ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Cain's Offering Unacceptable

Why was Cain's offering not acceptable to God and Abel's was?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Obedience Bible Quiz
 ---mikefl on 11/20/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (7)

Post a New Blog



I would go as far as to say he had faith in God, where Cain didn't. "For everything good comes from above" and his good intentions for God had to come from God.
---Mark_V. on 11/12/10

MarkV, I believe Hebrews 11:4 CLEARLY explain.
Unfortuantely, you see everything through the TULIP mentality. Was Abels faith in God, or faith in the Coming redeemer promised Genesis 3:15? Abels faith was based upon a BETTER SACRIFICE, just as Christ Himself became a better sacrifice than OT animal sacrifice.
Faith has nothing to do with OUR Good intentions FOR GOD. Its faith in Gods GOOD intentions for mankind!
---kathr4453 on 11/12/10


I do believe that it was the intention of the heart why Able's gift was good and not Cains. But Able's offering was acceptable not just because the intentions from his heart was good, or just because it was an animal, nor just because it was the very best of what he had, but also because it was in every way obediently given according to what God must have revealed (though not recorded in Genesis). Cain destain the Divine instruction and just brought what he wanted to bring.
So in effect it had many reasons, and just to point one I believe does an injustice to the passage. I would go as far as to say he had faith in God, where Cain didn't. "For everything good comes from above" and his good intentions for God had to come from God.
---Mark_V. on 11/12/10


\\2nd Cain did not give his very best...pride\\

Please prove from scripture, giving BCV, where Cain did not give his very best.

You made the assertion, you must be able to prove it.
---Cluny on 11/11/10


Have you read the story in the Bible? Then you can tell from what was said by Cain that it was not his very best or from his heart. His pride caused him to disobey what God specifically told him to do. Cain looked down on Abel as a sheep herder. He thought he was better than his brother. That is pride, Cluny.
Not an assertion but truth. God wants our best. He wants 100% of us, not pride.
---ginger on 11/11/10


Gen. 4:3 "And in process of time (God told them what they must do or how would they have known) it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD."

Gen. 4:4 "And Abel he also brought of the firstlings (the best) of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:

Cains sacrifice can't shed blood. Abel brings a blood sacrifice.(Heb.9:22)

Gen. 4:5 "But unto Cain and to his offering he (God) had not respect...

Heb 11:4 "By faith (taking God at His Word) Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by (faith, not the sacrifice) which he obtained witness that he was righteous, (Heb 11:6)
---michael_e on 11/11/10


\\2nd Cain did not give his very best...pride\\

Please prove from scripture, giving BCV, where Cain did not give his very best.

You made the assertion, you must be able to prove it.
---Cluny on 11/11/10




No evidence that God have any instructions to Cain and Abel about what might be a valid sacrifice.
---Juanito on 11/11/10


1st Cain did not offer blood...disobedience

2nd Cain did not give his very best...pride

3rd Cain did not believe God....unbelief

The sin of disobedience, pride and unbelief.

All sinners display this when God comes to them to draw them close to him. (This happen through preaching, teaching and witnessing og God's word)
It is the reason why people in sin don't get saved.
They hear but do not listen. Exactly as Cain did with God.
He heard every single word God said to him yet he did not listen!
That is why Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable
---ginger on 11/11/10


Also MarkV, you mention Abel's best flock, in the OT the Best, spotless, without blemish was also required. It pointed to the SPOTLESS Lamb of God, whom Jesus was/is...sinless.

Giving YOUR BEST no matter what cannot save you. It didn't matter if Cain's was or wasn't his best. God didn't ask for THEIR best, he asked for BLOOD!!

Your correct mima....nothing BUT THE BLOOD!!! form Genesis through Revelation!!!
---kathr4453 on 11/11/10


That is myt unerstanding as well, MarkV.
Although I take the fat of the flock to be the best and the firstlings to be understanding from Who his gifts truly came.
Much like the firstborn of Israel.
---micha9344 on 11/11/10


\\The word of God does not say, the best he could give,\\

Doesn't say it wasn't, either.
---Cluny on 11/11/10




//Why was Cain's offering not acceptable to God and Abel's was?//

Heb.9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Cain should have known "you can't get blood out of a turnip"
---michael_e on 11/11/10


MarkV, it was Abel's FAITH ...Faith is believing what God said. Cain did not do or believe what God said, showing no faith.

