Chuck Larsen

After telling us that God accepted and was actually pleased with Abel’s offering of the lamb of his flock, Genesis 4:5 tells us that God did not “regard” Cain’s offering from the ground. It says, “ but for Cain and his offering, he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell.” Snoeberger gives us some interesting thoughts regarding the two sacrifices and the acceptance of one and the rejection of the other. He says that some early conservative scholars adopted an understanding of the Septuagint reading rather than the Masoretic Text reading, which suggests it involved the quantity of the sacrifices, not just the quality. Abel brought the right amount, but Cain fell short. This affirms that “Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifices establish tithing as early as Genesis 4.” The discussion includes Hebrews 11:4, where Abel’s sacrifice is called “better” than Cain’s sacrifice. The argument suggests that the verse might be translated as “Abel offered unto God a more abundant sacrifice than Cain.” The conclusion that is drawn from these combined readings, according to Snoeberger, is that Cain’s sin was explicitly a failure to give an adequate percentage of his income to God. The percentage, it is deduced, must be none other than a tithe. This understanding is not unreasonable, as it follows the reading of the LXX (Septuagint).”^[1]

As much as Pastors around the world would like to preach that the tithe finds its origin in the first sacrifices of man, it’s not likely. But there was something different in their offerings that made one acceptable and not acceptable. Snoeberger gives some suggestions, “Other options include inadequate quality in the offering, deficient integrity in the offerer, or even the simple possibility that Abel was the object of God’s elective prerogative while Cain was not—the text does not specify.”^[2]  We do know, however, from Hebrews 11:4, that Abel’s offering was offered “in faith” while Cain’s offering was not. One of the favored opinions among the commentators is that the real issue is the integrity of the offerer. Barker says, “… it seems clear from the narrative that both offerings, in themselves, were acceptable… they were both ‘firstfruits’ offerings; thus Cain’s offering of ‘fruits of the soil’ was as appropriate for a farmer as Abel’s ‘firstborn of his flock’ was for a shepherd.”^[3]

The problem is that offerings from the ground are “thank” offerings, and blood offerings are guilt offerings. Horton says, “Already in Genesis 4, Abel brings the ‘the firstborn of his flock’ (the proper guilt offering), but Cain, ‘a worker of the ground,’ brought a portion of his produce (the proper thank-offering).”^[4] No matter how you look at it, Cain’s offering obviously failed to meet some revealed requirement. A thank offering should be offered only after the “guilt” or “sin” offering has been made. I think Cain failed in that. As a Web blogger observed, “It is not hard to see …the seriousness of removing the significance of the shed blood and the element of substitution from the story of Cain and Abel. When we ignore the importance of the blood sacrifice in this earliest of stories, we remove from the Scriptures one of its strong points; namely, that from the very beginning, man was not only provided a way back to fellowship with God but that ‘way’ was consistent with what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Theologians, both old and recent, have established this as a sound and reasoned approach to these verses of the Bible.”^[5]

^[1] Snoeberger, Mark A. 2000. “The Pre-Mosaic Tithe: Issues and Implications.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal Volume 5 5: 72–73.

[2] Ibid.

^[3] Barker, Kenneth L., and John R. Kohlenberger III. 1994. Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition: Old Testament). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

^[4] Horton, Michael. 2011. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[5] https://www.goodseed.com/blog/2014/01/02/where-in-the-scriptures-does-it-say-that-god-told-cain-and-abel-to-bring-a-blood-sacrifice/

Cain brought an offering from the “fruit of the ground” in Genesis 4:3. Then the next verse adds, “…and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering.” First, notice that Abel brought of the “firstborn.” We learn in Scripture that the firstborn belongs to God. In verse Exodus 13:2, God says, “Consecrate every firstborn male to me, the firstborn from every womb among the Israelites, both man and domestic animal; it is mine.” I realize that Moses laid this down thousands of years later as he was leading the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt. It’s not unreasonable to understand that this practice had been handed down from God to Adam and Eve and then to Cain and Abel. The practice existed before it became written down in the law of Moses. When Jesus confronts the religious leaders in his day about their not believing in him, they argue that they believe in Moses. Jesus replied that if they believed in Moses, they would believe Him because Moses wrote about Him. Jesus was the firstborn of God, His only begotten Son, and was the only one to satisfy the requirement of an acceptable offering. Since Jesus argues that the Old Testament is about himself, it seems we must see Jesus even in the offering that Abel made in Genesis 4. It must look forward to Jesus.

