“And there were Presbyterians on the earth in those days…” Genesis 7:12.
So. Cain married a SHIKSA? That’s it, I’m out of here.
– Uke, not letting the screen door bang him in the ass on the way out
God rejected Cain’s offering because there was no bloodshed involved.
Next question.
This space for rent.
Melin, do you have textual support for the “not pure of heart” statement? I would be interested to see it.
My own reading of the story is that it is a parable meant, among other things, to demonstrate that shepherds were superior to farmers in God’s eyes, and that he valued their (blood) sacrifices above all others.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
If the early Hebrews had been farmers rather than shepherds, it would have been written that Cain’s sacrifice was acceptable and Abel’s not. I don’t think Abel could have taken Cain in a fight though.
From The Bible Gateway, the text of the King James Version, Genesis Chapter 4
I think from reading this passage that many interpretations are possible. The explanation that I was taught in catechism was the one proposed by Melin. Historical explanations I have heard were similar to what StrTrkr777 has said.
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
Well, my take on all of it is that:
Cain just kinda took any ole thing he had laying around as an offering to God (we’re talking big ‘G’ god here) (kinda, Mom & Dad said I had to, so here ya go)
Abel on the other hand, being a little brother, (and if you’ve had one you know what that means), brings the first and the fattest.
God, thinking he’s making an statement or something, (remember, he hasn’t had a kid of his own yet), praises Abel and tells Cain he can do better than that.
Cain goes straight down hill from there. And he didn’t even have any drugs or alchohol either. He gets pissed at God (God was a pretty angry fellow himself back then), which God didn’t like much. And Cain gets all pouty.
God tries to straighten him out some with a little advice. Keep this up and you’ll go to hell, (sin is crouching at your door), but you can overcome it if you try. Like I say, he hadn’t had a kid of his own yet.
Cain promptly kills his little jerk brother. Then lies to God about it.
God didn’t think this was quite the right reaction to a little scolding and got tough and kicked him out. He wasn’t quite as mellow as he was after Jesus came along (nothing like a kid of your own to take care of, to bring you down a notch or two).
We have to assume that anyone else out in the world at the time was less than human, kinda monkeys sorta. And Cain went off and populated the earth from there.
So, class, what have we learned?
Little Johnny: That, basically, we are all decendants of a disrespectful, angry, venegeful, lying, monkey-f***ing, murderer with parents so stupid they got kicked out of paradise by getting conned by a snake over an apple.
Kinda makes you proud, huh?
By the way, you can find one person’s interpretation of those verses here: Matthew Henry Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
I know, go get in line right behind Satan for the trip to hell.
Also, I think the Apocrypha talks about Adam and Eve having copious amounts of children, not just two. You only hear about the ones that cause trouble, or something. Same with Jesus. He had siblings.
–Tim
We are the children of the Eighties. We are not the first “lost generation” nor today’s lost generation; in fact, we think we know just where we stand - or are discovering it as we speak.
I never went to catechism, so I have always based my readings either solely on the text or on the text and the historical/social context depending upon what questions I was asking. In the text, what I see is that Cain initiated the offering and made the sacrifice FIRST. There is no mention of any prodding by the Lord or sense of obligation behind the initial offering. It seems, in the text, to have been entirely a free and open gift from Cain. Abel then copied the idea but gave it bloodier form, and Abel wsa the one favored.
In the historic/social context, I see the intent of exalting a pastoral lifestyle and a blood sacrifice above an agricultural lifestyle and a sacrifice of the fruits of the land.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
JimB, after Abel died, Eve had another son, Seth. The children of Seth and the children of Cain were enemies, and Noah was a descendant of Seth. Cain’s descendants (and most of Seth’s) were wiped out in the flood.
That’s the next couple chapters of Genesis.
–John
Miskch’s Law- It’s better to have a horrible ending than horrors without end.
Oooops, I knew there was a flaw to that logic. But on a little bit more serious note, from what I understand, the difference is in the casual way Cain brought fruit of the ground, and the special way that Abel brought the first and the fattest. Meaning the first, the biggest, the best goes to God.
*Ukulele Ike:
“And there were Presbyterians on the earth in those days…” Genesis 7:12.
So. Cain married a SHIKSA? That’s it, I’m out of here.*
My bible says:
Genesis 7:12
The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
It was a joke, AWB.