Markv, Hebrews 11 starts with ABEL'S FAITH and the chapter continues with FAITH...believing/obeying God and what He asks!

Today we are saved BY GRACE ( Grace is something we can't do, as it is the FINISHED work of Christ) through faith (faith is what WE DO!!

OT people believed BY FAITH in the Messiah, just as Abel's sacrifice acknowledged....something he could do and DID through the knowledge shown him and God's Words Genesis 3:15 given to Adam-Eve.

God didn't ask for a blood sacrifice for no good reason....it pointed to Christ! Just as OT sacrifices under Law did !
---kathr4453 on 11/11/10


Good thoughts Mark_V.

I don't think the texts can disprove your theory, however it doesn't SEEM quite right to me.
Here's my analogy to explain why:
A father asks/tells his two sons to each bring him a cake with no other instructs or implied expectations. One son brings a highly decorated, 3 tier, homemade red velvet cake...and the father is pleased. The other son brings a store bought flat cake with no decorations...and the father rejects it.?!
That doesn't make any sense unless the father had previously taught his son what will and what won't please him.
Therefore it only make sense to me that Cain disappointed the Father due to his disobedience.
---AG on 11/11/10


My interpretation of why God accepted Abels gift over Cain is different then most of you. It was not obedience that is the point in the story of Abel and Cain, it is the intention of the heart of Cain. Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground. The word of God does not say, the best he could give, so he just brought something but not the best. Abel, on the other hand, brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. The firstborn are always considered the best animals. Abel thought of bringing the best he had to the Lord, in order to please Him. When God did not respect Cains gift he got angry. And since God is Omniscient, He knew that Cain would get angry. God asked him to repent in (v. 7)
---Mark_V. on 11/11/10


My understanding is that it was te Spirit in chich the gifs were given.
---Doctor_Mockinbird on 11/8/10


Many good and different ideas presented here but the answer to the question comes down to one word-BLOOD-.
---mima on 11/8/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


Its all about obedience. God has grace, at the same time he desires obedience.
---AG on 11/8/10


this is one of the simplest things in the bible:
One did exactly what God asked, the other did what he felt should be acceptable by God.

This is not only a true story, it is an alegory: Some people who profess to be christians do what they want and think it is acceptable to God, other do as God asks.

Those who do as they please and think it is acceptable to God usually " kill" those who do as God asks.
---francis on 11/8/10


Because Abel gave the very best he had. Cain did not.
---catherine on 11/7/10


--Could it be Cain's attitude and not his gifts?--
---micha9344 on 11/4/10

No. It's no different than those today who hate Christians. Cain hated Abel out of Jealousy/envy. Because Abel's gift was accepted by God and Cains was not.

Remember too, when sin entered God cursed the ground..so anything growing was cursed to begin with.

Just as anything remaining in it's original earthly state..like our unregenerate flesh /is not acceptable to God or anything we do in the flesh is unacceptable to God.

Through Abel's sacrifice he was acknowledging NOTHING of himself or anything he had to give could buy God's favor!
---kathr4453 on 11/5/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


Gen 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
--just fruit?--
Gen 4:4 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:
--fat flock firstlings--
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
--gifts to God--
1Jo 3:12 Not as Cain, [who] was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.
--Could it be Cain's attitude and not his gifts?--
---micha9344 on 11/4/10


Can I just take it a little further back than Cain and Abel? God spoke with Adam, walked and talked with him in the cool of the day. He shared His heart with Adam. Adam knew God as Father. If the preeminent thing on God's mind was that Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, would He have not shared that eternal truth with Adam? I say yes. Adam knew about that Lamb slain, the provision of God. When Adam ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he did it in full disclosure of the Lamb. He chose that fruit and God placed a testimony through type in the earth of that sacrifice. When He drove Adam out, He sent him eastward, which pictures the dawning of a new day, pointing man back to the Light of the world.
---Linda on 11/4/10


When adam and eve sinned, god/ jesus killed and lamb, and demonstrated to them the plan of salvation, (without the shedding of blood no remission for sins).

