Cain's offering

[KBKMNN]

I was curious because I'd never heard it like this before. Why did God reject Cain's offering? I've always thought it was because of the intent of his heart but I heard a pastor talking about it was because he did not use a blood sacrifice, but rather things from his crops since he was a farmer. Can anyone give me any input on this? I'd really appreciate it.

[Miss Molly]

Yes, it is because it was not a blood sacrifice as God had instructed. That blood sacrifice was intended to point to the future blood sacrifice of Jesus. The Jews were to repeat their blood sacrifices over and over so when the real blood sacrifice happened many years in the future, they would recognize it.
Cain decided to create his own religion, you might say. He decided worship should center around his own accomplishments.

[Hootmon]

Whether or not the lack of a 'blood sacrifice' was the main reason, Abel gave the 'best' of what he had whereas Cain gave 'some' of what he had...

And in the end of days, it happened, Cain brought to Jehovah an offering of the fruit of the ground. And Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat of it. (Gen 4:3-4a)

In either case, Cain 'didnt get it'...

[Biblenuggetlady]

I disagree, but that doesn't mean I am right. :o When God looked at Abel's sacrifice, "he had respect", this word means "to gaze at, by implication to inspect, to look about in bewilderment, also to have compassion". I think God looked down at the offerings and had compassion on Abel's sacrafice as it forshadowed His own Son Jesus' sacrafice. Again, Abel brought what was beloved to him-that is true, and he offered in faith with the right heart, whereas Cain brought crops, but not with the pure heart of Abel and possibly not even the best of his crop.

My study notes read:

That God accepted Abel's sacrafice and rejected Cain's was not based on the fact that Cain's sacrafice was bloodless. Many of the required OT offerings were bloodless (as meal and meat offerrngs). The difference was in the hearts of the two men. Abel offerred in faith (Heb. 11:4) while Cain did not. This basic difference is indicated by the wording in the passage: God "had respect unto Abel and to his offerring; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. Only when they are offered in faith do the sacrifices and service of men please God. (Is. 1:11-17; Eph. 6:5-7)

A VERY interesting consideration in the same chapter, is the recording of Lamech who came home and told his wives he'd killed a man to his wounding and a young man to his hurt. If Cain shall be avenged 7 fold, then Lamech 77 fold. It is believed by many that Lamech, while out with his son Tubal Cain who created weapons, they accidently killed Cain (slain a man to my wounding). In turn, Lamech had to kill his son for the death of Cain, that is the "and a young man to his hurt". Scripture is silent on this, but it is in the same chapter as the above and why else would Lamech be avenged 77? Others say that the 77 fold was just a boast being made by a bad man full of pride. :idunno

[ImHis]

A VERY interesting consideration in the same chapter, is the recording of Lamech who came home and told his wives he'd killed a man to his wounding and a young man to his hurt. If Cain shall be avenged 7 fold, then Lamech 77 fold. It is believed by many that Lamech, while out with his son Tubal Cain who created weapons, they accidently killed Cain (slain a man to my wounding). In turn, Lamech had to kill his son for the death of Cain, that is the "and a young man to his hurt". Scripture is silent on this, but it is in the same chapter as the above and why else would Lamech be avenged 77? Others say that the 77 fold was just a boast being made by a bad man full of pride. :idunno

interesting tidbit ..

& about your last sentence, when i read that in my own study, i wondered what gave this guy the right to pronounce *77 fold* on somebody? i finished my pondering, left wondering whether this guy was authorized to say that or was he wrong for saying it...:scratch

thanks for sharing... :hat

[Hootmon]

This basic difference is indicated by the wording in the passage: God "had respect unto Abel and to his offerring; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.Just to expand on that a bit...2429 - sha'a

Hebrew Word: sha'a
Strong's Cross Reference: 8159
Definition: look at, look to, regard. (ASV and RSV similar.)

sha'a is used fifteen times, mostly in the Qal, once in the Hiphil and twice in the Hithpael. Both Akkadian and Ugaritic have cognates in use. A frequent synonym is ra'a "see, " which is the most common verb relating to vision in general. Another verb with somewhat similar meaning is nabat "look, " in the Hiphil, also quite common. Its semantic range, though occasionally overlapping that of sha'a, is considerably broader.

