Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

We don't know.Presumably, Abel had to choose the best of his flock and "present" it to God in some way. Did God "receive" it up to heaven? If so, what would be the point in pre-killing it? Did God zap it with holy fire? Maybe, but nobody mentioned it.Similarly, Cain had to choose the best of his garden. He might have said to God, "You can have this cucumber and that ear of corn", or he might have "picked" them and "presented" them on an altar of some sort.Maybe God just said, "Thank you, Abel. I'm going to call him Earl"

---

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

We have been there and done that. Jesus' death was foreordained because He became mortal. It has nothing to do with shed blood or salvation.You are thinking backwards from Leviticus to Genesis. Only in Leviticus did the sacrifice have to be killed, for the sake of the priests, not for God's sake.God did not need a dead sheep, nor did He need a dead Son.

---

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

This directly contradicts Christ's message given before His death on the cross:"And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it, all of you,

​

For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." (Matthew. 26:27,28)He shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins. Ringo's heresy is that man does not need the blood of Christ for his redemption. You, reader, decide which you want to believe - Ringo or the Bible.

Ringo writes: Revelation 13:8 Christ is "the Lamb SLAIN from the foundation of the world." As far as taking away sins is concerned it is not simply that He was "mortal" from the foundation of the world. It is that He was "SLAIN ... from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).Note is not even that He expired or died. But He was "SLAIN". From the divine viewpoint, from God's perspective and from faith's perspective, the SLAYING of Christ to take away sins was ordained from the foundation of the world. Concerning the basic offering of the Levitical offerings - the consecration offering (1:1-17) it says:"And he shall lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him, to make expiation for him" (Leviticus 1:4) Therefore both the offerer and God were in need of the offering. The offerer needed to identify with the sacrifice by laying on his hands showing that he was one with that offering. And God needed to consume the offering with fire to demonstrate His wrath against sin.Furthermore it says that this offering was a satisfying fragrance to Jehovah:"But the inward parts and its legs he shall wash with water. Then the priest shall burn the whole on the altar, as a burnt offering by fire, a satisfying fragrance to Jehovah" (Lev.1:9)The typology here indicates that God the Father was totally satisfied with the inner being of His Son to the uttermost. His absolute obedience, His absolute consecration, and His total and absolute dedication to the will of the Father are a satisying "fragrance" to God. This was His beloved Son in Whom He had found His delight.The footnote of the Recovery Versions also reads: God needed a slain Savior and a resurrected one. And that is what He obtained.As far as I am concerned any discussion of Abel's sacrifice must include its typology to the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all. From the standpoint of Christian faith Christ is an intrinsic underlying truth of the story of Abel's and Cain's offerings."For this One having offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down forever on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12) All of the proper sacrifices in the Old Testament point to the obedience of Jesus Christ and the power of His blood to take away our sins.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 03:34 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 03:36 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-01-2006 03:53 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 01:34 AM

Nonsensical ("Kill myself to pay myself") and OFF TOPIC.

---

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

Jesus had nothing to do with the story in Genesis. It was not a prophecy for the future. The writer of the stories in Genesis were not looking for a human sacrifice to 'redeem' the world to come later.To fully understand Genesis, you have to look at Genesis in context with Genesis, not with what some people tried to tie into Genesis 800 years later.

Ramoss, This is really the crux of the argument. That is are the books of the Bible totally isolated and seperated self contained units which have nothing to do with each other? Or are the books unified under a common theme and overall scheme?Concerning this I take my explaination from the teachings of Christ Himself and His apostles. After His resurrection He opened the minds of the disciples to see that the the Old Testament spoke many things about Himself:"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself" (Luke 24:25-27)Christ did not say that Genesis had nothing to do with Him or His mission. Rather He explained clearly starting from Moses and from all the prophets what the Scripture revealed about Himself.Jesus reminded the disciples after His resurrection that He had even taught them this connection before His crucifixion:"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfulled" (Luke 24:44)Jesus therefore fulfilled many things revealed concerning Him in the Pentateuch, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms. And the Apostle Paul says that the Scripture foresaw events and spoke of them. Refering to Genesis 15:6 which says "And he believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness" Paul writes:"Even as 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.' Know then that they who are of faith, these are sons to Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles out of faith, announced the gospel beforehand to Abraham: 'In you shall all the nations be blessed.' So then they who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham." (Gal. 3:6-9)Here Paul says the Scripture foresaw something and announced it beforehand. That is justification by faith in the Jewish Messiah Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. No. For a more full understanding of Genesis in what you and I must understand today we need the whole Bible as context. We also need to realize that 800 years to God mean nothing. He is eternal. He is transcendent over all time. He inhabits eternity (Isa. 57:15).He is also the God who declares to us the end of timely events from the beginning - " ... I am God and there is no one else; I am God and there is no one like Me, Who declares the end from the beginning And things which have not been done from ancient times" (See Isa. 46:9,10).Even within Genesis itself we see this characteristic of God in the life of Joseph. The dream that God gave to Joseph was fulfilled marvelously. It showed that God knew what He would do latter from the beginning and revealed it to Joseph. Even the hatred of his brothers about Joseph's very dreams were the catalyst to bring about the fulfillment of those same dreams. We see God's sovereignty over human history, His foreknowledge, and His marvelous ability to fulfill His plans in spite of all obstacles and opposition.Learn then from Genesis itself that Genesis is not isolated and dislocated from the whole council of God in the other books of Scripture.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 01:20 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 01:23 AM

