Though some believe the first sacrifice in the Bible is found in Genesis 3:21, others say the first sacrifice in Scripture is one chapter later in Genesis 4 when Cain brings an offering of fruit and Abel brings the firstborn from his flock.
But just as people who view Genesis 3:21 as the first sacrifice read a lot of their theology into that verse, we also tend to read a lot of sacrificial and atonement theology into Genesis 4 which is not there. In so doing, we often miss what actually seems to be present in the text itself.
Why Did Cain Make an Offering to God?
Note first of all that nowhere in the text does God command or instruct people to bring sacrifices and offerings to Him. This practice seems to be Cain’s idea.
Why would Cain do this?
Cain, we must remember, was raised with his parents telling him the story about how they disobeyed God and were barred from the Garden of Eden.
Cain knew that the reason his parents were disciplined by God was that they had eaten forbidden fruit. He also knew that when God had explained to Adam and Eve the consequences of their sin, God had told them that the Seed of the woman would set things right (Genesis 3:15). When Eve bore her firstborn son, she named Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the Lord” (Genesis 4:1).
From this it appears that Adam and Eve thought that Cain would be the one who would set things right and allow them to return to the Garden of Eden.
This is the story that Cain grew up with. This is the narrative that guided Cain’s life.
So it is not surprising that as he grew older, Cain looked for ways to get his family back into the Garden. Genesis 4 says that he became a tiller of the ground (Genesis 4:2), and he brought an offering of fruit to the Lord (Genesis 4:3).
Why fruit? Not because God had asked for it. God hadn’t asked for anything. Cain brought fruit because this is what his parents had taken from God.
In effect, Cain was trying to give God back His fruit.
Cain was trying to please and appease God, and hopefully, gain a way for himself and his family to reenter the Garden of Eden. He was trying to fulfill the expectations of his parents.
What about the Offering of Abel?
The text goes on to say that Abel brought an offering also, but since he was a keeper of sheep, he brought “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat” (Genesis 4:4).
We must be careful to not read sacrifice into this. The text does not say that Abel killed the firstborn of his flock. The text calls it an “offering,” which does not necessarily imply a blood sacrifice.
People get the idea of sacrifice from the text because it says that Abel also offered the fat of his flock. How could he have done this if the animal had not been killed?
Some early Jewish and Christian scholars noted that the consonants of the Hebrew word for “fat” are the same as the Hebrew word for milk and curds (Heb., ch-l-v), and so they understood this text to be saying that Abel offered milk products up to the Lord. The Jewish historian Josephus is one such source, who wrote that “Cain brought the fruits of the earth, and of his husbandry; but Abel brought milk and the first-fruits of his flocks” (Antiquities 1.2.1).
Some have also noted that the Hebrew word translated “and” could also be translated as “that is.” When this is taken into consideration as well, Genesis 4:4 could be translated this way: “Abel also brought the firstborn of his flock, that is, of their milk.”
Though some might consider such an interpretation to be far-fetched, we must ask ourselves why the text would refer to the “fat” of the flock if what God really wanted was blood. If it truly is blood sacrifice that God desires, and this is why God accepted Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s, then wouldn’t the text have been clearer if it has emphasized the blood of the flock instead of the fat?
Furthermore, since everybody at this time were vegetarians (cf. Genesis 9:1-4), it would make no sense for Abel to think of offering a dead animal to God. What reason could there be for God to want a dead animal?
Nevertheless, no matter how we understand the offering of Abel, the real question from Genesis 4 is why God accepted Abel’s offering but rejected Cain’s. We will look at this question tomorrow.
What do you think? Do you think Abel killed an animal and gave it to God? Other than tradition, why do you think so?
Dang! I was just about to write a long (convincing?) diatribe (kidding all around here)… until you qualified with “other than tradition”.
Sheesh! You sure know how to take away the knee-jerk (emphasis on “jerk”?) reactions that I might have responded with.
I suppose you expect me to think/ponder more, and maybe even search the Scriptures… wait that sounds like a phrase Jesus used while addressing the Pharisees once. …Dang!
😉
Interesting all around Jeremy,
keep it coming… as the Lord leads, and as your wife gives consent (she’s prob. got her finger on the pulse of your family time, eh?).
Peace to you bro.
M.
Ha ha! Thanks, Mark. There are several people who comment under “Mark” here and I don’t know which of you is which. Ha!
Do you read Hebrew? I do. But if you not, look up the etymology of the involved words in a lexicon like Brown-Driver-Briggs, and then see how they are used in other contexts. In learning Old Testament Hebrew, the first book we worked on was Genesis. And yes, without invoking tradition—there is shedding of blood here, and that is why the Lord had respect for Abel’s offering, and not Cain’s. “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission.”
