Why Was Cain’s Sacrifice Rejected by God?

[bbyrd009]

Hello there, @bbyrd009,

What verse are you considering there?

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Isaiah, but really it's better expressed in Nehushtan to us I guess
Jesus can either be recognized and worshipped as an icon, with the bowing and the burning incense, or partaken in, hence "breaking up Nehushtan." I'm just ripping someone else off here, some bible commentary on "breaking up Nehushtan"

 

[bbyrd009]

But Jesus was the Son of God, bbyrd. Yes, He called Himself "Son of Man" but then, that was a title for a prophet. However, His most important role for us was as the Son of God/Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Without that, we all would be fire fodder.

Christ died for my sins is certainly true; "Jesus died for your sins" is...much easier to misinterpret? ya
both of those Scriptures, Scriptural concepts can be understood in a way that makes them both true, but the focus will be Christ and not Jesus, is I guess a way to look at it

 

[farouk]

But Jesus was the Son of God, bbyrd. Yes, He called Himself "Son of Man" but then, that was a title for a prophet. However, His most important role for us was as the Son of God/Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Without that, we all would be fire fodder.

Both Son of God and Son of Man are glorious titles in themselves.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Christ died for my sins is certainly true; "Jesus died for your sins" is...much easier to misinterpret? ya
both of those Scriptures, Scriptural concepts can be understood in a way that makes them both true, but the focus will be Christ and not Jesus, is I guess a way to look at it

No offense intended but, interpreting the Bible is easy compared to interpreting what you write. What is scary is that I'm starting to understand what you write. ;)

 

[farouk]

Hello @CoreIssue,

God has told us all we need to know, hasn't He? It doesn't matter that we do not know certain things. I just praise God for what He has revealed.

In Christ Jesus
Our risen and glorified
Saviour, Lord and Head.
Chris

It's the nature of revelation, right?

PS: New avatar?

 

[charity]

But Jesus was the Son of God, bbyrd.
Yes, He called Himself "Son of Man" but then, that was a title for a prophet. However, His most important role for us was as the Son of God/Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Without that, we all would be fire fodder.

Hello @Lady Crosstalk,

You have addressed this to bbyrd009: but I hope you won't mind my considering this with you a moment. You say, (quote) 'He called Himself 'Son of Man' but then, that was a title for a prophet.' Would you please tell me what has led you to believe that this was a title for a prophet? I ask, not to pour doubt upon what you have said, but because I have never heard it spoken of in that way before.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

It's the nature of revelation, right?
PS: New avatar?

Yes, Farouk,

To both points. :)

 

[farouk]

Yes, Farouk,

To both points. :)

Deuteronomy 29.29 has a key verse about the nature of revelation, I think: 'The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever...'

Yes, I thought the avatar was new.

 

[charity]

Deuteronomy 29.29 has a key verse about the nature of revelation, I think: 'The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever...'

Yes, I thought the avatar was new.

Hello again, @farouk,

Yes, I love that verse (Deuteronomoy 29:29)
Where is your avatar, @farouk? :)

 

[farouk]

Hello again, @farouk,

Yes, I love that verse (Deuteronomoy 29:29)
Where is your avatar, @farouk? :)

I tried to finagle it on the site to get one done. But the technology didn't seem to work for me...

 

[charity]

Isaiah, but really it's better expressed in Nehushtan to us I guess
Jesus can either be recognized and worshipped as an icon, with the bowing and the burning incense, or partaken in, hence "breaking up Nehushtan." I'm just ripping someone else off here, some bible commentary on "breaking up Nehushtan"

'He removed the high places,
and brake the images,
and cut down the groves,
and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made:
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it:
and he called it Nehushtan.'
(2 Kings 18:4)

Hi @bbyrd009,

Hezekiah, called the brasen serpent, what it was, 'a brass thing' (Nehushtan). I think I would have liked that man! :)

Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Though it doesn't help me to understand your original words to farouk, or tell me where in Isaiah it comes: (quote) Confronting No Son of Man may die for another's sins might go a ways to clarifying that too I guess

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[farouk]

'He removed the high places,
and brake the images,
and cut down the groves,
and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made:
for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it:
and he called it Nehushtan.'
(2 Kings 18:4)

Hi @bbyrd009,

Hezekiah, called the brasen serpent, what it was, 'a brass thing' (Nehushtan). I think I would have liked that man! :)
Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

Various good things happened in the days of Hezekiah.

