Cain and his offering: Watlke

                  Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986) 363-372.

Copyright ฉ 1986 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission;

 

 

                   CAIN AND HIS OFFERING

 

 

                                    BRUCE K. WALTKE

 

 

                                              Introduction

 

            Partially because of the laconic style in which the Cain and Abel

story1 is told and partially because of prejudgments, scholars are

divided in their opinions why God rejected Cain's offering. This

essay aims to answer that question.2

            Prejudging that our story reflects the development of Israelite

religion, Skinner proposed that the story represents an early stage

of Israelite religion in which animal sacrifice alone was acceptable

to Yahweh. He explained: "It is quite conceivable that in the early

days of the settlement in Canaan the view was maintained among

the Israelites that the animal offerings of their nomadic religion were

superior to the vegetable offerings made to the Canaanite Baals."3

Disregarding the unity of Genesis and ignoring God's mandate that

Adam, the representative man, till the ground (2:5; 3:23), Gunkel

claimed: "This myth indicates that God loves the shepherd and the

offering of flesh, but as far as the farmer and the fruits of the field

are concerned, He will have none of them."4 Cassuto, by contrast,

perceptively compared this story with the Creation story and the

Garden of Eden story.

 

            There is a kind of parallel here to what was stated in the previous chapters:

            the raising of sheep corresponds to the dominion over the living creatures

            referred to in the story of Creation (i 26, 28), and the tilling of the ground

 

   1 For an excellent commentary on the Cain and Abel story see "Cain and

Abel" in The New Media Bible Times 1/3 (published by the Genesis Project,

1976).

   2 For the function of offerings see Claus Westermann, Genesis (BKAT 1; 3

vols.; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974-82) 1.401f.

    3 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; Edin-

burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910) 106.

    4 Hermann Gunkel, Genesis ubersetzt and erklart (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1922) 43.

                                                            363



364                 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

            is analogous to what we are told at the beginning and the end of the story

            of the Garden of Eden (ii 5, iii 23).5

 

            Some orthodox commentators, coming to the text with the pre-

judgment that fallen man may approach offended God only through

blood, think that God rejected Cain's sacrifice because it was blood-

less. Candlish, for example, wrote: "To appear before God, with

whatever gifts, without atoning blood, as Cain did--was infidelity.”6

This writer comes to the text with the prejudgments that the

storyteller drops clues in his text demanding the audience's close

attention to details in the text, Gen 4:1-16. Leupold underscored

that in the lapidary style of Scripture "significant individual instances

are made to display graphically what course was being pursued.”7

The second presupposition entails that the interpreter also listen to

the rest of Scripture in order to determine the text's meaning and/

or to validate his interpretation of the narrative.8  Although the Cain

and Abel story probably enjoyed preliterary independence, it must

now be read as part of the Pentateuch. Skinner9 rightly noted that

the exegete must pay attention to the audience to whom a story is

addressed. Unfortunately, he reconstructed the wrong audience!

Shackled by his presuppositions of source criticism and lacking the

modern tools of literary criticism (sometimes called "rhetorical crit-

icism"), he interpreted the story in the light of hypothetical "first

hearers" instead of the readers of the Pentateuch to whom the text

in hand was addressed. (Prior to and/or apart from the modern

emphasis to hear a text wholistically, studies by William Henry

Green,10 H. Segal,11 and D. J. A. Clines,12 each in his own way, put

the unity of the Pentateuch beyond doubt.)

 

   5 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes

Press, 1961)1.203. Victor Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Book House, 1982) also demonstrated the unity of Genesis

3 and 4.

   6 Robert S. Candlish, Studies in Genesis (Edinburgh: A. and C. Black; re-

printed Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1979) 94.

   7 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book

House, 1965; orig. 1942) 1.187.

   8 Bruce K. Waltke, "Is It Right to Read the New Testament into the Old?"

Christianity Today 27/13 (September 2, 1983) 77.

   9 Skinner, Genesis, 105. For this common error see also S. R. Driver, The

Book of Genesis (London: Methuen & Co., 1904) 64.

