Offerings of Cain and Able

[Salty]

Genesis chapter 3 tells us that God accepted Ables offing of a Lamb.
but rejected Cain's offering of his garden.

Mosaic law, grain offerings were welcomed.

So why was the offering of Cain not acceptable.

 

[Alan Gross]

Genesis chapter 3 tells us that God accepted Ables offing of a Lamb.
but rejected Cain's offering of his garden.

Mosaic law, grain offerings were welcomed.

So why was the offering of Cain not acceptable.

Because Cain's soul was not acceptable, by Salvation, as Able's was.

“If thou dost well, shalt thou not be accepted?”—Genesis 4:7
by John Gill

1. Adam had a power to do every good work the law required; which men, since the fall, have not. Men indeed, in an unregenerate state, might do many things which they do not; such as reading the Scriptures, attending on public worship, etc. No doubt but the persons in the parable, who were invited to the dinner, could have gone to it, had they had a will, as well as the one did to his farm, and the other to his merchandise. Men have an equal power, had they an heart, a will, an inclination, to go to a place of divine worship, as to a tavern, or alehouse; but it is easy to observe, that persons oftentimes have it in the power of their hands, when they have it not in the power of their hearts, to do a good work; as a rich man to give alms to the poor. Unregenerate men are capable of performing works, which are in a natural and civil, though not in a spiritual sense, good... continued at link, above.

2. It must be denied, that wicked, unregenerate men, have a power to perform good works in a spiritual manner; which is evident from their natural estate and condition, according to the scriptural representation of it, which is this: that the bias of their minds is to that which is evil, and to that only; that they are wholly carnal, and mind nothing else but the things of the flesh; that they are weak and strengthless, yea, dead in trespasses and sins; nay, that they are under an impossibility to do that which is spiritually good; There is none that doeth good, no, not one of them, nor are they able; they are not subject to the law of God, nor can they be...continued at link, above.

3. Is there any foundation for such a proposition in these words, which are hypothetically expressed, and therefore nothing absolutely to be concluded from them; that is to say, we are not to argue from God’s saying to Cain, If thou dost well, therefore Cain had a power to do well, or to do that which is spiritually good, well; much less should we infer from hence, as one does, that “God could not have proposed the doing of good as a condition, if he had not given Cain sufficient strength whereby he was capable to do good.” Since God could not only have proposed the doing of good, but have required it according to his law, without being under obligation to give sufficient strength to obey; for though man by his sin has lost his power to obey the will of God in a right manner, yet God has not lost his authority to command; which he may use without obliging himself to find man sufficient strength to act in obedience to it. Besides,

4. These words regard doing well, not in a moral, but in a ceremonial sense. Cain and Abel were very early taught the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices; and in process of time they brought their offerings to the Lord, each according to his different calling and employment; the one brought of the fruit of the ground, the other of the firstlings of his flock. Now to Abel and his offering the Lord had respect, that is, he accepted him and his offering; but to Cain and his offering he had not respect; which made Cain very wroth, and his countenance fell; upon which the Lord expostulates with him after this manner, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou dost well, If thou hadst offered rightly, as the Septuagint render the words; which though it is not a proper literal translation of them, yet agreeable enough to their sense, shouldst thou not be accepted? Cain failed either in the matter or manner of his sacrifice; probably in the latter; since the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews observes, that by faith, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Cain offered his sacrifice without faith, without any view to the sacrifice of Christ: he performed this his sacrifice hypocritically, in show and appearance only; he acted from no right principle, nor to any right end; and therefore his works, whatever show of righteousness they might have, are, by the apostle John, rightly called evil; as are also all the works of wicked and unregenerate men. I proceed,

II. To consider whether man’s acceptance with God is on the account of his good works...continued at link, above.

& III. It remains to be considered, whether Cain had a day of grace, in which it was possible for him to be accepted with God...continued at link, above.

 

[Salty]

Because Cain's soul was not acceptable, by Salvation, as Able's was..

Scripture said that Cains OFFERING was not acceptable - said nothing about his soul.

 

[37818]

There are different ideas why Cain's offering was not accepted.

Genesis 3:3, ". . . And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. . . ."

Genesis 3:5-7, ". . . But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, thou doest not well sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. . . ."

My understanding both Cain's and Abel's offerings were to be a gift unto the LORD. So some how, we are not told how, Cain in giving his gift did not do well.

