Cain and Abel

[bogeydogg]

I have, many times, wondered why God accepted Able’s sacrifice but not Cain’s and have heard, many times, various explanations to that extent. Mostly these ended up with . I have heard explanations that Abel’s offering is acceptable because it is blood and Cain’s is not, but Cain is a worker of the field and has no animals and furthermore Mosaic Law makes it clear that God does accept grain offerings as well so what gives?

But I was studying this passage the other day and came across this verse…

Genesis 4:3 In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, 4 and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, 5 but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.

Now what struck me is that Cain is making a single offering for himself only and Abel is making more than one offering. Remember these were the children of the first parents who had walked with God in the cool of the evening and for whom the Sabbath Law was already in effect. I think it is likely that an offering was made to God on the Sabbath and the reason I think this is that Revelation even seems to indicate that the people will gather in regular season before God to worship and glorify Him. Given that Revelation tells us also that the angels pour the prayers of the saints out at the foot of the Throne for a sweet savor I think it is fair to look upon this event described as a sort of bloodless (sinless) offering. An offering of praise to the glory of God. I suppose something of the sort would have also been in the Garden. Also these were children of those same parents whose sin had been first covered by the blood of the animals killed in order to make covering for that sin as well as for their bodies.

So I think it is possible, possible, that what is happening here is that a regular offering is being made, as was even so in the Garden and had been taught to these children. The difference is that Cain is making an offering only for Cain, and Abel is offering more than one animal and his offering is a sin offering; it is bloody. I think Abel is acting as a priest on behalf of his family and Cain is merely attempting to buy off God. I think God rejects Cain because Cain, in his heart, thinks that God’s favor can be purchased with earthly things. This is the practice of all idolatry and perhaps the seed of it to this day. But Abel, whose offering speaks better of him even beyond his death, is making intercession by offering the fat portions (the best) of many animals to cover the sins of the family.

So God accepts Abel and rejects Cain.

What do you think?

 

[ephesians2]

Abel is mentioned in Hebrews 11:4 regarding his faith and obedience at the time of his sacrifice. From reading the account in Genesis 4 and Hebrews 11, it would seem to me that Abel made the sacrifice according to God’s specifications bringing the best of his flock, the firstborn and the fat portions, and because he believed/had faith in the unseen God of his parents. Cain did not. It is as if Cain was making the sacrifice out of habit. He did not care about the specifications and he did not have faith in the God of his parents, nor did he have respect for the Holy God (as seen in verse 9).

Another thought- I have always pondered if God, when he killed the animal to cover Adam and Eve (instead of their pathetic fig leaf outfits) after they sinned by eating the fruit, set up a sacrifiacial system of offering and the specifications and this is why Cain’s offering of the fruit of the ground was unacceptable. Abel seemed to know he had to sacrifice the firstborn animal and its fat portions for a specific reason and God in verse 7 reminds Cain that he needs to do what God commands when it comes to his offering, not what Cain wants. There must have been some sacrificial system already set up.

In addition, an interesting verse is Hebrews 12:24. Is the writer talking about Abel’s offering to the Lord or Abel’s actual blood shed by Cain?

 

[Will_B]

I like the way the pastor at our former church put it…

There is no worship without sacrifice.
Sacrifice is >> Taking the best that you have, your hope for the future and laying it at the feet of God.

Able did just that… He made a sacrifice.

Cain just made an offering… A portion of his best… Not really a sacrifice.

Think of Abraham and Isaac… Abraham told his servant to wait while he and the lad went to Worship… Abraham was going to take the best he had, his hope for the future and lay him at the feet of God…

 

[COPLAND_3]

This is from the Aquinas Study Bible

4:5 Cain was not condemned because the kind of offering he made was worthless, for he offered to God from by which he was himself was accustomed to live. But because of the unrighteous mind of the offerer, he was cast down together with his gifts by the one who looks into the heart. (St. Bede) Cain was exceedingly angry: It was not his sin that grieved him, but his brother’s success. (Theodoret of Cyrus)

 

[Gorgias]

Now what struck me is that Cain is making a single offering for himself only and Abel is making more than one offering.