Brad,
I do read Hebrew and I did consult the Hebrew on this text. Which word are you referring to? The Hebrew word for “offering” (Heb., minchah) can refer to blood sacrifice, but most often does not. Note that the word used for Abel’s offering is the same word used for Cain’s offering, which was clearly without blood.
Anyway, maybe I am looking at the wrong word. Which word were you referring to?
Minchah? That’s because Cain’s offering included blood oranges, duh!
: )
Ha! It would be funny, though, right?
“Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” YES -but ACCORDING to the LAW!! Which is NOT made for the RIGHTEOUS!!! Who is THE Righteous One? GOD!!! So Law is NOT for God! God does not need Law for (satisfying) Himself! God “justifies the wicked”!! Romans 4:5
Wow. The ‘fat’ being the milk produce (the income/benefit of Abel’s labours) makes more sense.
Up to Moses there was no remission of sin Rom_5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. In (ERV) Gen 8:20 Then Noah built an altar to honor the LORD. Noah took some of all the clean birds and some of all the clean animals and burned them on the altar as a gift to God. This was a burned offering of thanks given and not of remission of sin, I think Cain and Abel’s offerings did not matter if it was blood or not.
It doesn’t matter from a forgiveness perspective, for they were already forgiven for all sins, just as we are. I was only asking the question to see if the Bible can tell us when or why God wanted blood sacrifice. My answer is that He never did!
There was no remission of sin until Jesus. There was only atonement from year to year.
Over the years that I have been following this blog I have been through every emotion from love to anger and bewilderment and am grateful.
In one way I’ve had no need of it as my faith is a simple one and I read the Bible as Gods love story, knowing that I was undeserving of it and taking Gods word as a given and what He dishes out I accept with a thankful heart.
I’m truly grateful for the explanation of scriptures as it has put flesh on the bones, enabling me to understand with my mind as well as my heart.
How amazed I am to know, Holy Spirit gives me the discernment I need to embrace or otherwise the words of much wiser and learnered people than myself.
Each month or so I go to a messianic meeting and listen to Jews expanding scripture from the Hebrew as is quite often done here. We are told all scripture is good for us and I agree and when it is taken back to its original meanings within the culture it was written it allows me to say Arh now I get it.
I would say 99% of the contributors are helpful and even some who use the blog to vent their spline and have a pop at us strange Christians.
Thank you again everyone for helping me in my walk. God saved me 34 years ago on when I was 38 so I’m still a baby Christian but feel I’m on a meat diet now (all respect for the vegatarians) no longer on milk sops. Thank you, your brother in Christ, Clive X
So, here’s another take on this story: God was and is a nomadic God, of a nomadic people. You can keep sheep if you’re a nomadic herder, but if you settle down and become a pastoralist, planting grain and fruit trees, etc., it becomes much more difficult to follow a nomadic God…
Is there something in here about being ready to be followers, rather than settlers? There are echoes of that demand through the whole of the Story.
Interesting. Very interesting. Especially since Cain goes off and builds a city… the exact opposite of nomadic life.
Yeah, except I think Leviticus often refers to the fat of the animal and I don’t think there it can refer to the milk. I need to study it a bit further.
I am very close to believe that God never wanted blood sacrifice! The only thing that prevents me from being totaly convinced are all the residues of theology I have absorbed over the years. So I am still searching for biblical evidences although I am pretty sure God is leading me in your direction Jeremy. The Law requires blood, yes. “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” YES -but ACCORDING to the LAW!! Which is NOT made for the RIGHTEOUS!!! Who is THE Righteous One? GOD!!! So Law is NOT for God! God does not need Law for (satisfying) Himself! The unrighteous desperately needs justification by law (or so he thinks) which means by blood. Because it is the unrighteous who always cries: „Who will pay?!? Someone has to pay!! There is a debt, someone has to paaaay!!!“ It’s the Law (which is NOT for the righteous) that requires blood, not God! Jesus said: „Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ Mercy, by definition, does not require paying back anything. Jesus’ story of 2 debtors reveals what God is all about!
We christians tend to call the Law „God’s law“ when actually it is more of a „sinners law“ – since it was INTENDED for the sinner! God gave it, yes, but NOT for Himself and not for the righteous!!! So the Law is NOT a reflection of who God is. (The Law is good and spiritual, yes, but cannot make man good, spiritual and alive…or enable man to remain alive). „ For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the Law“. But we christians tend to identify God with „His“ Law. God IS NOT „His“ Law! God is Love. Love “keeps no account of wrongs…” The Law, on the other hand, is „ministry of death“, „ministry of condemnation“, the law KILLS the one who breaks it. So if Law kills, if it is NOT intended for the righteous and CANNOT impart life – then God absolutely CANNOT be identified with the Law!!! God forgives and He CAN impart life! God “justifies the WICKED” (Romans 4)! Law kills the wicked and justifies no one! Psalm 18: „With the kind you show yourself kind; with the blameless you show yourself blameless; with the pure you show yourself pure..“ And with the crooked and perverse? God obviously DOES NOT show Himself blameless, kind and pure – simply because a crooked and perverse being CANNOT perceive blamelessness, kindness and purity of God!