2 Corinthians 9:7, ". . . Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. . . ."

 

[Alan Gross]

the Epistle to the Hebrews observes, that by faith, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. Cain offered his sacrifice without faith, without any view to the sacrifice of Christ: he performed this his sacrifice hypocritically, in show and appearance only; he acted from no right principle, nor to any right end; and therefore his works, whatever show of righteousness they might have, are, by the apostle John, rightly called evil; as are also all the works of wicked and unregenerate men

The sacrifice of Christ is pictured as a blood sacrifice.

Cain and Abel were very early taught the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices;

The sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice was taught to Adam and Eve, by God, when He made them animal skins, as a "covering", instead of fig leaves.

the one brought of the fruit of the ground,

The ground is cursed, by God.

the other of the firstlings of his flock

The sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice

Now to Abel and his offering the Lord had respect, that is, he accepted him and his offering

By faith, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice, with the sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice, BECAUSE HE HAD EXPERIENCED SALVATION when taught about the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices, by Adam and Eve.

but to Cain and his offering he had not respect;

Cain offered his sacrifice without faith, without any view to the sacrifice of Christ, BECAUSE HE HAD NOT EXPERIENCED SALVATION when taught about the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices, by Adam and Eve.

Cain failed either in the matter or manner of his sacrifice;

Cain did not express his sacrificial worship of God as a saved soul picturing the Sacrifice of Jesus, because it wasn't IN HIM. He was lost. Whatever show of righteousness HE TRIED TO SHOW when he brought his offering to the Lord, of the fruit of the cursed ground, is rightly called evil, by the apostle John, as are also all the works of wicked and unregenerate men.

Cain's soul was not acceptable, by Salvation, as Able's was, and, therefore, he would not bring a blood sacrifice, as a picture of the sacrifice of Christ, that would have shown HIS SOUL and his sacrifice was acceptable to The Lord.
...
This is how it is broken down, by S.E. ANDERSON, in THE FIRST BAPTIST,
in his discussion on the symbolism in John's Baptism.

"John would likely read Genesis, chapters one to three. God told Adam and Eve what to do and what not to do. They disobeyed; they sinned; they rebelled against God. The age-old divine law says, "The soul that sinneth; it shall die" (Gen. 2:17; Ezek. 18:4). But God loved man. Instead of punishing our first parents with immediate execution of their deserved penalty, God in His infinite mercy allowed them to offer a substitute life as atonement for their sin. This offering must mean that the sinner would identify himself with the sacrificed life. When it was offered upon the altar he would say, "Here is a living creature. It does not deserve to die. It has not rebelled against its Creator. But I have; I have sinned; I deserve to die for my sin. But I trust that God will accept this substitute life in my place. It was once my property; I now sacrifice it to God; it will teach me the deadly nature of sin, so that I will hate sin and love righteousness. This offering is a symbol of my repentance. I am sorry for my sin, and intend not to sin any more."

Then John the Baptist would assuredly read Genesis four. Cain "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Abel "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect (Gen. 4:3-5; Heb. 11:4). Why the difference between the two offerings? Cain refused to recognize the deadly and evil nature of his sin, so he refused to bring a life as sacrifice. He doubted God’s revelation and instead he believed Satan’s lie, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Actually, Cain did what so many have done since: he made light of sin. This we know because he killed his brother and then said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4:8, 9). "Fools make a mock at sin; but among the righteous there is favour" (Prov. 14:9).

When a person makes light of sin, the next downward step is to make light of salvation and of the Saviour Himself.

Abel, on the other hand, was a righteous person (Heb. 11:4). He knew sin to be deadly, hence he brought one of his flock as a sacrifice. His was an offering where blood was shed, and blood means life (Lev. 17:11). "And without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). The Bible makes a great doctrine of the blood, and with good reason. The whole plan of redemption is reasonable, once the love of God is accepted.

 

[percho]

The sacrifice of Christ is pictured as a blood sacrifice.



The sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice was taught to Adam and Eve, by God, when He made them animal skins, as a "covering", instead of fig leaves.



The ground is cursed, by God.



The sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice



By faith, Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice, with the sacrifice of Christ as pictured by a blood sacrifice, BECAUSE HE HAD EXPERIENCED SALVATION when taught about the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices, by Adam and Eve.



Cain offered his sacrifice without faith, without any view to the sacrifice of Christ, BECAUSE HE HAD NOT EXPERIENCED SALVATION when taught about the necessity, manner, and use of sacrifices, by Adam and Eve.



