Cain the elder becomes a farmer and Abel the younger becomes a shepherd (Gen 4:2). Each brings an offering: Cain brings to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground (Gen 4:3); and Abel brings the firstlings of his flock (Gen 4:4). But God accepts Abel’s offering. Accordingly, Cain is troubled (Gen 4:5-7), and kills his brother Abel (Gen 4:8). The story ends with God’s punishment of Cain (Gen 4:9-15). Why did God reject Cain’s sacrifice? Does God love a meat sarifice rather than a vegetable offering?
The text does not tell us the reason why God prefers to Abel’s offering. Thus, there have been several inferential attempts to answer the question:
- Both Luther and Calvin explained that Cain did not present his gift by faith. Their interpretation was based on Heb 11:4 (cf. 1 John 3:12; Matt 23:35). C. Westermann suggests that the opinion of New Testament writers is based on the Rabbinic traditions of late Judaism: “Abel is ’the just one’ his sacrifice is offered ;out of faith” (Westermann, 319).
- The offering itself was insufficient, either becuase Cain was stingy or becuase he violated some implicit liturgical regulation (Skinner, 105).
- There is a cultural conflict between farmers and shepherds. R. de Vaux argues that Cain’s story affirms pastoralism of the patriarchs (de Vaux, 13-14).
- The story reflects that YHWH prefers a younger to an older sibling (Goldin, 32).
The first suggestion seems to be totally out of context since the text never metions the word “faith”; thus, this is an interpretation of the story. The second suggestion is plausible. The text says that Abel’s sacrifice was accepted becuase he offered “the firstlings of his flock, their fat portions” (Gen 4:4), while Cain brought “fruit of the ground.” Cain is being condemned for failing to bring first fruits (Deut 26:1-11). But it is also a conjecture. The third suggestion needs to be reconsidered in light of recent studies of nomadisim and its relationship to settled zones in the ancient Near East. It scarcely seems so. The fourth suggestion is restated by Joel S. Kaminsky who suggests that it is about divine favoritism and the exclusivism which repeats in the cases of Ishmael and Isacc, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and his ten older brothers (Kaminsky, 23). He argues that “the Genesis narratives are well-suited as an introduction to biblical election theology.” He focuses on the divine favoritisim rather than the issue of offering:
Cain’s failure is not in relation to the offering he brought, but in his reaction to God’s mysterious favoritism of Abel. He allows his jealousy to get out of control, even after God has warned him of this danger. Rather than accept God’s choice of Abel, he tries to overcome Abel’s election by killing him (25).
But I’m convinced by F. A. Spina’s suggestion (“The Ground for Cain’s Rejection [Gen 4]: יadāmāh in the Context of Genesis 1-11″ ZAW 104/3 [1992]) that we need to consider the issue of the text in the larger context of Genesis 1-11. Cain’s offering has to do with its source: the ground which had been coursed by God (Gen 3:17-19) so that Cain’s offering is unacceptable. Indeed, the term “ground” is the key word in Genesis 1-11. Cain was a farmer who followed in the footsteps of his father Adam, the first farmer (Gen 2:5, 15). Spina further argues that human beings continued to to sin even after the flood that is the main theme of Genesis 1-11. But the cursed “ground” became the source of blessing and and a suitable offering to God (Deut 7:12-16).
Reference List
De Vaux, R. Ancient Israel: Social Institutions I. 1965.
Goldin, J. “The Youngest Son or Where Does Genesis 38 Belong,” JBL 96/1 (1977).
Kaminsky, Joel S. Yet I Loved Jacob: Reclaiming the Biblical Concept of Election. Nashville: Abingdom Press, 2007.
Skinner, J. Genesis. ICC. 2nd. 1930.
Spina, F. A. “The Ground for Cain’s Rejection (Gen 4): יadāmāh in the Context of Genesis 1-11″ ZAW 104/3 (1992): 319-32.
Westermann, C. Genesis 1-11. Trans. John J. Sculion S. J. Minneapolis: Augusburg Publishing House, 1984.
Gustave Doré, 1866
Filed under: Pentateuch
If I may add a thought to your post here [which I enjoyed by the way]. I’ve heard that Abel offered the first of his flock because he had either learned or gathered that when God sacrificed the animal to clothe Adam and Eve, God was setting a precedent – so Abel essentially imitated God.
