Significance and nature of Cain and Abel's gifts

Cain Abel

God's reasons for rejecting Cain's gift, while accepting that of Abel's, presents a theological conundrum. According to Walton & Chavalas (2004), the gifts were not given to God as a means to atone for sin. The basis for God's differential treatment of the two brothers is that Cain's gift is "grudgingly given," whereas Abel's is offered in love (p. 33). Waltke (1986) agrees, noting that it was Cain's character that God was rejecting and not the offering itself. Abel's offering was accepted because Abel was deemed a better person and more worthy of God's love. Henry & Scott's (1835) analysis of the passage also complies with a Christian understanding of the Genesis story. "Abel offered in faith but Cain did not," (Henry & Scott 1835, p. 40). A Rabbinical interpretation offers a more nuanced approach to the Cain and Abel story. As Carmy (1996) points out, "God's preference for Abel is not clearly motivated in the Biblical text." The reader can interpret the passage as a means of contemplating the inherent injustices in life: the fact that even God sometimes acts unfairly.

The reasons for the demonization of Cain are better understood in light of the Christian New Testament, which alludes to the story to explain the new covenant with God under Christ. Christian commentators therefore sympathize more with Abel. Abel's offering is considered inherently superior by Waltke (1986), who points out that the firstborn sheep is a far more luxurious offering than a plate of vegetables from the earth. Moreover, Cain did not even bring the "firstfruits" of the season, which might have pleased God (Waltke 1986, p. 369). Waltke (1986) even jumps to the conclusion that "Cain brought produce of the poorest quality," (p. 369). Carmy (1996) admits that some commentators have leapt to the same conclusion: "Abel brought the best of his flock; Cain did not choose the best of his vegetables." However, the quality of Cain's produce is not alluded to in Genesis; and it is difficult to believe that detail would have been deliberately omitted from the story.

Walton, Matthews & Chavalas (2004) raise the important issue of emerging social class conflicts that the story raises. Cain and Abel represent the competition over land resources arising out of the domestication of farm animals and the use of large swathes of land for agriculture. God's preference for Abel over Cain suggests the beginning of class conflict that continues to plague human existence.

Henry & Scott's (1835) interpretation is awash in inferences and jugements that have no basis in sincere scholarship. The authors note, "Cain was wicked and led a bad life, under the reigning power of the world and the flesh; and therefore his sacrifice was an abomination...God had no respect to Cain himself, and therefore none for his offering," (p. 40). The authors imply that Cain's agricultural work symbolizes sin because of the proximity of the man with earth. Earth, representing the pleasures of the flesh, is somehow representative of original sin and possibly evocative of the serpent that tempted Cain's mother. This interpretation is tempting to make, but the Bible does present dominion over all the earth as extending to animal husbandry as well. Thus, tending the earth and herding sheep are qualitatively similar in God's eyes.