Next, not only was it the “firstborn,” but it was the “fat portions.” According to Reyburn, “…it (fat portions) refers to the highly prized parts of the animal that were offered as a sacrifice.” He then suggests that the French Common Language Translation says it well: “Abel for his part brought as sacrifice some first born lambs from his flock; from these he offered the Lord the best parts.” All of this makes it clear that as with the animal skins taken to clothe Adam and Eve, this animal “…must first be killed before anything can be offered. “He killed them and gave the best parts of them as a sacrifice.”^[1] What is essential in the sacrificial system is that life is taken. We read in the New Testament that there is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. Paul tells us also that the wages of sin is death. This was required of the animal to clothe Adam and Eve and was therefore established as the appropriate sacrifice. In Genesis 22, we’ll read about God’s call for Abraham to bring the most precious thing (the fat portions of his life) to Mount Mariah and offer him on the altar as a burnt offering. But God will provide another lamb as a substitute. It’s all about Jesus.

Finally, God had “regard” for Abel as well as for his offering. Boice suggests that the way we see God accepting the sacrifice is like what happened when Elijah held his context with the prophets of Baal. He writes, “God then received Abel’s offering, perhaps by sending down fire on his altar, as he did on Elijah’s altar on Mount Carmel.” I’m not sure we need to see this happening, but Boice is correct when he continues his discussion and says, “Abel’s sacrifice involved blood and therefore testified to the death of a substitute. He was coming to God as God had shown he must be approached. When God killed animals in the Garden of Eden and then clothed Adam and Eve with their skins, God showed that, because sin means death, innocent victims must die so that sinners might be pardoned. The sacrifices pointed forward to Christ. When Abel came with the offering of blood, he was believing God and was looking forward to the provision of the deliverer.”^[2]

^[1] Reyburn, William David, and Euan McG. Fry. 1998. A Handbook on Genesis. UBS Handbook Series. New York: United Bible Societies.

^[2] Boice, James Montgomery. 1998. Genesis: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

There doesn’t appear to be a lot of time between Cain and Abel. Cain is born in Genesis 4:1, and Abel comes in the next verse. “And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain, a worker of the ground.” I would like to have more information about the two boys growing up, but Moses doesn’t seem to care about that. He moves right from their births to their adult occupations. At Cain’s birth, Eve shouts out that she had brought forth a man with the help of God. The enthusiasm and excitement she showed have led many to think she expected Cain to be the fulfillment of God’s promise of a deliverer. When Abel was born, they named him “breathe, vapor or air,” which Solomon used to refer to the vanity of life. It’s only a “breathe.” It’s here today and gone tomorrow. It’s not unusual for God to reverse the order of the blessing on children. The second-born, or later-born child, inherits the promise instead of the firstborn, as with Jacob and Esau and Joseph’s children, Ephraim and Manasseh. John Bunyon observes this regarding Cain and Abel and says, “God often doth as Jacob did, even cross hands, in bestowing blessings, giving that which is best to him that is least esteemed: For Cain was the man in Eve’s esteem; she thought, when she had him, she had got an inheritance; but as for Abel, he was little worth; by his name, they showed how little they set by him.”^[1]

Abel was a shepherd. One cannot help but wonder if Adam and Eve, along with their family, had become carnivorous at this point. Why would you raise and tend sheep if you didn’t eat mutton? The most straightforward answer seems to be that you would raise sheep for clothing. As the family grew, they would need more and more as time went by and children were added. They knew that sheepskin was the best for making clothing because that’s what God used to replace their fig leaves. Kissling thinks they raised sheep to eat. He says, “At creation, humanity is given plants for food (Gen 1:29; 2:9). Here animals have become a food source. …Animals are explicitly given as a food source to humanity only after the Flood in Genesis 9:3.”^[2] There is no mention of eating meat at this time, and maybe the flesh of animals offered as a sacrifice was seen as “food of the gods,” and therefore, it was burnt upon the altar as a sacrifice while the skin was used for clothing as initially done by God himself.

