Cain and Abel and their sacrifices (for the umpteenth time)

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tis_Bearself

Patron
I know we have been over Cain and Abel and their sacrifices before on here, a number of times, because I just went and re-read the old threads, but I need to start another thread. I apologize in advance for writing 3 “wall of text” posts as I normally hate that stuff, but it was necessary to put all the theories about Cain and Abel in the post for purposes of discussion, and there seem to be a bunch of theories.

We all know the Genesis story of Cain and Abel. They both decide to offer sacrifices to God. Genesis doesn’t say what motivated them to do this, apparently they just decided out of the blue to do it.

Abel is a herdsman. I’ve wondered “What for?” given that according to Genesis, man was vegetarian till after the flood, so no humans were eating the sheep, but perhaps they needed other sheep products like the wool or hides in order to make clothes to wear and blankets to keep warm. Abel offers the firstlings of his flock, in other words the best animals. There is no indication in Scripture that Abel had a bad interior disposition when he offered this to God. God is pleased with Abel’s sacrifice.

Cain is a farmer (“husbandman”). He grows produce for humans to eat. He makes an offering to God but there is no mention in Scripture of it being his best produce. God rejects Cain’s offering. Cain seems to have a bad interior disposition because he not only doesn’t seem to give God his best, but also when God rejects his offering, then instead of him trying to fix the problem and please God, he gets jealous of his brother Abel, kills him, and lies to God about it when God asks where his brother is.

So, when people ask, “Why did God accept Abel’s sacrifice and not Cain’s?” Scripture doesn’t say explicitly and exactly why, so we have to make hypotheses. I’ve considered all the hypotheses I have heard or read, listed below.
  1. Abel offered his sacrifice with love, but Cain had a bad interior disposition. This is supported somewhat by Scripture describing his upset over God’s rejection, his jealousy towards Abel, his murder of Abel, his lying to God etc.
  2. Abel offered the best (“firstlings” with fat) of his flock, while Cain just gave God some produce, maybe not his best and maybe not even very good. This is supported somewhat by Scripture that doesn’t explicitly say Cain gave God his best stuff.
(Continued next post due to character limits)
 
Last edited:
  1. Abel offered a sacrifice to God that foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and Abel’s own death could also be seen as foreshadowing either the death of Christ or the martyrdom of the early Christians (killed after the Lamb of God). Abel is like Christ in that Abel is a “good shepherd” and his worship is pleasing to God, while Cain is like those who killed Christ in that they are unjust, their worship of God is not pleasing to God, and they killed the “good shepherd” out of jealousy. While the foreshadowing is pretty obvious to us at this point, Abel and Cain of course didn’t have any idea about Christ at that point, and it’s not like Abel was saying, “A lamb is the best sacrifice because it’s most like Christ”, so any rejection of Cain’s offering based on this would likely be based on Cain’s interior disposition (1 above) or him not offering God his best (2 above).
  2. Abel’s sacrifice was pleasing because it was an animal/ blood sacrifice, which God prefers over produce. I find this questionable because while the Mosaic laws provide for lots of animal sacrifice, they also provide for bread and the fruits of the harvest being offered to God. Also, the idea of an animal being preferred or more valuable makes less sense in view of man being vegetarian at the time of Cain and Abel, if we accept that humans didn’t eat meat until after the flood. So if the idea is to give up the most valuable food, that would be produce; the animals at this point were only cultivated for their hide (as Genesis 3:21 has humans wearing leather clothes). Later on when men ate meat, the animal would be the more valuable sacrifice because it is both a protein source (humans die quickly without protein, but can go a very long time, possibly their whole lives, without carbs) and a luxury food, whereas most plants are neither.
  3. Abel’s sacrifice was more pleasing because it evoked God’s original creation - a lamb occurred naturally - whereas Cain’s sacrifice was less pleasing because it evoked Man’s life after the fall, having to work hard to prepare the soil, grow plants, and harvest the edible parts. So Abel’s sacrifice represents purity of heart and Cain’s represents sin. While I “get” the point that at several key moments throughout Scripture you have both flesh/ blood being offered and produce/ grain aka bread, or bread and wine, being offered until Jesus brings it all together at the end by changing bread and wine into his body and blood, I do not understand why God would reject Cain’s sacrifice of produce just based on the fact that it was the work of man’s hands after the fall. If Abel being a shepherd didn’t have anything to do with raising up a good “firstling” to offer, then it would seem like Abel hadn’t put any effort into his offering, whereas Cain had since he had to do all the work to get produce to grow.
(Continued next post due to character limits)
 