   10 William Henry Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch (1896; re-

printed, Baker Book House, 1978).

   11 M. H. Segal, The Pentateuch (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967).

   12 D. J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOT Supp. 10; Sheffield,

England: University of Sheffield, 1978).

 



                        CAIN AND HIS OFFERING                                    365

 

            We commence our study with the observation that the text syn-

tactically distinguishes between the offerer and his offering: "The

LORD looked with favor on [‘el] Abel and on [‘el] his offering, but

on [‘e1] Cain and on [‘el] his offering he did not look with favor"

(Gen 4:4b-5a).

 

                                    I. Cain's Offering

 

1. Offerings in the Pentateuch.

           

            The Torah, especially the priestly legislation (the so-called "P

document"), has a rich and precise vocabulary to represent the sac-

raments offered to the LORD on an altar; each term denotes a physical

object representing a spiritual truth upon which the worshipper could

feed spiritually in his approach to and communion with God.13

            The most inclusive term for presentations to God on the altar is

qorban, "offering," from a root signifying "to bring near." This term

is not used in the Cain and Abel story.

            Offerings can be analyzed broadly into two classes: voluntary and

involuntary. Involuntary offerings include the "sin offering" (hatta't)

and the "guilt offering" ('asam ).14 These sacrifices make "atonement"

(kpr)15 and involved shedding blood for removal of sin. Were Cain

presenting an involuntary offering, he would have been rejected for

failure to offer blood. In fact, however, in the Cain and Abel story,

a part of the Books of Moses, neither "sin offering" nor "guilt

offering" is used.

 

     13 G. Lloyd Carr, "mnh" in Theological Word Book of the Old Testament (ed. R.

Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Bruce K. Waltke; Chicago: Moody Press,

1980) 1.515; C. Brown, "Sacrifice," in The New International Dictionary of New

Testament Theology (ed. Colin Brown; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1979) 3.437f.; Aaron Rothkoff, "Sacrifice," in EncJud

15.605f.

   14 Jacob Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of

Repentance (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976). Other involuntary presentations include

the substitute animal for the first born (Exod 34:19-20), the ritual for cleans-

ing from leprosy (Leviticus 14), and defilement by contact with a carcass

(Numbers 19).

   15 Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans

Publishing Co., 1965).

 



366                 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

            The voluntary offerings included the "burnt offering" (‘ola), "meal

offering" (minha), and "fellowship offering" (selem), including "ac-

knowledgement offering" (toda), "votive offering" (neder), and "free-

will offering" (nedaba). These dedicatory offerings could be either

animal, as in the case of the burnt-offering (Leviticus 1), or grain,

as in the case of the "meal offering" (Leviticus 2). The fellowship

offering could be either (Leviticus 3). A libation offering (nesek) ac-

companied burnt and fellowship offerings. The priest's portion of

the fellowship offering was symbolically "waved" before the LORD

as his portion and called the "wave offering" (Tenupa). Certain por-

tions of it (namely, one of the cakes and the right thigh) were given

as a "contribution" from the offerer to the priests, the so-called

"heave offering" (teruma).

The term "sacrifice" (zebah) may be a generic term for presenta-

tions on the altar (mizbeah) or a more technical term for representing

rituals in making a covenant. The slaughtering of an animal in the

latter case symbolized a self-curse (that is, the one making covenant

would say words to the effect, "may it happen to me as it is happening

to this animal I am killing") and effected a sacrifice.16  We need not

pursue the word further because it is not used in Genesis 4.

Our narrator designates three times (vv 3, 4, 5) the brothers'

offerings by minha, a grain offering, it will be recalled, in the so-

called "P document." The unusual element in the story from a lexical

viewpoint is not that Cain's offering is bloodless but that Abel's is

bloody! In any case, by using minha, Moses virtually excludes the

possibility that God did not look on Cain's offering because it was

bloodless. Rothkoff said:

 

The terminology used with regard to the patriarchal age is that of the

Torah as a whole; it is unlikely that the same words in Genesis mean

something different in the other Books of Moses. Thus, Cain and Abel

each brought a "gift" (minhah; Gen. 4:4f.), which was usually of a cereal

nature as brought by Cain (Lev. 2, et al.) but could also refer to an animal

offering (I Sam. 2:17; 26:19). Noah offered up a burnt offering (‘olah; Gen.

