Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected by God?

[Phoneman777]

It does not dismiss possibility that God honored Abel's sacrifice when Mosaic law.

Or that the sacrifices time of Abel to Moses was not per oral tradition.

That's always the possibility, but since God is found to almost exclusively establish precedent for man's service even in the smallest matters, I doubt seriously God would have allowed those who made necessary (by their sin) the establishment of so solemn a precedent to be the ones to actually establish it, that being arguably the most important object lesson to ever exist in the history of the universe.

 

[CoreIssue]

That's always the possibility, but since God is found to almost exclusively establish precedent for man's service even in the smallest matters, I doubt seriously God would have allowed those who made necessary (by their sin) the establishment of so solemn a precedent that is arguable the most important object lesson to ever exist in the history of the universe.

So you're saying God established the ancient Jewish wedding custom that a uses as the model for the church being the bride of Christ, the rapture and the marriage supper of the Lamb?

 

[FHII]

With the fact that God clothes Adam and Eve in skins of animals he had killed is a pretty strong hint that they picked up on that.

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.

 

[Phoneman777]

So you're saying God established the ancient Jewish wedding custom that a uses as the model for the church being the bride of Christ, the rapture and the marriage supper of the Lamb?

Could be. Abraham is called the "father of the faithful" and a "friend of God" who kept God's charge, obeyed His voice, His commandments and His statutes - which character description leaves little reason to doubt that God told him what the process of courtship and marriage should be for his posterity.

 

[FHII]

Abel was said to have brought the sacrifice "and the fat thereof" which means he separated it from the carcass

I don't think that's what it means. The verse says Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat there of. The "fat therof" refers to the fat of the flock.... Meaning the best and healthiest animals.

 

[CoreIssue]

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.

But that important part. The shedding of blood to cover sin.

 

[Waiting on him]

Unfortunately the scriptures don't support this idea. They make it clear that no one was begotten of the holy spirit prior to Pentecost. Note we are not talking about those faithful of the of the past who were guided and moved by the holy spirit, we are talking about those who have been begotten again by the spirit to a new nature.

This opportunity, the "new and living way"(Heb. 10:20), was not brought to light until Christ.

I was reading the 86 psalm today and thinking on your response. In my opinion this is Jesus praying in the mountains when he’s separated from the crowds, calling out to the Lord. Read it if you have a chance in that perspective.
The works were finished from the foundation of the world.
Happy Easter.

 

[FHII]

But that important part. The shedding of blood to cover sin.

But it doesn't say that.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

“He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 22:37)

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.

 

[Hidden In Him]

For people saying that Cain lacked real faith in God, I'm not entirely sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. In Genesis 4:6-7 God speaks directly to Cain and implores him to do right.

According to Jewish tradition, Cain was already being seduced into believing God was an unjust God, and when its says, "And they talked in the garden, and Cain rose up and slew his brother Abel," this "talk" they were having was a debate over this very question, with Abel insisting God was just and Cain trying to convince him God was not. The debate grew heated, and it led to Cain killing him in anger.

Thus, Cain believed in God's existence. That is nowhere in doubt in the text. "By faith" rather refers to faith specifically in His goodness and justness. Cain's lack of faith in His goodness was detectible to God so, as Stranger posted, it really wouldn't have mattered what Cain offered, it would have been rejected. He was likely giving an offering out of a sense of duty, probably out of respect to his parents. But from those who attempt to offer "sacrifices" while nevertheless secretly questioning God's justness, nothing will be received as acceptable.

 

[Helen]

Thanks @Hidden In Him ...that sounds very reasonable. I like it! :)
( never heard that before)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Thanks @Hidden In Him ...that sounds very reasonable. I like it! :)
( never heard that before)

Jewish traditions can be pretty... elaborate sometimes (down right fanciful sometimes as well), but they nearly always have some basis in oral tradition that explains the Old Testament texts and fleshes them out.