 

[marks]

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. :)

Hi Nancy,

It looks to me this is saying that Abel had the faith to bring a better sacrifice. Whether that was better in quality or better in type, I don't see anything that says, so that's where we stop, where you did here, Cain's lack of faith.

I don't think it matters what you bring God if you aren't bringing it in faith. And if you are, you'll either bring the right thing, or you will receive God's correction, and then bring the right thing.

Much love!

 

[farouk]

Hi Nancy,

It looks to me this is saying that Abel had the faith to bring a better sacrifice. Whether that was better in quality or better in type, I don't see anything that says, so that's where we stop, where you did here, Cain's lack of faith.

I don't think it matters what you bring God if you aren't bringing it in faith. And if you are, you'll either bring the right thing, or you will receive God's correction, and then bring the right thing.

Much love!

There was also the offering - animal sacrifice - that Abel brought, which God accepted because of faith. Cain's offering seems to have been, rather, the fruit of his own labours.

 

[marks]

There was also the offering - animal sacrifice - that Abel brought, which God accepted because of faith. Cain's offering seems to have been, rather, the fruit of his own labours.

Yes, but why is that a problem if Cain brought his offering in faith?

There were sacrifices specified later, in the Law, that were the fruit of the field.

It's been pointed out we don't actually know whether it was firstfuits or not.
And it's been pointed out that this was a tribute offering, not a sin offering.
And of course it can't be pointed to where there was some instruction given on what to bring, though there could have been, but we don't know.

So isn't all else purely speculation?

Much love!
Mark

 

[farouk]

Yes, but why is that a problem if Cain brought his offering in faith?

There were sacrifices specified later, in the Law, that were the fruit of the field.

It's been pointed out we don't actually know whether it was firstfuits or not.
And it's been pointed out that this was a tribute offering, not a sin offering.
And of course it can't be pointed to where there was some instruction given on what to bring, though there could have been, but we don't know.

So isn't all else purely speculation?

Much love!
Mark

The language of Hebrews 11.4 seems to imply an animal sacrifice performed in faith.

 

[marks]

The language of Hebrews 11.4 seems to imply an animal sacrifice performed in faith.

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead yet speaketh."

How exactly? All I see here is that Abel brought a more excellent sacrifice, but how to we determine more excellent in what way?

Maybe Abel brought his firstling, but Cain swept up the floor after he stored everything he wanted, and offered it as a sacrifice, but God would have been just as pleased with Cain's offering if Cain had excitedly bunched up the best of the best, wanting to honor his Creator. Could that not be?

Much love!

 

[farouk]

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead yet speaketh."

How exactly? All I see here is that Abel brought a more excellent sacrifice, but how to we determine more excellent in what way?

Maybe Abel brought his firstling, but Cain swept up the floor after he stored everything he wanted, and offered it as a sacrifice, but God would have been just as pleased with Cain's offering if Cain had excitedly bunched up the best of the best, wanting to honor his Creator. Could that not be?

Much love!

We know he kept sheep from Genesis, and that the sacrifice involved fat. Far more of an indication of a picture of the Lamb of God, than Cain's labours in the soil ever were.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

Hello @Lady Crosstalk,

You have addressed this to bbyrd009: but I hope you won't mind my considering this with you a moment. You say, (quote) 'He called Himself 'Son of Man' but then, that was a title for a prophet.' Would you please tell me what has led you to believe that this was a title for a prophet? I ask, not to pour doubt upon what you have said, but because I have never heard it spoken of in that way before.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ezekiel is referred to as "son of man" over 90 times in the OT--(see Ezekiel 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1 etc.) In Jesus' case, it probably points to His fulfilling the role spoken of by the prophet, Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King. Calling Himself, "Son of Man" also, paired with "Son of God" indicates both His fully human qualities as well as His fully divine qualities.

 

[farouk]

Ezekiel is referred to as "son of man" over 90 times in the OT--(see Ezekiel 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1 etc.) In Jesus' case, it probably points to His fulfilling the role spoken of by the prophet, Daniel in Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus is Prophet, Priest and King. Calling Himself, "Son of Man" also, paired with "Son of God" indicates both His fully human qualities as well as His fully divine qualities.

John 1.14; Colossians 2.9, etc., speak gloriously of His incarnation; theologians speak of His hypostatic union, which is the union of the two natures, man and God at the same time. :)