8:20ff.) and the pleasing odor of the sacrifice is stressed.17

 

He could have added that Noah in conformity with the later priestly

and deuteronomistic legislation distinguished between "clean and

 

   16 M. Weinfeld, "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the

Ancient Near East," JAOS 90 (1970) 197f.

   17 Rothkoff, "Sacrifice," 605.



CAIN AND HIS OFFERING                                    367

 

unclean" animals (Gen 7:2, the so-called “J document"! cf. Leviticus

11 and Deuteronomy 14).

 

2. The Meaning of minha outside the Pentateuch

 

Most scholars trace minha back to an Arabic root meaning "to lend

someone something" for a period of time so that the borrower can

have free use of the loan. In Hebrew, however, the idea of loaning

is lost, and it comes to mean "gift," "tribute."

In nontheological texts it designates a "gift" from an inferior to

a superior person, particularly from a subject to a king, to convey

the idea of homage. The Israelites, for example, who despised Saul

"brought him no present" (minha) (1 Sam 10:27), that is, as Carr

explained: "did not acknowledge the new king."18  The kings sub-

missive to Solomon brought "tribute" (minha) (1 Kgs 4:21 [Heb.

5:1]; cf. Jdg 3:15-18; 2 Sam 8:2, 6). "Gifts" to Solomon included

articles of silver and gold, robes, weapons and spices, and horses

and mules (1 Kgs 10:25).

A person brought a gift appropriate to his social standing and

vocation (cf. Gen 32:13ff. [Heb. vv 14ff] ). Appropriately, Abel, a

shepherd, brought some of his flock (that is, from the fruit of the

womb of sheep and/or goats), and Cain, a farmer, brought from

the fruit of the ground. Furthermore, would God reject the eldest

son's tribute because it came from the ground that he himself had

commanded Adam to work? If minha were translated by either "gift"

or "tribute" in Gen 4:3-5, it would be clearer that the absence of

blood from Cain's presentation on his altar did not disqualify him

(cf. Deut 26:1-11).

The theological uses of minha comport with its nontheological uses

(cf. Num 16:15; Jdg 6:18; 1 Sam 2:17; Ps 96:8; Zeph 3:10). Snaith

said that minha could loosely be used in the sense of "gift" or "trib-

ute" even in specific cultic contexts. Carr likewise observed: "Of

particular interest in this connection is the distinction between zebah

and minha in 1 Sam 2:29; 3:14; and Isa 19:21; between ‘ola and minha

in Jer 14:12 and Ps 20:3 [H 4]; and between shelem and minha in

Amos 5:22."19

Our lexical study for the term designating Cain's offering gives

no basis for thinking it was rejected because it was bloodless. In fact,

 

   18 Carr, "mnh," 514.

   19 Ibid.

 



368                 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

of the many expressions for presentations to God which were avail-

able to Moses, he could not have used a more misleading term if

this were his intended meaning.

 

3. Descriptions of the Offerings within the Text

 

The storyteller intends to contrast Abel's offering with Cain's by

paralleling "Cain brought some" with "Abel brought some," by

adding with Abel, "even he" (gam hu') (v 4), and by juxtaposing in

a chiastic construction the LORD's acceptance of Abel and his gift

with his rejection of Cain and his gift (vv 4b-5a).