Once the boys were old enough they started to make their own offerings. That is what the phrase " in the process of tme: means.

Cain eventually started to bring fruit which has no blood but was the best work of his hand.

Abel brough a lamb which was killed and had blood.

Although Cain's offering MAY HAVE BEEN the very best fruits, his sin could not be forgiven because there was no shedding of blood.
---francis on 11/4/10


WOW!!! Great point!!

But then again Linda, openly at least three times scripture states Christ became sin for us.

In Corinthians, Isaiah 53 and Peter stating Jesus bore OUR SIN in his own body. Now they reject this truth. So my question is,....EXACTLY foundation are they standing? How can you have FAITH in a fact you reject to begin with> OUR FAITH is that Jesus became sin for us. Without that FACT of truth...there is no salvation!

Their faith is that God picked their names out of hat...

I too can conger up a fictitious faith and believe through manipulation of scripture God saves only those He knows how many hairs are on their heads!!
---kathr4453 on 11/4/10


Send a Free Funny Valentine Ecard


\\but if the blood of bulls and goats could save the whole nation of Israel,\\

But the thing is--it COULD NOT and DID NOT.

And should the Temple be restored, WILL NOT.
---Cluny on 11/4/10


I don't know if Christan said that or not, but if the blood of bulls and goats could save the whole nation of Israel, then of a surety the blood of Jesus can save the whole world. To say the type saved all and the true saved a few is to elevate the type over the true and trample under foot the blood of the sacrifice.
---Linda on 11/4/10


Absolutely Linda I totally agree. Nothing was kept secret here only revealed to certain people. How ridiculous is that??? Israel as a WHOLE also sacrificed, as God further laid the pattern of Christ in all these, as well as the Mercy seat, etc.

Now I believe christian made some sort of statement ALL Israel was saved under the blood of bulls and goats??? yet, not only a select secret society is saved, because everyone else is so depraved to even understand to begin with?

What a contradiction of thought! So then under Israel, salvation was universal to them by BIRTHRIGHT alone?

It gets more and more bazaar!!! Or does it mean one can sin sin sin( like Israel) and still be saved?? Get Out!
---kathr4453 on 11/4/10


Could this be as simple as Abel hearing his father Adam speak of the coats of animal skins God clothed he and Eve with before He drove them out of the garden? Faith originated in God and was expressed in His words and works revealed to man. Abel heard of what God did and did the same....offered the life of another instead of the works of his own hands and found that offering accepted because it was a shadow or type of the true sacrifice to come.
---Linda on 11/3/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


And how did Abel received his faith? Answer: "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9)

So, the gift of faith was only given to Abel and never to Cain.
---christan on 9/30/10

Grace is not the GIFT of Faith. GRACE is the FINISHED work of Jesus Christ vs the LAW Read Gal 2:20-21. Galatians also tells us that when Jesus ROSE again the Holy Spirit was promised and given to Gentiles.

Noone in the OT was saved by GRACE through faith.

You never see the word GRACE in Hebrews 11..but we see FIATH, and no where is it implied it was Given as a GIFT, but is showing us what faith MEANS by God's standards!!
---kathr4453 on 11/3/10


Simply put, only Abel received faith from God and not Caine, period.
---christan on 9/30/10

christian, that is NOT wahat scripture tells us.
WHEN Abel offered the perfect sacrifice for SIN THEN he found favor in God's eyes...not before.

AND Cain was given a second chance to do what was right.

Therefore it has nothing to do with Abel I loved and CAin I hated mentality!!!

Faith is obeying what YOU KNOW to do and do it. It's not a POWER given to us, but an attitude!!!!

Cain and Abel PROVE Calvinism is a LIE!!
---kathr4453 on 11/3/10


Cain's best had nothing to do with it.
God was asking for a blood sacrifice, for sin.