The whole of the Old Testament is about teaching the reader. God made man and animal to be vegetarian. At the fall, death entered and had to be dealt with. God knew man could only be saved by the shedding of blood. To get man ready for salvation by the blood, God knew it would take something very powerful in the heart of man to do it. Sacrifice of vegetables for man is not enough, shedding of blood for man touches men to the core. God started with a lamb, went to bulls and goats, and ended up with his own Son. Nothing could be stronger. To try to impress man he changed him from vegetarian to a meat eater.
Jesus said, “unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood you will have no part in me. John 6.” God started to teach this with Cain. There is power in the blood.
I think this is a great Christian interpretation on the animal sacrifice!
Abel gave his first flock of newborn lambs and cain gave !!some!! crops
Dear Joel,
Yes, Abel brought some of the firstborn of his flock (plural). But this doesn’t mean that he learned the animal sacrifice from God. The text (Gen 3:21) gives no indication how Adam and Eve came by the skins.
Moreover, you may ask the question: what is sacrifice? Sacrifice is a form of communication with God. Did God communicate with himself/herself?
Maybe so… do YOU know god´s intentions?
Well,
You may recall that God reveals the secret things to Daniel (Daniel 2).
God chose Abel’s meat over Cain’s grain.
Cain saw his offering wasn’t good enough so he offered Abel’s flesh, out of love not jealousy, in an attempt to deliver a suitable sacrifice.
I read that somewhere and it’s the only interpretation that’s ever made sense, especially considering that people have been killing one another for god ever since.
You may have read this in White Wolf’s Vampire the Masquerade RPG; it’s a theory refered to as Cainite Heresy.
I believe that Abel’s sacrifice was pointing to Christ because it was a blood offering, and Cain’s offering was done with his hands, and it represents our works, which cannot take away any of our sins.
It seems like a Jewish interpretation on the suitable sacrifice. But I don’t understand what you try to say in the second paragraph.
It is interesting that you find a fault with the sacrifice and yet the LORD does not. If there had been a fault it would have been pointed out by the Lord in His pronouncements to Cain – these occurring after the offerings (NOT as is often incorrectly translated ‘sacrifice’).
Neither is Cain at fault at this point – the LORD does NOT admonish or correct because of any present “sin.”
Rather the LORD warns Cain that “sin is crouching at the door” and “desires” him.
The whole episode can be viewed as a test of Cain’s Faith and his reaction to the rejection of his sacrifice. Cain fails the test and this results in the first human death, that of Abe, his younger (possible twin) brother
Dear Steven,
Your reading that the story is “a test of Cain’s Faith and his reaction to the rejection of his sacrifice,” is a superb interpretation. It seems to me that your reading is similar to that of Luther and Calvin.
Very interesting. I was perplexed by this story before I learned Hebrew and I’ve been meaning to give it a good, diligent analysis now that I’ve got it. The idea of the ground being the point of contention is definitely more appealing than most anything else I’ve seen. However, something I noticed long ago is that there doesn’t appear to be anything in the text saying YHWH **REJECTED** Cain’s offering. I’ve been meaning to look into the Hebrew and verify whether there is, in fact, no negative reaction against Cain’s offering. This interests me because just because one person’s offering receives special mention and another one does not is no reason to view the other one negatively. That’s like saying–to use a very anachronistic example–if a person doesn’t win a gold or silver medal in a competition, that they’ve failed to do well–either in the competition or in terms of their own abilities and skill levels. That simply isn’t the case. A person who comes in third has still done really, really well, even if they fail to be mentioned among the top two. Perhaps the point of the story is not that Cain failed to do something or did something wrong, but that Abel excelled in some manner that is appropriate to the narrative. Like I said, I still need to look at the Hebrew. These are just thoughts that I’ve had.
This is a superb interpretation.
I think that the Hebrew word can be translated as “YHWH did not regard” Cain and his offering.
See further B. K. Waltke, “Cain and His Offering,” WTJ 48 (1986): 363-72.
Keep up the great work.
could it also not be as a shadow of the new testament? That we cannot get to heaven by our own works of righteousness, but only by the shed blood of Christ?
I do believe God was setting up a precedent in Gen. 4:21 “coats of skin” as a substitute for Gen. 3:7 “sewed fig leaves” basically saying our feeble attempt to “cover up” shame and sin can not be done by our own works but only by the Lamb! Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the Lord; and BESIDE me there is NO SAVIOUR. God Bless
It would be a good Christian interpretation to the story.
