The Foundations of the Faith

Studies in Genesis 1-11

Sermon Number Twenty-one: The Doctrine of Sacrifice (part 1)

Jim Bordwine, Th.D.

Introduction

The story of Cain and Abel is well-known. It is the record of the first murder in human history. But, this story is much more than that, as we are going to see. In Gen. 4, we have not only the record of Cain’s murder of Abel, but also the first evidence of a practice which, in time, comes to distinguish the people of God from the haters of God. It is this practice which serves as the background—and, to a certain extent, the reason for—the murder of Abel by Cain. You will notice that at the beginning of this chapter, we find a unified humanity; at the end of the chapter, after all has transpired, we find a divided humanity. The issue which leads to this division is what I will call the doctrine of sacrifice.

As I will explain in this sermon, the term “sacrifice” is to be understood in a broad sense; it is to be understood as referring to the act whereby fallen man acknowledges His Creator by presenting to God an offering of some kind or by taking what he has and giving a representative portion of it to God as a means of honoring God. Cain and Abel are united in this activity as the story opens, but, as we know only too well, the brothers are forever divided by this same activity as the story unfolds. And, as I stated, by the end of the chapter, we see that the division which arises between Cain and Abel becomes characteristic of the whole human race.

The question of honoring God, therefore, is the subject of Gen. 4. As this subject is explored, God’s prediction that the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent would be perpetual enemies begins to find fulfillment. As we consider this passage, I’ll follow the outline used previously: the presentation of the doctrine, the development of the doctrine and the application of the doctrine.

01. The Presentation of the Doctrine

Eventually, we will consider the entire chapter. To begin with, however, I will concentrate on the first eight verses:

4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” 2 And again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground. 4 And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; 5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. 6 Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” 8 And Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

This portion of the chapter can be considered under seven brief points. First, we have the report of the birth of two sons, Cain and Abel (vv. 1, 2). This is our first glimpse of life after the fall and after Adam and Eve had been banished from the Garden of Eden. Chapter four of Genesis begins the account of what life was like for our first parents once they had alienated themselves from the Creator and had guaranteed for themselves an existence far different than what was available in the Garden.

As instructed, Adam and Eve began to procreate. Eve’s response upon the birth of her first child is significant: “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.” Although this is not our present focus, we have here the Biblical view of reproduction illustrated in Eve’s words. At this point, she recognized that the birth of Cain, her first-born, was an act of God’s mercy. Next follows the report of Abel’s birth. How much time passed between the exile from Eden and the birth of Cain and between the birth of Cain and the birth of Abel is not known. What we do know is that the population of earth has doubled from two to four and this is where trouble begins!

The second element of the story is the bit of information which we are given about the vocations of Abel and Cain (v. 2). Jumping far ahead in the lives of these two sons, we read: “Abel was a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.” Regrettably, much has been made of this statement as if the writer is negatively contrasting Cain’s vocation with Abel’s and thus implying that there was something wrong with the fact that Cain was a “tiller of the ground.” This misinterpretation then influences the understanding of what happens later when we are told that the LORD had no regard for Cain and his offering. (v. 5) Many have concluded that the offering which Cain brought was unacceptable because of the nature of the offering itself. But, as we will see, that is an unwarranted conclusion.

In terms of the Hebrew grammar, the sentence could just as legitimately be read: “Abel was a keeper of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the ground,” with no particular contrast implied at all. The point of this statement is, I believe, simply to tell us that each man was busy. One worked with animals and the other worked the fields. This is not an unusual report considering that such a combination of labors would have been entirely expected given God’s command to Adam that he take dominion over the animals and the earth. Under Adam’s direction, one son set out to exercise dominion over the animals and the other set out to exercise dominion over the fields. Together, Cain and Abel represent a balanced approach to the needs of the family and the directive of God. Verse 2, then, is providing some biographical information and I think that is all we are to read into those statements.

The third point for our consideration is the bringing of offerings to the LORD (vv. 3, 4). This is, I believe, one of the most interesting parts of this story. It leads us to ask a couple of important questions: Why were Cain and Abel bringing offerings to the LORD? When did this practice start? Notice that this report is related as if this were a common practice; the verses do not leave the impression that this was the first time anyone had ever presented offerings before God. It appears that as a routine matter, Cain and Abel felt obliged to bring a representative portion of their increase before the LORD. This act brings us to the central truth on which I want to concentrate in this sermon. This whole story is about this act of brining an offering to the LORD. Both men bring an offering, but one man and his offering are not acceptable before God. This leads to the first murder and, as we will see, the division of mankind into two camps, just as God predicted at the time of the fall.