It was not a freewill offering, we do not give freewill oferings for sin.

This was a sin offering.

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, SIN lieth at the door.
---francis on 9/30/10


"But without faith it is impossible to please him." (Heb 11:6) "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh." (Heb 11:5)

"For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8,9)

Simply put, only Abel received faith from God and not Caine, period.
---christan on 9/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


The simple answer to this blog is found in Hebrews 11. First of all, remember that -

"But without faith it is impossible to please him..." (Hebrews 11:6). This is why Abel's sacrifice of the lamb was accepted by God - "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh." (verse 5)

And how did Abel received his faith? Answer: "For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8,9)

So, the gift of faith was only given to Abel and never to Cain.
---christan on 9/30/10


Strongaxe: I don't remembers seeing in the first few chapters of Genesis where God ask for or demanded any sacrifice, blood or grain. These were free will offerings, but had to be given with a purpose of worship like Abel, not out of expectation like Cain.
---Harold on 9/30/10


Cain did not offer his best.
And a little spell checking and proofreading would be helpful, francis.
Spelling Cain three different ways when the first one you cut and pasted was correct should've helped you.
Unless your emotions are getting the better of you.
---micha9344 on 9/30/10


Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Genesis 4:3 And IN PROCESS OF TIME it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.

Genesis 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

IN THE PROCESS OF TIME: Indicating that when they weer old enough to make their own sacrifices. then cain rebeled against the lord.

SIN LIETH AT THE DOOR: Indication that is was a sacrifice for sin and that God and Can both knew that cane could do better.
---FRANCIS on 9/30/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


francis:

You said:
StrongAxe, I see what you are saying, but the sacrifice that God wanted from him was not his best, but what God had commanded.

He may have brought the very best of his fruits and agricultural produce, but that was not what God asked for.

God was asking for a blood sacriice, for sin.
Cain refused thinking that God should accept the best that Cain had to offer


Genesis 4 tells the whole story of Cain and Abel. There is no record of what kind of sacrifice God commanded - or that he even commanded any kind of sacrifice at all. There is no mention of blood sacrifice for sin. All of this is reading between the lines. The plain fact is that Genesis does not elaborate on these things at all.
---StrongAxe on 9/29/10


StrongAxe, I see what you are saying, but the sacrifice that God wanted from him was not his best, but what God had commanded.

He may have brought the very best of his fruits and agricultural produce, but that was not what God asked for.

God was asking for a blood sacriice, for sin.
Cain refused thinking that God should accept the best that Cain had to offer.

There are other Bible stories like this:
Numbers 3:4 And Nadab and Abihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai,

2 Samuel 6:7 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God smote him there for his error, and there he died by the ark of God.

Any lessons for us as christians?
---francis on 9/29/10


Because Abel gave the best that he had, and Cain didn't want to. Cain's was more out of an obligation, and not from his heart.
---catherine on 9/28/10


francis:

It was easy for Able to offer a sacrifice with blood, because his livelihood was raising animals. But Cain's livelihood was raising plants. What kind of sacrifice would he have been expected to make, since he had nothing with blood to sacrifice?

Also, there are other places in the Bible where people are commanded to make sacrifices of agricultural products.
---StrongAxe on 9/28/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.
---francis on 9/28/10


Gordon:

Which government do you think is more evil? Obama's, or Caesar's? And if Obama, why?

Caesar conquered other nations, forced them to worship other gods (including himself), extorted tax monies from them, and used those taxes to raise armies to conquer even more nations. The United States (under Obama or anyone else) does none of these things.

