Genesis 4:3-4 – In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.
It strikes me that in the Canonical narrative, the impetus for sacrifices to God came from humanity, not God. Of course, God does give rules for sacrifices later, but that can be seen as setting boundaries for a common practice rather than instituting the practice itself.
Humans come up with all manner of things, and then blame God when they go bad… we’ll see if we can come up with some more…
Related articles
- Did Abel Deserve To Die?: Mosala’s Postcolonial Reading of Genesis 4:1-16 (politicaljesus.com)
I once heard Rob Bell speak in San Diego and I think he said something to the same effect. Basically, though not ideal, God adopted their system for a time.
It’s called accomodation, right? God speaking in our language to speak to us, w/e.
Only instead of just language, it is also about practice as well.
I think Abel was more in harmony with what God had already done. God sacrificed some animals to provide clothing, at least that is how Genesis 3:21 is taken by most. That was the first sacrifice; blood was shed on their behalf because of our fore parent’s sin that resulted in a “covering”.
“And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them.” ~ American Standard Version
Abel’s sacrifice corresponded to that act by God somewhat whereas Cain’s did not, so I do not think it was matter of God just allowing humanity to set the parameters.
But what has Adam to do with Abel? No where in the text does is it say that God favored Abel because of what type of sacrifice was being made.
I think the author of the Cain/Abel story is being whole-heartedly ideological at this point, preferring those in the shepherding industry over the agricultural way of living.
I have to be honest. I feel like if we read “sacrifice” back into Genesis 3:21, that is dangerous hermeneutical ground. First, not every time an animal is killed, should it be labeled “sacrifice.” Second, when God kills an animal, it is clearly not a sacrifice, since God would not sacrifice to humans nor himself. Third, even if God did sacrifice an animal to cover the sin of the first humans, that is clearly not what Cain and Abel were doing when they decided to offer God their goods.
This sort of loose analogical interpretation scheme (favored by the Alexandrian school, right Rod?) can lead to all sorts of nonsensical carp. For example, i think i remember “Barnabas” outlawing oral sex because of the Levitical command not to eat weasel, lol…
Chad,
I’ll have to go do some research how the Alexandrians saw this passage, but yeah, allegory can be very very suspect when it comes to reading scripture, especially when there is no need to go to allegory.
Wow! That implies a lot but Hebrews 11:4 states:
“By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks” (NASB), The English Standard versions says that Abel presented an “acceptable sacrifice”. This suggests that Yehowah God set some sort of standard.
That’s fine, but I try to avoid anachronistic readings of the Hebrew bible; I try to read the Old Testament into the New in other words. As a calvinist, I did the reverse, and it was pretty convenient back then because it suited my theology.
The question which neither passages you refer asks is why Abel’s sacrifice was better than Cain’s. Was it Abel’s heart towards God? Was it Cain’s attitude? The example you gave originally from Adam certainly does not prove Abel’s was better. Your reading more into the text than needs be, even the english translations.
Rod, is it too simplistic to say that God favored Abel over Cain because Cain brought “some” of the fruit of the ground and Abel brought the fattiest portions of the firstborn? But I admit I resonate with the agrarian vs. hunter/herdsman resonance.
Chad,
I have thought about this a lot. If I knew hebrew, i would look into the adj. for “some” but that is the traditional reading of Genesis 4.
I’m leaning more towards the shepherds over farmers for now until I see more.
Well I think to get to the heart of what you are asking, no, there is no verbal command or standard set but I think that it was given through God’s actions. I feel that the writer (which I believe was Moses) was not demonstrating bias regarding his preference for a particular vocation.
On another note, I believe in Prima Scriptura, therefore, there are sources that help in our interpretation of the Bible as in Jewish sources and so forth thus that is how I came to have that particular hermeneutic.
Good, i affirm Prima Scriptura as well.
Just not into the traditional interpretation of Cain and Abel.
Humans deciding to do things –> God giving rules for that particular thing so the world doesn’t go haywire
You could probably add monarchy to the form as well, right? I wonder how many things we could generate that would fit that. I’d have to do some re-reading, but freedom from slavery might fall under that category as well…
yep. monarchy is another big one.
How can we say it’s accommodation? He instituted it (see Cain and Abel, Leviticus, etc). If the sacrificial system made atonement for sin, this is more than accommodation. I agree with Allen’s reference to Hebrews.
Also, why was animal sacrifice necessary anyway? I get the whole blood thing being required, but why did God promote a system or solution that was incomplete, or that didn’t work to the point that his Son came and died? What was different about his death? It just seems odd that the impetus of Christianity follows the same pattern as most ancient religions (sacrifice).
Tim, I believe that we have different understandings of the impetus of Christianity. For me, Christianity is not simply about Jesus as the one big sacrifice. It seems to me that, exactly like you were saying, sacrifice does indeed follow a pattern of typical religious sacrifice. However, canonically speaking, since man is the first to offer sacrifices to God, accommodation is exactly what this is like. God is allowing humans to speak their own “language” for worship, and God accepts it as genuine, even if it is not the best system or even on God came up with.
Well, in Hebrews, Jesus is said to have the final say on sacrifices, his was a sacrifice to end the “need” for a sacrificial system.
I think God uses the sacrifices as a response to what humans were doing back then, but it wasn’t his perfect will, so to speak.
It is presumptuous to assume that adam and eve ever turned back to the father .nowhere in scripture does it say they did. We are told however that who we obey that is our god .They obeyed the serpent .So the question is, who were cain and abel sacrificing to ? The father made provisions by prescribing av vegetarian
Cain and abel were sacrificing to the same god their parents obeyed….& we know that they didn’t obey the Father . The ‘ lord’ had respect for abel’s offering because they were sacrificing to the devil…..who enjoyed the death of the Father’s creation. It is presumptuous to assume that adam and eve turned back to the Father when scripture never records they did. Further proof that they weren’t serving the Father is evidenced in the fact that a vegetarian diet was prescribed for all life.The reason for this is so killing would not be necessary…for any reason…..it was satan that had regard for the killing of the Father’s creation . Scripture says who you obey is your god &…adam and eve did not obey the Father.
Why would the Father make provision for the life of his creation with a vegetarian diet for all his creation…..for the sake of ensuring that killing would not be necessary…….& then take pleasure in the killing of said creation ? If u had a dog,& took the time to ensure its health, & provided food for your dog, and ample space for it to live….would u take pleasure in your child killing it & presenting its guts to you as an offering?