This is the danger of doing exegesis from a translation. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Greek or Latin, but…

Factum est autem post multos dies ut offerret Cain de fructibus terræ munera Domino. Abel quoque obtulit de primogenitis gregis sui, et de adipibus eorum

καὶ ἐγένετο μεθ’ ἡμέρας ἤνεγκεν Καιν ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τῆς γῆς θυσίαν τῷ κυρίῳ. καὶ Αβελ ἤνεγκεν καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπὸ τῶν πρωτοτόκων τῶν προβάτων

Notice that Cain offers de fructibus – “of the fruits” – and Abel offers de primogenitis – “of the firstborn”. In both cases, we have plural nouns in the genitive case. In other words, both took more than one thing, and both took a portion of what they had.

Now, it might be possible to argue that Abel offers first-born but Cain does not offer firstfruits (ἀπαρχή, or primitivus). However, as has been mentioned, that reads into the text a bit. Nevertheless, given the original text, I’m not certain that you can make the case for “multiple offerings” vs “single offering”.

I think it is fair to look upon this event described as a sort of bloodless (sinless) offering.

If so, then why does the bloodless offering get rejected, but the bloody offering accepted?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

For a Jewish view see The World’s First Murder
I don’t know how much is Jewish folklore and how much is the rabbi’s speculation, but he has some fascinating ideas. It is a 16-part story that traces the events down to the flood.

In this first installment, he notes that Abel’s gift was of thanksgiving, while Cain was just sharing the profits with a partner he wished to keep happy.

In the next installment he notes that Abel gave of his best, while Cain just gave a percentage.

If you scroll to the bottom of the page you can link to the following installments.
%between%

 

[Crumpy]

one thought I got from a Jewish commentary, puzzling over what happened, was that, for sure, the grain offering itself was perfectly acceptable much later when the Mosaic laws were set up. so, the explanation probably doesn’t lie in the nature of his offering.

There’s probably something to do with 1) the idea of God skipping over the first-born son for some form of blessing or favor and/or 2) the idea of the sovereignty of God.

I’ve also heard a fair amount of what’s already been posted, above.

 

[ephesians2]

one thought I got from a Jewish commentary, puzzling over what happened, was that, for sure, the grain offering itself was perfectly acceptable much later when the Mosaic laws were set up. so, the explanation probably doesn’t lie in the nature of his offering.

There’s probably something to do with 1) the idea of God skipping over the first-born son for some form of blessing or favor and/or 2) the idea of the sovereignty of God.

I’ve also heard a fair amount of what’s already been posted, above.

The two points mentioned above are thought-provoking. While I believe it all comes down to your second point (doesn’t everything?), the first point is an interesting one because as you look down the history of the Old Testament, that seems to be the case (God “skipping over the firstborn”) Abel (then Seth), Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. Might not be anything important, but it is an interesting occurance.

 

[Gorgias]

one thought I got from a Jewish commentary, puzzling over what happened, was that, for sure, the grain offering itself was perfectly acceptable much later when the Mosaic laws were set up. so, the explanation probably doesn’t lie in the nature of his offering.

Yet, the really puzzling part of this narrative is that it presumes a system of sacrifice! And, prior to the Mosaic law, we don’t have evidence of “good” and “bad” sacrifice, do we? So, it might just lie in the nature of the offering… especially since the people telling this story were herders and nomads, right?

There’s probably something to do with 1) the idea of God skipping over the first-born son for some form of blessing or favor and/or 2) the idea of the sovereignty of God.

To the first point – don’t those narratives also give some sort of foreshadowing or at least, prior reasoning of why the first-born is going to get skipped over? They also are explicit about the fact that the first-born is getting skipped over.

What do you mean by your second point? It seems that you’re asserting a certain capriciousness on the part of God – that He’s allowed to do whatever He wants, and we just have to lump it…

 

[bogeydogg]

Thank you for your replies.

I did look at the Greek on this btw and I did not see enough to make me think that my interpretation was wrong prima facia. Obviously the reason I asked is because I am not sure and wanted other opinions.

As far as a bloodless sacrifice being rejected, the Mosaic Law defines certain sacrifices, such as a grain offering or thanksgiving offering, that may be only grain and therefore without blood; so I am somewhat skeptical that the mere absence of blood is why God rejected the offering. Given especially that God tells Cain he is harboring sin in his heart.