He characterizes Abel's offerings from the flocks as "from the

firstborn" and "from their fat." By offering the firstborn Abel sig-

nified that he recognized God as the Author and Owner of Life. In

common with the rest of the ancient Near East, the Hebrews believed

that the deity, as lord of the manor, was entitled to the first share of

all produce. The firstfruits of plant and the firstborn of animals and

man were his. The LORD demonstrated that he gave Egypt its life

and owned it by taking its firstborn. Israel's gifts from the animals

involved those that open the womb (Exod 13:2, 12; 34:19) and

gifts from the ground had to be the "firstfruits" (bikkurim)

(Deut 26:1-11).20

Abel's offering conformed with this theology; Cain's did not. In

such a laconic story the interpreter may not ignore that whereas

Abel's gift is qualified by "firstborn," the parallel "firstfruits" does

not modify Cain's. Skinner cavalierly rewrote the story and misin-

terpreted the data thus: "Cain's offering is thus analogous to the

first-fruits (bikkurim Ex 23:16, 19; 34:22, 26; Nu 13:20 etc.) of Heb

ritual; and it is arbitrary to suppose that his fault lay in not selecting

the best of what he had for God."21

Abel also offered the "fat," which in the so-called "P" material

belonged to the LORD and was burned symbolically by the priests.

This tastiest and best burning part of the offering represented the

best. Abel's sacrifice, the interlocutor aims to say, passed that test

with flying colors. Cain's sacrifice, however, lacks a parallel to "fat."

 

    20 Sometimes the principle of redemption by substitution came into play

here. In the case of children, the LORD provided a substitute animal (cf. Gen

22:1-19; Exod 13:1-13; Dent 15:19), and the Levitical family was consecrated

to God in place of the firstborn (Num 3:1-4; cf. Num 18:15-16).

   21 Skinner, Genesis, 104; Gunkel, Genesis, 42 held the same view.

 



CAIN AND HIS OFFERING                                    369

 

In this light Plaut's comment, "God's rejection of Cain's offering is

inexplicable in human terms,"22 appears obtuse.

Finally, is it not strange that if the narrator intended that Cain's

sacrifice was disqualified for lack of blood that he does not mention

blood with Abel's gift. Admittedly it is a negative clue, but when

combined with the two positive clues, the mention of "firstborn"

and "fat," it shouts out against Von Rad's baseless claim: "The only

clue one can find in the narrative is that the sacrifice of blood was

more pleasing to Yahweh."23

Rabbinic exegesis also picked up these clues ("two expressions to

emphasize that the oblation was the best of its kind ..."24 without

mentioning "blood") and then exaggerated them, maintaining that

Cain brought produce of the poorest quality. We cannot agree with

Westermann who negates these clues and draws the conclusion in-

stead that the text merely speaks of God's immutability. He said:

 

Gott hat das Opfer des einen angesehen, das des anderen nicht. Das Gott

das Opfer Kains nicht ansah, ist also weder auf seine Gesinnung noch auf

ein falsches Opfer noch auf eine falsche Art des Opferns zuruckzufuhren.

Es ist vielmehr das Unabanderliche damit ausgesagt, dass so etwas

geshieht.25

 

Westermann's view represents God as capricious. Rather, Abel's

sacrifice represents acceptable, heartfelt worship; Cain's represents

unacceptable tokenism.

 

4. Witness of the NT

 

The writer of Hebrews says that by faith Abel offered a better

sacrifice than Cain did (Heb 11:4), a statement that tends to support

the rabbinic interpretation. No text in the NT faults Cain for a

bloodless sacrifice. To be sure Hebrews mentions "the blood of

Abel," but he has in mind Abel's blood, not that of his sacrifice (Heb

12:24). Jesus' cleansing blood, he says, is better than Abel's blood

because Abel's cried for vengeance, whereas the blood of Christ,

 

   22 W Gunther Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary (New York: Union of

American Hebrew Congregations, 1974) 1.46.

   29 Gerhard Von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster

Press, 1972) 104.

   24 Cassuto, Genesis 1.205.

   25 Westermann, Genesis, 403.

 



370                 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

typified in God's sacrifice to clothe the nakedness of Adam and Eve

(Gen 3:21), cried out for forgiveness and provided salvation.

