Assessing Cain's Offering
Cain's offering in Genesis 4 generates a lot of debate. So what was the real problem with Cain's offering?
Introduction
The author of Hebrews includes Abel in what has come to be known as “the hall of faith.” There, he suggests that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain (Heb 11:4). His phrasing emphasizes the contrast between Yahweh’s response to the brothers in Genesis 4. As a result, readers analyze Cain’s offering to determine what he did wrong.
Scholars have suggested a number of reasons that Yahweh preferred Abel’s offering over Cain’s. Yet, I’m convinced that this issue is a red herring distracting from the narrative’s purpose. Still, because strong opinions on the subject continue to influence interpretation, the distinction between Cain and Abel’s offerings is worth considering. In this essay, I will briefly sketch out the negative assessments of Cain’s offering. Then, I will offer a positive assessment of his offering, arguing that by every external metric, his offering should have been accepted. In a subsequent essay, I’ll address what I take to be the real issue with Cain’s offering.
Five Negative Assessments of Cain’s Offering
It’s natural to wonder about Yahweh’s preference for Abel and his offering over Cain and his offering. I can’t provide an exhaustive list of the alleged problems with Cain’s offering, but several dominate the history of interpretation.1
First, some read this narrative as an archetypal narrative depicting an ancient rivalry between agriculturalists/farmers (represented by Cain) and nomadic herdsmen (represented by Abel). This view is based on alleged parallels between Genesis 4 and ancient Near Eastern mythologies. Whatever parallels are present are dwarfed by the differences between Genesis 4 and these mythologies, making this explanation of the narrative a non-starter.
Second, some suggest that Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it came from the ground, which was previously cursed (Gen 3:17). This view is not convincing because later cultic instructions permit the offering of produce from the ground. Moreover, it appears that Abel’s flocks also grazed on the ground. According to the Genesis 1 creation narrative, animals are produced by the earth (Gen 1:24), linking them with the ground. It is unclear why these animals would be acceptable but not the ground’s produce.
Third, some argue that this narrative shows that Yahweh prefers meat over vegetables. This view resonates with me, but that has more to do with my dietary practices than it does with evidence from the text. The cultic laws governing offerings and sacrifices in the Pentateuch permit both produce and meat offerings, so this view fails to convince.
Fourth, and perhaps most popular, is the view that Cain should have offered a blood sacrifice before his produce offering. The reasoning goes that he needed an atoning sacrifice for his sin before presenting his tribute offering of produce. From what I can tell, this view was popularized by Herschel Hobbs (a prominent Southern Baptist) and Billy Graham (the notable evangelist). Yet, the offerings are not intended to atone for sin, nor have atoning sacrifices been instituted at this point. While this view may be appealing because of its emphasis on atonement, it requires reading details into the text that just aren’t there. What is more, no major commentary that I consulted affirms this view. On the contrary, they soundly reject it.
Fifth, and most compelling, some argue that the text implies a qualitative distinction between Cain’s offering and Abel’s offering.2 While Cain offers “from the produce of the ground,” Abel offers “from the firstborn of his flocks and their fat portions” (Gen 4:3-4). Cain’s offering was stingy, made from the leftovers of his produce, while Abel’s offering was from the firstborn, presented as a costly and appealing offering. This negative assessment of Cain’s offering is compelling because it deals with the details in the text instead of reading into the text what is not there. Still, I reject this view because of the collection of points below that support a positive assessment of Cain’s offering.
Five Arguments for a Positive Assessment of Cain’s Offering
At this point, I want to offer five arguments for a positive assessment of Cain’s offering. In my view, from an external vantage point, Cain’s offering should have been accepted by Yahweh. Readers should be surprised when Yahweh does not look with favor on Cain and on his offering.