Also the thought that there was no formal sacrifice before Torah I think can be set aside because (as far as I know) Job is the oldest book in the OT and in it Job clearly makes sacrifice for himself and his children (he acts as a priest) and he offers the same for his friends before God restores him. Also Abraham acts in the same way in interceding for Lot and the King of Moab and Melchizedek makes offering on behalf of Abraham and is identified as a priest before Levi was ever born.

Just some thoughts.

The reason I ask is because I am currently reading the OT (again) and also reading *Jesus of Nazareth * and in that book the Holy Father says one of the benefits of rereading Scripture is that we see meaning not seen before, and one thing that is repeatedly jumping out at me again and again is that, in the People of God, there appears to always have been this priestly role present that interceded and offered prayers on behalf of others to the glory of God.

God Bless

 

[ephesians2]

What do you mean by your second point? It seems that you’re asserting a certain capriciousness on the part of God – that He’s allowed to do whatever He wants, and we just have to lump it…

What do you mean by “lump it”? Also, isn’t God allowed to do whatever He wants???

 

[nordskoven]

God “skipping over the firstborn”) Abel for Seth, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. Might not be anything important, but it is an interesting occurance.

Jewish author Savinah Teubal explains that sacred matriarchy gave the inheritance to the youngest; the separate system of sacred patriarchy gave the inheritance to the eldest. This, of course, was ratified time and time again by God. I see sacred matriarchy as an outgrowth of the Woman & Seed system that was empowerd and authorized when God cursed Lucifer and his seed with the Woman & Seed in Genesis 3:15. There was a tremendous, pervasive ancient system of law and custom that honored the woman of grace, the EN, and her seed. Everybody knew the Genesis 3:15 ground rules fulfilled in Mary, Full of Grace, and her Seed conquering Satan and his minons.

God shed first blood, so to speak, in slaying an animal to cover the nakedness of Adam and the Woman, later named Eve. This was the first death on Earth. (The Father of Lies and Murder is paralleled in Cain, who lied about the whereabouts of his slain brother.) Cain’s offering of the fruits of the earth denies the nature of God’s taking unto Himself the culpability for first blood; and males offer sacrifice–not females–to atone for the Sin of Adam that led to the need taking responsibility for bringing sin and death into the world; and for uniting one’s sacrifice with God’s. In the same way, our suffering can be united with Christ’s as part of the Body of Christ.

Whether the inheritance by the youngest was inaugurated with Abel’s accepted sacrifice or whether this was the playing out of an eternal plan is unknown. But that’s God’s system.

 

[Gorgias]

What do you mean by “lump it”? Also, isn’t God allowed to do whatever He wants???

It’s been a year since this thread was active, so apologies in advance for re-posting to it, but I hadn’t seen your question till now…

What I mean is that, although God can do whatever He wants, that doesn’t mean that God actually does just any old thing. That is, God isn’t capricious or unjust – if he were, then He’d do whatever He felt like, just or unjust, and we wouldn’t have any recourse (we’d just have to take it without protest (which is what I meant by ‘lump it’)). That view of God – as lord and master only – is more in line with traditional Islamic theology. The Christian view, by comparison, is that God is a loving Father, who doesn’t just make capricious decisions, but rather, whose actions are always just and good.

With this in mind, then, it would be unfair of us to conclude that God acted in a certain way (e.g., the sacrifices of Cain and Abel) just because he wanted to, and we should just shut up and deal with it. Rather, since God is Love and God is Reason, then we should try to understand His actions, and see how they make sense.

 

[baronne]

The two points mentioned above are thought-provoking. While I believe it all comes down to your second point (doesn’t everything?), the first point is an interesting one because as you look down the history of the Old Testament, that seems to be the case (God “skipping over the firstborn”) Abel (then Seth), Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc. Might not be anything important, but it is an interesting occurance.

 

[baronne]

Reading the epistle of Paul to the Romans, the repeated biblical theme of younger sons finding favor in the eyes of God comes back to mind. Can’help but wonder if this thematic repetition is a precursor to the new testament salvation of the gentiles (whom I see as represented by the “younger” brother) while the Israelites (represented by the “older” brother) must give up their right to a total inheritance of the kingdom of God in order to share that inheritance. Romans, chapter 11, in particular struck me. I think not only of Jacob, Joseph, etc. in the old testament, but of the prodigal son too who brings a twist to the theme. Maybe one could say that the new testament brings to us the spirit of the law (Holy?) to add to the old testament letter of the law.