 

III. The Characterization of Cain

 

1. The Character of the Priest in the Pentateuch

 

The unity of the Pentateuch also enables us to discover, interpret,

and validate clues regarding the brothers as priests. Leviticus 8-9,

26 teaches that the priest's character qualified him or disqualified

him from the altar. An encroacher, be he Israelite or non-Israelite,

must be put to death.26  In this light, the statement in vv 4-5 that

the LORD accepted one priest, Abel, and rejected the other, Cain,

takes on new significance. Whereas the text explicitly characterizes

Abel's offering, and more or less infers Cain's, it dwells on Cain's

character, and more or less infers Abel's.

 

2. Cain's Characterization in the Text

 

Robert Alter27 refined our interpretation of narrative by analyzing

and classifying the following techniques used by a story-teller for

communicating his meaning: statements by the narrator himself, by

God, by heroes or heroines; by verbal clues; by juxtaposition of

material; by characterization; and by consequences of actions. We

employed the techniques of verbal clues and juxtaposition of material

to discover the blemish in Cain's gift. The other techniques expose

the deformity in his character.

The LORD said he is unacceptable: "If you [Cain] do what is right,

will you not be accepted?" (v 7). To this he added: "Sin is crouching

at your door." After sin so dominated Cain that he killed Abel, the

LORD cursed Cain even as he had earlier cursed his spiritual father,

the Serpent: "You are under a curse" (v. 11; cf. 3:14).

Note too how the narrator characterizes the sulking Cain as a sinner

unworthy to worship. Cain's visible behavior confirms the LORD's

privileged assessment of his heart. Cain's anger against God is written

 

   26 J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terrninology, vol. 1 (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1970).

   27 Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981)

14.

 



CAIN AND HIS OFFERING                        371

 

large on his face (vv 5-6; contrast Hab 2:4), and he progresses in

sin from deficient worship to fractricide (v 8).

Cain's speech, disclosing his unregenerate heart, condemns him. His

sarcastic question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" betrays both his

callousness against God and his hate of his brother made in God's

image (v 9). He calls into question God's wisdom, justice, and love

and attempts to justify himself, claiming: "My punishment is more

that I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will

be hidden from your presence" (vv 13-14). Even after God mitigates

his sentence (v 15), he fails to respond to God's grace (v 16).

As a consequence of his action Cain became a man without a place,

an outcast from God's presence, from the ground, and from his

fellow-man (vv 14-16).

 

3. Witness of the NT

 

The NT validates our conclusions drawn from the text. Jesus char-

acterized Abel as righteous (Matt 23:35), and Hebrews added that

Abel, in contrast to Cain, offered his gift in faith: "By faith Abel

offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was com-

mended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings"

(Heb 11:4). According to John, Cain belonged to the evil one and

was himself evil: "Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one

and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because

his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous" (1 John

3:12). According to Jude, Cain spoke abusively and thought like an

unreasoning animal: "Yet these men speak abusively against what-

ever they do not understand; ... like unreasoning animals ... woe

to them! They have taken the way of Cain" (Jude 11f.).

 

Conclusion

 

Although the narrative by repeating the preposition 'el with both

the proper names, Abel and Cain, and with minha syntactically dis-

tinguishes the brothers and their offerings, yet theologically, as sug-

gested above, the two are inseparable. Elsewhere Yahweh rejected

the gifts of Korah (Num 16:15), Saul's men (1 Sam 26:19), and

apostate Israel (Isa 1:13), not because of some blemish in their

offering, but because of their deformed characters. Cain's flawed

character led to his feigned worship. Had his mind been enlightened

 



372                 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

to understand his dependence upon the Creator, who fructified the

ground, and the Redeemer, who atoned man's sin through Christ's

blood, providing a basis for man's reconciliation to God, he would

have offered not a token gift, but one from the heart, and along with

Abel both he and his gift would have been pleasing to God.

 

 

Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadelphia

 

 

This material is cited with gracious permission from:

            Westminster Theological Seminary

            Chestnut Hill

            Philadelphia,  PA   19118

            www.wts.edu

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:  thildebrandt@gordon.edu