Cain did not express his sacrificial worship of God as a saved soul picturing the Sacrifice of Jesus, because it wasn't IN HIM. He was lost. Whatever show of righteousness HE TRIED TO SHOW when he brought his offering to the Lord, of the fruit of the cursed ground, is rightly called evil, by the apostle John, as are also all the works of wicked and unregenerate men.

Cain's soul was not acceptable, by Salvation, as Able's was, and, therefore, he would not bring a blood sacrifice, as a picture of the sacrifice of Christ, that would have shown HIS SOUL and his sacrifice was acceptable to The Lord.
...
This is how it is broken down, by S.E. ANDERSON, in THE FIRST BAPTIST,
in his discussion on the symbolism in John's Baptism.

"John would likely read Genesis, chapters one to three. God told Adam and Eve what to do and what not to do. They disobeyed; they sinned; they rebelled against God. The age-old divine law says, "The soul that sinneth; it shall die" (Gen. 2:17; Ezek. 18:4). But God loved man. Instead of punishing our first parents with immediate execution of their deserved penalty, God in His infinite mercy allowed them to offer a substitute life as atonement for their sin. This offering must mean that the sinner would identify himself with the sacrificed life. When it was offered upon the altar he would say, "Here is a living creature. It does not deserve to die. It has not rebelled against its Creator. But I have; I have sinned; I deserve to die for my sin. But I trust that God will accept this substitute life in my place. It was once my property; I now sacrifice it to God; it will teach me the deadly nature of sin, so that I will hate sin and love righteousness. This offering is a symbol of my repentance. I am sorry for my sin, and intend not to sin any more."

Then John the Baptist would assuredly read Genesis four. Cain "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." Abel "brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect (Gen. 4:3-5; Heb. 11:4). Why the difference between the two offerings? Cain refused to recognize the deadly and evil nature of his sin, so he refused to bring a life as sacrifice. He doubted God’s revelation and instead he believed Satan’s lie, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Actually, Cain did what so many have done since: he made light of sin. This we know because he killed his brother and then said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4:8, 9). "Fools make a mock at sin; but among the righteous there is favour" (Prov. 14:9).

When a person makes light of sin, the next downward step is to make light of salvation and of the Saviour Himself.

Abel, on the other hand, was a righteous person (Heb. 11:4). He knew sin to be deadly, hence he brought one of his flock as a sacrifice. His was an offering where blood was shed, and blood means life (Lev. 17:11). "And without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). The Bible makes a great doctrine of the blood, and with good reason. The whole plan of redemption is reasonable, once the love of God is accepted.

1Jo 3:12
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.

Was Cain's offering from the ground because he was, of that wicked one?

Gen 4:25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Was Abel, of the faith, of God, but was slain before he could produce offspring and was replaced by Seth?

Is the following in reality the genealogy, of faith Luke 3:23 - 28

Heb 11:4 Πίστει πλείονα θυσίαν Ἅβελ παρὰ Κάϊν προσήνεγκεν τῷ θεῷ δι᾽ ἡς ἐμαρτυρήθη εἶναι δίκαιος μαρτυροῦντος ἐπὶ τοῖς δώροις αὐτοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς ἀποθανὼν ἔτι λαλεῖται

to or unto (a/c dative) - faith a better sacrifice did Abel offer to God than Cain, through which he was testified to be righteous, God testifying of his gifts, and through it, he being dead, doth yet speak.

Question was it the following, "faith," through which he was testified to be righteous, being his sacrifice of blood, pointed to the obedient death of Christ even the death of the cross?
Is the following the reason just about all verses of Hebrews 11 begins with the dative if faith.

Gal 3: 23-25 YLT And before the coming of the faith, under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith about to be revealed, so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ, that by faith (that which came and was revealed) we may be declared righteous, and the faith having come, no more under a child-conductor are we,

 

[Van]

Abel, on his part also brought an offering, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering; but for Cain and his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his face was gloomy.

So God's rejection of Cain's offering might be based in part on the type of offering, or based on the character of the giver, cheerfully or grudgingly.

From Genesis 4:5 it appears Cain judged God rather than looked inward to his own character which fell short of God's expectations.

 

[Salty]

But was Cain aware of the sacrifice he was to bring?

 

[canadyjd]

But was Cain aware of the sacrifice he was to bring?