Jaywill,

​

Please keep on topic.

​

The original post (Message 1) is very specific and deals with a specific passage.

​

Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

​

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?

​

It was not about discussing future events.

​

Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Thank you

Why was Cain's sacrifice not accepted?"And Jehovah said to Cain, Why are you angry, and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? (Gen. 4:6,7)1.) Cain in offering did not do well.Why was Cain's sacrifice not accepted?"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ..." (Hebrews 11:4a).2.) Cain's sacrifice was rejected because it was less excellent.
3.) It was less excellent because Cain did not offer it "by faith"Why else was Cain's offering not accepted?" ... not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's, righteous" (1 John 3:12)4.) Cain's works (the works preceeding his murder of Abel) were evil.
5.) Cain's offering was not righteous.The end of the matter has been satisfied for me.
Cain did not "do well"
Cain's offering was less excellent.
Cain had not faith.
Cain's offering was an evil work.
Cain's offering was not a righteous work.The additional explanations I gave and succcesfully defended concerning the expiatory blood are my belief about contributing factors. These are based on a fuller comprehension of the whole Bible of which Genesis is the introductory book.But above for those who believe the Bible Hebrews 11:4 and First John 3:12 tell us why Cain's offering was rejected by God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 12:12 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 12:13 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 12:14 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 12:15 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 05-02-2006 12:26 PM

If you want to discuss a later book, you can discuss on how an earlier book has influenced the thinking in it. However, it is not valid to say a later book has influenced an earlier book.That being said.. nothing that is mentioned in Isaiah, or Luke or Paul
influenced the beliefs of the writer of Genesis. To understand what the writer(s) of Genesis though about Cain, we have to understand his
worldview. What did he believe? what was his assumptions? what did he want to convey?

It doesn't say that Cain didn't have faith. It doesn't say that Cain's evil works were before his anger and murder. "Less excellent", but still excellent.In your own words, God chose the better of two offerings.
He didn't choose the "right" one over the "wrong" one.

---

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

Well, you are mixing up a whole bunch of different viewpoints that various writers. The viewpoints of the various writers do not neccesearily be accumulative.Let's look at the viewpoint of the writer of Hebrewes. The writer of hebrews stressed that is it by FAITH.. in otherwards, just like Ringo has brought up. Cain's sacrifice was not 'as excellent' because of the attitude (Faith) in which it was offered.Then, let us look at John. [qs]

Well, you are mixing up a whole bunch of different viewpoints that various writers. The viewpoints of the various writers do not neccesearily be accumulative.Let's look at the viewpoint of the writer of Hebrewes. The writer of hebrews stressed that is it by FAITH.. in otherwards, just like Ringo has brought up. Cain's sacrifice was not 'as excellent' because of the attitude (Faith) in which it was offered.Then, let us look at John. Now, here you are mixing up cause and effect. Cain was jealous because
his sacrifice was not as acceptable. But, it is based on his actions..
and it does not explain WHY his work was evil, but only that it was based on his actions. Part of his actions is the attitude in which is sacrificed. Personally, I think John is full of it... the evil work that cain did was become jealous of being less favored because of his bad attitude.You have to remember that 'rightousness' and 'evil' in the Jewish faith is based on actions, not faith. Judiasm is a works based religion, and many of the concepts in Judism that are based on works in judaism is based on faith in Christianity. When analysing particuarly the older books in the Old testament, that has to be taken into account.

Ramoss,Your comments do invite some need for discussion. But I think I will leave this topic. My thoughts have been expressed.I think a comment on "religion of faith" verses "religion of works" will be flagged as off topic.Carry on.

Ramoss, If you open up a discussion on the Jewish and (or verses) the Christian view of the Levitical offerings, we could have a good discussion. I thought this was a good post. In fact there were offerings without blood.Here seems not to the place to address these larger issues of the Levitical offerings.This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-04-2006 07:26 PM