 

[Nancy]

You're right, we don't know what kind of sacrifice Cain was told to bring. However, to the best of my recollection, there's no record of any kind of sacrifice other than a blood sacrifice before the time of Moses, so I think it's safe to assume that's what God desired from them. And that Abel did it according to instructions revealed later to Moses suggests strongly that God communicated the same instructions early on. After all, I doubt they'd start killing lambs without having clear confirmation from God it was an acceptable practice. Imagine if God showed up and saw all this blood and burning animals without ever having told them to do it. Kinda like when I woke up one morning and my kid had pieces of bread thrown all over the room - looked like it snowed LOL

"I woke up one morning and my kid had pieces of bread thrown all over the room - looked like it snowed LOL"
That's not as bad as tossing left over rigatoni, mixed in tomato sauce, at the ceiling to see if they would stick...yes, my 2 older sibs and I were all guilty, lol.

 

[Phoneman777]

I don't think that's what it means. The verse says Abel brought the firstlings of his flock and the fat there of. The "fat therof" refers to the fat of the flock.... Meaning the best and healthiest animals.

Could be. But, again, please consider that later on the fat was burned separately from the carcass "for a sweet smelly savor" in the LORD's nostrils. Have you ever smelled how absolutely nasty and awful burning fat smells? So, why did the Lord consider something so foul "sweet"?

"Fat" was a type of "sin" in the OT, and had to be removed (ritualistically speaking, of course) from the "spotless" sacrifice - the burning of it represented the end of sin which we all would agree is the thing the Lord finds most sweet of all. No reason to believe that this would not be included as part of the instructions given to Adam and family.

 

[Phoneman777]

"I woke up one morning and my kid had pieces of bread thrown all over the room - looked like it snowed LOL"
That's not as bad as tossing left over rigatoni, mixed in tomato sauce, at the ceiling to see if they would stick...yes, my 2 older sibs and I were all guilty, lol.

That's bad, but I doubt y'all could make Chucky look like a Vatican altar boy like me and my sibs did :cool:

 

[Nancy]

That's bad, but I doubt y'all could make Chucky look like a Vatican altar boy like me and my sibs did :cool:

Yikes, and I doubt I would ever want to do that, haha!

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Probably all of that. Using Inductive Reasoning, we can examine known facts to draw a general conclusion:

• Abel was said to have brought the sacrifice "and the fat thereof" which means he separated it from the carcass.
• Later, we know God commanded Moses to do the exact same thing with the fat.
• Still, we further read that "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission (forgiveness)"
• Also, Romans 12 describes Cain's actions as "evil" which known sin would qualify as but weak faith really wouldn't, would it?

So, by this we can assume that God gave Adam and his family speicific instructions on what and how sacrifices were to be made but Cain decided he'd obtain forgiveness on his own terms, and thus was the originator of "the religion of Cain" aka "works based salvation".

Yes--I think that Cain committed the same kind of sin that Esau did later. They were cavalier toward their heritage and privilege. Ingratitude is a sin. When the Israelites were ungrateful toward God, after He rescued them from slavery and death (the first Passover), and began complaining to each other out in the desert, God was not exactly thrilled with them.

 

[CoreIssue]

But it doesn't say that.

I think you missed my point.

Under Mosaic law sacrifice for sin that covered the past years sin was blood.

Christ price on the cross was shedding of his blood sin.

The new covenant Christ gave at the Last Supper he called the covenant of blood.

So while it does not state it, I agree, I don't see any way around it.

 

[FHII]

Could be. But, again, please consider that later on the fat was burned separately from the carcass "for a sweet smelly savor" in the LORD's nostrils. Have you ever smelled how absolutely nasty and awful burning fat smells? So, why did the Lord consider something so foul "sweet"?

I understand that fat was separated... Still, the context of Gen 4 suggests as I said. Abel chose the fat (best) of his flock. The verse isn't talking about separating the fat frothe lean.

 

[FHII]

I think you missed my point.

Under Mosaic law sacrifice for sin that covered the past years sin was blood.

Christ price on the cross was shedding of his blood sin.

The new covenant Christ gave at the Last Supper he called the covenant of blood.

So while it does not state it, I agree, I don't see any way around it.

I got the point, I just don't agree with it.