Cain was a farmer. It’s more literally “a worker of the ground.” Butler writes, “Some may think Cain had an inferior job compared to Abel’s work, but that is not true. His job was the job first mentioned in Scripture. But our text records the first mention of a keeper of sheep.”^[3] There may be an additional comment here, though, dealing with the word “ground.” As the serpent was condemned to crawl on the “ground,” with his belly (appetites), so too might the idea of ground be used here. Satan’s interests are all fleshly. The ground speaks of the things of the earth, and the use of the concept with Cain might be a comment on his lusts as well. He’s of his father, the Devil, and follows suit. John tells us not to be like Cain, the murderer. He’s of his father, the Devil. Jude tells us that Cain sought only personal gain. Like Satan himself. Sailhamer suggests this saying, “On the basis of Jude 11 (‘Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain’) and Hebrews 11:4 (‘By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did’), Cain has often been taken as a ‘type’ of a godless humanity and Abel as a ‘type’ of the spiritual man.”^[4]

^[1] Bunyan, John. 2006. An Exposition of the First Ten Chapters of Genesis. Vol. 2. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[2] Kissling, Paul J. 2004–. Genesis. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co.

^[3] Butler, John G. 2008. Analytical Bible Expositor: Genesis. Clinton, IA: LBC Publications.

^[4] Sailhamer, John H. 1990. “Genesis.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, edited by Frank E. Gaebelein, 2:60. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

When God explained the consequences that would fall upon Adam and Eve if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he allowed the possibility. They were told not to eat and advised of the results, but they still had the “ability” to do so. After their expulsion from the Garden, God did not permit even the possibility of their eating from the tree of life. Genesis 3:24 says, “He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” Kissling says, “This at first seems like another judgment, and in some senses it is. But in reality, this, too, is an act of grace. Not wanting humanity to be forever stuck in never-ending alienation with him, with each other, and with creation, the expulsion from the garden and the denial of access to eternal life prevents humanity being trapped.”^[1]

Butler suggests that one of the reasons for their expulsion from the Garden and access to the tree of life “…is a merciful one in that it would be awful for a man to live forever in his sinful condition. As Barnhouse says, ‘The only thing that makes this life bearable is the fact that it will end.’ A principle in this reason reminds us that sin kills. It does not give life. ‘The wages of sin is death’ (Romans 6:23).”^[2] John Bunyon, the author of ‘Pilgrim’s Progress,’ seems to suggest that the angel with the flaming sword was essential because Adam didn’t want to leave the garden and would have returned if allowed to. Adam tried to save himself. Coming back to God’s residence, he could take of the tree of life and save himself.  By barring the way into the presence of God, He made it clear that there was nothing in man’s power with which he could redeem himself. Bunyon writes, “Adam was loth to forsake the garden, loth to forsake his doing of something; but God sets a shaking sword against him, a sword to keep that way.”^[3]

According to Walton, “The cherubim are supernatural creatures who, referred to over ninety times in the Old Testament, usually function as guardians of God’s presence. From guarding the tree of life to the ornamental representation over the mercy seat on the ark of the covenant to the accompaniment of the chariot/throne in Ezekiel’s visions, cherubim are always closely associated with the person or property of deity.”^[4] The angel turns his flaming sword every way that’s necessary to prevent human access to the presence of God and the tree of life. Their banishment is complete. Helm describes it thus, “Adam and Eve are alone. Their souls are adrift. Their skies, so recently clear and blue, are now dark. The light has been taken from them. And thus, we come to Genesis’ explanation for our own sense of aloneness in the world. This is why we feel alone. It is because we have become disconnected from God.”^[5] In his “Paradise Lost” with unbridled passion, Milton speaks for Adam and says, “O unexpected stroke, worse than death! Must I thus leave Thee, Paradise? Thus leave Thee, native soil? these happy walks and shades.… How shall I part, and whither wander down Into a lower world.… How shall we breathe in other air less pure…?”¹⁵

^[1] Kissling, Paul J. 2004–. Genesis. The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press Pub. Co.

^[2] Butler, John G. 2008. Analytical Bible Expositor: Genesis. Clinton, IA: LBC Publications.

^[3] Bunyan, John. 2006. An Exposition of the First Ten Chapters of Genesis. Vol. 2. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[4] Walton, John H. 2001. Genesis. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

^[5] Helm, David R., and Jon M. Dennis. 2001. The Genesis Factor: Probing Life’s Big Questions. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

¹⁵ John Milton, “Paradise Lost,” in The Complete Poems of John Milton, Harvard Classics (New York: P. F. Collier, 1937), pp. 325–326.