It could be Abel was a sheepherder and Cain was a farmer. Abel gave off the first fruits and so did Cain.

The offering was, apparently, a sin offering and required an animal sacrifice, as folks pointed out above.

Whether the type of offering was wrong, or Cain’s attitude was wrong, or some combination of the two, his offering was rejected.

His response was anger and rejecting God’s instructions that would have made the offering acceptable.

A slight side note: In chapter 4, when God tells Cain that sin lies at the door and it’s desire shall be for him… the word “desire” is only used here and in Chapter 3 when God tells Eve her desire shall be for her husband. The way the word is used it means to control or rule over the person. So, with Eve, her husband would rule over her, despite her desire to rule him, and in Chapter 4, IF Cain would do well he would rule over sin despite sin’s desire to rule him.

I just find that interesting.

Peace to you

 

[Dave G]

So why was the offering of Cain not acceptable.

" For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 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. " ( 1 John 3:11-12 ).

Why did Cain slay Abel?
This tells us here that it was because Cain was evil, and Abel was not.

Also, God's word tells us that it is God that justifies ( Romans 8:33 ), and if one is "righteous" it is because the Lord has declared them so...
If they are "evil", then it is, once again, because the Lord has declared them so.

Scripture said that Cains OFFERING was not acceptable - said nothing about his soul.

It says quite a bit about his soul...if one is looking for answers:

" Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: 35 that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." ( Matthew 23:34-35 ).

Again, Abel was righteous while Cain was evil.

If the Lord saves someone, they are righteous through the forgiveness that comes by the blood of His Son.
If they are evil, it is because their sins are not forgiven.

That is how the Lord views who is righteous and who is evil...
Whether they are God's children or the children of the devil.

 

[Alan Gross]

Was Cain's offering from the ground because he was, of that wicked one?

Cain refused to recognize the deadly and evil nature of his sin, so he refused to bring a life as sacrifice. He doubted God’s revelation and instead he believed Satan’s lie, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4). Actually, Cain did what so many have done since: he made light of sin. This we know because he killed his brother and then said, "Am I my brother’s keeper?" (Gen. 4:8, 9). "Fools make a mock at sin; but among the righteous there is favour" (Prov. 14:9).

When a person makes light of sin, the next downward step is to make light of salvation and of the Saviour Himself.

Yes, like the wicked one, Satan.

For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

Was Abel, of the faith, of God, but was slain before he could produce offspring and was replaced by Seth?

Abel was dead in sin, like all who are in Adam, and was Saved and Given Faith in the future blood sacrifice of Jesus, as a Lamb Slain before the Foundation of the World (the reason the future blood sacrifice of Jesus had the Power to Save Abel.)

was replaced by Seth?

Yes

"Genesis 5: Verse 1. This is the book of the generations of Adam,.... An account of persons born of him, or who descended from him by generation in the line of Seth, down to Noah, consisting of ten generations; for a genealogy of all his descendants is not here given, not of those in the line of Cain, nor of the collateral branches in the line of Seth, only of those that descended one from another in a direct line to Noah:

Is the following in reality the genealogy, of faith Luke 3:23 - 28

Yes.

"Thus, as Matthew gives us the regal line of Christ, showing him to be heir to the throne of his father David, Luke gives the natural line of Christ; and as Matthew traces his genealogy down from Abraham, in a descending line, to Joseph, the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus, Luke traces it upwards, in an ascending line, from Mary by Joseph, even up to Adam; to whom the Messiah was first promised, and who was a type of the second Adam, from whom he descended, though not by ordinary generation; nay, even to God himself: Christ, according to his divine nature, was the only begotten of the Father; and as to his human nature, had a body prepared by him, and in the fulness of time was God manifest in the flesh."

Question was it the following, "faith," through which he was testified to be righteous, being his sacrifice of blood, pointed to the obedient death of Christ even the death of the cross?

Again, Abel was dead in sin, like all who are in Adam, and was Saved and Given Faith in the future blood sacrifice of Jesus, as a Lamb Slain before the Foundation of the World (the reason the future blood sacrifice of Jesus had the Power to Save Abel.

Is the following the reason just about all verses of Hebrews 11 begins with the dative if faith.

Again, all these in Hebrews 11 were dead in sin, like all who are in Adam, and were Saved and Given Faith in the future blood sacrifice of Jesus, as a Lamb Slain before the Foundation of the World (the reason the future blood sacrifice of Jesus had the Power to Save Abel.)