Yet Jesus did not decry Caesar as evil or antichrist - he said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesear's".
---StrongAxe on 9/28/10


StrongAxe, GOD set up the body of the Government for ruling in Truth, Justice and Righteousness. And, NO, they're not going to be perfect, nor are all of the leaders going to be Christian, but, that is missing the point. They ARE, regardless of they're being Christian or not, to rule with moral standards and to lead by doing what is best for the common people. America is to be ruled under her Constitution with Religious Freedom! That's a vital part of America! Obama is doing his part to transition this Free Republic into the New World Order/Anti-Christ government. He's helping to oust Christian Freedom and, in turn, allow Islamic "freedom". And, some of us Christians are just setting back, watching it happen without even a word.
---Gordon on 9/27/10


Because Cain's was a BLOODLESS offering!!
---kathr4453 on 9/27/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


Gordon:

Just as in today's US we have a separation of powers (Congress, Courts, Executive), the Bible also lists several ruling offices that have very different jurisdictions - Prophet, Priest, and King.

When people are electing a president, they are electing someone whose job it is to take care of the country and the economy (i.e. the ruler, or king). They are not electing a prophet or priest. Those jobs belong to other people.
---StrongAxe on 9/25/10


StrongAxe, Of course the economy's important. My point was that people care more about the economy than they do about GOD, Morality and the future of their souls. The reason why nations fall is because of unGodliness and immorality. GOD lifts up nations and HE takes them down. And HIS main reason for knocking nations down is for their forgetfulness and disregard for HIM, and for their wickedness, debauchery and immorality. America fits in all four of these categories today as we speak. People need to be most concerned about their SOULS and that, in relation to their Creator, and tie up spiritual loose-ends with said Creator before their appointed time of Death. Money can't deliver them from Hell, only GOD can.
---Gordon on 9/25/10


Cluny, What I meant was, was that Obama was the WORSE of the two. Thanks for the grammatical correction. And that's all fine and dandy about you voting for your Baptist sunday-school teacher for President. But, Chuck Baldwin was the real deal. Unfortunately, the regular public media barely gave him exposure, if any. They focused more on Obama and McCain. Baldwin would've made a decent President, for he follows GOD, and he understands the U.S. Constitution and how this country ought to be guided. But, in these Last Days, people don't want, by and large, someone with spiritual convictions and morals. They want someone to bring this country back into economic prosperity, for this country worships the almighty dollar and pleasure, not GOD. :-(
---Gordon on 9/25/10


Hebrews 11:4 says it was because Abel's offering was given in faith that is was acceptable. Cain' gift was not rejected because it was grain, there are grain and wave offering in the Old Testament. He gave what he had but he gave it without faith, expecting God to bless the offering, and to give Cain a blessing simply because of the gift.
People today expect God's blessings because they fill the offering plate, feed the poor, teach the word, but all without allowing his Lordship to rule their lives. This too does not work. Faith is dead without works (James), but works are always dead without faith.
---Harold on 9/24/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


\\Obama being the worst of the two.\\

You can't have "worst of the two". "Worst" is the superlative, and requires at least three.

\\ I voted for a Baptist Preacher/Columnist named Charles "Chuck" Baldwin. He is a very moral Christian man. He ran in the Constitutionalist Party. \\

I voted for a moral Baptist Sunday School teacher for President, and he was singularly ineffectual in that office.
---Cluny on 9/24/10


Gordon:

While that may be true, it's also hard to worship God if you're dead because you can't afford food or necessary health care. While the Economy may not be all-important, it's still important.
---StrongAxe on 9/24/10


StrongAxe, I did not vote for Obama, nor did I vote for McCain. Both of those two men are EVIL. Obama being the worst of the two. I voted for a Baptist Preacher/Columnist named Charles "Chuck" Baldwin. He is a very moral Christian man. He ran in the Constitutionalist Party. Too bad he lost. Too bad people wanted not someone who would have stood for the most important issues, like: MORALITY, TRUE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM of worshipping the ONE True GOD in Freedom. No, many people were more concerned about temporary things like the Economy. :-(
---Gordon on 9/23/10


Helen_5378:

So, since Cain was a farmer who raised grain (and not livestock), just what kind of sacrifice WOULD have been acceptable from him?