So let me get this straight. This god prefers a blood sacrifice and rejects the farmer’s offering. The farmer promptly turns around and sheds blood, but that’s wrong, too.
You just can’t win with some gods.
Spiritus Mundi:
I’m not sure where the interpretation I was taught at catechism came from. Possibly they referenced other sections of the bible. If you look at the link I posted above on “commentary of the bible by Matthew Henry” you will see that many other sections of the bible are referenced in his commentary.
However, you can look at it this way. God tells Cain “I don’t like your sacrifice”. One reaction would be “sorry god I’ll do better next time.” But Cain is wroth (at god? I wouldn’t want to get angry at the god in the old testament), gets in an argument with his brother, and kills him in a fit of pique. So that indicates that Cain was prone to anger and disrespectful (of god.) From there, is it such a stretch to imagine that his original offering was not presented in the right spirit?
La franchise ne consiste pas à dire tout ce que l’on pense, mais à penser tout ce que l’on dit.
H. de Livry
It’s not stated in the story exactly why Cain’s offering was not acceptable but the fact that it was not is indicated by the outcome. Reasonable suppositions, as provided by Melin (whom, BTW, I agree with) and the others, bring valuable insight to the question, but a definite answer is not found in the scriptures.
My take on questions like this is that it’s okay to bring other knowledge to bear when you read the story. Would God arbitrarily choose one offering over another? Not from what I’ve read. So there must be some reason, but the reason is not stated. We learn in the sequel what Cain was like – proud, petty, whining. Is it conceivable that a person like that would try to skimp on the offering? Sure it is. So it’s reasonable to conjecture that Cain’s offering was not accepted because it was either 1) made from leftovers, so to speak; or 2) otherwise acceptable but not given with “clean hands and a pure heart” (Psalms 24); or 3) simply the wrong thing was offered: the required sacrifice was meat and Cain brought fruit – maybe he was trying to get the rules changed.
To deduce from the story that God is arbitrary is, I suppose, possible, but IMHO it’s more sensible to find reasons why Cain would bring an unacceptable offering.
“If ignorance were corn flakes, you’d be General Mills.”
Cecil Adams
The Straight Dope
Then you obviously read the Bible with a different eye than I. I find numerous and egregious examples that the God of both testaments acts/speaks arbitrarily and cruelly. To me, the question of Cain’s offering is simply a classic example of the same. (note: looking only to the text for meaning, here.) Seeking outside the text for internal motivations of the characters or facts not recorded in the tale is begging the question. What is recorded is what the tekkers of the story wished to have recorded. If the reason Cain’s sacrifice was not recorded, then either the ancient Hebrews did not think it was important or they thought their audience would know th eanswer without being told. their audience, remember, was just their fellow Hebrews, who could be counted upon to share the same cultural context.
Now, some of you might argue that this audience would all “know” the motivational backgrounds of the characters and thus be able to fill in th eblanks, as it were. The obvious question in response is. “Then why record the story at all? If the people can be counted on to know the particuars you leave out, why not leave them all out?”
It is much more reasonable, though, to rely upon your audience sharing a broad cultural context. And one pattern of culture which has been recorded again and again throughout human history is the strong, often violent, prejudice of pastoral peoples against settled farmers. An audience of nomadic/semi-nomadic herders would immediately understand why Cain’s gift was unworthy–because it was the stinking fruit of a stinking farmer’s stinking labor.
So, read strictly as literature the story is a classic example of the bloodthirsty and arbitrary nature of the Old Testament God. Read in cultural context it is a firm reinforcement of an ancient prejudice. Hallelujah!
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I’m not a Christian or a Bible expert, but my interpretation of that passage was always that:
a) Cain made an offering of the stuff he’d grown.
b) Abel makes an offering of the animals he’d raised.
c) God likes Abel’s better, because the Abel had been more attached to his animals than Cain had to his fruits and veggies.
d) Cain decides to sacrifice something that he was very attached to, something a bit more meaningful than a farm animal.
e) …
P.S. Ukelele Ike, that was always one of my favorite parts of the Bible, too. Right along with the bit where Absalom gets his head stuck in a tree.
“That’s entertainment!” —Vlad the Impaler
Hey, grrl,
change “d” to ‘Cain slaughtered Abel in a vengeful rampage because he couldn’t handle his little brother getting any glory.’
and you pretty well have the idea.