First, the offering in view is a מִנְחָה (minḥâ) in contrast to an עֹלָה (ʿōlâ) or a זֶבַח (zeḇaḥ). A מִנְחָה offering should be viewed primarily as a tribute offering, in contrast to an עֹלָה (a burnt offering) or a זֶבַח (a sacrifice). Throughout the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), a מִנְחָה is viewed primarily as a tribute offering. Meat or produce are both viable options, and the firstfruits or firstborn are not required for this kind of offering. Things get complicated because the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint or LXX) translates this term as θυσία (thysia), equating it with a זֶבַח (sacrifice).3 The author of Hebrews likely utilized this Greek translation, and that may influence the phrasing in Hebrews 11:4.4
Second, in the logic of Genesis 3-4, Cain is initially presented as the prospective seed of the woman who would strike the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15). Eve attributes his birth to Yahweh’s help (Gen 4:1), he’s the firstborn son, and he initiates the offering (Gen 4:3a). Cain is depicted as a second Adam. Following the first Adam’s transgression, the firstborn son of Adam initiates a tribute offering to Yahweh. In contrast, Abel is pushed to the background, introduced almost as an afterthought. Everything about the narrative’s opening prepares readers for Cain to prove himself the righteous seed of the woman.
Third, it's likely that his offering is given during harvest time (Gen 4:3a). It is not a specific sin requiring atonement that occasions this offering. Rather, it is Cain’s acknowledgment of Yahweh as the divine creator-king deserving of a tribute offering. This offering is apparently a free-will offering rather than an offering required by Yahweh. Again, Cain initiates the offering and his younger brother follows suit.
Fourth, both Cain and Abel give an offering that corresponds to their vocation. Cain became a worker of the ground, taking on the vocation of his father, while Abel became a shepherd of flocks (Gen 4:2). It seems fitting that each of them brings the fruit of their labors to Yahweh.
Fifth, within the logic of Genesis 1-4, Cain’s offering is the more costly. In Genesis 1:29, God (Elohim) provided plants and fruit as food for humans. It is not until Genesis 9:3 that he permits animals as food for humans. What is more, in his judgment on the man, he mercifully grants that labor from the ground as a death-mitigating exercise. Humans will eat plants and bread, and this provision, though toilsome, will delay the curse of death (Gen 3:18-19). Cain’s vocation carries on this death-mitigating exercise. The fruit of his labor preserves human life.
Abel’s vocation, on the other hand, likely corresponds to humanity’s feeble attempts to clothe themselves with fig leaves (Gen 3:7) and Yahweh’s gracious gift of clothing (Gen 3:21). It’s not clear if Abel was a keeper of goats or sheep (or both). All the same, his vocation likely provided wool for clothing. It is also conceivable that his work also provided milk that would provide additional nutrition and sustenance.
Whatever the case might be, I propose that within the logic of Genesis 1-4, Cain’s offering is more costly because it is the food source for humanity. In addition, his vocation required the most risk and dependence on God. While the nomadic shepherd could seek alternative locations for grazing in dire conditions, the farmer has no such luxury. As the primary means of nourishment, Cain’s offering of produce was more costly than Abel’s offering from his flocks.
Conclusion
In my view, there is nothing about the external quality or the materials of Cain’s offering that explains why Yahweh did not look on him with favor. So why didn’t he? What did Cain need to do differently to be accepted? I’ll take up these questions in the next post.
See Jack P. Lewis, “The Offering of Abel (Gen 4:4): A History of Interpretation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37.4 (1994): 481-496.
T. Desmond Alexander argues for this in his forthcoming Genesis commentary. He suggests that the difference “is not determined by the type of gift…but by the quality.” Genesis, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, forthcoming), 125.
Joel N. Lohr provides a nice assessment of the distinctions between the Hebrew and Greek texts in “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1-16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament,” The Catholic Bible Quarterly 71 (2009): 485-496.
The Greek edition goes on to identify the problem with Cain’s offering. It was not that he presented produce, but that he didn’t divide it correctly. My translation of Genesis 4:7b LXX: “If you bring it rightly, but you do not divide it rightly, haven’t you erred?”