So, Law doesn’t give life and requires blood. God gives life (is a source of life) and doesn’t require blood.
Hi,
Interesting article. I tend to agree with you because I notice several people have read into some of the scriptures what many of us cannot find therein.
Correct me if I’m wrong. the Bibles says both Cain and Abel simply brought offerings to the Lord in the course of time. As it would be in a time of harvest for instance.
Then the only difference in the qualification of the offerings is that Abel’s was said to be of the firstlings and of the fat of the flock. so obviously there was a degree of care or attention to detail in Abels offering, which seems to be an indication of the heart.
This is the only apparent difference.
Its seems difficult and perhaps untenable for Cain to have made a blood sacrifice when his occupation did not involve livestock. He would need to engage in some transaction in order to obtain a sheep and then make a blood sacrifice.
So, Hebrews tells us that by faith Abel brought a more excellent sacrifice, and also that without faith it is impossible to please God.
If Cain did not bring his sacrifice by faith how could he have pleased God?
This to me seems an indication of the heart of the person bringing the offering. Certainly God has no need for fruits or lambs, but is more interested in the heart of the one coming to him to make an offering.
If God as many would want us to believe is so obsessed with blood offering, then after the conversation with Cain, He (God) would have been very satisfied with the blood of Abel which Cain shed. The blood that cries out to from the ground. Why did that not wipe out Cain’s sin and make him righteous.
I have struggled with this for a time. My thoughts go to the fact that Abel selected the best of his flock while Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground. Maybe I am reading too much into it, but fruit of the ground indicates to me Cain gathered fruit that had fallen from the tree onto the ground. Whereas my experience has been that the best fruit is that fruit which is picked from the tree. I may be completely off track on this but it seems to be Abel gave from his best while Cain kept his best and gave God from the leftovers.
Thanks you answered some of my questions..
Did Cain have to make an offering?
Was Abels offering (if is was death of a quiltless scarifice (from Bible commentary)) just for him or for whole family?
If Able understood correctly then his offering would be selfish not to include his family. OR
Why didn’t Adam and Eve make a scarifice?
I think Cains insolence and arrogance landed him in hot water with God.
BUT why did God respect Ables offering and not Cain’s?
I really like the progression of this write up and I’m anticipating the next part.
Still learning thou.
when we look at all those chosen for some sort of work for the Lord, we see mostly men and some women who all have the same heart, God Himself called Abraham “friend”, because he trusted God, David was called “a man after His own heart”, and David was pretty disgusting, he had everything, and that wasn’t enough, he had to murder to have another woman. Elijah was so much a man of God he was taken up.
The 10 commandments are not the ceremonial laws of which you’re all talking about. God IS absolutely about HIS laws as are the 10. they are given as a lifestyle choice. Do these and you please God in every way. They aren’t difficult to keep, keeping the ceremonial laws was all but impossible to keep and they were those that were the condemnation against the human race, this requiring sacrifice, and yet those sacrifice’s were meant to cause some hurt to then cause reflection of ones thoughts and actions. Instead as someone put it, they became just something to do, if I’m bad I do this or that and then I’m covered. Yes imperfect laws, so Christ became the ultimate, the perfect sacrifice, and once again we see it’s all about the heart, our thoughts, our actions.
This belief, is to cause a reflection from within, off with the old man and in it’s dark ugly place we begin to put on the new man, a man of light, of generosity, of mercy and kindness, thinking of others and when do that we are covering the whole of the law, the 10 commandments. We are then pleasing God who requires mercy not sacrifice.
it’s always been a heart matter, our thoughts either lead to love or sin.
I would look at the Hebrew words used for “In a process of time it came to pass”. Miketz yamim is what you will find which means “end of days” or “at the end of time”. This would signify Sukkot. God’s appointed his times on the 4th day of Creation when he set the lights in the heavens to govern the day and night and for signs of the seasons. Livestock and grain offerings are required by God for Sukkot. Cain’s offering of the “fruit of the ground” can very well mean a grain offering not actually fruit as we understand fruit today. I am still trying to figure out what exactly was wrong with Cain’s offering. The passage is rather vague and doesn’t leave too many clues. God doesn’t want blood offerings so to speak. The animal is to be drained of blood before it is burnt for The Lord.