I also suspect that you would get strong objections from farmers if you suggested that raising livestock doesn't involve hard work (i.e. work of the hands) - both Cain and Abel had to put in a lot of work for their sacrifices.
---StrongAxe on 9/23/10


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Jared gave the best answer to the question and what he says is very true. I believe if some go back and read what his response was they will see that very clearly. Cain was disobedient, and instead of been sorry, he got angry at God. It was a matter of the heart.
---MarkV. on 9/23/10


This might be relevant to it beening his heart and intent behind the failed acceptance of the offering. It's a Buhdist story but is relatable to Christianity. A monk grows up in a sanctuary, he is poor, and as often as he can, he donates 3 pennies worth of his income which leaves him broke. The master monk always praises him. Later on in life he becomes wealthy. He donates 1 million dollars. However the master is not pleased. The monk wonders why. Master replies, "when you were poor, you gave all, leaving yourself broke in the name of "love" though it was only 3 pennies. Now you donate 1 million, but you still have billions in the bank". It might be more but it doesn't equate. I think this could apply to the nonacceptance
---dustin on 9/22/10


What is faith? Why did Cain need it. God was present and faith I don't believe was needed for Cain to believe that. God was with Cain in a very real way that didn't require faith as we believe faith is.

Secondly,
Blood being acceptable and grain not? I won't even justify that as a reason..unless death of innocence is what God desires (some in Islam may believe this...but I don't).

Third,
first fruits not given...but Abel gave 'first fruits'....Cain gave just willy nilly..and no real sacrifice of his fruits?If Cain didn't really care about his sacrifice and how God felt about it...why was he so upset when God didn't accept it? Why was he depressed? Does that sound like a man who doesn't want to please God?
---mike on 3/22/09


"an offering of first-fruits to the Lord"
is different from "an offering of the fruits"
---dsda on 7/21/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Gen. 3:17 God to Adam "cursed is the ground for thy sake";Gen 4 God refused Cains offering ,and Cain slew Able. Gen 4:7 God tells Cain if he doesn't do well,sin lieth at the door. Ground was cursed, because of sin it was,so it follows the offering of grain Cain brought would also be tainted with sin and curse,that is why God refused Cain's offering. Sheep eat the grain it doesn't stay ,but is passed out so the curse wouldn't stay on them,therefore, he would accept Abels Sacrifice.
---Darlene_1 on 11/24/06


God did not accept Cain's sacrifice because it was the works of his hands, representing justification by works. God did accept Abel's sacrifice because it represented the death of Jesus on the Cross - justification by faith.
---Helen_5378 on 11/24/06


Alan, hold on to those thoughts when you are talking to those who say God picks and chooses. Also remember God gave Cain a second chance to do right. The greatest gift we can give God is to receive His Son. It was at a great price. To overlook this, and give God something else He doesn't want is the greatest insult of all. Also Cain was very aware of God, had conversations with Him, etc. Not preaching at you, just equipping you.
---kathr4453 on 11/23/06


to kahr: we have nothing to give. but we have what we got to give back.this might be the reason of why "cain" means "get".
Gen 4:1 ...she became with child and gave birth to Cain, and said, I have got a man from the Lord. cain was a man from the Lord and a farmer. the second Abel was a keeper.
so the farmer did not give his best while the keeper gave his best to the Lord.
---dsda on 11/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


Kathr ... I have leeked at what I said, and at what Jared wrote, and wonder why it is at me that you are preaching?
---AlanUK_quent5969 on 11/22/06


There is no evidence at all that God had commanded any sacrifice or that God had to kill an animal to provide clothing for Adam and Eve. All through the Bible God accepted offerings from the fruit of the ground. God spoke to Cain about his life being out of order in Gen 4:7. That is the only real evidence we have.
---john on 11/22/06


Alan #2
We have nothing to give God. God never asked us to give anything. He asked us to receive what HE GAVE. His Son who died in our place. As sinners we have nothing but our sinful lives to exchange for the Righteousness of the Life of Christ in us. Paul said, no longer I but Christ in me, the Hope of Glory. Cain had pride and would not admit he had nothing to give that was acceptable to God. He never humbled himself, to receive God's Gift to him, a covering for his lost and sinful fallen nature.
---kathr4453 on 11/22/06


