Why Did God Reject Cain's Offering?

As you probably know, Cain and Abel were the first two sons of Adam and Eve. They each offered a sacrifice of their belongings to the Lord. Abel’s sacrifice was received, but Cain’s was rejected. The Bible tells us, “And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and 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. 4:3-5a KJV). Bible studies in the book of Genesis often raise the question, “Why did God reject Cain’s offering?”

Two different answers have been suggested. Some say that God required from each of them an offering of bloodshed. They argue that because Cain’s offering of “fruit of the ground” did not qualify, obviously, it was disregarded. They note that immediately after the fall, God rejected Adam and Eve’s clothing made of fig leaves, then He clothed them with animal skins (3:7; 4:21). They argue that the bloodshed of those animal skins covered the sins of Adam and Eve so that they could have fellowship with God in spite of their sin. To support their conclusions they appeal to Hebrews 9:22b which tells us, “And without shedding of blood is no remission [of sin].” See also Exodus 12:5-7; Leviticus 17:6; and Acts 20:28.

The other conclusion is that Cain simply did not offer the best of what he had. God would have regarded his offering (with or without bloodshed) if he had offered his very best, and with true love and devotion. Genesis 4:2b states, "Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." Is God unfair? If God required animal bloodshed from both Cain and Abel, then Cain did not have a chance in the world, because he had no livestock of his own! Many proponents of the bloodshed perspective often chop Hebrews 9:22 in half, without citing the entire passage: "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: and without shedding of blood is no remission" (italics added). Furthermore, the author of Hebrews was referring to the Law of Moses (Heb. 9:19; Lev. 17:6 & 11), which God did not establish until many generations after Adam and Eve had died.

I am inclined toward the latter school of thought, but I have had two pastors that belonged to the other. This issue is obviously a peripheral Christian debate. There is no need at all to split hairs over such a debate as this. Let us all agree to disagree without being disagreeable. Why don’t we?