Last edited:
  1. Abel’s sacrifice was preferred because God originally planned/ preferred for men to live as hunter-gatherers like Abel, which would respect and not exploit the nature of the planet, whereas Cain, through doing agriculture, was not respecting the nature of the planet, was using up scarce resources in order to grow food, and by being a farmer, wasn’t living as God intended. I have read this several times but it honestly just sounds weird and odd. There are farmers who don’t ruin the land in the process. I suppose we could say that before the Fall, men didn’t need to farm, so farming represents sin, but before the Fall, men didn’t need to shepherd flocks either, as they not only didn’t eat animals but also didn’t need to be wearing leather clothes.
So, after having considered all these theories of Cain and Abel, I am wondering whether any one of them is more “right” than the others or are we just free to consider all these perspectives? This came up in my mind because we had a Dominican in to preach a mission for Lent and he put a huge emphasis on theory 5, that Cain’s offering represents sin and therefore it was rejected for being 'the wrong stuff" and did not say anything about Cain sacrificing with the wrong attitude (theories 1 and 2) which is what I’d always been taught. Furthermore, Cain by farming wasn’t trying to propagate sin, he was just trying to stay alive, and presumably keep his brother and family alive also given that man wasn’t eating meat and hence Abel wasn’t eating his sheep for dinner, he was eating Cain’s produce. According to Genesis 3:17-19 men would have to be working hard for their produce so Abel wouldn’t have been able to just walk around and grab enough fruit to live off the wild bushes and trees.

Anybody got any thoughts to share on whether these ideas can all exist compatibly as different aspects of the same Bible story, or whether one theory is “more correct” than others?
 
Last edited:
For myself, I like the idea that God found Abel’s sacrifice of a lamb pleasing precisely because it prefigured the sacrifice of Christ, the unspotted lamb. Number 3 makes to me the most sense.

Thanks for presenting all these ideas so cogently. I had never considered them before.
 
If Genesis doesn’t explain it, the book of Hebrews does:
Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.
Click to expand...
The first two words explain it all: Abel’s offering was “by faith” and his brother’s was not. St Paul pursues this point in his (other?) letters - for example, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Rom 14:23
 
It’s intriguing to see all the hypotheses set out and compared like that, but almost everything you say here is new to me. I remember being taught, back in the mid-twentieth century, that it was #4, basically “Meat yes, fruit & vegetables no.” They placed the shewbread on display in the Temple (which David and his troops ate when they were hungry) but only animals were burned on the altar, never grain or any other farm produce. At the time, I just accepted that explanation without questioning it.
 
Last edited:
fide said:
Abel’s offering was “by faith” and his brother’s was not.
Click to expand...
I went to my DR Bible to see whether there was a note, and indeed it reads “[God] showed his acceptance of his sacrifice (as coming from a heart full of devotion).”

I believe these are Bp Challoner’s notes.
 
I always assumed that it was a story told by a frustrated shepherd that was being forced to find grazing land further and further away because the farmers were taking up all the good lands for planting!
😂😂😂

These are good summaries on the more realistic possibilities! I don’t have an opinion but it’s interesting. A little more clarity would have been nice but maybe that’s the point! Perhaps the details were obvious to that time and lost to us now?
 
fide said:
The first two words explain it all: Abel’s offering was “by faith” and his brother’s was not. St Paul pursues this point in his (other?) letters - for example, “whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Rom 14:23
Click to expand...
Yes, this is also what I was taught in the past - that Abel’s offering was better because of Abel’s interior disposition, “by faith”. Abel was a good and faithful servant of God, Cain was not (as evidenced by the fact that he then gets jealous of Abel, kills him and lies to God about it).

So I was rather surprised when the Dominican preacher, who was otherwise a very good preacher, started contending that Cain’s offering was rejected because it was produce (same as bread) and represented “sin”, with no discussion of Cain’s interior mindset. It’s entirely possible that produce/ bread might carry some symbolism of sin, or the fall, and Cain’s later sins of jealousy, murder and lying added to that symbolism. But that’s not why God rejected it at this juncture, in my mind. God also rejected it BEFORE Cain committed his serious sins.
 
Last edited:
It seems like there’s all sorts of explanations floating around out there and it’s almost the luck of the draw which one your catechist embraces when you learn this story. Which is good for providing a lot of food for thought, but is kind of unclear when different people are learning different things.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
So I was rather surprised when the Dominican preacher, who was otherwise a very good preacher, started contending that Cain’s offering was rejected because it was produce (same as bread) and represented “sin”, with no discussion of Cain’s interior mindset. It’s entirely possible that produce/ bread might carry some symbolism of sin, or the fall, and Cain’s later sins of jealousy, murder and lying added to that symbolism.
Click to expand...
I feel like this probably confuses the origin of the symbolism. I’m guessing produce/grain came to represent sin because of its association with Cain, and not the other way around, where as the lamb became a symbol of purity because of Abel. Of course, Providence had a role in the whole thing from the beginning.

In general, the produce/grain symbolizing sin is something I had not heard of, but it is interesting. Jesus “became sin” and so the pure lamb becoming bread and wine would symbolize that. Hmmmm.🤔
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
or whether one theory is “more correct” than others?
Click to expand...
Dunno, but I had a big realization this Lent with respect to prayer (which is a sacrfice) that might help.

Reflecting upon Gospel of Mark (for over a month) while contemplating Jesus admonishment “beware the leaven of the Pharisees” - I realized there is a huge discussion also about prayer which parallels the argument against leaven. Specifically, let’s speak of the mustard seed.