REFERENCE on Old Testament folks Saved
the same as in The New Testament:

adapted from; His By Grace--
"John Gill: A Body of Doctrinal & Practical Divinity"
-Doctrinal Book 4, Chapter 1

1e. In the blessings of
The Eternal Covenant in God's Plan of Salvation;
they are the same under both administrations
(The Old and New Testament).

Salvation and redemption by Christ is the great blessing held forth and enjoyed under the one as under the other, #2Sa 23:5 Heb 9:15.

Justification by the righteousness of Christ, which the Old Testament church had knowledge of, and faith in, as well as the new, #Isa 45:24,25 Ro 3:21-23.

Forgiveness of sin through faith in Christ, all the prophets bore witness to; and the saints of old, as now, had as comfortable an application of it, #Ps 32:1,5 Isa 43:25 Mic 7:18 Ac 10:43.

Regeneration, spiritual circumcision, and sanctification were what men were made partakers of under the first, as under the second administration of the covenant, #De 30:6 Php 3:3.

Eternal life was made known in the writings of the Old Testament, as well as in those of the New; and was believed, looked for, and expected by the saints of the former, as of the latter dispensation, #Joh 5:39 Heb 11:10,16 Job 19:26,27.

In a word, they and we eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ, #1Co 10:3,4.

Were Old Testament Saints Placed in a "Holding Cell" Before the Cross?

 

[Alan Gross]

Gal 3: 23-25 YLT And before the coming of the faith,

This is to be understood, not of the grace of faith, which was under the former dispensation, as now; the Old Testament saints had the same Spirit of faith, and the same grace of faith, as for its nature, object, and use, as New Testament saints have; Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, &c. believed in Christ, and were justified by faith in his righteousness, as we are. It is much better to understand it of the doctrine of faith, which though preached to Adam, and by Noah, and to Abraham, and by Isaiah, and others, yet not so clearly, largely, and fully, as by Jesus Christ and his apostles; so that the times of the Gospel may be called the times of faith, in comparison of the times of the law, and which some think is here meant; but it is best to interpret it of Christ, the object of faith, who was to come, and is come in the flesh, to fulfil the law; and, by so doing, has put an end to it; and to redeem his people from under it, and to save them with an everlasting salvation; for before this his coming in the flesh, the people of the Jews, of whom the apostle was one, were under the law:

under law we were being kept, shut up to the faith

"...they were kept distinct and separate from the rest of the nations of the world, and had neither civil nor religious conversation with them; and so were preserved in some measure both from their impieties and idolatries, which otherwise they were naturally prone to;

"...though they lay here as prisoners of hope, in expectation of the Messiah's coming; who was to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound, and to say to the prisoners, Come forth, and to them that sit in darkness, Show yourselves."

"...unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed; that is, until Christ the object of faith came,"

about to be revealed

"... who was to be revealed, or made manifest in the flesh; who, before his incarnation, not only lay in the bosom of the Father, but was in a great measure hid under the types and prophecies of the Old Testament;"

so that the law became our child-conductor -- to Christ,

"...the law performed this office of a schoolmaster until the coming of Christ; which shows that till that time the church was in its minority, that the Jews were but children in knowledge and understanding, and therefore stood in need, and were under the care of a schoolmaster, the law, by which the whole Mosaic administration is designed."

that by faith (that which came and was revealed) we may be declared righteous,

"...by Christ the object of faith, by his righteousness, which faith looks unto and receives, and not by the law and the works of it; the people of the Jews were in such a state under the law, and the law of that use unto them before the coming of Christ, as above represented, that it might be made manifest, be a clear point, and out of all dispute, that there is no such thing as justification by the law; for how could ever such a blessing be expected from it, when men were kept under it as under a military guard; when they were shut up in it as in a prison, and were treated by it as malefactors, convicted and condemned; and when they were under the discipline of it, as a rigid and severe schoolmaster? this being their case till Christ came, when it ceased to be all this to them, he being the end of it for righteousness, it became a thing self-evident, that justification is only by him and his righteousness, and so the end here mentioned was answered."

and the faith having come

"That is, since Christ the object of faith is come in the flesh, and has fulfilled the law, and redeemed them that were under it from its bondage, curse, and condemnation:"

no more under a child-conductor are we,

"...we are no longer under a schoolmaster; under the law as such; as no longer under it as a military guard, nor in it as a prison,"