Cain and Abel, in Context

[Zeluvia]

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

I do not want to discuss the WHOLE story, or Genesis, just this ONE part of this passage.

In the context of the society that existed at the time this story was written
(whatever you may believe that to be) what is the POINT of this passage?

Does this mean that vegetarianism is not god's thing? Does this mean that nomadic goatherding is a more pleasing way of life to god than farming?

More importantly, what did it mean in context? That god was not to be satisfied except with blood sacrifice?

[John Goddard]

I do not want to discuss the WHOLE story, or Genesis, just this ONE part of this passage.

In the context of the society that existed at the time this story was written
(whatever you may believe that to be) what is the POINT of this passage?

Does this mean that vegetarianism is not god's thing? Does this mean that nomadic goatherding is a more pleasing way of life to god than farming?

More importantly, what did it mean in context? That god was not to be satisfied except with blood sacrifice?

Abel loved God and wanted to give Him a present. Cain was just grudgingly paying his taxes. Works without faith and love is dead. That's what I get out of it.

[Zeluvia]

Abel loved God and wanted to give Him a present. Cain was just grudgingly paying his taxes. Works without faith and love is dead. That's what I get out of it.

How did you get that out of it?

And how does this relate to the context of the society at the time?

.

[John Goddard]

How did you get that out of it?

And how does this relate to the context of the society at the time?

I just relate Cain's behavior to what the Gospels say not to do regarding sacrifice and works.

Maybe one way it relates is that it's good to be grateful to God for giving you life, since Adam and Eve went looking for more and found death. That's about all we know about the biblical society of that time.

Here is another:

Matthew 5:23-24 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

So perhaps Cain and Abel already had conflict and Cain had not forgiven Abel.

Matthew 6:14-15 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

[footwasher]

NASB Hebrews 5
4 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. 5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

NASB Romans 14
23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

NASB Romans 18
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 “Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

What did Abel do that was right? EVERYTHING.

What did Abraham do that was right? EVERYTHING.

How does one reach this state of doing everything right? One must have a child-like faith.

[lao tzu]

I do not want to discuss the WHOLE story, or Genesis, just this ONE part of this passage.

In the context of the society that existed at the time this story was written
(whatever you may believe that to be) what is the POINT of this passage?

Does this mean that vegetarianism is not god's thing? Does this mean that nomadic goatherding is a more pleasing way of life to god than farming?

More importantly, what did it mean in context? That god was not to be satisfied except with blood sacrifice?

Greetings Z,

It helps to keep in mind exactly when, during the evolution of Israelite religion, individual texts were created. Genesis 4, or its original Hebrew form in any case, was likely written sometime during the ninth or tenth centuries BCE, though likely redacted many times during the period leading up to the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BCE. This tale probably descends from earlier "Canaanite" mythology, where we see a number of similar stories, some of which served as templates for a great deal of later innovation. I'd imagine this tale is an example.

Many anthropologists have noted the recurrent opposition in these tales between the farmer and the shepherd. For the earliest example I'm aware of, you might be interested in "The Courtship of Inanna and Dumuzi," a copy of which I've found online but won't link as the ancient Sumerians were a bit more free with sexual references than TWeb decorum allows in links. For a better copy and related tales, I'd refer you to Diane Wolkstein's Inanna, Queen of Heaven and Earth. Interestingly, as Wolkstein explains:

Since Gilgamesh, the hero of Uruk, and Dumuzi were both listed as historical kings of Uruk (who ruled in approximately 2500 -2275 B.C. and shared the same mother Sirtur/Ninsun), they can be considered avatars or incarnations of each other.

The copies we have of this tale date generally to the early second millennium BCE, and were found among remains of the old Babylonian empire that adopted nearly all of the earlier Sumerian mythology in toto.

The brevity and shorthand references in the biblical tale signal what remains was once part of a longer mythic tradition either lost or yet to be rediscovered, and almost certainly cropped by later redactors, who either kept or inserted a morality play more consistent with their preferred theology.

As ever, Jesse

[Mountain Man]

I do not want to discuss the WHOLE story, or Genesis, just this ONE part of this passage.

In the context of the society that existed at the time this story was written
(whatever you may believe that to be) what is the POINT of this passage?

Does this mean that vegetarianism is not god's thing? Does this mean that nomadic goatherding is a more pleasing way of life to god than farming?

More importantly, what did it mean in context? That god was not to be satisfied except with blood sacrifice?

Pay attention to the language:

Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. 4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock.

Cain kept the first portion for himself and then sacrificed the remainder to God whereas Abel gave to God first and then kept what was left for himself. Also, "fat portions" is basically saying "the pick of the litter"; in other words, Abel gave the very best he had to offer.

More simply, Cain's first action was to give to himself. Abel's first action was to give to God, so God looked favorably upon Abel's sacrifice but not on Cain's.

[Zeluvia]

thanks Lao,

MM, if this is true, then why as history goes on, do all the laws of Leviticus ect only list animals as required sacrifices? Wouldn't the best of the crop also have done?

Also, I don't see any relation to historical context here.

[John Goddard]

thanks Lao,

MM, if this is true, then why as history goes on, do all the laws of Leviticus ect only list animals as required sacrifices? Wouldn't the best of the crop also have done?

Also, I don't see any relation to historical context here.

They don't, there are grain and drink offerings too.

Leviticus 23:13 And the meat offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin.

Leviticus 23:15 And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:

The circumstances I explained aren't tied to any historical condition which is a red herring. They are ideal spiritual conditions when offering a sacrifice to God, for anyone at any time.

[Frogwarrior]

thanks Lao,

MM, if this is true, then why as history goes on, do all the laws of Leviticus ect only list animals as required sacrifices? Wouldn't the best of the crop also have done?

Also, I don't see any relation to historical context here.

There were different types of offerings, some of which would be grain, wine, etc. And it was expected that the offering would indeed be from the best of the crop, the "firstfruits."

[BronzeArcher]

Hi Zel, I don't have a view on this but there are some promising directions to take from what others have said...

More simply, Cain's first action was to give to himself. Abel's first action was to give to God, so God looked favorably upon Abel's sacrifice but not on Cain's.

One could discuss how the creator deity stood at the top of the honor chain and was of far greater importance than everyone and everything else. I don't think that'd be hard to argue since ritual purity has been established as integral to anthropological thought, and that's how it is for most of humanity. I think this is one of the beliefs that is near universal to pre-modern societies.

I do not like the application of the works/faith binary because that is a theological construct created based on other passages. As a piece of timeless doctrine I think it is exegetically foreign to the passage (nevermind that "salvation" wasn't much of a concept then).

[Mountain Man]

So are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Your post went a little over my head.

[John Goddard]

I do not like the application of the works/faith binary because that is a theological construct created based on other passages. As a piece of timeless doctrine I think it is exegetically foreign to the passage (nevermind that "salvation" wasn't much of a concept then).

Hm...how long have people been saying it's the thought not the gift that counts?

[Zeluvia]

Okay, I have heard the nomadic herder vs stable farmer theory before.

But let's go back another way, that deals with patriarchal honor systems.....

Hunters/gathers ...... Men = hunters Women = gatherers.

So, does raising MEAT then have more honor than raising grain?

[salvationfound]

Does this mean that vegetarianism is not god's thing? Does this mean that nomadic goatherding is a more pleasing way of life to god than farming?

Paul himself mentions that circumcion means nothing if its not
from the heart. Cain did it out of obligation Abel did it from the heart
big difference.