In a way - both the leaven and the mustard seed “expand”… the leaven inflates dough… the mustard seed grows into a huge bush…

BUT - here’s the difference… the leaven is a bubble destined to pop … the mustard seed is a living thing that will regenerate itself…

That should say a lot with respect to your question… for just ask yourself which was the better sacrifice/prayer? and why?

The hypocrisy of leaven? or the living prayers Jesus likens to the mustard seeds? The answer should be obvious.

Reflecting upon Cain and Abel may not really be necessary any further because Jesus’ explanation of what constitutes a better sacrifice/prayer actually is more fulfilling.

$.02. 🙂
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure if that relates to Cain and Abel, but it’s a good perspective on the “leaven of the Pharisees” which I never quite understood, leaven in bread not being a bad thing but rather a tasty thing. Your explanation of that being a big “bubble” of hot air makes sense, thanks!
 
Thank you for laying out all these theories.

I, too, am mostly familiar with the first two explanations, and those make the most sense to me. It is an interesting connection with regards to Cain’s offering and the toiling the land as a consequence for sin, but I don’t know that I buy that as the sole reason for his offering being rejected. I don’t get the sense from Genesis than man was not going to reap the fruit of the land prior to the fall, only that it became more laborious after the fall. So it would seem odd to me that God would reject the offering on those grounds.

That said, I’m not sure I’d say any one of the theories above is categorically ruled out by Catholic teaching. It seems to me like one of those things Catholics would be free to hold different viewpoints on.
 
I’m pretty sure the leaven vs seed discernment should cover Cain and Abel, although I probably didnt explain it in a self-evident manner.

One “knot” you might have trouble unraveling between the OT and NT is… Abel was a farmer, but then the parable of the mustard seed applies appealed to farmers. In fact - a LOT of Jesus’ parables were about farming plants.

On Cain’s side - we dont see a whole lot of blood sacrifice from Jesus other than Jesus himself.

Consider Cain and Abel as superceded in the New Testament. Jesus effectively overwrote all of it.

What I am saying is, Cain’s sacrifice was like leaven - God (Jesus) rejected it because there wasn’t anything to it… On the other hand, what we now have in Jesus as the perfect blood sacrifice and the first born of the new creation is a directive that explains (in the mustard seed) a living prayer method that is sustainable and fulfilling…

The only other part I can see that would be questionable is the punishment… Cain was made a slave… but Jesus took on the life of a slave, as a way of teaching us how to follow him and love on another… This is also ultimately how he overcame the world on the cross… by assuming all of mankinds sins as such we found redemption and a reconciliation with God… and this should have freed us from the bondage of sin…

It seems to me to all work out logically, but the hard part is really understanding Christ’s new Exodus under the way of the cross… It still feels sometimes like slavery… but, usually when I am worthily at one with the sacraments, it’s all reconciled into a peaceful union with God…

The rest may be a mystery… but then that’s all past and between God, Cain and Abel… who didnt even have the 10 Commandments, so… anyway… I just try to work with the best we have - which is Jesus… and that’s a good enough sacrifice for me… 🙂

God’s blessings to you!

Wm
 
Last edited:
btw, thank you very much for asking this question… it helped deepen the purpose the meaning of the mustard seed parable for me…
 
Excellent thread.
Thanks 🙂
Yes God favoured Abel’s offering. But do we see God disapproving Cain’s offering anywhere in the text?
Cain was envious of Abel and resentful of God’s prerogative to show more favor to one than another.
…a bit like Matthew 20:11
 
Last edited:
Lion_IRC said:
Yes God favoured Abel’s offering. But do we see God disapproving Cain’s offering anywhere in the text?
Click to expand...
The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.
(Gen 4:4-5)

bible.usccb.org

Genesis, CHAPTER 4

Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
bible.usccb.org bible.usccb.org
 
Well, that’s really an argument from silence.

To say that God favoured one rather than the other doesn’t necessarily imply an ‘epic fail’ for the other.

God isn’t bound to give a gold star of approval to both Abel and Cain.

Of course we can speculate that God disapproved, perhaps having prior knowledge about Cain’s emotional disposition - bringing to the altar competitiveness, envy, jealousy rather than humble praise - but these aren’t specifically in the text leading up to Cain presenting his sacrifice.

They might be the reason God showed a preference (approval) for Abel’s pure of heart offering, but it might just be that God , in His wisdom, likes showing public approval in order that Abel’s deed might be a signpost to others (ie. the rest of us.)
 
Last edited:
The Hebrew verb in these two verses is שעה (shaah). The literal translation is evidently something like to look or to gaze. The NABRE Bible translation, which I quoted in my earlier post, gives it as “to look with favor on.” Here are another twenty-something translations of v. 5. By and large, they seem to take the same view. Several of them use expressions such as “He had no regard” or “He had no respect” for Cain and his offering.

https://biblehub.com/genesis/4-5.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top