Neither God or Cain is talking in this paragraph. God is looking and not talking here. There is no reason why God would not show favor to Cain’s offering. This is how Cain views the offering. It is Cains view that Abel is looked at favorably by God. Cain is jealous of his brother, because in his mind Abel has a better offering. God only talks after he see’s that Cain’s face has fallen. God says:
In this story Abel never talks. The conversation is between God and Cain only. So this is a story about Cain and his feelings.
Since I am a Christian I follow the tradition of Interpreting Old Testament in the light of the New. As I read the text it almost seems that to bring the Lord an offering or gift (sacrifice is also allowed for this word “minchah”) is Cain’s idea. He offers what he has produced as a farmer. I will make a huge leap based on Christian doctrine and practice and I will suggest it was an offering of “GRAIN and GRAPE” in direct contrast to Abel, the shepherd’s offering of “BODY and BLOOD”, since I clearly hear ‘sacramental’ language being used in this text, and since the Lord Jesus connects, grain and grape (bread and wine) with his body and blood I don’t believe we can conclude that Cain’s gift is the actual problem. There is another reason for God’s rejection of Cain’s offering. The text says that “God values Abel’s offering, but Cain’s offering he did not value/respect/welcome/look at.” (This is my translation of the text based on the possible meanings of the word ‘sha’ah’) I must conclude it is the attitude of the heart behind the offering. This is evident from other interpretations as well. It’s no accident this reading from the Old Testament is pared with the Gospel from Luke 18:9-14 The parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector.
Yet from the augment offered here I have a new idea. I almost want to say that it seems as I read the text now, I wonder at the events. Did Cain bring an offering to God and Able try and one up him? And succeed? Or (which seems more likely) is the example of prayer given in the parable better able to bring clarity to this text? Both Cain and Abel approach God with and offering in smoke… Like incense in the nostrils of God? Burning bread smells better than burning flesh, but God prefers the flesh? Why? Because of the life offered behind it. Not the Lamb’s life but one who offers the life in humility.
The warning God gives Cain is a warning against pride. The offering is not a life offering but a works offering. Here, Lord, accept the fruits of my LABORS for you. God doesn’t want Cain’s works, He wants his life.
I AGREE IT IS NOT THE OFFERING THAT IS REJECTED. THERE IS A REASON WHY CAIN AND ABLE OFFER THEIR SACRIFICE .IT SEMMS CAINS OFFERING WAS NOT WELCOME BECAUSE OF HIS ACTIONS OR BECAUSE GOD KNEW HIS DESIRE LONG BEFORE ..KILLING HIS BROTHER WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAME TO MIND AFTER THE REJECTION OF SCARIFICE..
I think all of you are wrong. This whole story is about a repentant worshiper coming to God admitting he is a sinner and that the only acceptable offering is a blood sacrifice that confesses to God that the worshiper is aware that he is a sinner saved by grace and looks forward to the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ for his sin. Where do you think Able got this idea from? His parents of course. There are many persons who do not believe that God sacrificed an animal, probably a lamb in the Garden of Eden when Adam sinned. This is a picture of the only true Church of God, one that is founded on the testamony of Jesus Christ death on the cross. This is why God tells Cain that his offering would be acceptable if he did what was right. That being, coming with a blood sacrifice as acknowledgement of his trust in the only thing that can save him and allow him access to worship the one and only true God.
Repentant? He didn’t express remorse, and whined over the severity, so God inexplicably reduced the sentence.
I’m thinking this whole story really serves as dramatic foreshadowing for the sacrificial rituals the Bibles authors were trying to correct (human sacrifice was still being practiced), as the Mark of Cain represents a blemish which makes him unacceptable as a sacrifice..
Seems like the bible says it all. 1st John 3:12 says, Do not be like Cain who belonged to the evil one, and murdered his brother.
I hear a story about one man who eats meat… obviously the reason he raises and tends to his flocks,he then slits the animals throat places it on an altar and burns it whole,the second man nances around in his garden watching his crops grow he is more than likely a vegetarian,he enjoyed being out in the sun and toiling in the dirt,they both bring a part of their production as an offering,god is pleased with the offering of dead animal,and refuses the offering of vegetables,so the gardener flies into a blind rage and kills the man who kills the animals,this is unprecedented in history where a gardener kills a hunter!!
Another thing to consider:
Produce from the ground had been given to animals and man to eat: it was only after Noah that mankind was given meat to eat, but at the point of Cain, it was only food of the Gods. This concept follows the idea of Adam and Eve being forbidden to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, as that was food of the Gods, only.
With his sacrifice, Cain was offering essentially no more than dog food to God, and Abel was offering Gods fave meal (he’s a picky eater).