Before exploring all of this, however, I need to talk about the term which is translated “offering” (minchah). It means such things as “gift, tribute, present, sacrifice.” In secular contexts, the word is used of gifts given to superior persons, especially kings. The intention of such an action is to express recognition of authority and submission to that authority. The same idea is present when this word is used with reference to that which is presented to God. Cain brought a sacrifice, an offering to the LORD; it consisted of a portion of that which constituted his vocation—it was an offering “of the fruit of the ground.” Abel, for his part, brought “of the firstlings of his flock” and presented this sacrifice to the LORD.

Outwardly, both men were doing the right thing—they were honoring the Creator, the One who gave them life and strength, by bringing a representative portion to Him. This action declared that God was greater and that they were bound to acknowledge His existence and authority. As I noted, we do not know when this act originated, but the text leaves the impression that it was a normal routine. No doubt, Adam, though fallen, was keenly aware of his duty to acknowledge God as his Creator and Sustainer. Adam would not have forgotten what he learned about his relationship to God prior to the fall. To recognize and pay tribute to God in some fashion, therefore, was a completely natural occurrence. What we read of in Gen. 4 is the primitive form of what develops into a full-blown theology of acknowledging God through tribute and sacrifice in later revelation and history.

The fourth element in the story is God’s response to the presentations of Cain and Abel (vv. 4b, 5a). As we begin considering this interesting part of the episode, I want to return to something which I mentioned before. I indicated earlier that much speculation has been put forth concerning why God “had no regard for Cain and his offering.” (cf. v. 5) Here we have an opportunity to look at this matter in depth. There are two false conclusions which I want to address. The first false conclusion is that Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was not the first-fruits of his produce, but was some random portion. Notice that what Cain brings is called an “offering,” but what Abel brings is initially called “the firstlings of his flock” (which means the first-born). Some have jumped to the conclusion that the writer is distinguishing Cain’s offering from Abel’s portion in a way which calls Cain’s offering into question. Someone might ask: “Did Cain not bring the first-fruits of the harvest?” Some might suggest: “Perhaps this is why God rejected what Cain brought.” But this is to miss the point, as will become clear soon.

There are two major problems for this interpretation. In v. 3, we are told that Cain “brought an offering to the LORD of the fruit of the ground.” The word rendered “fruit” (peree) may very well be understood as the “first-fruits.” In fact, this context lends support for this notion. There is nothing about this word which would lead us to conclude that Cain brought something other than the first-fruits of the harvest to the LORD. More significant is the problem created by the end of v. 4: “And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering.” Here, the word used to describe Abel’s “firstlings of [the] flock” is the same word used to describe what Cain brought. Both are called “offerings” or “sacrifices” and no distinction is made between them. The point is that we have no grounds for saying that Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not bring the first-fruits” of his labors. Even though it is quite reasonable to assume that Cain did bring the first portions of the harvest, as I just indicated, that is not the point of the story anyway. This will become obvious as we move through this passage.

The second false conclusion regarding Cain’s offering is that it was unacceptable because it was not an animal sacrifice. In this case, some have gone beyond the question of what portion of his produce Cain presented to God—that is, they have dispensed with the question of whether it was the first-fruits or only a portion taken at random—and have suggested that Cain’s offering was rejected because it did not involve the shedding of blood. Following this line of thinking, Cain’s mistake was not that he failed to give God the first-fruits of the ground; his mistake was not bringing an animal sacrifice like Abel. There is, of course, an assumption behind such an interpretation. The assumption is that these offerings had to do with redemption. Therefore, because Cain did not bring an offering which required the shedding of blood, God would not receive it.

I believe that this is a misguided interpretation. What we are reading about here is, as I stated before, the doctrine of sacrifice or the doctrine of offering in its most primitive form. God has given no detailed direction regarding a sacrificial system which would pre-figure the work of Christ. Let’s remember that the term “offering” refers, first of all, to that which is given as a tribute to honor and in recognition of authority; and the portions which these men brought to the LORD are both referred to as “offerings.” So there is no basis for suggesting that Cain’s sacrifice was rejected because it did not involve the shedding of blood—not unless we choose to read into this story revelation which comes much later. The story itself, I believe, directs our focus elsewhere.

Therefore, if, as I have maintained, the reason for God’s differing responses to these offerings is not to be found in the offerings themselves, what is the explanation for what we read? When we examine exactly what is said in these verses, instead of what is not said, we find the answer.

Notice precisely what is said in each case: “And the LORD had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard.” (vv. 4b, 5a) It is the men themselves which seem to be the matter of first concern. The Hebrew word translated “regard” (shaah) is a simple term. It means “look at, look to or regard with interest.” The word is never used to describe a casual glance, but normally refers to considering something for approval. When we are told that the LORD “had regard for Abel and for his offering,” it means that the man himself found approval in God’s sight and, naturally, the man’s offering was pleasing to the LORD. His offering was received by God because it was prompted by sincerity. What such an offering symbolized—which was recognition of the LORD as the Creator and supreme authority—really reflected what was in Abel’s heart. Abel’s offering was a true indicator of what he believed and what he wanted to profess.

And, of course, the opposite, therefore, must be said of Cain. God did not approve of the man and, subsequently, his offering was rejected. What Cain’s offering symbolized was not to be found in his heart. Understanding the relation between the offering and the spiritual state of the one making the offering is crucial. It is this relation which explains God’s response and keeps us from making a mistake in our interpretation of this passage. This is the same principle, by the way, which we see much later when God rejects the worship of Israel not because the form was incorrect, but because the heart of the people was far from Him.

Cain’s honoring of the LORD was a lie; it was deceptive. He made a mockery of the practice of bringing tribute to God to show honor and submission. God’s rejection of Cain’s offering indicates that Cain was not truly in submission to the LORD; it says that he was not truly seeking to acknowledge God as God. And God knew the state of each man’s heart and that is the focus of attention. This is an early teaching which shows us that merely going through the motions of being religious is not acceptable before God. Cain did what was expected—he brought an offering; but what the offering was intended to say simply was not true of him. Cain is the first example of outright hypocrisy.

The fifth element in the story is, of course, Cain’s reaction to God (v. 5b). Just how God expressed His disregard for Cain’s offering is not stated, but it is clear that Cain got the message. What had been hidden in his heart and known only to God up to this point now comes to the surface: “Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.” The word translated “angry” (charah) is quite descriptive of Cain’s spiritual state. It refers not just to an angry outburst, but to the “kindling” of anger, we might say. The word describes a state of festering resentment, the kind of anger which resides in a man’s soul, but which may not be immediately apparent. Clearly, then, the text is telling us something important about this man. To put it simply: Cain resented having to acknowledge God in this manner. Why that was so, we are not told and it is really not that important for us to analyze Cain further. His offering was wrongly motivated and God knew that, so the LORD would not receive Cain’s sacrifice.

So, we read that “his countenance fell.” This is an fascinating phrase. “Countenance” comes from a Hebrew word (panim) which literally means “faces.” This word always occurs in the plural to indicate the fact that the face is a combination of a number of features. The face identifies the person, of course, but also reflects the attitude and feelings of that person. Biblically, the face is not just an exterior part of one’s physiology; it also reveals a man’s emotions, moods and dispositions. For example, Jer. 5:3 speaks of a “hard face,” meaning defiance; Prov. 7:13 uses this word to describe impudence; Deut. 28:50 uses the term in speaking of a ruthless or fierce nation. At the same time, a “shining” face indicates joy (cf. Job 29:24); and a “shamed” face points to defeat or humiliation (cf. 2 Sam. 19:5). (cf. TWOT #1782a) Therefore, when we read that Cain’s “face fell,” we should understand that what is being represented is his inner disposition. This is a Hebrew idiom which tells us that Cain was full of resentment, as I suggested, and was angry toward God, as the text says.

The sixth item to be examined is God’s exhortation to Cain (vv. 6, 7). The two questions found in v. 6 are rhetorical and meant to imply that Cain’s anger and his inner disposition were unwarranted. This is made clear as God continues speaking in v. 7 and tells Cain what is wrong with him and what can be done about this situation. Cain has no legitimate reason to be angry and he has no basis for his fallen countenance. Abel’s offering was received by God, but Cain’s was rejected. God would not receive his offering and rightly so because it was an act of hypocrisy. Cain did not truly wish to acknowledge God or agree to all that was implied by his presentation of an offering. Instead of getting angry, Cain should have examined himself and repented of whatever animosity he felt toward the LORD.

“If you do well,” the LORD exhorts, “will not your countenance be lifted up?” Here, the unmistakable implication is that rightly acknowledging God and submitting to Him bring a happy countenance or a satisfied and content disposition. Cain had not “done well,” as the LORD goes on to say. He had not humbly and eagerly brought his offering to the LORD. Once again, the spiritual state of Cain is in view. The core issue here, as I have stressed, is Cain’s attitude toward God. Actions follow convictions. Cain’s offering was an act of hypocrisy, as I noted; so here, the LORD tells him that a change in his countenance is related to a proper view of God and proper action flowing from that view.

The LORD warns Cain directly: “If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” The image here is vivid. God pictures sin as ready to pounce upon Cain at the first opportunity. Cain’s only hope is to master or subdue sin so that he might, in turn, act rightly toward God and avoid further transgressions. God is indicating plainly that Cain’s soul is in jeopardy. He is a man in rebellion against God, he is a man who resents acknowledging God, and this state can only be resolved in one of two ways: repentance or additional and more grievous manifestations of revolt. Obviously, the LORD is offering Cain needed counsel; He is graciously warning this man about his state and thereby instructing him to repent and resist sin.

The seventh and final element in this section of the chapter is Cain’s murder of Abel (v. 8). The simplistic and unadorned nature of the report of this event is an almost shocking contrast to its offensiveness. God’s warning about the opportunistic character of sin is proven to be precisely correct. Cain’s rebellion against God, his refusal to subdue his heart and humbly acknowledge God—and thereby make his sacrifice a genuine expression of submission—now culminate in a violent and disturbing taking of life. Plainly, it now appears, Cain held hatred in his heart against Abel because Abel rightly viewed the LORD and brought his sacrifice gladly and with thanksgiving. Although we might be tempted to speculate regarding the previous relationship between these brothers, the Scripture obviously does not lead us in that direction. No background information is given which might further explain Cain’s actions; the only background information provided is the immediate context of Cain’s dissatisfaction with God’s response to his offering and God’s warning to Cain about the sin which had overcome him.

This truly is all the background information which is needed. The state of Cain’s heart, which is an important part of this story, was what it was; his actions toward God and then toward his brother revealed his disposition. The issue of sacrifice, sacrifice as a means of paying tribute to God, as a means of acknowledging Him and submitting to Him, was the context for this whole story. Cain’s sacrifice was not prompted by thanksgiving and worship; Cain’s sacrifice was an intended deception, but God found him out and Cain was angry when the LORD exposed his pretense of piety. Cain was a self-centered, bitter and resentful man. His hatred for God produced hatred for his fellow-man. Since Cain could not strike out at God, he struck his brother and killed him.

This is where we will leave our first point, which is the presentation of doctrine of sacrifice. We’ll return to this chapter, LORD willing, next time. For now, I’ll close with some words of application.

02. The Development of the Doctrine

to be completed...

03. The Application of the Doctrine

We have only begun our consideration of the doctrine of sacrifice, but already we have been reminded of a fundamental Biblical truth which is the duty of creatures to honor the Creator. In one sense, this principle is behind most of what we read in the Bible. Adam’s duty was to honor the Creator through obedience, among other things. He failed and so the rest of the Bible speaks about God’s response to that failure; and His response, in the end, supplies us with what we, as a race, are unwilling to give, which is true and eager honor to Him as our Maker and Judge.

As we continue our study of this doctrine of sacrifice, we are going to see that it has extensive development in the rest of Scripture. For example, the Biblical teaching on tithing is grounded in the principle of Gen. 4. The Biblical teaching on the need for atonement is also grounded in Gen. 4 (I’ll explain how later). The Biblical teaching that we are to present ourselves as living and holy sacrifices to the LORD is obviously grounded in the principle of Gen. 4. So, this chapter is significant because, like the other early portions of Genesis, it provides us with foundational material.

The very fact that Cain and Abel brought offerings to the LORD is significant, as I noted, because it shows us that this activity was a natural part of man’s routine from the beginning. The notion that God is to be honored by the works of our hands is not one which originated in Israel. This is a natural implication of the story of creation. Creatures made by God and kept by God have a duty to pay honor to Him and this is what is going on in Gen. 4. This is, once again, a reminder to us that we, too, owe God honor. We did not put ourselves here and we do not continue by our own ingenuity—that is a thoroughly pagan concept of the world. We are God’s creatures and we are bound to acknowledge Him and His authority over us.

As this study progresses, let’s make sure that we have this most basic principle firmly established in our minds: God is to be honored by us. The forms which this honor takes will vary, as we will see, but the principle is universal and eternal. If we keep this idea in mind, the remainder of our study of the doctrine of sacrifice will be much more profitable for us. Eventually, this study will lead us to consider the issue of tithing, the issue of atonement and the issue of sanctification. Those may sound like unrelated matters, but they are all bound together by the principle illustrated here in Gen. 4. This is why is it imperative that we conclude this portion of our study with the conviction that honoring God is a fundamental duty.

Conclusion