Alan, God established from the time Adam & Eve sinned the Gospel. God covered them in animal skins, representing the sacrifice of blood. This was promised in Genesis 3:15, that a redeemer would come. They taught their children what was acceptable to God. Abel was obedient, Cain was not. Abel represents those who have put their faith in the Redeener to come. Cain represents all others who are trying to come to God in their own way...self effort.
---kathr4453 on 11/22/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


"Cain brought of the fruit of the earth, an offering to YHWH. And Abel...brought...of the firstlings of his sheep...of the best of them, ...YHWH looked to Abel and to his offering, but to Cain and to his offering, looked he not...Cain was enraged...and skulked. Then YHWH said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why skulk you? Will not if you give well, receive? but if however grudging, then your sin lies open in the door: Notwithstanding let it be subdued to you, and see you rule it." Genesis 4:3-7.
---Eloy on 11/21/06


Jared, I could not have said it any better than you. When I read the responses concerning blood int he sacrafice my mind also went to the grain offering. Thank you for posting what I was thinking.
---Ryan on 11/22/06


Amen Jared. Apart from the law there is no sin. The parents were given a law, however there is no mention of the children having received any commandment to follow. The offerings were offerings of appreciation for the blessings of the Lord. Cain showed disrespect for the Father by not offering his best. In Verse 6&7 the Father clearly explain that to Cain. "If thou doest well, shalt not thou be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door". It was a matter of the heart.
---Josef on 11/21/06


I have always been taught that Abel's gift was acceptable because he gave of his best and first, whilt Cain did not.
I think his gift was more valuable because it involved the sacrifice of a valuable asset, rather than the killing and drawing blood
---AlanUK_quent5969 on 11/21/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


those of you that are saying that Cain's wasn't acceptable because it lacked blood need to look at the sacrifices of the bible again. there were more grain offerings than blood. Cain was unacceptable because of his intent and heart. he didn't give first he gave leftovers. He didn't give his best, but he gave what he didn't want. and his heart was not in worship but in duty. God spoke to cain and said if you did good your offering would have been acceptable.
---Jared on 11/21/06


Key to understanding why Cain's offering was unacceptable is for us to see God wants us to always give Him our best. After all, He has always & yet continues to give us His best. This is a recurring Bible theme.

Abel reverently gave God his best (firstfruit). Cain merely, "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." He obviously didn't bring God his best. Cain was nonchalant, irreverent (disrespectful) & just brought God "some fruit".
---Leon on 11/21/06


mima and laure5759 are correct.

* Matthew, now I understand why you don't understand Hebrews 10. You quoted it on the backsliding blog, and yet your answer here reveals you have no understanding that the sacrifice of Jesus for our sin was once and for all.
---kathr4453 on 11/21/06


greetings.Cain ,the 'cultivator' was a farmer.Even in today's enviroment killing or herding the beasts of the field is recognized as a worthy achievement over the 'fruits' of one's labor.Today farmers recieve little recognition for their efforts.That is why many have left the fields to seek higher pay.Many farmers rely on the government,contributions and fund raising to survive.Immigrants now farm and harvest the fields in mass numbers for cheap wages.Who is recognized most ,the rancher or farmer?
---earl on 11/21/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Cain's offering was without blood. Therefore there was no life in Cain's offering. Abel's offering on the other hand was a blood offering.(Life is in the blood) There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood therefore Cain's offering did not remove or cover His sin. The boys understood blood offerings from what they had heard from their father and mother. Adam and Eve's were covered and they will be in heaven!
---mima on 11/21/06


God requires the taking of a life - blood - for forgiveness. Abel's offering was the taking of such a life, while Cain's did not cost anything except some labour. This is my understanding.
---laure5759 on 11/21/06


I have heard 2 interpretations for this and I believe the latter.
1. Abel gave his first of Gods gifts back to God. The first of his flock. Where cain did not give his first of what God gave him.
2. Abel gave back to God what God gave to him. Though Cain gave to God what came from the work of his hands.Again I say I believe it's the second I don't know if that is the correct interpretation. God bless.
---Matthew on 11/21/06


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.