The basic idea of sha'a is "to look at with interest." It is never a casual or disinterested glance. This can be seen in the following expanded definitions. In Gen_4:4-5, it means "to look at with approval, " "to approve of." Thus God approved of Abel, but not of Cain. And again in Isa_17:7-8 God says that the time is coming when a "man will regard his maker" and no more have regard for the altars which his hands have made.

The latter passage comes close to falling under the second meaning, "look to, " "look with expectation." Thus in Isa_31:1 Israel is described as going to Egypt for help, relying on horses, chariots, etc., and "not looking to" the Holy One of Israel.

The third meaning is "look away from, " used with the preposition min, always in the request meaning "leave me alone!" (Isa_22:4; Job_7:19; Job_14:6).

In one passage, Isa_32:3, the verb must be regarded either as a by-form of sha'a' "be blinded, " or repointed as the Qal of sha'a' (this involves no consonantal emendation). So virtually all commentators and translations.

The Hithpael, used twice, in Isa_41:10, Isa_41:23 means "look about in fear." H.J.A.

[Miss Molly]

my understanding has been that while bloodless sacrifices were indeed offered, a blood sacrifice was required for atonement of sin. By faith Abel offered up a more excellent sacrifice than Cain (Hebrews 11:4). And in Hebrews 12:22-24 we see that Jesus' blood now gives us a new and better covenant than the covenant the Jews had before through the blood of Abel. I doubt the "blood of Abel" mentioned here is his own personal blood since he did not freely offer it; it was taken. The blood he DID freely offer was the blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of his sins as he had been instructed to do by God. This is why God covered Adam and Eve with the animal skins...the skins required a blood sacrifice. No doubt this requirement was practiced by Adam and passed on to his sons. Cain decided to honor and worship in an unbiblical way.

Somebody please help me if I'm heading down the wrong path here...

[antitox]

There were other sacrifices from the fruit of the ground in the bible that were acceptable to God. I think the reason Cain's was not acceptable is because there was a problem with his heart from the outset, and this eventually resulted in his killing Abel.

This is why God told him that sin was couching at the door. In the New Testament he is referred to as being "of the evil one" in 1 John. I think there was a problem with Cain's condition before any sacrifice became an issue.

[Octopus]

I disagree, but that doesn't mean I am right. :o When God looked at Abel's sacrifice, "he had respect", this word means "to gaze at, by implication to inspect, to look about in bewilderment, also to have compassion". I think God looked down at the offerings and had compassion on Abel's sacrafice as it forshadowed His own Son Jesus' sacrafice. Again, Abel brought what was beloved to him-that is true, and he offered in faith with the right heart, whereas Cain brought crops, but not with the pure heart of Abel and possibly not even the best of his crop.

My study notes read:



A VERY interesting consideration in the same chapter, is the recording of Lamech who came home and told his wives he'd killed a man to his wounding and a young man to his hurt. If Cain shall be avenged 7 fold, then Lamech 77 fold. It is believed by many that Lamech, while out with his son Tubal Cain who created weapons, they accidently killed Cain (slain a man to my wounding). In turn, Lamech had to kill his son for the death of Cain, that is the "and a young man to his hurt". Scripture is silent on this, but it is in the same chapter as the above and why else would Lamech be avenged 77? Others say that the 77 fold was just a boast being made by a bad man full of pride. :idunno

Hi BNL,

You mention your study notes reads...the bold print the the whole paragraph. From what source does your study note derive the above statement from? Book of Enoch? Since you said scripture is silent on this which I agree.

[BlessedinHim]

I had understood that God was not pleased with Cain because of disobedience. He didnt follow the instructions given.