one believes it is not pertinent to their salvation

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

They called it "Circumcised heart" in the OT. They are the same.

No. A "circumcised heart" was one that was open to God's teaching by His Holy Spirit and were convicted by Him of their sins, but they were NOT indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus told us when that would happen.

 

[Dave L]

No. A "circumcised heart" was one that was open to God's teaching by His Holy Spirit and were convicted by Him of their sins, but they were NOT indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Jesus told us when that would happen.

You are confusing the baptism of the Holy Spirit (from Pentecost on) with the new birth (from the garden of Eden on).

 

[CoreIssue]

They called it "Circumcised heart" in the OT. They are the same.

No. Born again cleanses the spirit, not the heart.

The Holy Spirit did not indwell and cleanse anyone until after the resurrection. That requires requires blood of Christ.