Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

Genesis 4, NLT: Did God reject Cain's offering because it wasn't the best of his crops, or was it because, unlike Abel's, it was not a blood offering?I tend to think the former, because the description of Abel's offering implies that it was of the best: "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." (KJV) However, many prefer to think the latter is the case, perhaps because God had cursed the ground before he drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:17).

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I think its because cain didn't care what he brought and his additude showed he didn't care about bringing the best of his crop
the thing is able's offering wasn't a blood sacrifice, i think god didn't demand those until after the flood or maybe after he brought the hebrews out of egypt
It doesn't imply that he cursed the ground to worthlessness as people think, god only cursed it to make adam work for his food, many of the early offerings were accepted if the person meant thanks and not just doing it because they have to

probably a translational/cultural context issue. the essential contrast is here:

quote:

---

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.

​

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:

---

the standard reading is that cain brought the "fruit" that had already fallen from the plants, not the best of his crop, whereas abel brought his best.personally, i see nothing in the text to indicate that "fruit of the ground" means anything other than cain's crop, as a "tiller of the ground." for whatever reason, god is unpleased -- and the reason is never given. so anything anyone could say here is really a guess.my guess, personally, is that god was testing cain. who knows why god does stuff? the god of genesis is all too human, unfair, and jealous. it can cause some problems when we try to fit the more modern interpretations of god onto this text.(cain couldn't have brought a blood offering, btw, since he didn't raise a flock.)

---

arachnophilia

quote:

---

who knows why god does stuff? the god of genesis is all too human, unfair, and jealous. it can cause some problems when we try to fit the more modern interpretations of god onto this text.

---

Which, I think, makes more sense than an ever unchanging god.Before there was a universe and Adam and Eve, god was alone. In other words, god had nothing to interact with or observe.In the 30's, officials were shocked to discover a 7 year old locked in a family barn. She was the result of a very conservative christian's daughter's out of wedlock pregnancy. The family, mainly the father, thought that the child was a curse and so locked her in the barn and only allowed the mother, his daughter, to give the child food. Even though the child was 7 years old, she had the mentality of a 6 months old. Years of extreme neglect and a total lack of human interaction, or rather interaction with anything at all, had completely dwarfed this child's natural development.This, unfortunately, was not an isolated case. In the US alone, there have been many examples of such child abuse and all of them resulted in the victims' total lack of mental development.I have a friend whose family adopted a child from Korea. When they were packing in the hotel getting ready to fly back to the US with the newly adopted child, the accidently locked the suitcase with the child's finger trapped in the suitcase. His finger broke. The thing was he didn't cry or even made a noise. Again, years of neglect had resulted in an inability to react to such a pain as a broken finger.My point is before the universe was created, god had nothing to interact with. This would explain greatly the apparent immaturity in god's actions throughout the old testament. In other words, Adam and Eve were children, and looking at the great scheme of things god was also a child still figuring out how to react to certain things.Would a fully matured being with an infinitely vast sense of morality order the raping and killing of men, women, children, and animal of an entire race? Would a fully matured father figure with an infinitely vast sense of morality and understanding demand his children to pay respect to him regularly, constantly reminding them that he raised them therefore they are in his debt?

I cannot take for granted what the book fo Hebrews says about Cain and Abel:"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous. God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he has died, he still speaks" (Hebrews 11:4)Since I believe that Christ is the center of the Bible the story of Cain and Abel's sacrifice has something to do with Christ as the book of Hebrews teaches. Abel was righteous in God's economy and Cain was not. The sacrifice being accepted from Abel by God indicates that Abel was right with God. Cain was not right with God but was exhorted to be so.Cain's reaction was jealousy, murder, and expulsion with God's further mercy being upon him.But I think that Abel received his instructions on sacrificial worship from his parents Adam and Eve. And I think Cain received instructions also but became inventive, presuming to develop his own way to offer sacrifice before God. I believe that though Cain and Abel received instructions from their parents, Cain made light of those instructions and took a way of originality.I believe that the instructions that Adam and Eve passed on to their children was that of blood sacrifice. They had seen God slay animals to provide them coverings. They seemed to have no cause to eat animals until God allowed them off a vegetarian diet in Genesis 9:1-3.It is likely that the animals raised by Abel were for milk, clothing, and sarifice.Of course Cain's work was important to their livelihood also. But the crops were not received as an offering. The blood of the animals was received by God as an offering. Genesis does not tell us the reason for Abel's acceptance except that Abel did well and was accepted and Cain had sin crouching in his heart and did not do well. But he could do well and also be accepted.There is so much blood accociated with the Levitical sacrifices. Though there are meal offerings which did not involve blood, still the intruments of the sacrifice were themselves sprinkled with blood.The presence of the blood had something to do with Abel's faith and righteousness. The absence of the blood had something to do with Cain's self invented offering and unrighteousness.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 07:04 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 07:06 AM

You seem to obsess a lot about 'blood' sacrifice. That is not very biblical. The torah does not say directly, but I have to agree that
Abel gave the best, and cain gave second best.Throught the entire Tankah, it is shown that blood sacrifice is not the only accepted sacrifice, and indeed is often not the prefered sacrifice.

Actually Cain did bring a blood offering which was totally rejected, rejected for all time. That is why ever since that day, you can't get blood from a turnip.But back to why one offering was rejected, as mentioned, the difference seems to be the sincerity of the two. No where in the Bible is it really made clear, and yet you would think that outlining the steps for making a proper offering would have been really important.That omission makes one wonder if that was really essential to the story or whether the whole story of Cain & Able was actually about something else.Since the Garden of Eden/Adam & Eve tale is the older of the two Creation Tales in the Bible, it's possible that in this tale we are actually seeing a reference to the conflicts between the settled farmer and the nomadic herder. This could be a rememberance of the Good Old Days following the herds that were killed off by agriculture.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The torah does not say directly

---

Another one of those stories that doesn't really give specifics.Normally when stories don't give those types of specifics, it is because that isn't the point of the story. The clash is a means to the end.Could this story simply have been a setup for the people who descended from Cain and how they came to be where and who they are?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

It all depends on what you mean. It probably was trying to explain why people are everyplace. Sometimes, trying to find a deeper meaning just leads you up a false path, or just reinforces a preconception you already have, rather than the point of the story.

Possibly. Yet it would seem that the lineage of Cain was academic, since (presumably) all of his descendants were wiped out at the flood. Noah's ancestry is traced from Adam through Seth, Cain's brother.

quote:

---

Possibly. Yet it would seem that the lineage of Cain was academic, since (presumably) all of his descendants were wiped out at the flood. Noah's ancestry is traced from Adam through Seth, Cain's brother.

---

Since they are not related, odds are the stories weren't originally told together. Each had its purpose. They weren't necessarily trying to support each other.Even the ancestry of Noah may be another writer.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

jar, Obsessed? Why in the world would you say that? On this Forum I have written 20 times more about the life of God than about the atoning blood. The Torah does record God saying that the expiation of sins has its foundation in the blood of the Levitical sacrifices."For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you to make expiation for your souls on the altar, for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Leviticus 17:11)The Torah puts great emphasis on the expiatory blood. Do you not agree with this?This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-03-2006 07:19 PM

Blood was the symbol of life. Sacrificing animals was symbolic of sacrificing our life to God.Produce from a field was important but not symbolic of life. Therefore Cain's offer was unacceptable.Those who only produce grain could have bartered or purchased a worthy sacrificial animal.

Funny, I don't see any "emphasis" on blood. I don't see any mention of blood at all:

quote:

---

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.
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:
Gen 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

---

The only hint we have about what Cain did wrong is that he was angry at God's reaction.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC