Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Leviticus

[gmw803]

It is almost axiomatic among mid-level trained Christians that the reason for God having rejected Cain's sacrifice in Genesis 4 is because it was not an offering of blood. Therefore it seems obvious that God must have cued both Cain and Abel in off-the-record regarding what constitutes a proper sacrifice. Because from my point of view, Cain's offering seemed fair - both brothers offered out of the inventory of their profession. The Genesis account does not tell the reason. I am left to surmise that the differences in acceptance has something to do with the heart in which the offerings were presented.

While I don't want to trivialize phenomenal weight of the sacrificed blood, I read Leviticus 2 and I wonder - is the blood the real difference in the offerings? I suspect that KJV reads "meat offering." In the 1600's, I think meant any food that was not liquid, such as Pepsi. Since the modern day concept of meat is covered in rams, goats and turtle doves (chicken?), the Leviticus 2 classification of meat would then be all solid food that is not meat - fruits, vegetables, bread, french fries, and the like. Some modern versions refer to them as Grain Offerings.

If offerings must include blood sacrifice, then what should we make of the Grain offerings of Leviticus 2?

[jimwalton]

First, let's talk about Cain & Abel, in Gn. 4.3. There is nothing in that text that hints that the sacrifices were offered in an atoning sense, or a guilt offering sense, or in any way addressing sin. It says they were brought as a "gift" (Hebrew minchah: "Gift, tribute, offering"). Now, this word is indeed most closely associated with the grain offering that shows up later in Lev. 2, but the problem in Gn. 4 is never described as a acceptable blood offering vs. an unacceptable "fruits of the soil" offering. What IS described is that Cain seems to have brought his gift grudgingly and not to express gratitude to God for his blessings.

Let's review a couple of major points:
1. Genesis doesn't preserve a record that a sacrifice was even requested by God.
2. A blood sacrifice was never mandated (at least in the record we have, so that could hardly be the point being made).

So if both Cain and Abel bring gifts to sacrifice to God out of the goodness of their hearts and the abundance of blessings, Cain (appropriately enough) from his abundance of produce (after all, he had been commanded to work the ground so that it would produce), and Abel (appropriately enough) from the abundance of his flocks (glad the sheep were being fruitful and multiplying!). But Cain, it seems, is not making the offering out of the goodness of his heart, but from an attitude of sin, and God knows it (v. 7).

Therefore (on to Lev. 2), not every offering to God needs to be a blood sacrifice to be a worthy offering. The rabbis considered the grain offering to be a substitute for the burnt offering for poor people. The primary teaching of the Grain Offering is thanking God and offering their lives for service. it was recognition not only that God has been good to me, but I wish to say thank you, and I wish my life to be used in service for the God who has blessed me so. The Gospel presents Christ as the meal offering, expressing total worship and presenting himself for total service. It was an offering recognizing God's covenant faithfulness and pledging oneself in loyalty and love in response. This is likely where Cain fell short, where Abel didn't.